There was a moment, years ago, when I first questioned the solidity of reality. It wasn’t a grand revelation, not some hallucinatory break where the walls dissolved into cascading green code—but something smaller, quieter, like a glitch at the edge of perception. I was walking home late at night, the streets empty, the air heavy with that strange, electric stillness cities get after midnight. The streetlights flickered in a rhythm that felt almost intentional, as if some unseen intelligence was signaling me. I had this fleeting sensation that everything around me—the pavement, the buildings, the very concept of “night”—was only a projection, an interface. Not unreal, exactly. But not quite real, either.

The feeling passed, but the question lingered.

Later, I would find words for it. Plato’s cave. Baudrillard’s simulation. The idea that what we experience is not reality itself, but a curated illusion, a mask over something deeper. That we are prisoners of perception, bound by rules we never agreed to, conditioned by forces we do not see.

For many, The Matrix was the first nudge toward this unsettling idea. The film gave us a language for the intuition that something is off, that the world we take for granted might not be the baseline of existence but a construct—designed, maintained, and most importantly, alterable. It wasn’t just the spectacle of dodging bullets or the cyberpunk aesthetic that made it revolutionary. It was the suggestion that reality is not a given. That it has rules, and rules can be broken.

This is the key: Reality is not fixed. It is layered, constructed, and, if one knows where to look, hackable.

We have been trained to see reality as something external, something immutable. But the deeper one looks, the more fluid it becomes. Whether through philosophy, neuroscience, or technology, we find again and again that perception is malleable, identity is a shifting construct, and the “real” is far stranger than we’ve been led to believe.

The question, then, is not whether we are trapped inside a system. We are. The question is: Can we rewrite it?

reality as a construct

Imagine a prisoner, born inside a cave. The only reality they know is the flickering play of shadows cast on the wall before them. The shapes shift and dance, forming patterns, narratives, a whole world. The prisoner believes in these shapes because they have never seen anything else. One day, they are unshackled and pulled toward the light outside. At first, it is blinding. The “real world” is overwhelming—strange, alien, too much to process. But slowly, the prisoner begins to see: the shadows on the wall were just projections. Reality, as they had understood it, was a distortion.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave has haunted philosophy for over two thousand years, but its resonance has only deepened in an age where our realities are increasingly constructed. We are all prisoners of perception, watching the flickering images on the walls of our screens, mistaking them for truth. What are these images but the new shadows, the filtered versions of existence, the curated narratives of experience that shape our understanding of the world?

Jean Baudrillard pushed this idea further in his concept of simulacra and simulation. He argued that modern society no longer interacts with reality itself but with a system of symbols that merely represent reality. In other words, we no longer see the world; we see the idea of the world, mediated through layers of representation. A news broadcast does not show war—it shows an image of war, framed and edited to evoke a particular emotional response. A celebrity does not exist as a person, but as an endlessly repeated persona—a symbol floating free from any real referent. Our interactions with reality are increasingly secondhand, removed, processed, abstracted.

Now, in the digital age, we are living inside the cave of the internet, where reality is layered, recontextualized, and algorithmically shaped. Social media is a perfect example: a hyperreality where identities are not fixed but performed. What we post online is not who we are, but a crafted version of self—a polished avatar designed for an audience, constructed through an endless cycle of selection, editing, and presentation. The vacation photos, the profound tweets, the aestheticized meals—are they memories, or are they products, meticulously arranged artifacts of a life meant to be seen rather than lived?

Compare this to the raw, unfiltered moments of actual experience: the awkward pauses, the unphotogenic meals, the mundane conversations that do not fit within the frame of a highlight reel. The gap between real life and its representation is widening, and we are left in the strange position of consuming versions of reality more than reality itself.

And yet, this does not mean we are powerless. The first step to hacking a system is recognizing that it is a system. If reality is constructed, then it can be reconstructed. If it is a mediated experience, then it can be remediated. We are not just passive prisoners watching the shadows—we are also the ones casting them.

the code beneath reality

If reality is a construct, then what is it made of? What is the underlying architecture, the programming language of the world we navigate?

The first code we inherit is language. Before we learn to think, we learn to name. A tree is not just an entity—it is assigned a word, and that word becomes the interface through which we engage with it. But words do not merely describe reality; they define its limits. In linguistic structuralism, meaning is not inherent but relational—words only gain significance through their difference from other words. A “tree” is only a tree because it is not a bush, a house, or a rock. Language, then, is the first matrix, the symbolic system that filters raw experience into categories, shaping not just how we speak but how we think.

Postmodern philosophy pushes this further, arguing that reality is not just constructed through language but is entirely text-based. Jacques Derrida’s notion of différance suggests that meaning is never fixed—it is always shifting, deferred, dependent on context. If meaning is unstable, then reality itself becomes something fluid, rewritten with every act of interpretation. A constitution is just ink on paper until enough people agree it governs them. A corporation is a legal fiction that takes on more tangible reality than the bodies of the people who run it. Money is valuable not because of what it is, but because of what we agree it represents. These are all scripts we follow, unwritten rules encoded into our behavior.

Culture, society, even identity itself—these are constructs, reinforced through repetition. A border is not a physical thing but an agreed-upon illusion. A passport does not inherently give you access to one land or deny you another—it is a symbol that only functions because we collectively accept the rules behind it. What we call “normal” is a code of conduct dictated by cultural programming, instilled from birth. To step outside of this programming, to see it as constructed rather than natural, is to begin the process of hacking it.

