How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix

How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 40- Chapter 7

May 09, 2023 Joshuasaurus319 Season 40 Episode 7
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix
How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 40- Chapter 7
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix +
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

A discussion of probity of speech, emphasis as attention and the subjective aesthetic properties of another. 

Support the show

How to create a glitch- monologues- season 40- chapter 7.

This is season 40 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 7. In this episode, we will be talking about emphasis as a manifestation of attention.

To start off, on a fundamental level, attraction produces emphasis. When the attention is drawn to particular features of an individual, their aesthetic qualities, this emphasizes those features favourably. Now, we also know that when an individual is aesthetically pleasing to us subjectively, this reflects both our consensuality and our non consensuality. To the extent that we unconsciously affirm their experiences, this will emphasize their features in an aesthetically pleasing way. To the extent that we unconsciously negate their experiences, this will emphasize their features in a negative way. We will unconsciously negate what we negate for ourselves. We will unconsciously affirm what we affirm for ourselves.

When we are talking not about outward features of an individual, but their verbalizations, we must first understand that our attention will be drawn to their emphasis to the extent that we exist within a conjoined consensuality with them. Dissonant consensualities produce mismatches of emphasis, created by distinct unconscious rationalization of behaviours. But the same general principles apply. Our attention will be drawn correctly according to whether we unconsciously affirm their experiences, and incorrectly to the extent we unconsciously negate them. This follows from the reality that we are all communicating through 9 plates of meaning, each one nested in the one above, which unconsciously shape our conscious perceptions of the other.

To return to topological properties. We know that a conjoined consensuality means that all properties of a person are topological properties of their consensual field. We also know that a conjoined consensuality means that their emphasis will match our emphasis. This tells us that spoken language will reflect an inherent emphasis, that is attention will be drawn to their internal emphasis, according to the extent to which their consensuality is conjoined, their properties topological. This makes sense since we know that an integrated individual is rationalized by some dominant. That is to say, their internal feelings and thoughts are reflexively rationalized unconsciously by some dominant. Thus, that stream of consciousness or narrative already includes some other recursively in the processing of their actual verbalization.

Now, integrated, pre-verbalization, rationalized speech is the product of a conjoining of two consciousnesses. That pre-verbalization processing of speech gives that speech a rational quality. Thus, conjoined consensualities generate logical coherence in the speech patterns of some actor. Now, if that speech contains inherent "outs" that is, there are logical inconsistencies in the speech, these outs exist because of segmentation of the internal narrative generated as a result of some dissonant consensuality. Which is to say, that if the pre-verbalization rationalization process breaks down periodically, and the self exists in a dissonant space for periods, this produces outs in their behaviour, that is, truncation of the emphasis of the speaker.

That is to say, if someone says that what you are saying doesn't "hold water" or doesn't "make sense" that's likely because there has been a breakdown in the pre-verbalization rationalization process, due to some dissonant consensuality. All of this in mind, we interpret truncation of our attention when listening to some other, as a lack of probity. But the reality is the mismatch of attentional emphasis is the product of some dissonant space as between us. This being said, lack of probity can produce a mismatch of attentional emphasis as well, for largely the same reason, in that pre-verbalization rationalization doesn't match the externally spoken word. That is to say, there is a mismatch between the conjoined consensuality and their consensuality. But although both dissonant spaces and lying can produce a similar truncation of attention, they are shaped by distinct underlying factors.

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