Archontic Machines of Interpretation: Antimimon, Neomyth and Post-Truth in the Media Culture of the Digital Age. The Homonymy of Oscillation and Antinomic Holding

The subject of the research is the mechanisms of power over meaning in the media culture of the digital age – mechanisms operating neither through prohibition nor through the management of contents, but through the management of the structure of the interpretive act itself. The author identifies a distinct class of archontic configurations – machines of interpretation, whose product is not utterances but dispositions of reading. The point of departure is the terminological homonymy that has objectively formed within the metamodernist discussion and the preceding works of the research cycle: the word "oscillation" denotes two different structures – swinging, whose dynamics are supplied by the field, and holding, which generates a third term. The article examines in detail three operations of the interpretation machine – flattening, form imitation and recruitment – their institutionalizations (the neomyth and post-truth), and the discursive formations in which these operations are directly observable: alternative-history discourse, the internet meme, and the media discourse on artificial intelligence. The methodology combines the gnostic hermeneutics of the cycle, the operational criterion of the third term, a typological analysis of structures (swinging – sublation – antinomic holding), and a negative protocol of three tests – of tension, of form and of work – applied to three discursive formations with Ricoeurian criteria for verifying interpretation. The scientific novelty consists in identifying the class of archontic machines of interpretation; in introducing the term "antimimon" – a structural operation of parasitic negation that reproduces the form of what it negates; in a constructively complete taxonomy of the three operations; in describing the sixth mode of gnosis blockade – the blockade of discernment; in a strict definition of the neomyth as an industrially produced counterfeit third term; and in redescribing post-truth as institutionalized flattening. The main conclusion is that power over meaning operates through homonymy: the structure of holding cannot be turned into an instrument, being inalienable from the work of those who hold, – power produces its structural counterfeits, parasitizing on the unsatisfied need for an inhabitable form. The limit of the machine is ontological: it is total only within its own projection, and the work of discernment, like the work of holding, is not completed but re-performed.