But even deeper than language, deeper than culture, is the biological construct of perception itself. Neuroscience tells us that our brains do not experience the world directly; they generate a simulation based on sensory input. Your eyes take in fragmented data—color, light, motion—and your brain stitches it together into a coherent image. Your ears perceive frequencies, but it is your brain that interprets them as music or noise. This means that what we experience as “reality” is already an edited version, a best-guess approximation built by the brain’s internal algorithms.

Consider optical illusions. When you look at an image that appears to shift or warp, nothing is actually moving—your brain is simply filling in gaps, extrapolating patterns that don’t exist.

The famous Rubin vase—a visual illusion where you either see a vase or two faces—is a perfect example. The image does not change, but the interpretation does. The shift happens in your mind, revealing that perception is not passive—it is an act of construction.

If we cannot even trust our senses to provide an objective reality, then what can we trust? The answer is unnerving: we trust the code we’ve been given, the scripts we have learned to follow. But here lies the power: if perception is constructed, it can be reconstructed. If reality is coded, it can be rewritten.

The question is—who is writing it?

hacking the system

Once you see the code, you realize you don’t have to follow it.

Hackers understand something fundamental: every system has rules, and rules can be broken. Not through brute force, but through understanding. The best hackers don’t destroy—they manipulate, subvert, and rewrite the underlying structure of reality to serve their own design.

Neo, in The Matrix, embodies this ethos perfectly. He does not escape the system by fighting it on its own terms—he transcends it by seeing the code beneath it. When he stops bullets, he is not using force against force; he is recognizing that the bullets are just part of the simulation. They only have power because he once believed they did. The moment he rewrites that belief, the rules no longer apply.

This is more than sci-fi. It is the essence of magick, manifestation, and consciousness hacking—the understanding that reality is not fixed, that perception is programmable, and that belief itself is an act of coding.

reality is malleable—if you know how to bend It

Chaos magicians have understood this for decades. Unlike traditional ceremonial magick, which relies on strict rituals and external forces, chaos magick is about hacking belief itself. The core idea is simple: belief is a tool, not a truth. If you change your belief, you change your reality. This is why chaos magicians use shifting paradigms, symbols, and sigils to intentionally manipulate their perception of the world—and in doing so, influence the world itself.

Similarly, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) works by reprogramming mental patterns. NLP practitioners understand that the mind operates on scripts—habitual thought patterns that dictate behavior. By hacking the way language and perception interact, one can change the way they experience reality. Lucid dreamers do the same: once they realize they are dreaming, they can take control, shaping the dream instead of being controlled by it.

But the real evidence that reality can be hacked? The placebo effect.

A sugar pill is nothing more than a symbol. It contains no active ingredients, yet when someone believes they are receiving medicine, their body often responds as if they actually have. Pain diminishes, symptoms subside, healing accelerates—not because of the pill itself, but because the mind alters the body’s reality. The placebo effect is a glitch in the system, a tangible example that perception changes experience.

And if a belief can alter biology, what else can it alter?

The implications are staggering. What we accept as “real” is, in large part, dictated by the mental and social frameworks we have been given. But frameworks are not immutable. They are hackable.

The magician, the mystic, the cyberpunk, the lucid dreamer, the neuro-hacker—all are doing the same thing: rewriting the code, bending the rules, shifting perception, and in doing so, altering reality itself.

The first step? Stop accepting the rules as fixed.

living in a layered, hackable reality

Reality is no longer singular. It is layered, expanding, shifting in real-time.

The digital world is not separate from the “real” world—it is an extension of it, a new stratum layered on top of the old. AI, AR, VR, and the ever-growing digital landscape are not just tools but new dimensions of existence. The way we interact with them shapes the fabric of our perception. We are not merely living in reality; we are constantly moving through different levels of it.

With augmented reality, information is overlaid onto the world around us. With virtual reality, we step entirely into new realms, ones where the rules of physics are rewritten at will. AI-generated content blurs the line between human and machine, between the authored and the emergent. We are no longer just experiencing reality—we are designing it.

But this layered nature of reality is not new. It has simply become more explicit. The act of wandering through the internet—clicking from one link to another, following a breadcrumb trail of curiosity—is no different from the dérive, the practice of the flâneur wandering through the streets of a city, guided by instinct and chance encounters.

psychogeography and the internet: a digital dérive

The Situationists once described psychogeography as the art of drifting through urban landscapes, allowing the environment to shape one’s emotions and thoughts. The digital world works the same way. Every time we lose ourselves in a rabbit hole of hyperlinks, every time we follow an algorithmic path designed by unseen hands, we are experiencing a digital dérive, an exploration of the topography of cyberspace.

The difference is agency. Are we the wanderers, or are we being led?

The answer determines whether we are hacking the system or being shaped by it.

reality is not a given—it’s a choice

To accept reality as static is to surrender control. To recognize it as layered, constructed, and mutable is to awaken to the possibility of change. If AI, social media, and digital interfaces shape our perception, then we must ask: Who is designing the layers we experience? And how do we take back authorship of our own reality?

The hacker’s path is not just about resisting control—it’s about becoming the coder, the designer, the dreamer who shapes the layers of reality with intention. This can be done through:

• Active participation—curating your own information, engaging with media critically, questioning narratives rather than passively consuming them.
  
• Conscious exploration—practicing digital dérives, embracing randomness in a world of algorithmic predictability, breaking patterns.
  
• Reality hacking—using techniques like chaos magick, NLP, or lucid dreaming to shift perception and rewrite internal scripts.

We are no longer just travelers in this world. We are its architects. The question is not whether reality is hackable. The question is: Who will do the hacking—you, or someone else?

---

deep dive audio version