“I don’t explain, I explore.” Marshall McLuhan

You realize what we’re doing is fake right?

Brands are literally made up. You’re all working and striving towards something that is a figment of the imagination. Even brands based on celebrities, influencers, designers, etc., are built on a constructed version of them. They’re myths—constructed realities that give life to products and services. So, if brands are myths, we’d better understand more about mythmaking.

Enter: mythopoeia. 

Brands that understand their role in the mythopoeic process will survive trend cycles, fads, and cultural movements for generations.

The Nature of Understanding and Observation

How do we understand what things… are? Myths are a way of explaining and understanding the world. But why do we need the world to be explained?

I recently heard someone blurt in exasperation, “I just wish this man would tell me what he thinks!” They were reading Marshall McLuhan. Some have described McLuhan’s work as ambiguous, akin to a religious text that can be interpreted in many ways. This was entirely intentional by McLuhan, who often withheld his perspective in favor of observation. This observation sans perspective pushes the readers of McLuhan to contend with the ideas he describes on their own, inspiring them to make their observations. McLuhan knew that perspective would stymie any additional observation. By simply exploring and observing, McLuhan guaranteed longevity for the impact of his work. 

Plato and Aristotle struggled with fully capturing what could be considered a form, much like our scientists struggle with where the quantum realm actually ends.  Allow me to philosophize, or perhaps fantasize, for a moment as I attempt to (invoke silly voice) reconcile philosophy that spans thousands of years and some of humanity’s greatest thinkers (close silly voice).

Let’s forgive my sacrilege and simplification; I’m not attempting to explain Plato’s forms, but rather my viewpoint.

Base Objects and Forms

What if there are “base” objects? A blade, for instance, is a base form. It is a medium on which stories can be told – “content,” as McLuhan put it.

However, whatever substance a blade is made of can also be a form, its own medium of which a blade could be the content. The observation of the form is the critical moment: perhaps something that is missing from the equation is focus. If observation is participation (and it is) a moment of definition—the focus of the observation is context-dependent.

Observation by nature has some perspective built in. Perhaps perspective by nature kills understanding of form. Foucault’s formation by external hammer on metal is perhaps a compression upon true form, never fully touching—but only coming closer as an asymptote—and able to be completely derailed. A hammer upon metal will never be able to perfectly match the subsurface, the true form sitting beneath the metal, but you can make progress toward mirroring the form that’s inside. It’s like Michaelangelo's chisel uncovering what is underneath the stone. The moment you add perspective, the form can’t be collapsed any further, as it has been declared. Perspective transmitted from person to person is not in fact observation but reinforcement of judgment of form—a single collapsing of form. Judgment or expression of perspective is exercising power and declaring the hammer strike to have perfectly molded the metal to the form (“Yeah, well, y’know, that’s just like your opinion, man”). Observation gives space for others to swing the hammer.

While I brought up Michaelangelo, I specifically decided against the chisel/stone metaphor for this process. What if, in uncovering a form, instead of thoughtfully and wisely selecting where to chisel the stone, someone takes indiscriminate whacks at it. In this context, it would require someone with extraordinary skill to handle uncovering form—such as Plato’s philosopher kings. Whereas trying to mold metal over a form does require skill and thoughtfulness to know when to stop pounding on a specific spot, when to pound softly, and when to pound hard, if someone comes along and hammers something the wrong way, it can be pounded back. And the forms can’t be destroyed. They’re there, no matter how someone strikes them (instead of chiseling). Ultimately, everyone has a perspective—a judgment—on what they are based on how the metal has been shaped, and in that perspective, their practical interaction with the forms is a reality.

Original observation can only happen in a single phenomenological context. The observation is complete, and re-observation renders the form completely different. However, this rarely happens because the perspective is passed along almost immediately upon observation, and therefore the observation and formation is already “complete”. What can determine if a new observation has happened? Perhaps when the base form is observed transforming into a different form. Or perhaps this observation happens more often (or used to happen more often) than I’ve assumed. Myth is “anything that is moving at very high speeds,” as McLuhan put it, where “fixed” knowledge or observation transmitted as perspective is the “juicy piece of steak.” Myth is when observation is passed along and re-observed.

Mythology is the attempted fulfillment of form.

Myth creation often requires running a base form through a contextual gate*—that is, resetting cultural context and perspective—so that perspective is reset. This can’t happen as readily as it used to, as context collapses and everything is made “known” as a single, universal, perspective.

This is content, and content is static. Myth is observation transmitted to push the receiver to observe.

