A discussion integrating continuity and discontinuity into our discussion of the rationalization process.Support the show
How to create a glitch- monologues- season 40- chapter 8.
This is season 40 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 8. In this episode, we will be integrating some of the ideas in the last podcast with our discussion of continuity and discontinuity.
As explained in the last podcast, "outs" in speech, the truncation of attention, represent junctures where pre-verbalization rationalized speech doesn't match the associated output speech. This truncation of attention produces discontinuity in behaviour, representing dissonant consensualities, which eliminate the inherent continuity to integrated speech. Now, it is also clear that upon reflection, in truth, there is no pre-verbal (internal) speech to be rationalized, but rather the rationalization process takes place on one of the nine plates, through "actual" verbalization. In other words, what we consider to be the interior space of our mind is in fact a mirage, which finds itself dissolved in the 9 plates of an exchange. Now, in the past we described this "internal space" as a place of non intersection between our expectation field and others' defined by our consensuality.
The space it describes is in fact integrated through our non consensuality, the many non consensual exchanges which take place in the moment through the nine plates of intersection. Now, it is also true that the stratification of the plates by their affirming or negating character reveals that the plate of the hands (dialectical negating), the plate of the voice (externally negating), the plate of the posture (internally negating), show different degrees of said illusory internal space. But the highest plate, the plate of the face, is pure affirmation, and on this plate, there is no internal space, thus all those internal thoughts we have are expressed through the classes of parallel universes represented by that plate.
Now, I previously indicated that dissonant spaces were created by avoidance, that is, a dissonant consensuality becomes a spatial dissonance through avoidance. I also indicated that spatial non consensuality involves the creation of an experiential space of territoriality. The difference between territoriality and avoidance is that a spatial dissonance derogates from an intersection, while spatial non consensuality forms in spite of them. In the protection of some territorial space, we are talking about an experiential space, which manifests as a spatial space through the application of that experience.
In talking about multipolar tonic dominant bonds, when a dissonant consensuality is integrated through spatial dissonance or avoidance, this also derogates from the tonic dominant bond, ultimately undermining that bond by the elimination of expectation matching. Dissonant spaces are thus dissonant because they represent a failure to meet the other's expectations. Dissonant consensualities are transitory.
Now, returning to discontinuity and continuity. We know that one of the methods of creating a glitch involves creating discontinuities in behaviour. This makes sense since in the presence of these discontinuities dissonant consensualities can form. Effectively, glitching through continuity breaking is the reversal of the decontextualization process. On the one hand, you can decontextualize by eliminating continuity externally. On the other, you can decontextualize by eliminating the personal from the experience internally. Either way, you create a dissonant consensuality.
That's the end of the podcast for today. If you enjoyed it, please like, comment and subscribe.