How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix

How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 40- Chapter 1

May 04, 2023 Joshuasaurus319 Season 40 Episode 1
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix
How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 40- Chapter 1
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix +
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

A discussion of true dilemmas and zero sum choices. 

Support the show

How to create a glitch- monologues- season 40- chapter 1.

This is season 40 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 1. In this episode, we will be talking about zero sum choices.

To start off, I would like to ask a question: Is there such thing as a Real Dilemma? In other words, are there truly zero sum choices? Basically, imagine yourself in a situation where two basic needs are implicated. For example, you have to choose between housing and food. Most people are in these situations quite regularly in their lives. But the question is, is there always a third choice? Is there always a third option? The answer is yes and no. I described outs as taken in response to the collapse of one's consensuality. That is to say, reality doesn't abide by your expectations. Zero sum choices are situations no one chooses to enter into. They are ostensibly situations where one's consensuality ends. But, is it always possible to sublimate a need to create a third choice?

Example. Let's say that you spend the night smoking weed and you pass out at 6 pm. You wake up at 8 pm, but you think it is 8 am. You know if you drive your car to work, you will likely get pulled over or crash because you are still terribly high. You also know that if you stay home, you will likely lose your job. If you lose your job, then you will likely lose your housing. Now, you ostensibly have one choice. Go to work and risk getting pulled over. Or stay home and risk getting fired. But, the question remains, is there always a third choice? My first answer is maybe. There are different techniques you could apply to extricate yourself from this situation. They are akin to the "who wants to be a millionaire lifelines". These are all techniques which create an out in a particular context revealing a third choice. But they are not always present in every context. Now, let's use an example. Let's say you decide to call a friend. You know someone at work

You call that person and ask if they can cover for you. This would be a third choice. Or let's say you "buy time", by smoking a few cigarettes and thinking about it. This is a third choice. But these "lifelines" are not always present in every context. So, choices can become more or less zero sum depending upon their availability. But the question remains, is there always a third choice? Let me give you another example. Suppose you are driving down a highway late for work. You are driving too fast. There is a car in front of you driving too slow. You start to go into the outside lane to pass him on the outside. But as you enter the lane, you see a motor cycle in your blind spot. You whip the car steering wheel back. But you start to lose control of the car. The motorcycle accelerates out of the way. But it is too late. You have two choices ostensibly. To try to get the car under control, to go left or to go right. But you also have a third choice. This is the zeroth gate.

This is the choice to renounce, to give up, what you are afraid of losing in the moment. In other words, you can let the car go off the road and reduce the chances that you will slam into another vehicle and hurt someone else. Now, what kind of out is this? The answer is, renunciation. To return to the weed example. You have a third choice there as well. You can let yourself be fired, because it will give you 2 weeks severance to look for another job. As an example. Thus, every situation which appears to be a zero sum choice becomes three choices, two supraspatial and one of renunciation. Thus, outs can be created by giving up what you are afraid of losing, just as easily as they can be created by supraspatial choices such as the timelines in "Who wants to become a millionaire".

Now, when you are dealing with work for pay. These choices also appear to be zero sum. Either you work, in whatever capacity you can find it, or you do not have the means to pay for your essential needs. But again, what is it you are afraid of losing? Your food and shelter. Is it possible to create a third choice here? Support services offer a third choice. These are state created outs which allow you to maintain some aspect of your consensual field. But barring that, are there other choices you could make to satisfy both your basic needs? No. You have to give something up. You have to renounce food or shelter. Since lack of food will kill you sooner, your choice must be shelter. But there are other techniques which represent a third choice. For example, buying time by reducing your dietary intake. Or calling a friend, to ask to borrow money. But renunciation only creates nested choices. In other words, unless you want to die or accept death in and of itself.

But to return to our renunciation example. In that example, of the car accident, you can always risk what you have instead of choosing between binary choices. If all you have is your life, then you have to risk your life. Renunciation is the path of giving something up that you have. If all you have is your life, the only out you can reasonably take is to renounce it. So are true dilemmas binary choices? Yes and no. Are they dialectical? Dialectically nested, yes. Another point, the concept of money for labour as a form of decontextualization, only really applies when your basic needs are satisfied and you have excess. Decontextualization is a form of renunciation of the personal. It is a form of thinking which preserves the renunciation of the third choice as thought itself.

Although the preparatory steps in how to create a glitch the complete series are methods of creating outs, they all fundamentally preserve the act of renunciation in a different form. If you are abstaining from sleep, you are renouncing something you have. If you are abstaining from food, again you are renouncing something you have. You cannot renounce without the possession itself. So for anyone struggling with what appear to be zero sum choices, I can only say, ask yourself what do you have and figure out if you can renounce some part of it without dying. If so, you still have a third choice. The path of renunciation.

Now, finally, I would like to talk about affirmational and negating narratives. Since we know that narratives are the intersubjective produce of our impulses, we know that each encounter with another in a dissonant consensuality, that is created by a negated impulse represents the act of renunciation streamlined to its purest form. Dissonant consensualities thus are created by renunciation, because ultimately that dissonant space is a zero sum exchange. Dissonant consensualities are thus embedded in non consensual space, just as the third choice is nested in the first two. Thus, in order to generate a dissonant consensuality you must have the ability to negate an impulse, the purest form of renunciation.

Thus, there is always something you have to give up to create a third choice, even if its only your own impulses.

All of this being said, practically speaking, if anyone out there is struggling between what appear to be zero sum choices. Focus on that, because glitching is a risk. And giving something up requires that you have something in the first place.

That's the end of the podcast for today. If you enjoyed it, please like, comment and subscribe.