Episode Transcripts

CHAPTER 20 Transcripts

How to create a glitch- monologues- season 20- chapter 4.

This is season 20 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 4. In this episode, we will be drawing linkages between Freudian concepts of the superego, id and ego to our discussions of consensual and non consensual realities while building upon the episodes which preceded this.

Now to start off, we discussed how when dissonant consensualities interact, the interaction leads to a dialectical deconstruction according to the dialectical gradient of one of the two consensual realities. This process begins with the contextualization of the non contextual consensual reality and its dissolution into the dissonant consensuality. In other words, through mechanisms of spatial non consensuality, the consensual reality of one is punctured, with the reactive thoughts of the punctured individual being contextually rationalized according to the dissonant consensuality. In other words, the process by which one consensual reality becomes unified with another is through the imposition of spatial dominance, manifesting in the invasion of the body space of the punctured reality through the non consensual space between the two dissonant consensualities.

Now, in the past episode, we discussed how this act of puncturing the consensual reality of one of the participants leads to two possibilities. One, the individual who is contextualized accedes his or her position to the other, accepting their reality, creating a conjoined consensuality, through expectation matching. The other alternative, is consensual multicontextuality. In this method, the punctured, resurrects his or her consensual reality through the application of multiple levels of meaning to the experiences. In effect, rather than accepting the contextualization of the dissonant consensuality, the punctured, substitutes his or her own consensuality which is rebirthed through the application or exegesis of the experience within the confines of his or her broader consensuality.

It is as if the consensual reality of the punctured becomes nonlinear, in that, it does not flow naturally from one moment to the next, but rather skips a time, during which time the multicontextuality is substituted for the now extinct consensuality which disintegrated through the contextualization of the dissonant consensual reality according to the dialectical process generated by the convergence of two polar dialectical pairings. To put in simpler language, two people will meet with dialectical worldviews. One is favored by the consensuality of the masses. The other is not. The dialectical process begins upon their meeting, which decontextualizes the one in favor of the contextualization of the other. Later, that consensuality which was dissolved, is resurrected by the actor through multicontextualization.

The esoteric can be understood in the context of Freudian understandings of the Superego, as the sublimation of the consciousness of the actor. This act of multicontextuality, taps into the superego situated contextuality, the higher throne of consciousness, which provides the archetypal and symbolic framework for the esoteric exegesis of one's experiences. When two dissonant consensualities meet, the sublimation of one is achieved through multicontextuality. It is as if the ego is sublimated from the moment by the act of intrusion of the one by the other into the superego, where it creates a new consensuality in the moments that follow.

Now, this describes one example of the meeting of two dissonant consensualities. The other possibility when two dissonant consensualities meet, is that the ego may descend into the id, rather than ascend to the superego.  This occurs when the dissonant consensualities reveal a non consensual space for action. In this non consensual space, the dialectical deconstruction is undermined by the rising of the id challenging the dialectical deconstruction of one's dissonant consensuality, reestablishing a dialectical position.

Such rising of the id requires a secondary contextualization according to the dialectical effulgence, which is then used to reconstitute a consensual reality through the sublimation of the ego back into the superego.

These two paths of dissonant resurrection describe two mechanisms by which the consciousness of the dissonant consensuality is brought back into being through the internal processes of the mind.

The mechanisms by which the mind modulates, generates, and attenuates, its consensual reality are through the mechanisms generated and preserved in the superego, captured by esoteric contextualization and multicontextualization of one's experiences in general.  It requires a careful balancing of the id with the superego and the gift of sublimation of the ego by the superego. In effect, the esoteric describes the delicate machinery by which this reality is managed internally.

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


How to create a glitch- monologues- season 20- chapter 3.

This is season 20 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 3. In this episode, we will be talking about idols as embodiments of deity and polytheism as generating tribalism.

Now, in the last episode, we talked about tribalism as the product of dissonant consensualities. In this episode, we would like to discuss how polytheistic religions featuring idol worship invariably become tribal.