A litany of thoughts to expand on this premise:

• Mythology is alive; content is dead on arrival.
• Mythology is transformation; content is a moment in time.
• Myths can be revived, retold, or expounded upon.
• Myth is observational data that makes it across Wittgenstein’s language games.
• Content requires playing only the original game.
• Myth can include both fiction and non-fiction; it is hammering at the form, and it will never be wholly true.

Excalibur is (probably) not a real sword, but its mythology clearly belongs to the base form of the blade. William Wallace’s sword was real, but not all the stories about it were true. These stories, true or not, are hammering at the form of the blade. And both represent part of how a form was included in the next form. Excalibur—in transforming a man into a king (another form). Wallace’s sword—in changing a man into a liberator. Yet another form. 

As McLuhan put it, in the 1800s artists (post-Cézanne) “returned” from “perspective” to formal cause: 

“A pair of shoes is allowed to create its own world and is not reported from another world or stuck into a space with other objects… things have formal character and are quite able to speak for themselves. The artist’s role is not to stress himself or his own point of view but to let things sing and talk, to release the forms within them… the thingness of things must come through them at you and must not be reported or described.”

Brands, Potentiality, and Mythopoeia

Nike, as a brand, was always a potentiality.

Victory is the base concept of “Nike the god” in mythology, and “Nike the brand” is this mythology expounded upon. Classical myths are constantly reused for this reason—they’re flexible, fluid, re-tellable, reusable, expandable. Archetypes and classical mythologies are good places for brands to begin. Kith’s recent “archetypes” campaign is a good, if not utterly blatant (and perhaps a little too on the nose for me) example of this.

Another way to put it: forms do exist, but we can only understand them through subjective observation; therefore external power makes up our perception of them.

This external perception can only come about in “virgin” observation which can happen when a form is observed in relation to other forms. This is the definition of context — and this contextual transformation inspires mythology. Static observation of form? That’s a form of content. It adds nothing. It obscures the form.

Myth is found in the communication of observation that empowers others to observe their own way. If you simply provide perspective to your customers, your brand cannot survive through generations. If your communication to them allows your products to “sing and talk, to release the forms within them,” your customers at least have the opportunity to make their own observations.

Observation inspires more observation and also perspective. Perspective is judgment. Judgment is exercising power which will either subjugate or inspire alternate judgment. Action can come out of observation or judgment. Action that comes from observation is transformative and action that comes from judgment is attempted subjugation. While no observation can be free from all judgment because of language and context, “subjective” observation is the closest we can come to understanding the world. As C.S. Lewis said, “Is mythopoeia, after all, not the most, but the least, subjective of activities?”. That is to say—while there is always a contextual (subjective) filter—even if it is stripped down to bare language—real myth-making is as absent of perspective as possible.

Myth-making is an attempt to observe in its purest form. Did Davy Crockett really kill a bear by grinning at it? Almost certainly not, but the means by which he did kill bears was probably closer to grinning at them than whatever anyone else was doing to kill bears. Mythopoeia is subjective observation that leads to either more subjective observation or to judgment. Was it bad that Davy Crockett killed bears simply by grinning at them, or that even he killed bears at all? Judgment is always the end. When it’s all judgment, the myth is complete and dead. As long as subjective observation propagates, the myth continues to grow.

The best way to build a brand is to inspire subjective observation which has the potential to inspire further subjective observation. Judgment leads to war (perspective vs perspective, ie judgment vs. judgment, ie power exercising vs. power exercising)—and wars end. This can draw a lot of eyes to the story, but the story closes and the mythmaking is complete. And if they don’t end, people get bored and move on to another war. For the savviest brands, the myth can be reopened by re-observing the war and story around it. This usually requires adding something new to the story, or by removing the initial perspectives and engaging from a purely observational perspective.

By re-entering “formal space” for observation of form and avoiding our post-enlightenment instincts of perspective, brands can create myths that extend beyond current leadership and customer bases. This is how they will extend their life well beyond a moment.

Of course, truly virgin observation is nearly impossible. Culture and language provide context from birth. Language is context. Language is perspective. Language is unavoidable. Virgin observation would require observing something that no one else has previously observed or something completely new. Rare is something that never occurred before, and rare is finding something that’s never been observed.

Grappling and Generational Endurance of Brand

Or is it? Phenomenology would suggest that every moment of our experience is something that has never happened before. Here’s the problem—we often accept it as if it has. The acceptance of the meaning of things as static renders them content. The examination of the meaning of a thing—or grappling with it—requires actual observation. Inherited perspective is insufficient for observation.

Lewis again:

“The value of the myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by ‘the veil of familiarity…’ By putting bread, gold, horse, apple, or the very roads into a myth, we do not retreat from reality, we rediscover it. As long as the story lingers, the real things are more themselves.”

