An elaboration of choke points as creating rationalization bottlenecks.Support the show
How to create a glitch- monologues- season 41- chapter 7.
This is season 41 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 7. In this episode, we will be talking about how "choke points" produce rationalization bottlenecks.
To begin, the rationalization process is again the product of the tonic dominant bond. The dominant rationalizes the tonic further to meeting their expectations pursuant to that bond. But, familial cannibalization and appropriation take place in groups. These groups devote specific environmental niches to particular individuals with the associated reinforcement. Appropriation follows through preferential expectation matching of the associated individual with preferential access to the environmental niche. Now, we also talked about how the genetic machinery of expression reinforces the behaviour through kin selection. Namely, that when a behaviour is appropriated, or rather, when its expression is appropriated, the genetic machinery underlying its expression is facilitated by he or she from whom it is appropriated as well as the facilitator of that appropriation.
Rationalization bottlenecks are choke points which protect environmental niches. Individuals who want preferential access to that particular niche must accept the rationalization and reinforcement of a given set of behaviours. These behaviours are defined by fixed beliefs about some substrate. That is to say, that the projection of direct ground forms the foundation of a particular web of associations.
Often the behaviours subject to these rationalization bottlenecks go above and beyond the actual nature of the environmental niche. Which is to say that each and every environmental niche can include its own web of associations, narratives and archetypes within which one may be forced to subsist. As an example, imagine that a college sorority, with particular ranks, archetypes, and fixed beliefs, is such a place. There is a rationalization bottleneck compelling compliance with a particular subset of behaviours, within the context of the archetypal constellation and narratives of the environmental niche.
As larger closed social systems, they also include familial cannibalization, appropriation and othering as essential principles, with othering leading to expulsion. Fundamentally, they are non consensual spaces, which means the four principles apply to the environmental niche. But because they have an archetypal structure, as well as being a non consensual space, there are opportunities for both spatial non consensuality and archetypal tonics. However, as such environmental niches have a hierarchy which follows from archetypal designations, those designations create consensual tonic dominant relationships within a non consensual space.
All of this being said, when fixed beliefs form an essential component of a rationalization bottleneck, the result can be the creation of an in group defined purely intellectually, that is, not subsisting in any one social space. In groups can be created by these fixed beliefs, which create a particular fabric of rationalization. But, decontextualization generally doesn't produce said rationalization bottlenecks, because the assumptions of a decontextualization narrative are fluid. This fluidity abhors the static predictability of a rationalization system and makes it difficult to maintain a corresponding in group.
Ultimately, decontextualization is only successful if the "connecting phrases" of a meaningful narrative are as unpredictable as the assumptions underlying the indirect ground. You'll note that I frequently use phrases such as "Which is to say that" and "that is to say" and "To start off" et cetera. These are all connecting phrases which form the foundation of a decontextualization narrative. Once these phrases become ingrained, the fluidity of the direct ground, the assumptions, underlying the theory become less important. A predictable statement contains no information. And so it is with modelling. If they can render your decontextualization narrative subject to their predictability, through the connecting phraseology, it makes no difference if your assumptions change in a fluid nature.
What I am saying is. You must be as unpredictable in your written text as in your speech, if you truly wish to glitch through decontextualization.
That's the end of the podcast. Please like. Comment. And Subscribe.