A growth-and-future oriented mind relates to memories in a very different and unnatural way that requires a kind of learning. You have to remember in ways that don’t let the future be imprisoned by the past.
Conversation
It’s not about forgetting. If you forget the past you have no future either. Just a blooming-buzzing-confusion if a present. To be present in the present, the past needs to be an unsentimental memory, and the future as open as it can possibly be. A maximum potential mind state.
12
Think of this as the potential energy side of elan vital which is sort of a current/flux.
Could you reimagine consumption behaviors to catalyze and enable such states? What does branding look like for such products?
2
3
I think this is the branding associated with the most hackable and designed-for-repairability type products. Where consumption segues towards production via maintenance. There is still sentimental memory but it’s of agency, not pleasure. An improvement.
2
1
5
This can be even more reactionary of course as in sentimental memories of factory jobs. John Henry memories. Memories of mom’s apple pie might make you a sentimental bore but memories of being a steel-driving man might make you a resentful fundamentalist.
1
1
8
Is there a way out of this bind? I think so. Still working out the details. Maybe I’ll continue this thread in a year or three if I figure it out.
2
1
11
Replying to
That marketing and design appear necessarily reactionary
1
1
Replying to
A brand needs to be consistent about something. To identify consistency, designers and users need memory. In order to market something, it needs to be presented with concepts that the buyer is familiar with.
1
How do you get from "some amount of consistency and familiarity is required", to "design and marketing must be reactionary"?
I think "reactionary" implies more than simple consistency and familiarity - it is something like a cargo cult of the past.
1
1
Replying to
I get to “some amount of reactionary” and “some amount of cargo cutting”
Replying to
Hmm, I think I disagree. I think my point of divergence with your chain of reasoning is here: "when the desires become legible enough to pursue via a simpler mechanism than recreating the remembered experience" - there is not always a simpler mechanism, legible is not always hard
1
Replying to
If so then the minimum viable reactionary attitude is not zero
1
Show replies
OK flesh this out for me with examples of a few design-y brands: What is the sentimental memory that drives Apple iPhone branding? What about Porsche say? (the archetypes operating in this one are obvious, where is the "reactionary" bit?) Or whichever you prefer


