A discussion of both forms of rationalization bottleneck and application to systemic fault lines.Support the show
How to create a glitch- monologues- season 41- chapter 8.
This is episode 8 of season 41 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues. In this episode we will be talking about archetypal bottlenecks and how the system manages entropy.
In the last few episodes, we talked about how rationalization bottlenecks form separating consensual and non consensual spaces. But these spaces separate closed social systems (non consensual) from open social systems (consensual) managing migration into a social space. The existence of a gradient of higher social tension at the entry point produces the rationalization bottleneck which excludes specified out groups from the interior closed system. That is to say, that migration is managed by the presence of this bottleneck which separates in groups and out groups. Now, the first form of rationalization bottleneck describes spatial spaces which are closed social systems. The second form, introduced here, describes archetypal, that is non-spatially defined closed social systems.
In an archetypal bottleneck, rationalization according to an archetype within the rationalization system of the in group is determined by adherence to a given set of fixed beliefs, a common direct ground. This direct ground manifests in the legal and quasi-legal framework created by regulatory bodies to determine acquisition of a particular archetype. But that quasi-legal and legal framework merely establishes a set of archetypal relationships which define tonic dominant bonds. The acquisition of the archetype requires submission to a given set of tonic dominant relationships which are inherently hierarchical by their nature, representing unipolar tonic dominant bonds.
The rationalization system of the in group is delineated by the quasi-legal framework/legal framework, which sets out archetypes and qualifications of given archetypes. But admission to the in group, the rationalization system, requires compliance with the quasi-legal and legal framework and submission to the archetypal relationships set out therein.
Some rationalization systems expand beyond the in group, however, defining both the in group and the out group according to the projection of force. For example, judges represent outward facing archetypes, because the entropy created within fault lines in the system is dissipated by their authority to bind parties non consensually. This projection of power is fundamentally based upon coercion or force, created by the state's monopoly. Thus, archetypal bottlenecks function to preserve the archetypal tonic's feudal monopoly on force.
All of this is to say, that rationalization bottlenecks created by location produce spatial non consensual systems. Rationalization bottlenecks created by archetype produce consensual systems within the in group and impose non consensual systems upon the outgroup. However, both cases of rationalization bottlenecks, both archetypal and spatial, separate the in group from the out group and manage migration within each corresponding rationalization system.
Finally, it can be said that rationalization bottlenecks eliminate the entropy of individuals through the submission of migratory actors into either A... a closed location B... an archetypal relationship. In both cases, this elimination of entropy manifests in the acquiescence or submission to a given rationalization within the in group.
That's the podcast for today. Please like, comment and subscribe.