When a brand has customers accepting their products without examination, they die. Grappling is required for any hope of observation of the form. Grappling—that is a very hands-on sort of wrestling or interaction with the thing. Seeking “percepts” rather than “concepts,” to borrow more language from McLuhan. This grappling itself can come in different forms. It can happen in the mind, but generally, it happens by direct interaction with the form itself. Or without direct interaction with the form, by story. This can take time depending on the person. This can take generations depending on the form. 

Generational brands require creating products that enable creator and customer alike to grapple with form.

• Chefs must grapple with their ingredients
• Machinists must grapple with their tools
• Designers must grapple with color
• DTC marketers must grapple with… algos.†

Form-chasing is often found in transformation. Transformation is one of the clearest places to observe form. When things change, we pay attention. Change implies story. Story creation allows us to explore forms and  It is in transformation that a form is most easily identified. The context is related to the story being told or the content around the base form. The focus is guided by the context. The context however does the form a disservice when the context of the observation is unrelated to the other form or perhaps the moments of transformation—that is the moments where the context demonstrates a new form based upon the old one. Metal becomes a blade. Metal becomes armor. Wood becomes a home. A forest becomes a home. A hydrangea becomes a galaxy. These transformations typically require forms to interact together. Excalibur contextualizes Arthur into the form of king. Wallace’s sword contextualizes him as liberator.

Mythopoeia occurs in observation of form transformation, and this can happen at even the most individual of levels. Countries develop myths about their formation. Organizations develop myths about how they become what they are—this is the entire premise of the Acquired podcast. Families develop myths about their history. Mine certainly does. People develop myths about their lives—stories to help them get closer to the reality of the forms they interact with on a daily basis.

This is why Future Commerce recognizes the future as the Multiplayer Brand. The Multiplayer Brand is mythopoeia in action, observation leading to observation—form-chasing. The multiplayer brand means giving up control of context and perspective and giving your customers space to make their own observations.

This is the definition of myth-making. Myth involves belief and doubt.

Myth is participatory. Mythopoeia demands participation. Perspective is guaranteed in the process, and perspective will inspire kingdom-building. But if you come with only perspective, you’re kingdom-building. This is where you find brand police and content to propagate perspective.

Perspective is propaganda.

The Future of Brand Mythology

Are you creating new forms to be observed? 99.99% of you reading this are not (so more on new forms in a bit). Most of you are facilitating mythopoeia for existing forms. Or you should be.

This is where things get fun. Every base product has an entire world around it that can exist, or perhaps does exist if we were to get a bit metaphysical for a moment. Your object is to go hammer around to best uncover or draw attention to these worlds. These worlds are not yours. Your products and stories are about the forms and the worlds that inherently extend from. Your products are an opportunity for people to try and perceive the form, to take their own swing at the metal that wraps it. Products can give people the opportunity to have real tangible interactions with forms or part of the mythology about another form. You must understand where your products fit, so it can be extraordinary to learn the myths are already known. Resurfacing existing mythology that has fallen out of emotional consciousness can be a powerful move. Tracksmith is a great example of a brand that has revived the running myths of the mid-20th century, retelling and uncovering them further with new stories that extend that myth. They’ve provided forms for their customers to extend those myths through physical spaces like their Trackhouse, community events and organized running clubs, and product design that place their customers into the myths, giving them space to write a daily myth for themselves about the form of a runner.

Another way to uncover is to innovate. This is to tell new stories about the form that have not been told before. The Farmer’s Dog is an excellent example of this. They observed part form of pet mythology that had not been explored yet ie “love for pet means your pet’s quality of life should be improved through healthy eating,” a side of the myth perhaps explored by others but not presented at such a scale. “Human grade: Safety and quality never before available to pets.” They’ve added to the canon of the American pet mythology.

Some of you are working with the forms themselves.

Figure out if you are.

—-

_{* Qubits can only be reset out of collapsed form when they are pushed through a quantum gate}

_{‡ Space and time are relative, and so is size. Size should also be measured in multiple ways rather than just physical. Acoustic, olfactory, all the senses have a sense of space. How much acoustic space does something take up—like do you know if Taylor Swift or. F-18s have a larger acoustic footprint? No one is good at measuring how much auditory space something takes up. Size being relative is essential, because forms can exist within and upon forms. A cell is a form, and so is a human, and so is a country, and so is a star.}

_{† (And THIS is why culture feels stuck. While things are moving fast—the problem is that most things being passed are perspective rather than grappling with form.)}