The first point I would like to reiterate is that internal attachment is generated by acts of possession, inclusive of acts of worship or handling. This principle establishes preferential expectation matching, which is to say that individuals who engage in attachment or acts of worship to particular idols, follows such attachment. By physically embodying deity, individuals, whether they realize it or not, are creating a relationship of preferential expectation matching, generating dissonant consensualities as a result. The combination of these two things: idol worship and polytheism, inevitably produces dissonant consensualities, and a result, as set out in the last podcast, tribalism.

The formation of dissonant consensualities, in groups and out groups, follows tribalism. The dialectical resolution of this dissonant consensuality caused by encounters of individuals of different in groups into non consensual spaces ensures the resulting generation of force as between those two actors, outside the confines of the state, as set out in season 19 chapter 7. The othering of one individual or in group by it’s corresponding out group accentuates the divergence of the two factions through both internal and external pressures. Thus, the solution to this othering is contextual multicontextuality; that is, the othered individual generates a higher contextualization of their experiences.

To put it simply, esotericism is the direct consequence of the formation of dissonant consensualities, which are the product of acts of idol worship in relation to polytheistic systems or religions. Contextual multicontextuality is the only mechanism which permits the reconstitution of a consensual space, pursuant to some out group, when dissonant consensualities collide. Thus, polytheistic religions inevitably become monotheistic through tribalism and in so doing they become esoteric to combat the inevitable impacts of encounters between dialectical positions and dissonant consensualities.

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


How to create a glitch- monologues- season 20- chapter 2.

This is season 20 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 2. In this episode, we will be talking about how dissonant consensualities generate tribalism which is resolved through the imposition of a non consensual reality. Now, there are two ways that this tribalism can be resolved, first within the confines of a state with a monopoly on force, or second, outside the confines of a state.

Dissonant consensualities by and large are the result of the failure of expectation matching between two people. There are many reasons why they might not expectation match, but the most crucial of these reasons arises out of divided loyalty. When a person preferentially matches the expectations of one person instead of another, this produces a dissonant consensuality as between the pairing and the third.

Now, the system abhors a vacuum and consonant consensualities created by a common antipathy form in the shadow of this dissonant consensuality. This produces the formation of a chain, or the reformation of each faction’s archetypal constellation, according to this chain, since our archetypal constellation generates a common consensuality. The forging of this chain is a process which ultimately leads factions becoming akin to tribes, joined not by ancestry but by a common other.

Now, in the context of the state, the formation of these factions, ultimately leads to social entropy, which is funnelled into the judicial system through conflicts, arising out of marriage, contract, or other legal foundation. The representatives of those factions, for example, will often be intertwined with the factions themselves either prior to the association or afterwards. Thus, when parties within a state meet on opposite sides of a judge, they are thoroughly embroiled within the dissonant consensualities of their factions. The result of such dissonant consensuality, is either A. The formation of a new contractual foundation for a common consensuality. Or B. The imposition of a non consensual reality through the power of the state’s monopoly on force, and or, control of the social contract.

Outside a state, tribalism more often leads to the imposition of a non consensual reality, which reflects one of the two dissonant consensualities, through force and violence. Thus, tribalism is as much a consequence of our archetypal constellation as not. Now, preferential expectation matching is a consequence of the exclusivity of relationship, created by attachment, manifesting as possession, or physical acts of possession. It is also the consequence of contractual obligation, within the context of a social contract. It is a principle of social contracts that often there is an opportunity cost to meeting another’s expectation. When that opportunity cost is the inability to form a similar contract with another, it generates this preferential expectation matching which generates down the road a form of tribalism.

Thus, tribalism is a natural extension of dissonant consensualities, which the state must rein in through the judicial system to limit social entropy and ameliorate the impact of opportunity costs in social contracts.

Now, there is a solution to this of course, which arises out of the elimination of attachment, manifesting as non preferential expectation matching, but the absence of attachment is contraindicated by acts of possession or grasping further to romantic relationships. Non exclusive romantic relationships are ideally suited to undermining preferential expectation matching, but cannot fully ameliorate the inevitable formation of in groups and out groups further to institutional and social organization.

