How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix

How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 41- Chapter 3

May 15, 2023 Joshuasaurus319 Season 41 Episode 3
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix
How to Create a Glitch- Monologues- Season 41- Chapter 3
How to Create a Glitch in the Matrix +
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

An integration of direct ground into our discussion of 2nd degree decontextualization. 

Support the show

How to create a glitch- monologues- season 41- chapter 3.

This is season 41 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 3. In this episode, we will be integrating our discussion of indirect and direct ground with our discussion in the last episode.

To reiterate, direct ground is the suppositional component of a thought. It is the ground, the belief, the underlying assumption. From the direct ground, we can construct the indirect ground, which is the contingency, the reactive thought, the antithesis to the thesis. Now, in ordinary social life, we frequently project fixed beliefs on those around us and our environment, forming the foundation of our consensuality. We consent to outcomes that reflect our assumptions and beliefs, and turn away from those which do not. Socially, by acting on a fixed perception of the other, you are projecting that direct ground onto another's action, making yourself contingent to it, the indirect ground. Thus, direct and indirect ground are always paired.

When reality does not reflect our expectations, when it defies us, it defies us because of the misallocation of direct ground. Reality is complicit in our assumptions, to the extent that they represent the projection of our intentionality. Let me explain. Suppose you were to act on a fixed perception of another, but that perception was wrong, then your reactions to their action are fundamentally reactive. Just because direct ground fixes a belief, does not mean that that particular belief is correct, merely the contingency forms upon that ground. So, in the example above, your reaction is indirect ground, regardless of whether your projection of another is a correct one.

Now, in talking about the nature of 2nd degree decontextualization. We discussed how when you decontextualize and generate an intersubjective narrative, that narrative penetrates the minds around you, because it is depersonalized. As it does so, it generates, over time, reactive emotionality. Thus, the nature of 2nd degree decontextualization is that it is fundamentally comprised of a supposition, albeit perhaps an unfixed one. Thus, the narratives that you generate through 2nd degree decontextualization act as the projection of your fixed belief onto the other. That fixed belief generates reactive emotionality as contingent to it. But because the source of that fixed belief, that supposition, is you, the migratory reactive narratives that result return to their "ground". In other words, direct ground and indirect ground are described as "ground" because direct ground, especially, acts to "neutralize" the entropy created by dialectical narratives.

If you imagine that every narrative has a dialectical counter narrative, and you imagine that these two narratives negate each other, rendering each nugatory in the face of the other. Then it is possible to see that the contingency will always return to the suppositional source. In this way, it is possible to see that narratives you generate as a facet of 2nd degree decontextualization, will extend outward before finding themselves unfurled into a dialectical partner, which returns to the source of the ground, that is, the fixed belief.

2nd degree decontextualization is very much like probing the system, in that, each decontextualization narrative you create degenerates according to the entropy eliminated by its pairing with some dialectical opposite. This follows from conservation, one of the four principles of non consensual systems, described in previous podcasts. Ultimately, this means that if you generate decontextualization, it will eventually produce a dialectical narrative within the system, which is effectively the output of the system in response to your ground. This will manifest as multiplicity corresponding to the plate which generated the decontextualization. In the case of the plate of the hands, so a typewritten statement, 2nd degree decontextualization means that it will manifest the dialectical narrative through the hand language of those you encounter.

Now, the time it takes for the narrative to return to its source, the generator, is the substitution time: the time that it takes for the narrative to degenerate into a nugatory dialectical pairing.

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