Ultimately preferential expectation matching is the product of hierarchy, institutional orders, and exclusive romantic relationships. All these generate opportunity cost, othering and tribalism as a matter of course.

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


How to create a glitch- monologues- season 20- chapter 1.

This is season 20 of how to create a glitch in the matrix monologues episode 1. In this episode, we will be talking about physical acts of intimacy in the context of one’s consensual reality.  We will be discussing consensual realities that result from such acts.

To start off, there is no more powerful connection between two people than that which follows or anticipates an intimate act. At its barest, intimacy results from and recapitulates the gateways which exist between people. But it also reflects a linking of the bodily rhythms of the people involved. The sequential linking of sensation, feeling and tension release generates through the orientations of the individuals involved a consensual reality, just as the tonic and dominant generate one in a social exchange.

What this means practically, is that the 1st orientation individual and 2nd orientation individual conjoin their expectations through the act. The goal of consensual intimacy is generally satisfied by the expectation matching. But practically, the act of intimacy also grants the participants confidence in the actions of their partner, a kind of inertia to their consensual reality. More importantly, what is it to release tension in this fashion? To achieve sensation as pleasure?

When an individual is in the thick of tension, before a release, their being is coiled, contracted, collapsed, their consensual reality is restricted by its interactions with others. In the act of intimacy, that being is unfurled, its sensations reactive, both object and subject, it is sensitive to the world, its consensuality expanded to its greatest extent. Thus, the pleasure of intimacy is the act of unfurling, the blossoming, the dasein. In a way, the act of intimacy makes one present, immanent, not just in the location where one is, but to the broadest extent, spread out, conjoined with the inherent flow of reality, pulsing in extant.

It does this through the intermediary of another, through the consensual resonance of the experience of another, as both subject and object. In effect, the consensual reality produced by acts of intimacy is one which resonant to both or all. Likewise, in the act of intimacy, there is both a recapitulation of the all in all principle, and it’s rejection, for in the fusing of two or more in a consensual resonance, there remains a separateness. In effect, it balances the need to exist as one in all.

The generative nature of intimacy between a man and a woman arises out of two components: one the creation of a resonant consensuality, which is both one and the other, and neither, and it’s attribution of a kind of inertia to that space, created by confidence in expectation matching. There is a folding off, a pinching, of that joining, which makes it distinct from every other such joining, something lost as a result of that joining that neither can animate independently. This pinching off, folding, is a space of resonant consensuality, which remains even after the intimacy is complete. In effect, we lose a small part of ourselves in the intimate act, a part that did not exist before the act, and generally does not exist afterwards.

The conception of a life within the shadow of that intimacy fills that space of resonant consensuality, a joining of two in one, an opening up after a folding, or pinching off. This all follows from the creation of a consensual space. By all this, it can concluded that it is an inherent property of conscious life to maintain some degree of consensuality. But it can also be seen that the consensual resonance created by the intimate act animates the realities of the participants permanently, to some limited degree. In effect, every joining of two generates a consensual resonance, which is unique, almost totipotent, but changes the participants in the exact manner of its inertia.

Now, what does this tell us about consensuality? It tells us first that the intimate act is the ultimate act of attachment, a reflection of an internal state, with concomitant acts of possession. It animates the gateways of grasping. But in that attachment, there is a sublimation, for in the possession and attachment, there is a fusion, not of subject and object, but of two equal partners. Consensuality is generative precisely because it reflects the voluntary nature of the act. In the consent of the participants, the resonant unfurling, blossoming, is possible.

But acts of non consensuality suggest that a consensuality need not have volition to be generative. Even in the midst of non consensual acts, does a parsing of the consensualities of the participants occur.

In past episodes, we discussed how a consensual reality is created by expectation matching, conjoined expectations, but nowhere is this more potent than in the intimate act. Nevertheless, consensuality and intimacy are not the same. The same unfurling, fusion, resonance, can be generated by social intimacy, mirroring and postural releases between a tonic and a dominant.

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


FOR CHAPTER 19 and earlier transcripts contact: