Audience: [Inaudible][7:07:00]

TM: “Uuuuummm… it’s a close relative, it’s active not in the microgram range, but in the milligram range and there are several active compounds… Eurite... I think Chenoklavine is the psychoactive… and Erganovine… all these occur there.”

Audience: “And do you grind those and swallow them whole, or make an infusion?”

TM: “No, you grind them to a powder and then just take... capsule ‘em…and it’s a lot of capsules [7:07:30] it’s like half a cup of this horrible, whitish meal with a strange smell but… yeah basically about two hundred seeds. You may want to go higher but start with that.”

Audience: [Inaudible] [7:08:00]

TM: “Well, no, but if what you’re saying is true, that’s where the glycoside would reside. That’s not my understanding actually, wh-”

Audience: [Inaudible]


Audience: [Inaudible]

TM: “Well, maybe the caption got mislabeled or something because the way they do it where [7:08:30] I’ve seen it is they take the little seeds and they grind them on a matate into a powder, then they put it in water… as you sssssaid… and then, and they shake it, ss… uh..and leave it, and come back an hour later and shake it again and do that for a while; and then uh the stuff precipitates to the bottom..the physica-.. .the...the matter...and the liquid fraction is poured off and discarded [7:09:00] and they take the... the solid matter and they let it dry in the sun until it’s no longer runny but it’s a kind of like… the consistency of oatmeal or playdough or something like that and then they make a little tiny uh...uh...tortilla which they... they then toast on a metal griddle and so you get this thing which looks slightly smaller than a ritz cracker…[7:09:30] and is a toasted morning glory seed wafer, and you eat that, and that is the thing which is active. That’s how I’ve seen it done.

Audience: [Inaudible]

TM: “Apparently not, they toast it lightly, they don’t… it’s not blackened… It’s just sort of golden…”

Audience: [Inaudible]


Audience: [Inaudible]

TM: “No, it’s the… it’s one species of morning glory turbina, previously called revea, coryembosa. [7:10:00] The other one...uh… the morning glory that you have to take uh.. a couple of hundred seeds for is used in that area as a hallucinogen, but it’s also used to induce labour and has a whole role in midwifery and...and like that.

Audience: [Inaudible]


Audience: [Inaudible]

TM: “No, that’s the Hawaiian Woodrose and it has no history of human usage, [7:10:30] so you’re on your own. This is… it’s worth talking about maybe for a minute… that… er, y’know there are… hallucinogens are like hotel rooms, some are occupied and some are not, and it’s always interesting to fiddle with the unoccupied ones, because if you’re… if you believe Sheldrake, then it’s an empty field. Uh, you know, one way of thinking of these things is… when you take a plant [7:11:00] it takes you.So, when you take mushrooms for instance, what the trip is, is all the mushroom trips that anybody ever had. And you lea… you know, you make a tiny contribution too, ah... it’s… you leave a piece of your trip in the trip and so the… the trip is slowly evolving over time as those who take the plant each leaves a brick [7:11:30] or an offering or a little architectural motif on this vast edifice. Well then if you come… that was why a- uh… y’know a plant like Hawaiian Woodrose or to some degree Stropharia Cubensis because it is not the preferred mushroom among the Mexican traditionalists, then it’s unoccupied. You can make of it what you want; it can be sort of... your vehicle. This is why a drug like ketamine, which is a new drug, [7:12:00]

Transcribed by Aurelio Lyra


Transcribed by Aurelio Lyra

TM.: … a new drug, without a thousand years of input. My impression of where you go on ketamine is like visiting a new office building. That nobody has rented offices yet, i mean all the water coolers work, and there are these recessional distances with fluorescent lighting, but, there are no hurrying secretaries or crowded offices, or chatter around the water fountains. It’s just empty. It’s empty because not enough people have left their initials on the walls.

Audience Question: What is the variety of mushroom that is common in the Yucatan

TM:.: Well, if you mean growing on manure. Yeah, that’s Stropharia cubensis. See there are about 30 species of mushrooms that grow in that Mexican area, and most of them are what are called, well not most of them, but some are ephemeral mushrooms, meaning they are very small and they can be almost anywhere. And there are some larger ones too that can be almost anywhere. Stropharia cubensis is the only one of the good ones that locates on cow dung. Now, there are other mushrooms that grow on cow dung that contain psilocybin, but they also are more sickening.There are species of Panaeolus and species of Coprinus. If you collect a mushroom off dung and you want to know if it is a Panaeolus or Coprinus or Stropharia, just keep it around for a few hours. If it is a Stropharia it will just sort of be around. If it is a Coprinus or a Panaeolus, it will do what is called auto-digest. It will turn into a slimy mess.

Audience Question: Can’t you tell from the spore print


Audience Question: Can’t you tell from the spore print

TM:’ No, you can’t tell from the spore print, but you can tell from the macro-morphology of it, if you know mushrooms. They’re easy to tell apart.

Audience Question: [inaudible]

TM,: You see that’s tricky unless you’re someone who really knows their stuff.

Audience Question: [inaudible] have you found that there is way in Hawaiian woodrose seeds [inaudible]

TM;: It was more speculative, but i think it would be worth trying.

Audience Question: I thought that the ergamine alkaloid is not water soluble

TM; Some are and some aren’t.

Audience Question: [inaudible] … synthesizing LSD. Its apparently hard to get it started. I hear if you get a bunch of morning glory seeds and soak them in lighter fluid… [inaudible]


TM;: Yeah that sounds right. Pet Ether is a good one. So is Chloroform. Have any of you read The Road to Eleusis. That’s about the Eleusinian Mysteries, and argues, its by Wasson and Hoffman and Ruck, and argues that the mystery at Eleusis was a kind of ergotized beer. That they were gathering ergot off Paspalum and making an ergotized beer, and the only way they could’ve done that for 2000 years, stoning thousands of people each September at this cult site, without the thing getting a reputation for being toxic or causing convulsions, unless they had some way that was very efficient, of separating the toxic alkaloids from the hallucinogenic ones. So, that may have been a water fractionation technique, as well. Or, you know, the whole theory may be wrong, and whatever was drunk at Eleusis may not have been ergotized beer. It could have been a mushroom of some sort. This is what Robert Graves thought, that it was a mushroom.

Audience Q: [inaudible]

TM;: The Road to Eleusis. Probably not, because Wasson is now dead and the estate is kind of funny about that kind of thing.

Audience Q; Two Questions. One is can you talk more of the emetic of morning glory and how to get rid of it.


TM: The emetic is Estracutarone. If you’re not a chemist and used to dealing with high molecular weight solvents that you should do some kind of water, you know, dissolve it in water and then try and separate out the fractions. This would be, i mean, a lot of work needs to be done. I think in the underground there are publications being circulated that are, you know, the Wizard’s Workbook for mushroom , er i mean, morning glory reclaimation and stuff like this. Its that, you pay your dues with morning glories, but it’s usually worth the price of admission. I mean, it’s only nausea, for crying out loud. Yeah

Audience Q: You were talking about different hallucinogens and were telling, i got the impression that you vocation is that somehow consciousness creates the reality that’s out there depending on how consciousness is used with different hallucinogens. Is that…

TM; … Yeah, i think so. That we leave our fingerprints on the drugs that we take, and that drugs that have been taken for thousands of years have a lot of fingerprints on them.

Transcribed by Chris Galbraith

TM: (07:18:00)..into the field, you know. One way of thinking, since someone talked of Sheldrake earlier, one way of thinking about psychedelics and trying to define what do they do, is that they are amplifiers of the morphogenetic field. That, you know, that the past of objects somehow becomes present. Em, this would fit it in with my notion that when you take a psychedelic you are rising into some kind of superspace, (07:18:30) that can be mathematically described. Because having the past be co-present with the present is a way of saying that you will shift your dimensional relationship to the datafield, and now it appears to be one coherent thing. Yeah?


Audience: Um, what is the plant that grows in the South West that has harmeline in it?

TM: Pegamum Harmala, the girant syrian rue. Its original (07:19:00) range is from Marocco to Manchuria, but at some time in the nineteenth century it was brought into this country as a range fodder for, for goats. I mean its pretty rasky plant. Em..

Audience: INAUDIBLE

TM: It,s uh, it has small yellow flowers, and it´s a kind of, it has succulent leaves, sort of waterholding leaves, and it looks like a form of sage brush, and when you cut into it (07:19:30) with a knife or a machete it´s brilliant yellow inside. And that brilliant yellow is the harmine.

Audience: INAUDIBLE

TM: Pound it up with a sledgehammer to separate the fibers and do a hot water wash on it, and then, you know, do a second hot water wash, then get rid of the physical stuff. Combine the two mother liquors and drive it (07:20:00) down to a reasonable volume. And it´ll do the trick. Yeah.

Audience: You´re probably familiar with ..INAUDIBLE

TM: JohnAllegro and Andrija Puharich, yeah,

Audience: What´s your assessment of... inaudible


Audience: What´s your assessment of... inaudible

TM: Well, not to rain on anybody´s parade.. Andrija Puharich is a very mercurial person, is that what we want to say. (07:20:30) Recall that he was the guy who pushed Uri Geller for a long time. And they were forever tromping into the Negev and coming out with blank cassettes that had held the wisdom of the galaxy, but the aliens erased them before they let them return.

(Audience laughing, unrest).


That could happen here.. So that´s Andrija Puharich. Ah.. He´s been around for a long time, so you have to, these people are such eccentrics, I mean you have to (07:21:00) just respect people´s persistence and survival power. (Audience laughter) Eh, but I think you know his scholarship, and his notions, the rules of evidence is fairly divergent from even from my fairly loose cannon. (LAUGHS) So, Allegro is a little different case. You all know the book ´The sacred mushroom and the cross´? He managed to hypothesize one of the most radical (07:21:30) theories ever to come down the pipe. I don´t know how true it is, but his theory is that Jesus was a mushroom. (Audience laughs) Ha, ha.. And you know this would not probably have cut too much mustard except that the guy was a dead sea scroll scholar of world renown, ah, had a scholars grasp of Arameic and


ah, had a scholars grasp of Arameic and Akkadian, and was fully licenced (07:22:00) to be one of the people who tell us what the primary documents of Christianity really mean. The problem was, when Allegro got a hold of them, he said, well, what they really mean is that a sacramental mushroom was gr.., being grown in caves by navateans (?) down the Ram Qumram and they called it Jesus, in order to befuddle the Roman authorities and created (07:22:30) the cheerful fairy of the friendly carpenter who tells us to render unto Cesar that which is Cesar´s, and this was all a publicity stunt just to keep, uh, the Roman authorities guessing. And he has textual, he claims he has textual support for this. The problem is,you have to be an Arameic philologist to follow the argument, and I mean, the argument is unbelievably tortured. (07:23:00) There is a lot of question.., there is a


There is a lot of question.., there is a peculiar opaqueness about the early history of Christianity. I mean, if we are to try and take it seriously and understand what happened there, then it must be, that, first of all, if we believe that Christ was a real person, then he must have been born in 6 B.C. Because there was a conjunctial maxima of Jupiter and Saturn at that time, which is a good astrological (07:23:30) event to hang the nativity on. Which means, then, that the crucifiction would have occured in 27. Well, why is it, then, that there are no mentions, no mention of cristh.., of Christ can be pushed back later than, earlier than AD 69. What was going between 27 and 69? The gospels are not contemporaneous, and uh, the mention (07:24:00)


Transcribed by Aina Mumbi

24:00 - 30:00

Women know whose children are who’s because they see the child come out of their body, and they nurse the child. But men do not in that situation have their children. My children. What they have are our children, the tribal group. And uh, this boundary dissolving thing. Let's dwell on this for a moment, because this is central to my arguments, and it has political consequences for our own lives. Um, all primates, clear back down into squirrel monkeys and lemurs. Um, all primates have what are called male dominance hierarchies. Uh, what this means is that most, th the males with the longest claws, the hardest muscles, and the meanest dispositions, take control of everybody else. Uh, women, children, weaker males, uh, everybody comes under the thumb of the alpha males of the pack. This is true, as I said, of squirrel monkeys, howler monkeys, so forth and so on. It is also true of us, sitting here in this room. This is a male dominant society, I mean there's a lot of complaining and hair pulling about it. And there's a political alternative, in the form of, of the women's movement and feminist sensitivities, but for most people, male dominance is the rule. Well I would like to suggest that our peculiarly discomforted relationship to reality is a consequence of the fact that, for a long period of time, perhaps as short as twenty thousand years, perhaps as long as a million years, as a species, and not consciously, we accepted into our diet a drug that had the consequences of suppressing male dominance.


That this was the social consequence of accepting psilocybin into the diet. The ego is a structure that forms in the psyche like a calcareous tumor, or growth, if you do not have regular recourse to the cure. And the cure is, uh, psilocybin and the boundary dissolving sexual and social style which is carried in its wake. So the reason that we as a people are, uh, haunted by the idea of a lost paradise a perfect world sometime in the misty past is not, you know, Mircea Eliade called it, "the nostalgia for paradise" and thought of it , uh, as longing that had no basis. But I think that it's entirely a memory of the period when male dominance was chemically suppressed, ego was chemically suppressed. And by male dominance and ego I don't mean to lay this entirely on men. I would wager probably that everyone in this room has more ego than they need. For example, starting with me, and that's part


For example, starting with me, and that's part of the paradox you're supposed to enjoy.. (audience laughter). You know, the ambiguity of me preaching the loss of ego. (audience laughs). So, essentially, you know, what happened was, chemically, a chemically driven leap in evolution as a consequence of the suppression of these behaviours that savoured male dominance. Uh, as a species, uh, we would have continued with male dominance forever had it not been for psilocybin in the diet. And it established uh, a situation, in which, in less than two million years the human brain size doubled. This is without contest the greatest mystery in the whole of evolutionary theory. Uh, Lumsden, who is an evolutionary biologist, called the doubling of human brain size in the last two million years, uh, the most spectacular transformation of a major organ of a higher animal in the entire fossil record. Well now it would be spectacular enough if it were the


it would be spectacular enough if it were the liver of an otter, or the (both laughter) hha, ha the pancreas of an elephant. But notice it is the organ that created the theory of evolution itself. And all other theories, so that we're getting a little chronological here folks. (background laughter) There's something fishy going on. Uh, what was it that caused this explosive doubling in human brain size. Well I maintain that it was the new behaviors that emerged with the suppression of ego, and their reinforcement of nomadic pastoralism. And that there was a period, let's call it from the melting of the last glaciers in (unintelligible), 6500 BC, there was a period when men and women were in balance with each other. Children and adults were at peace with each other. And human beings and the planet were at peace with each other.


Transcribed by Christy Redden

[07:30:00]

TM: Hans Jonas is a brilliant—his book, “Chri-”, uh ... “Gnosticism: The Message of The Alien God to Infant Christianity”—if that’s not a title to die for ... Ahem. [audience laughter] Huh?

Audience: [inaudible question]

TM: Oh, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the New Testament” by Charles[worth]. Now that's a ... that ahh weighs in at about 35 pounds, but theological libraries shoul-... will have it, but it's in the locked case. You don't want seminarians [07:30:30] mucking around with this kind of stuff ... uhh …

Audience: [inaudible] And by extension, there’s “The Urantia Book” too, which has about 2000 pages on the life of Christ, and covers those years after 30, or I guess after 27 or so …

TM: That's right. “The Uranita Book” is a very spectacular and early example of channeling before it was even named, ahh, and, uhh, very interesting of all the channeled material, “The Urantia Book” for its pure grandiosity puts everybody [07:31:00] else, uhh, to shame, right? [audience laughter]

Audience: They talk about seeding the planet.


Audience: They talk about seeding the planet.

TM: Yeah! Well, these are persistent themes, you know. I mean all of Gnosticism is the perception that we don't belong here. That we are creatures of another realm, Beings of Light, who because of some horrible cosmic mistake have been trapped in the world of matter; and the gnostics take the Pentateuch, [07:31:30] the first five books of ... of Moses, and turn it into a nightmare story, and say that, you know, the god of this world, which in Jewish tradition is called Yahweh, who is creator of the world for the Gnostics, he is not the real god at all. He’s the demiurge. He’s a kind of mad god who has entrapped the light, and the task of salvation [07:32:00] is to gather the light and then release it back to it’s hidden higher source beyond the machinery of Cosmic Fate.

[Sudden silence in recording; audience inaudible]

TM: Well, that—that’s good. That’s, it’s sort of like, you know the “Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣads” — it's my favorite Upanishad, because it’s the shortest. It’s only a page and a half long, which it—uhh, [audience laughter] you know, which it, uhh... you know, others have been so similarly inspired to brevity, [07:32:30] but it’s the Breath of Brahman. It traces - it’s the description of one — eh-uh ... exhalation/inhalation cycle. Yeah?

Audience: I know people who can’t even say it: Yah—Wha-!


Audience: I know people who can’t even say it: Yah—Wha-!

TM: Yeah, wha…!? Well, you’re not even supposed to say it, if you’re Orthodox.

Audience: [light laughter]

TM: G—dash—D. Yeah?

Audience: You said Yahweh. I'm fascinated by the Rastafarian [inaudible, cough] by which the abbreviation of Yah, [07:33:00] or … the same phrase hallelujah is supposed to be that twist that [inaudible] could be [inaudible] your understanding is that [inaudible] Yahweh as a verb?

TM: Well, I don’t know too much about Rastafarianism. It was founded by Marcus Garvey and get - had this notion of return to Africa. Uh, you know, syncretism is always with us. Gnosticism was characterized by syncretism. The whole late Hellenic uhh, religious efflorescence, was largely [07:33:30] syncretic and certainly that's what we have now. I mean, you know, The New Age. You go to these fairs and the people who are talking to the Pleiades have the booth next to the people who are talking to Zubenelgenubi and both have world plans from the Saucerian Allfathers, and the two plans are different and you just phooey, uuh, ugh … you know?

Audience: [laughter]


Audience: [laughter]

Audience: Gnosticism is alive and well in the hallways of academia, I mean. You got guys like Marvin [inaudible: Lins-key] [07:34:00] and Hans [inaudible: Bor-betch] who ran an [inaudible] into his brain and into the computer and you know so he can become pure information. So that’s about the least for which people matter, is for information, then I don’t know what is …


TM: No, I agree. There are two sentiments loose in the world, and you’re going to NOT get through this life without taking sides. You know? Do you believe that our destiny is in another dimension made of light on the other side of the Universe, or do you believe that we should, uhh, you know, clean up the rainforests and save [07:34:30] the planet? You wanna be very careful with your political agenda. One of my sub-interests, which sort of has a relationship to this, but it's oblique, is: asteroidal impacts. I think asteroidal impacts are one of the great undiscussed, uhh, factors in evolution that tie... that every solid body in the solar system is heavily [07:35:00] cratered with impacts by infalling bodies. There's this thing down in Arizona that only happened 50,000 years ago. It was a pissant sized object and everything within 800 miles of the impact point died instantly. It dug a hole half a mile into the ground. It was a nothing-burger. This thing which came down 65 million years ago, they now think on the Yucatán, that it killed everything on the [07:35:30] Earth larger than a chicken — died. You know, I mean, you wanna talk about eco-castrophe, I mean, we have never - you can’t even conceive of what it’s like when something like that happens to a planet. They estimate that the … at the velocity this thing must have been traveling, it was five miles into the planet in the first second and a half. It raised a wall of rock 6,000 feet high that moved outward at Mach 7. [audience laughter] [07:36:00]

Transcribed by Nathan Johansen

[07:36:00]


Transcribed by Nathan Johansen

[07:36:00]

TM: Kay? Eeee! I mean, [clears throat] he-yeah . Ah-ha-hem! [audience laughter] Eh! And the planet rang for a million years, you know, and it was, and but if it hadn’t been for that, there would be no flowering plants, no triumph of the mammals, no Whitney Houston ... no … [laughter]

Audience: No sperm entering the egg.


TM: Well, but … eh, suppose: you know, there’s all this tumult in our psyche about the great change that’s supposed to happen, and where are we supposed [07:36:30] to put our political energies, and what are we supposed to be doing? Well, it would be pretty ironic if we, you know, beat ourselves over the head and saved the rainforest and all this malarkey, and then this something came down and just turned the whole thing into hash; and people would say: “My God! How could we have been so stupid!? We should have been extracting and sequestering U-235 and plutonium. We should have been building starships the size of Montana. [07:37:00] We should have been sparing no effort; and what did we do? We re-planted rainforests!?” And now look, the whole thing … so, you have to [audience laughter], it uhh, you know, good intentions are not sufficient. You have to locate where the threat is coming from and act


to locate where the threat is coming from and act accordingly. There are no points for good intentions in the game of evolution. So mind and .. and we have to decide, you know, what does life want? Is it that life at it’s most [07:37:30] basic level senses the finite, uhh, duration of the star’s life? And so it wants to use this moment of sunshine to build something that could carry us out into the mainstream of the galaxy to the denser star-fields? Or, no!? Is that some kind of Titanic-Apollonian Male-Dominated Techno-Fascist Materialist-Trip, [audience laughter] and what we need to do is cultivate [07:38:00] gentleness, and attention to the bugs, and the grasses, and the water? I don’t have an answer to that. I think it’s a real dilemma. I think people who think they do have answers haven’t really connected with how ambiguous the situation really is.


Audience: How can you do both?

TM: How can you do both?

Audience: What says The Mushroom? Well, no. I mean, some people can use [cough; inaudible].

TM: Well, what the mushroom says is it’s .. it’s a total “Apocalyptarian” [07:38:30]. I mean, it says: “Rouse your camels, pack your tents, we’re moving out! This has been fine for a while, but ahead lie worlds of unimaginable challenge at great distance.” But, of course, the—the mushroom sounds like a Techno-Fascist Hortatory Male-Dominator, uhh, when it talks like that. You take Ayahuasca and it says: “Clean up the rivers. Care for the children. [07:39:00] Replant the forest.” Well, wha’ …? (sigh).

Audience: But then you have to live with the mushroom possibly being the Universal Traveller that it is, it has that Urge. It’s got the Wanderlust. So it’s of course it’s going to be [inaudible; “cosmic”?]. [laughter]

TM: That’s right. It has nomadic ethics, so it pushes nomadic solutions. Where the Ayahuasca, an enormous jungle plant—a flowering plant, a creature born out of the last catastrophe, just like we are—has a different, uhh, agenda. No, the demons are of many kinds [07:39:30]. “Some are made of ions, some of mind / The ones of DMT, you’ll find / Stutter often, and are blind.” Means, you know: just because somebody, uhh, ehh, just because [light laughter] somebody once said of channeling: “Just because somebody’s dead doesn’t mean they’re smart.” [raucous audience laughter]


TM: So, [laughter] it could be, you know? [laughter] Everybody’s got their own, uhh, agenda. Well, why don’t we break ... yeah? [07:40:00] Or question? Last question.

Audience: Speaking of the [inaudible; “cosmological expanse”?], are you aware of the present Miles’ work?

TM: Uhh, on the steady-state or something?

Audience: On virus’ [inaudible; “spreadability”?].

TM: Oh, yeah, uh-hm: The Panspermia Theory.

Audience: Yeah, and … and, and again that argues strongly for the fact that even [inaudible] may have come out of space, and probably only other than an impressive array of statistics, uhh, [inaudible] that lent cometary presence [07:40:30] in near-orbit to viral disease.


TM: Yeah, well I think that the next revolution in biology is so obvious that you can be totally radical and completely confident you’re on safe ground and say the next great revolution in biology is the realization that space is not a barrier to life, and that, eh, technology is only one method for traversing [07:41:00] between the stars. If in fact planets are regularly pulverized by cosmic catastrophes, then they must be like bursting seedpods and, uhh, everything is subjected to a tremendous evolutionary hammering; but spores, viruses, stuff like that. Particulate matter, it just drifts out between the stars and when it finds another suitable environment, uhh, it it [07:41:30] breaks out. We don’t know what the constraints on life are. You know, the Oceans of Europa could harbor life. You know, these hot-vent sulphur-vent organisms that we find, uhh, in the O—in the deep oceans here? They could survive in the Oceans of Europa. If there were hot sulphur vents at the bottom of those oceans, those organisms wouldn’t, uhh, bat an eye.

Audience: [inaudible] Isn’t it ice covered?

TM: Ah, Europa [07:42:00]

Transcribed by Nathan Johansen

Audience: [inaudible] Isn’t it ice covered?


Audience: [inaudible] Isn’t it ice covered?

TM: Ah, Europa [07:42:00] is covered with ice, but underneath the ice is water, and there are — uhh, fractures, uhh — and uhh, you know, the uhh — the exotic chemistries and pressures and temperatures of the Jovian environment could produce life. We don’t know, uhh — what the constraints are. If — if cometary environments are a better place for life to arise than a warm pond on a newly condensed planet, [07:42:30] then all bets are off as to what, you know — planetary surfaces may be unlikely places for life to get going. Uhh, it’s hard to say.

Audience: How sustainable are gaseous creatures on a gaseous planet?

TM: That’s right. We don’t know. You could have — you could have life at temperatures and pressures, uhh, where WE couldn’t exist for a microsecond, uhh, like at the bottom of the Jovian atmosphere — something like that. No, there’s more mystery [07:43:00] than anything else.

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Uhh, the—the (ehh) it’s—okay the notion here is—I’ve always felt that the psychedelic experience should be good for something. It arose—uhh, [audience laughter]—in a very practical sense, and I always felt that there was something that wanted, that you should be able to learn that was very hard to bring out. Ahem [clears throat] and we talked a little bit yesterday [takes sip from drink] about [07:43:30] this strange episode that happened in the Amazon, where instead of an ordinary trip, it was locked in for weeks and weeks, and then people differed as to whether it was a transformative incident or a psychosis, or … what exactly it was, and but, what happened was — uhh, or what I think wants to happen in every psychedelic experience is that there is a totality symbol, you know Jung tried to get his patients to make [07:44:00] mandalas because he says they were totality symbols. Well, eventually the totality symbol is more than a symbol— it actually becomes a true map of the totality and I—what this boils down to is a kind of very strange revelation about the nature of the I-Ching that takes very seriously the idea that the I-Ching is a tool for studying time, but then takes the idea much further. It’s hard to give this lecture, it’s hard to listen to this lecture, because the learning curve is steep, and you just have to stick with it for awhile and then there will be pay dirt, but it’s — uhh, you have to umm, bear with me — and I had to bear with the entity which was revealing this stuff to me, because it took the form of [07:45:00] … a, uhh … Are you all familiar with the idea of a Kōan?


Audience: [a soft murmur, but mostly silence]

TM: This is something that your Guru — a little saying or something — that your Guru gives you that if you can figure it out then you move on to the next stage. Well, so the Koan (sips from drink) that I was presented with had to do with the I-Ching, which I was not that passionately fascinated by—I was just sort of mildly interested in it, [07:45:30] like a lot of other freaks, and I was not at all mathematically inclined, I mean, that I am the author of a theory of pure mathematics is as astonishing to me as it is to anybody else, I’m sure.


TM: Basically, as you know but let me review it, the I-Ching is a Chinese System of Divination that uses 64 structures called hexagrams, and hexagrams are made of broken [07:46:00] and unbroken lines stacked one above another, and they are uhh, the sum set—sum total—of the possible set of such structures is 64. And it’s been remarked by a number of people that the I-Ching has peculiar structural affinities with the DNA, but nobody has ever really known what to make of that. Well, this dialogue with this mushroom entity, uhh, began by [07:46:30] posing a very simple question, which is—as, you know, most of you—the I-Ching hexagrams occur in a sequence which is called the King Wen sequence, which is very old. In fact, portions of the King Wen sequence are scratched on shoulder scapula, umm, that are 35,000 years old. It’s possible to argue that the King Wen sequence of the I-Ching is the oldest abstract sequence, uhh, [07:47:00] ehh, in the world. The question is, or what the Koan was, was: Is the King Wen sequence a Sequence or is it simply a jumble of hexagrams that over time has become traditionally sanctioned as The Sequence? In other words, if it’s a sequence, you should be able to write the rules that generate that hex—that sequence— and no other. [07:47:30] So umm, lemme dig into this here … the first hexagram … can you see this colored chalk? We have two other choices: we have a orange and blue. Here, we’ll do a visual test ... Ooo... Eww. (multiple utterances indicating distaste) Is this the stuff?

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Okay. Why is this so “half-acid” (ordinarily: half-assed) as they say ... [laughter]. Uhh.

[07:48:00]

Transcribed by Nathan Johansen

[07:48:00]

TM: So, here’s the first hexagram. It’s called the Creative. And it’s made of six lines. This is no news to anybody, I hope. Here’s the second hexagram. It’s called the Receptive.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: The yellow? Kay, lemme do these this way and then I’ll switch ... [07:48:30]

TM: So, when I started looking at this question of, uhh, of the order in the I-Ching, umm, the first thing I saw — it only took me about ten minutes, of just looking at it — and I noticed, and I’m not the first person to have noticed this — that it isn’t 64 hexagrams, it’s 32 pairs [07:49:00] of hexagrams, and the second member of each pair is formed by turning the first member upside down.

TM: Do you see? So—so that only took ten minutes; that was no—no problem.

TM: Now, there are eight cases in the I-Ching where inverting the first hexagram causes no change because of the nature of its structure. Uh, you meet the first case here. Obviously if you turn this thing upside down, [07:49:30] it’s still six unbroken lines. So, in the eight cases where inverting a hexagram causes no change, a second rule is generated.


TM: The second rule is: if inverting the first hexagram causes no change, then all lines change. Very straight forward, right? But now, umm, the problem—the Koan—has changed. And the question is: What are the ordering—what rules order the 32 pairs? [07:50:00] And this was much trickier. Much trickier. And after awhile the prompting voice said: “Look at the first order of difference.” This is just a fancy way of saying: count how many lines change as you go from one hexagram to another. It—ehh—if you go from this hexagram to this hexagram, how many lines change?

Audience: Six.

TM: Six. So, the first order of difference is six, between [07:50:30] these two hexagrams. Similarly, we can go from two to three and there will be another first order of difference.

TM: Now, logic should tell you that the values of the first order of difference are going to be whole numbers One through Six, right? What I did was I went through the I-Ching and actually checked on these, and I discovered that again—immediately, what jumped out, uhh, at me—was there were no Fives. So we wrote [07:51:00] computer programs to randomly arrange hexagrams and check for Fives. Now, we discovered Fives are as common as any other number. The exclusion of Fives in the King Wen sequence was a human decision.


TM: Someone didn’t want Fives to show up in the first order of difference. Okay… so then I, uhh, looked at these values, and what I discovered was: When you … inside the pairs—when you [07:51:30] invert one to get the other—the first order of difference is always an even number. So within the pairs you have no freedom, it’s going to be an even number. Between the pairs, you can arrange them so that you get odd numbers or even numbers.

TM: Now what I discovered was, between the pairs, half are odd and half are even. Again, human agency did this. We wrote computer programs [07:52:00] to randomly throw hexagram sequences and test for this quality, and we found that—uhh, only one in every 7,500 times could you expect to get a sequence which would be, uhh: 25% odd, 75% even; which is what this enforces. So, I was very excited by this, because I said: “Wow! There’s all this hidden stuff in the I-Ching [07:52:30] but I’ve never once … why is this thing not ... [inaudible; interrupted by something irritating needing adjusting] Umm, [inaudible] inching up on me …

Audience: [inaudible] … There may be one on the the other side of you.

TM: This thing?

Audience: Yeah, right on the other side of you.

TM: Okay. [continues to adjust something on the TimeWave graph]


TM: Okay. [continues to adjust something on the TimeWave graph]

TM: So, I thought, how weird that all this structure is in there … and I’d read all of Wilhelm’s Commentaries, and Lama Govinda, and these people, and uhh, it didn’t seem that they had noticed this kind of stuff. So I was very excited. I thought that I was really on to something, and I made a graph of the [07:53:00] first order of difference and it looked something like this. Of course it has [counting deliberately, slowly]: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six ... on this axis ...

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Blue?

TM: And [counting deliberately, slowly]: One, Two, Three, Four ... to 64, this way ... because there are 64 hexagrams. And then I drew the first order of difference. Now, notice ... remember this was Six, so ... [07:53:30] up here we put a point, and the next one is something else ... and the next one is something else, and then we connect the points. And what you get is a structure which looks ... like this. Roughly.

TM: In other words, it looks stochastic, it looks random. [07:54:00]

Transcribed by Nathan Johansen


TM: [7:54:00]...it doesn't look like you're on the track of any kind of order here, except that, i noticed a really funny thing, about this. What i noticed was, that this section and this section, are mirror images of each other. So imagine for a moment that you have a copy of this, right here. What you're then able to do, is rotate the copy a 180 degrees within the plane [7:54:30] and you'll discover that it fits perfectly in here. It dovetails at the beginning and at the end but nowhere in between. This is, this is again a product of human decision. Someone made it, so that it would do this and the question is why? Why would anyone want to do that and when it works you have hexagram 1, across from hexagram 63 [7:55:00] and hexagram 2, across from 62, 62... In other words, these always sum to 64, when it's in the right position. So i just thought that i was uncovering some kind


So i just thought that i was uncovering some kind of, like (ahh), you know, the equivalent of Chinese kabbalism some kind of lost intellectual system and (ahh), and, but the voice said to me, it said, this is a picture of time [7:55:30] and i couldn't understand what exactly was meant by that, it seemed to me a fairly esoteric thing to assert that it was a picture of time. Now remember they're 64 hexagrams in the I Ching and they have six lines each. 6 x 64 is 384. When it told me that this was a picture of time, i began to entertain the idea that this was, [7:56:00] somehow could be used as a calendar. So then i said, well what it is, is it the whole I Ching running one way and the whole I Ching running backwards the other way combined into this peculiar structure, which has 384 data points in it, which are the lines or so called yáo of the I Ching.


lines or so called yáo of the I Ching. Now 384 is 19 days longer than the solar year length, so if you have a calendar [7:56:30] of 384 days it would precess against (ahh), the equinoxes 19 days every year. So it doesn't seem a good candidate for a calendar if you're trying to keep solar dynamics central. But i discovered something weird about (ahh) this number, 384 days, now think of it as days and that is that, peculiar things happen when [7:57:00] you multiply this number by a numbers that are inherent to the structure of the I Ching. When you might, when you multiply this number by 64, you get a day number which when you break it down into years is 67 years 104.25 days. Now what's interesting about that number is that, it-it is 6 sunspot cycles of 11 plus years. [7:57:30] There's also a major sunspot cycle of 33 years so it meant each line, in a super hexagram made by


meant each line, in a super hexagram made by multiplying this number will be associated with one sunspot cycle and the trigrams inside the hexagram will be associated with the major sunspot cycle. When you take 67 years 104.25 days, again by 64, you get [7:58:00] 4306 years, plus some days. This number, is very close to twice the amount of time that it takes for (ahh), a Zodiacal Era such as the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius they, last roughly this long. Well if you take this number by (ahh) 6, not 64 but 6, [7:58:30] which is a legitimate, number because it's built into the I Ching, you get (ahh), 25 thousand years roughly. This is the precession of the great year or the equinoctial year as it's called. So i thought, wow this is really far out! It's some kind of a, (ahh), multi-level resonance calendar... Oh and i forgot to say about 384 days, this


Oh and i forgot to say about 384 days, this was central excuse me. (ahh) That this is 13 [8:59:00] lunations. A lunation is 25, is 29. something days and when you multiply that number by 13 you get 383.89. So i said, ah ah! What this thing is, is that keeps track of the moon on this level, it keeps track of the sunspots on this level and it keep track of the great year of the zodiac on this level. All naked eye astronomical phenomenon not hypothesizing [7:59:30] any advanced technology but hypothesizing an advanced (ahh), (ahh), intellectual, point of view. Well, [drinks water] so i thought i was finished and that somehow it wanted to tell me about a Neolithic Calendar in ancient China for some reason, but there was more. [drinks water] Popeye had spinach, i have this. [audience laughs] The prompting voice...[8:00:00]


Transcribed by Tiago Ramos


[08:00:00] The prompting voice said “this structure which you have created” by the way some of you who are scholars of the I Ching remember in the uhm second half of the Wilhelm and Baynes translation there are whole bunch of VERY ancient sayings that nobody knows what they’re talking about they’re so esoteric. And the most MYSTERIOUS of these sayings is the saying which says “the forward running numbers refer to the future. The backward running numbers [08:00:30] refer to the past”. Well in the I Ching there ARE no forward or backward running numbers unless you do something like this and then look what you get: one, two, three, ... 63, 62, 61, 60, 59. You get forward and backward running numbers. So I said “wow.. you know, we’re digging this thing out. The I Ching is NOT enorical [??] as it’s been done at country fairs for three millennia - the I Ching as we possess it is a piece of broken machinery.


we possess it is a piece of broken machinery. [08:01:00] It’s a though you have you know, the main gear out of a machine and you’re trying by.. [pause] archaeological reconstruction to re-build that machine. So.. [pause] I was sort of stuck at this point and the prompting voice turned on and said “this structure which you’ve made which is the entire I Ching running forward and backward against itself - which would place it then at the top of a [08:01:30] um, of the uh hierarchy should be placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. Treat this thing as a single line” it said. And I was calling this at this point the simple wave. It said “treat the simple wave as a.. a line in a hexagram”. Well when you do that, [pause] bear with me folks. Remember I said the learning curve is steep. [08:02:00] However, it’s not long.


Audience: Can I ask for you’re [inaudible]

TMK: Oh yeah.

Audience: Can I get the [inaudible] across the room.

TMK: What.. what color?

Audience: Yeah well uh..

TMK: Yellow?

Audience: [Inaudible]

TMK: Yellow?

Audience: [Inaudible]


TMK: Lemme see.. [pause] Ahh. Ok so if we treat this module as the bottom of a hierarchy then we want to treat it like a line. So what do you do with lines [08:02:30] in I Ching land? You p.. stack six of them on top of each other. So I’m gonna symbolise this thing with an “S”. Ok. So here’s what I did. I made.. I took one of them. And another one. And another one. [sounds of drawing on a surface] and another one. And I said “did I do good?”. [08:03:00] [audience laughs] And it said “Sort of. But a hexagram is more than six lines isn’t it?” And I said “Well what more is it than six lines?” It said “well it’s two tri-grams”. Said “oh.. ok”. So then I went like this.. [sounds of drawing on a surface]. Do you see how I superimposed the thing over the six two-larger ones which were [08:03:30]


six two-larger ones which were [08:03:30] superimposed over three? So then I said “S’alright?”. It said “Yes, except you forgot one thing. A hexagram has an identity as a whole. As a hexagram”. Said “Ok..” [scribbles] “Good?”. It said “Yes. Good. Now, what are you going to DO with it?”. And I’ll show this to you. Uhm.. [scribble] Just so you can get.. [08:04:00] the idea. I don’t know how visible this will be. This is what you get if you do that. And what it looks like is exactly what it looks like, which is a hodge-podge of crazy lines running everywhere on three levels [audience laughs] and uh.. The thing said to me.. It said “this is a map of time”. And I.. went.. I made the mistake of saying to my [08:04:30] friends and acquaintances “this is a map of time!” [audience laughs]. And they said, you know “we’re very


laughs]. And they said, you know “we’re very concerned. Apparently.. [audience giggling] you didn’t get better even though you claimed you got better. And now, you know, you run around, showing this thing to people.. And notice.. It.. oh it ha.. Everything is in closure up here, and then everything attains closure down here. And then there’s sub-closures. Six [08:05:00] on one level, two on another, and the final on this line. And FINALLY my friend Ralph Abraham took pitty on me and he said “the problem with this thing.. is.. That it cannot coat [??] dogma. Nobody can understand this thing.. except you. You are necessary for its interpretation”. [audience laughs] And I said “So what am I.. what do I do?”. And he said “you must LEARN how to change this into a more orthodox mathematical object that.. That math.. Mathematicians can then discuss with you”. And I was completely stuck. And I s.. sat with it for.. two


And I s.. sat with it for.. two years. I.. cause it just seemed.. I.. I am not a mathematician. I had NO clue as to how to do that. And finally one afternoon.. Uh.. the pot was good enough, or the stars moved into position or something.


[08:06:00] (end of this transcription segment)

Transcribed by Nick Whiu

TM: [8:06:00]...and in a single instant i saw how to carry out the mathematical reduction of this wave and i did it.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Oh, on this?

Audience: Yeah, it looked that way from here.

TM: Oh well if you look at it closely you'll see that because of a, are at different scales it isn't that, one side is egla-exactly like the other side. Yeah, there are dissimilarities. [8:06:30] So i finally, figured out how to, mathematize and conserve all the qualities of that wave and i put it into an ordinary cartesian object, which i doubt you can see but you don't really have to see it anyway. All this is, see what that is? It's just a one, it's an ordinary graph of some sort.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Ah?

Audience: Is that the sum of...[inaudible]?

TM: It's the sum of certain qualities. There was skew, [8:07:00] parallelism, angle of approach, crossover. There were about five things that i felt were important and i figured out how to mathematize them all, so that this, which is an or-ordinary cartesian graph, is in fact a topological equivalent of Maya cult diagram and... Yeah?

Audience: Each one of those points is a summation of these factors?


Audience: Each one of those points is a summation of these factors?

TM: Yeah right, uh uh. So, then (ahh), [8:07:30] and then i started saying to people, this is a map of time. [audience laughs] And they said, is it? [Terence laughs] Well, where are we? [Terence laughs] And i said, well (ahh), hum, (ahh), we, (ahh), hum... In order to know where we are we would have to know where the endpoint is. If you have a wave you have a wavelength so, we have to find the endpoint. So then i began collecting historical data, and fitting [8:08:00] curves,

to it, trying to define the endpoint. Now, remember yesterday at the close of the day or in the afternoon we got off on what appeared to some people to be, attention about novelty and science and time and whether, it was (ahh), whether it-it should be viewed as a flat plane or a fractal or something like that? Well, what the thing was telling me was, that novelty, is (ahh), something [8:08:30] which can be charted in time and that these waves were actually pictures of (ahh), of (ahh), the ebb and flow of novelty. That this wasn't charting stock prices or population rise or average temperatures, it was charting the ebb and flow of novelty through time and that… Como?

Audience: Novelty is...[inaudible]?


Audience: Novelty is...[inaudible]?

TM: Novelty is (ahh), [8:09:00] a density of connection, as opposed you know, complexity can be quantified then you say complexity ebbs and flows. Mean if we have a device which measured complexity and we measured this point right here, as opposed to this point an inch behind my finger, i'm hoping it would tell us that an inch behind my finger is a more complex environment than this point right here. [8:09:30] So space and time, is then, seem to be a medium with a density (ahh), comp-densification of complexity embedded in it like raisins or something. Yeah?

Audience: Looking at your...[inaudible]...creation in that graph. In other words, how do you establish origin and the endpoint when looking at that graph?

TM: Well, until you scale it against time, you don't have to, i mean i think…

Audience: [inaudible]...[8:10:00]

TM: Well i think what you're, i think if i understand your question right. Remember how i said that over here it was at closure? It goes like this. And that's both lines, they're running, that's both sides of the graph they're perfectly superimposed over each other. At this point they ceased to be superimposed. One goes that way and one goes that way and then you start getting this kind of stuff and then when you come down to the end [8:10:30] they fall into closure again.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Yes it's a thing of say... exactly you got it. Okay.

Audience: What would be the beginning of time? Is that some...[inaudible]...Garden of Eden...[inaudible]?


TM: Well (ahh), to this point we haven't discussed this thing scaled against calendrical time we just kind of look at it as a mathematical object. Then what i realized was, if these are part, if-if [8:11:00] this thing has 384 points in it, and this has, six. Then the, what the thing was telling me was, you have to map the, you have to map the way back over itself. So you take all 384 points and you cram them into this space wandering up this hill, then you go to this space and you cram all [8:11:30] 384 points in here and you create a fractal infinite regress. Do you understand? [audience laughs] Say you understand. [Terence and audience laughs] You will understand. Okay so then that was the time, that was the time map. It was saying novelty can be described by an infinite fractal regress that is contained in the I Ching. Now, the main objection that i was meeting from people who wanted to lock me up was, they were saying...[8:12:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos


TM: [8:12:00]...was, they were saying, now let's get this straight. You want to revise modern physics, based on a pattern which you found in an ancient Chinese book of divination is that correct? [audience laughs] And i-i could feel the force of that criticism but that's how i think, you know, where somebody from some nut piece of data then wants to build castles in the air and so (ahh) i created a metaphor [8:12:30] which is satisfying to me i hope it's satisfying to somebody else, trying to explain why we should seek a law of physics, inside the structure of (ahh) the I Ching. [drinks water] And here's the metaphor, think of sand dunes. Picture them in your mind, since this is the New Age you may even close your eyes if it helps. Picture sand dunes. Now, [8:13:00] notice, that sand dunes, look, like wind. Sand dunes look like wind, and sand dunes are made,


look like wind, and sand dunes are made, by wind. So now let's analyze the situation, let's think of wind as input and let's think of sand grains as bits inside a computer. So when the wind blows the program [8:13:30] runs and the bits rearrange themselves and they arrange themselves into a lower dimensional slice of wind. Essentially wind, which his a pressure variant phenomenon variable in time, turns into a pictorial phenomenon variant across the pictorial surface. You see how that works? Well, now...[drinks water] [8:14:00] Sand dunes created by wind, bear the impression of wind. (ahh), lines of foam and beach detritus deposited by the incoming tide, bear the form of waves. So what it was telling me was, it was telling me that, things formed in time bear the impression of the forces which created them. And i said, well then what is the equivalent of sand dunes or waves of beach detritus


of sand dunes or waves of beach detritus [8:14:30] in the real world? And it said, human beings! Genes, not grains of sand. Genes are moved by time and we as hyper dimensional objects, we human beings and other animals, we bear the impression of the forces that created us and if novelty truly does Adam flow, the way wind speed ebbs and flows over a landscape, than the creatures [8:15:00] that have arisen in time will bear the imprint of this ebb and flow and i believe that what was going on with the people who created the I Ching, was that they (ahh), were practicing some kind of yoga or some kind of psychedelic + yoga thing and they were, (ahh) stilling their micro physical functions and they were descending deep into organism, and there they [8:15:30] were seeing the ebb and flow of variables of some sort, and they watched... Who knows how long? Centuries maybe. And they said, you now,


long? Centuries maybe. And they said, you now, in the organism there is the ebb and flow of variables


and then they ask questions like, how many variables are there are there an infinite number? And they began to create notation system for these variables and finally they came to the conclusion, no, there are not an infinite number [8:16:00] there are 64 of these temporal variables. And think of them as elements, in the same way that the entire world of physical manifestation can be created out of a 104 physical elements, the entire world of temporal manifestation can be created out of 64 elements and so the way i think of reality having survived this experience, is, [8:16:30] you have hexagrams moving on many levels. Let's say you have a hexagram which rules this 10 thousand year period. For 10 thousand years this hexagram will rule and then on the next level the hexagrams are changing every, 100 years, and then on the next level every 10 minutes, and on the next level every 15 seconds. Wha-what any point in The Matrix called now, is, is the perspective [8:17:00] you have when you look through the moving film of these temporal elements moving on many many levels you see, They're, they're, they create and unique juxtaposition with each other in every single moment and that is (ahh), what the unique felt presence of-of (ahh), immediate reality is all about. Well, i, by this time... Yeah question? [8:17:30] No…

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: What?


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: What?

Audience: That, that position where, where they all come together...[inaudible]...I look at that, always look at this symbol, the I Ching symbol as the guiding symbol of this plane and reality...[inaudible]...So your thoughts about the exact...[inaudible]...time and body time. Is that true? [8:18:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

Audience : […] [8:18:00] membrane that is between time and [non-time? God-time? ..inaudible], but is that true?

Terence : Yeah, pretty much. I mean... You know… Plato said “Time is the moving image of eternity.”

Audience : It’s a wavefront.


Audience : It’s a wavefront.

Terence : It’s a wavefront, and it’s an interference pattern. Yes, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a, uh a kind of hologram, uh.. and a set of resonances and interference patterns that are created when these waves moving at many levels expression, superimpose and collide with each other. [8:18:30] And through the use of small computers, we can explore various places within the wave, and we can position it against time. Because what it’s saying is that novelty comes and goes. You know.. Yesterday was wonderful, tomorrow could be dogshit. Same for last year and next year. Uh.. Time undergoes changes, on many scales. [8:19:00] I mean from moment to moment if you watch your mind... You’re going up, you’re going down, and then on the daily scale up, down, yearly scale up, down, and then on all scales there is ebb and flow of novelty. And all these scales can be mathematically collapsed into one wave and then with a computer you can not only predict the future, which is fairly trivial because who can gainsay it, but you can also predict the past! [8:19:30] Which is very tricky. Because most people have a good deal more information about the past than they do about the future. Ya..

Audience : [8:19:40] [hardly audible comments or questions] larger scale… going up.. .


Terence : That’s right… That’s right.. Well no, you’ve got the whole concept correct except you don’t need [8:20:00] an infinite number because look what happens… If you start with 384 days and you start multiplying upward by 64, remember I said the first one was 67 years, we only have to carry out about six of these till you have 72 billion years, more time than is necessary for the universe to have burst itself and reached its present state. Similarly, if you start dividing… uh, you only have to divide [8:20:30] 11 times to reach the realm of Planck’s constant (6.55 X 10^-23 Earth seconds), in technical parlance known as a jiffy. Beyond the jiffy, there is no need to continue the divisions because the jiffy defines the grain of the canvas on which reality is projected. So what we have are, uh, you know, uh, a cosmology of roughly 22 levels [8:21:00] at the highest level it’s 72 billion years, at the lowest level it’s in the realm of Planck’s constant, and we are somewhere suspended in-between, and these things are coming and going on every level. Yeah..

Audience : [inaudible] .. the way that you arrived at this conclusion.. to say the least… however, it seems to me that you’ll be able to use this model to see some difference in the way [inaudible] compared to the Third Reich. [8:21:30]

Terence : Absolutely!

Audience : [inaudible]

Terence: Yes, I’m hurrying us toward the more fun part of this and I think that we’ll do it now. What we’re gonna do now is look at the wave placed against history, with my end date, December 22

nd


nd

2012, although the machine will accept any end date. And the idea that you should be asking yourself is.. you know, “this clown [8:22:00] claims that this thing describes the ebb and flow of novelty, but does it in fact fit my intuition of the ebb and flow of novelty?” Now, here’s the good news: the next part of the lecture does not depend on anything that’s been said in the first part. Uh.. you don’t have to understand anything I said in the last half hour to appreciate the neatness of the next level. Lucky for us, eh? [laughs in the audience]

Audience: [inaudible] [8:22:30]

Terence: Mmm. That’s fine i think. So now… Because you know some people aren’t interested in this.. You tell them you can predict the future and they say “well, predict it!”. And then you predict it correctly, and then they say “Great!”. It never enters their mind to ask “How did you predict it?” which is what I, out of obligation to intellectual fairness, feel that I should expose you to.

Now, let’s look at the wave. [8:23:00] Eum..

Now, let me explain the rules of the game here. There are six billion years currently on screen. Today is over here, at 98.8 percent. This is the last 6 billion years. And, let me explain to you how you interpret the wave. And if you want to take a moment and rearrange yourselves, [8:23:30] the rest of it is gonna be fairly close focus on this thing, so don’t be shy, and don’t make yourself uncomfortable.

Audience: [two people talking, inaudible questions about the end date]


Audience: [two people talking, inaudible questions about the end date]

Terence: Ah, the end date! Uh.. It.. I got it by fitting historical data to the wave and seeing.. I had certain intuitions.. I mean, for instance, I said “Well, if I have a wave which describes historical novelty, by God it better do well on the Italian Renaissance, it should do well [8:24:00] on the 20

th

century, and it should do well on the Golden Age of Greece. If a wave of novelty incorrectly predicts those episodes, it’s a pretty worthless theory of novelty. Once I had chosen an end date, and I chose December 22

nd

2012, I got a lot of support for that by realizing that the Mayan calendar chose the same end date. [8:24:27]

Transcribed by Giovanni Colombo


Transcribed by Giovanni Colombo

TM: [8:24:00]...it should do well on the 20th century and it should do well on the Golden Age of Greece. If a theory of novelty incorrectly predicts those episodes, it's a pretty worthless theory of novelty. Once i had chosen an end date and i chose December 22nd 2012 i got a lot of support for that by realizing that the Mayan calendar chose the same end date. Now the only thing i have in common with the ancient [8:24:30] Maya, is that we both take psychedelic mushrooms. Now is it conceivable that there is a message in the mushroom, as specific, as no matter where in space and time you are and you take these mushrooms it says, December 22nd 2012 AD. It appears so because the Mayans, their civilization rose and fell with a very interesting part of their own cale-(ahh) calendrical machinery. [8:25:00] They predicted the end of the world a thousand years after their own eclipse and they predicted the birth of their cal-they set the birth of their calendar a thousand years preceding the emergence of their civilization. Yeah.

Audience: (ahh) So, now this is 2012…

TM: Huh, huh.

Audience: Is this what the Mayans have as a completion of a large cycle or is it what they are believe it is, the completion of all their cycles?


TM: It depends on, on who you talk to. (ahh) [8:25:30] The Mayan calendar is built up of nested cycles some twenty years in length, some two forty and there are 13 baktuns. Which i think a baktun is 396 years in duration and most Mayanists believe, that, that a set of 13 baktuns, is the complete calendrical set. There's a minority of Mayanists who want to argue that there are greater cycles than that. [8:26:00] (ahh) In any case baktun 13 will come to an end December 22nd 2012, so (ahh), you know, it's good enough for me. [audience laughs]

Audience: Could you say just a little bit more about the, property of novelty, is, is it synonymous with complexity?

TM: Well (ahh), you know, if, since this is a push-pull theory and we have novelty versus something, the opposite of novelty is habit. [8:26:30] Rupert insisted on that. I was calling it entropy and, conservatism and recidivism and he said no no. It's a war between habit and novelty. Habit means a reversion to a traditional and already established pattern. Novelty means a breaking out into a previous domain, untested domain of new connections and (ahh), and new possibilities.

Audience: [8:27:00] [inaudible]

TM: You mean as in...(ahh)?

Audience: Something...[inaudible]...surprising you?

TM: Yes. The unexpected is built into it because when you come around some of these curves there are unexpected things going on.

Audience: What about the chaos order boundary, sounds like that a lot?


Audience: What about the chaos order boundary, sounds like that a lot?

TM: Yeah, well you can think of it that way. I haven't completely, resolved how novelty should be defined because if you know anything about Information Theory you know that they had a hell of a time getting a definition of complexity [8:27:30] together over there. They also were interested in mathematical definitions of complexity but they haven't made too much progress.

[This concludes tape 6, our program continues with tape 7. Our program continues with tape 7]

TM: Let me explain to you how to read the graph. Because it's the exact opposite psychologically of a, stock market graph. I think when you [8:28:00] look at a stock market most of us want it to go up, not down. In this game we want it to go down. The, nov-, the higher states of novelty occur as you approach zero. So this is the most novel point on the screen, this is the most, habit impacted moment on the screen and what you see is habit and novelty are at war with each other. (ahh) Now here's how i [8:28:30] interpret this particular screen and it is a basis for interpreting all the rest. This is a turning point, after a long period of habit, consolidation and recidivism, whatever that means at 4.7 billion years ago. (ahh) Something very novel happened along this descent. I maintain that it's actually the stabilization of the surface of the Earth itself.


That what we're seeing here, [8:29:00] is the Earth changing into a stable planetary body and then (ahh), the earliest forms of life, the Proto life, appears right here and undergoes a series then of fluctuations then (ahh), there is some kind of a problem, some impediment to what would otherwise be, the rather straight shot toward novelty by this (ahh), [8:29:30] spike here. Well, evolutionary biologists say that in the early history of the Earth there was a crisis having to do with the production of oxygen as a waste gas. Life arose in a non-reducing atmosphere. The first, pollution crisis in the history of the Earth was pollution by oxygen and organisms had to develop complex membranes and mechanisms for dealing with this and that's what happened along here...[8:30:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [8:30:00]... and that's what happened along here. And (ahh), once that was achieved then the pace of novelty quickened and the descent continued and we, our entire civilization, in fact, you know, the last bill-million years as a matter of fact, is lost down here in this decastic fluctuation near the zero point. In other words, relative to these places in the wave, we're so near the maximum of novelty [8:30:30] that it's practically punching in through the walls and in fact human civilization (ahh) correctly mirrors that. I mean, for you would expect to find a civilization on this graph, it's somewhere down in here. Well now if everything is working right...

Audience: [inaudible]...98.8%.

TM: 90 let's, yeah, 98.8% if the...

Audience: The target date of today.


Audience: The target date of today.

TM: The target date of today. Now what I'm going to do if there's a zoom function here [8:31:00] and we're gonna start flying towards the present and every time a screen changes we're gonna see half as much time on the screen. We have six billion years up, we'll go to three, then one and a half, then .7 time and so forth. This seems to be an excellent computer with a fast chip so...

Audience: [inaudible]...the right hand on the screen.

TM: Yeah, yeah, yeah, and [8:31:30] we're gonna get greater and greater detail and, your attitude towards this should be, i'm asserting that this is true, you have a notion of where the high points in the evolutionary human history have occurred. You should be asking yourself whether this fits your intuition. Now obviously (ahh) it's pretty vague stuff when we're looking at 6 billion years but on the other hand, we can take this thing down [8:32:00] to three days if necessary and (ahh) we know where the great changes have come in the last thousand years it's not that ambiguous. So let's (ahh) test the zoom function...[silence]...zoom it asks me, yes i reply. Seek minimum it asks me, no i reply. Approach factor it asks me, and i'm going to tell it two, in order to have the screen each time it would accept any number but two [8:32:30] seems rational for demonstration purposes.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: No it's gonna slice the time. It's gonna slice it each time and rescale.


Audience: It's coming up with minute, hour and day...[inaudible]...so is the origin of time... [inaudible]...like the origin of the universe?

TM: You would presume so.

Audience: So the Big Bang would kind of like be in the middle of the novelty...[inaudible].

TM: The Big Bang would be, no, the Big Bang would be very high because there's no life, [8:33:00] there's no atomic system, there's no molecules it's a very low complexity situation at the birth of the universe.

Audience: It's not the...[inaudible].

TM: Yeah, no, yes that's right, the Big Bang it's somewhere up here, up here (ahh). Okay now, before i do this let me locate escape, okay. This is such a pleasure to do it with fast machines. Okay there's three billion, see how detail [8:33:30] is coming up as time is lost? And, and if anybody wants me to stop it at any point i will (ahh).

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Here's 750 million years. This is virtually the entire history of life on Earth and in fact, of higher life. I'm sorry, you know, organisms, not, not multicellular life. This is the history of multicellular life and what you see is there was a steep descent [8:34:00] into novelty, until about 300 million years ago and then there are a series of oscillations close to zero until (ahh) about 65 million years ago and then there's a sudden plunge deeper into novelty immediately preceding the concrescence which occurs on the, at dawn Greenwich Mean Time December 22nd 2012. One thing about this theory, it's not vague [8:34:30] (ahh), and it, notice that it doesn't edge on

predictions either. It fills every screen is full of predictions.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Two.

Audience: Approach factor?

TM: Approach factor, yah. Okay we got 750 million years on the screen, 375 million years on the screen. Now i wanna talk about this for a minute. Now this is a screen full of dramatic [8:35:00] predictions, these are tremendously punctuated and temporally define plunges into novelty and (ahh) we don't have tremendous paleontological records for what's going on 275 million years ago but from studying these low points and talking to geochronologists about them, i've decided that these are (ahh) planetesimals impacts on the earth. [8:35:30] Now you know that the last one was 65 million years ago, that's this one, right there but there were others, there was one (ahh), this one, 220 million years ago.

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Oh, asteroid strikes on the Earth.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Oh well, there was a little tiny one in Arizona. Those happened all the time in Cosmic terms, every hundred thousand years or so. [8:36:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [8:36:00] But, (ahh) this thing that happened 65 million years ago was a planet shattered (ahh) and, they're rare, they're rare. Okay so, so, i'm suggesting that these are asteroid impacts which then evolution had to restart, reclaim his territory and then, there is something else happening. They may not all be asteroid impacts. They could be (ahh), you know, enormous episodes of volcanism on the Earth such as [8:36:30] the Deccan traps in India or something like that. Now let's start the thing again.

Audience: And now what timeline...[inaudible].

TM: What we're looking at now? 375. [silence] Seek minimum, no. Approach factor, two, go for it. [silence] That's 187 million years, there's the impact 65 million years ago. Now let's look at this. This is the last [8:37:00] 93 million years.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Ah yes, it looks like the thing we started out with, somebody's paying attention! [audience laughs] Right on, yes yes.

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: See what happens is a fractal is a nested dataset and every time you pass through a whole number, the pattern repeats. This sets up a very interesting, (ahh), (ahh), set of circumstances inside [8:37:30] the way which is that we can talk about temporal resonance. We can talk about how the Third Reich, is a resonance of ancient Egypt. We can talk about Saddam Hussein as a resonance of Muhammad because when we look at the way these things are lined up historically we see that, directly above Saddam Hussein and in a relationship of parallelism is the career of the prophet [8:38:00] and so what is being suggested here is that every day, every moment, is in fact an interference pattern created by other times and places. This is not, this is a fairly challenging and peculiar idea not something the linear western mind would have ever come up with. So for instance, if you should find yourself having lunch in a place called Hadrian's hamburger stand, this has [8:38:30] something, to do, with the emperor Hadrian and his four-year military campaign in Scotland. He is a direct causal influence on your being at Hadrian's hamburger stand for lunch. I like to say, (ahh) Rome falls 9 times an hour [audience laughs] and you have to be, perceptive. You have to be paying attention to the ebb and flow of your own inner, thoughts but, if you are you feel the fall of Rome, [8:39:00] you also feel the Age of Exploration, of the birth of Buddha (ahh) the, the fall of Carthage. It all happens nine times an hour. It also happens twice a day and once a year, yeah.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: (ahh) Sometimes, yeah it is very similar.


TM: (ahh) Sometimes, yeah it is very similar.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: That's right.

Audience: [inaudible] [8:39:30]

TM: Yeah there's, (ahh) we never tried to do it, scientifically, you know where you would actually keep track, but (ahh) major astrological conjunctions are often reflected in major ingressions into novelty.

Audience: Terence, interestingly as you or anyone else that's (ahh) aware of this, ever tried to convolve this with, with say Einstein field equations?

TM: No because i'm not smart enough to do that.

Audience: I think that would be a fascinating [8:40:00] thing to do because what you do is input, input using as one variable this entire system.

TM: That's right.

Audience: And what it would produce would be fascinating.

TM: I think God has chosen you for this work. [audience laughs]

Audience: This makes me ask, what are the historical antecedents of Reagan and Bush? [audience laughs]

TM: Ohh, ohh, Ronald Reagan was, (ahh), (ahh), his historical antecedents were the last six Roman emperors [8:40:30] before the fall of Rome in 475 and Bush's antecedents is (ahh), (uhm)...

Audience: [inaudible]...clowns...[audience laughs]

TM: No i think, i think, i think Bush gets to be (ahh) Justinian.

Audience: Oh!


Audience: Oh!

TM: You remember somebody said history always occurs twice, first as tragedy then as farce? [audience laughs] That person, who had a good intuitive (ahh)... [8:41:00] So now let's go into this a little more. (ahh) How much time do we have? Oh 93 million years, okay. [audience laughs] So, here's the a, here's the asteroid impact and, and, dead on! I mean, 65 million years it's right there, to the degree that we can date these two events. It's a win it's a bull's eye, and, you know it was a huge setback for organic life as i said this morning, nothing larger than a chicken [8:41:30] survived it. (ahh) The mammals begin their radiation and, and (ahh), this are, you know, just different vicissitudes. I'm not sure what to make of this spike here but i haven't really spend a lot of time on that period from 40 to 36 million years ago. Somebody else may have a notion as to what this represents.

Audience: [inaudible]...the recovery though is fairly rapid.

TM: Which it was. (ahh) Evolutionary biologists say, you know, that forms quickly...[8:42:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [8:42:00]...reoccupied all the niches and remember if this hadn't happened, we wouldn't be the planetary rulers that we are. We'd still be little furry creatures trying to steal eggs out of the nest of the saurian masters who ruled the planet.

Audience: Why is this?


Audience: Why is this?

TM: Why? Because all the dinosaurs were killed in this impact and that allowed these little egg stealing rodent-like furry creatures to undergo an [8:42:30] explosive evolutionary radiation leading directly to our own vast superiority over the rest of nature. Oh, yeah, yeah, no, yeah?

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Oh, that's a whole different scale you see, the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago. The ice age is a phenomenon of the last 5 million years, and we'll see the ice ages but not there, right now those ice ages [8:43:00] are down in here, somewhere lost in the detail. Let's to go back to our zoom.

Audience: We'll get there, won't we?

TM: Oh yeah, we'll get there.

Audience: I'm waiting to be at my writing spot.

TM: Don't worry! No, we don't wanna seek the minimum, the approach factor should be two. [silence] Ok, 93 million years on the screen, 46 million years on the screen, [8:43:30] 23 million, 11 million, 5 million, 5 million years on the screen, now here your ice ages. Here they are you see, (ahh) when the ice is in place, species are bottled up and gene transfer is impeded, [8:44:00] this constitutes a non-novel situation. Then when the ice melts, these gene pools re-encounter each other and you get proliferation of form. We're getting excellent agreement here, this is the melting of the last glacier, (ahh) maybe. I'm not...

Audience: [inaudible]...the last glacier was about 13 thousand years ago?


Audience: [inaudible]...the last glacier was about 13 thousand years ago?

TM: Yeah i think it's actually over here still lost in detail. But these are, (ahh) you know how evolution is described as punctuated, how it [8:44:30] isn't that evolution proceeds smoothly but that will be a climax stasis and then suddenly many new species well, these are the punctuated evolution. This is actually a picture of punctuated evolution and the high numbers of species

are down in this troughs and the low numbers of species are on this ascents close to the changeover, point. So, (ahh) again the paleontological data isn't that clear but at this [8:45:00] scale of resolution we're getting good agreement between data and theory.

Audience: I think different...[inaudible]...(ahh) a guy called...[inaudible]...do you know?...[inaudible]

TM: Well, it, it's, the, they are topologically equivalent but not numerically equivalent.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Yeah.

Audience: [inaudible] [8:45:30]

TM: That's right. It's a damped oscillation. Is really what we're seeing.

Audience: [inaudible]...because that's one of things...[inaudible]

TM: Yeah, well i'm hope you'll be on it by Monday afternoon (ahh). [audience laughs] Ok, let me restart the zoom. No, i'm restarting the zoom, zoom. Yes?

Audience: I have a question.

TM: Ok.

Audience: About magnetic poles...

TM: Yes, these [8:46:00] could very well be magnetic reversals.


TM: Yes, these [8:46:00] could very well be magnetic reversals.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Yeah, they, they very well could be magnetic reversals and...

Audience: So we're looking at ice ages.

TM: I, well what we're looking at is i'm suggesting they're ice ages, it was suggested that they're geomagnetic reversals. Geomagnetic reversals and ice ages may even have links to each other.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: (ahh) Well we see that over here (ahh) a steep [8:46:30] descent into novelty going deeper than we've ever gone before and that would probably indicate that an animal or an organ as appeared of a density of complexity greater than anything which preceded it. So i would say yes.

Audience: What, how, how you know that?

TM: Well, let me start the zoom and we'll get over in here on a big scale and then you can see. Ok, we're gonna go from 5 million, [8:48:00] down to 2 million. Now let's discuss this. Because this is the domain in which we evolved. Our story is on screen at this point (ahh), it's said that (ahh), the... A hundred thousand years ago at the Klasies Cave River mouth in South Africa


there were Homosapiens indistinguishable from the people sitting in this room. [8:47:30] The oldest Homosapien skeletons are from there. That clear over here (ahh), this is the fungi deradiation meaning the proliferation of these crymate forms (ahh), and, and that's about (ahh), 900, a million years ago. (ahh) This, this is the whole period in which the primates were, breaking away from the rest of Nature and, and this is, i think probably... [8:48:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [8:48:00]...where the mushrooms begin to come into the picture and see how the whole system is propelled into lower levels of novelty than anything which preceded it.

Audience: Lower...[inaudible]

TM: Higher levels is novelty, when the wave moves down novelty is increasing. Zoom, yes. Seek minimum, no.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: That's one way of saying it [8:48:30] or increase density of connection or (ahh), it means something happening which is never happened before which allows (ahh), novelty to build upon itself. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. About how the early Universe was very simple and then came ordinary chemistry and then (ahh), organic chemistry and then life and then complex life and then higher [8:49:00] animals and then primitive human beings and then language and culture and then computers and particle accelerators and all of this representing steeper and steeper descents into novelty. Headed toward a confrontation with novelty at infinite density, not millennia or ballenia in the future but, twenty years from now.


Audience: It's known that something being created...[inaudible]...being [8:49:30] stored...[inaudible]...entire system.

TM: Conserved is the word i use but yes, that's right.

Audience: [inaudible]


TM: That's right. Well, when we get to the present you'll be able to see, you know, the past few months, the next few months, the next few years. We approach it this way cuz i wanna convince you that there's something [8:50:00] sort of woo woo about this thing. It does seem to have an uncanny predictive ability. Now, the most commonly met-abjection to this, and it may be forming in your mind is, that this guy just doesn't understand patterns and that every pattern can be used to describe a different pattern. But i resist this because notice that, this whole set of correlations is dependent upon this zero [8:50:30] date which we inputted. If we shift the zero date, then all the other, predictions would be thrown off. Well now naturally if we shift the zero date 50 years, it's not gonna have a hell of an effect on an event 175 million years ago, but if we move the date 50 years and we look at 1492, you


date 50 years and we look at 1492, you know, it's all screwed up. You have to be right on the money [8:51:00] when you get into the historical data field because the historical data field can vary over a 24-hour period. I mean, John F. Kennedy dead, John F. Kennedy alive, the difference is 10 minutes. So, it can be very, (ahh) it can be very, highly, (ahh) quantified specific yeah, (ahh) okay. (ahh) Enter. That's 2 million, roughly 3 million years on the screen, 1.5 [8:51:30] million years on the screen, 700 thousand. Let's look at this for a minute. This is the last million years and the last hundred thousand years are right there. This is the emergence of modern human type and it sets off the last cascade at least at this scale. So, all of this is evolutionary advance and [8:52:00] climatological flux and so forth and then from the time the modern human type


forth and then from the time the modern human type emerges, it's a straight shot, down in there. [silence] Now, obviously we all know more about time as we get closer to the present. This is 366 thousand years to a 100 thousand years up there. [8:52:30] There's the last 200 thousand years, there's the last 100 thousand years. [silence] This is, this is the environment in which we were, shaped. These are (ahh), very pro-, these are climatological fluctuations here but the last, this is the last glaciation...[sex moaning sounds from a computer in the audience]


Audience: Oh, forgot, shut down the computer! [8:53:00] [audience laughs]

TM: Is it dying or is it having a good time?! [audience laughs]

Audience: [inaudible]...I forgot it does that! Anyway...

TM: What are you doing this evening? [audience laughs]

Audience: [inaudible]...Harry met Sally remember that orgasm in the restaurant?

TM: Remember the orgasm in the restaurant when Harry met Sally? [8:53:30] Vaguely… [audience laughs] (ahh) Ok, the last 91 thousand years the glaciers melt, here. The glacier melt begins around 19 thousand years ago and as you see is just a straight fall from there to the moon flight into, H. Ross Perot [audience laughs] and to all the rest of it. And these are again episodes probably of glaciation or flux in the incidence... [8:54:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [8:54:00]...of incoming cosmic radiation, is hard to say what it is.

Audience: [inaudible]...the last 3 or 4 days...[inaudible]


TM: Oh yeah, we can go down. We can take it down to very small. The, (ahh) i mean, understand that the (ahh), the program does many wonderful things which we're not doing. I'm just doing a simple demo but obviously all this stuff has got to be about something. (ahh) [audience laughs] [8:54:30] Now we're getting into the area where people have real data, that's 45 thousand years, 22 thousand years on the screen. Let's look at this for a minute. This is worth talking about. Now we, now the pressure begins to come on. It's all very well to predict the interglacials that may or may not have occurred, the predicting assassinations of dynastic families is a little trickier. Here's the glacial melt, [8:55:00] begins and species, this is the descent, this is where the mushroom paradise, existed in its fullest expression from about (ahh) 17 thousand years ago to about 10 thousand years ago.


thousand years ago to about 10 thousand years ago. Well now what is this sudden interruption of the descent into novelty here? I maintain based on the archaeological record that is what is called the Tanged Points techno-complex. Do you all know what that is? [8:55:30] It's (ahh), does anybody know what it is? Tanged Points techno-complex means that (ahh), before this, before this point (ahh), when an arrowhead is found, you find one. It means it was lost by somebody who was hunting. Around 10 thousand BC you begin to find large numbers of arrowheads all in one place without (ahh) chipping, fragments. [8:56:00] This was not an arrowhead factory, this was the site of a battle between human populations. War, is invented here because agriculture, is invented here. You're looking at the end of the partnership paradise. The era of orgy gives way to the era of anxious monogamy, warfare, agriculture (ahh)


anxious monogamy, warfare, agriculture (ahh) you know, egohood, is born. Now somebody asked about, [8:56:30] who who, asked about Çatal Höyük? Somebody... Çatal Höyük, bottom of this stab here. The fire that burned through Çatal level 5A occurred in 65 hundred BC. We know this from charcoal dating. It's right there, it's on the money. See, somehow this, the, this whole thing Tanged Point techno-complexe bummer was overcome and there was a steep descent, into novelty [8:57:00] and (ahh) Çatal Höyük was the product of that. But then it was destroyed and there was a rebound into chuckle avidness for a while and then write down here in the bottom of this thing, is where the Great Pyramid is sitting. You know, the Great Pyramid was finished in September of 2970 BC. Why this should be so controversial?


I do not understand because there are grains of charcoal [8:57:30] between the unmoved stones. That charcoal is not been anywhere since the day that stone was set in place and its 2790 BC. These people, who want to push it back and say it's 10 thousand years old, well the obligation to prove is on them because the carbon radiological data argues. You see, there's some tendency in the New Age, which i don't understand very well, that wants to make everything older, than it is. [8:58:00] You know, the pyramids are 50 thousand years old, Atlantis rose and fell a 100 thousand years... The miracle, is how new, everything is. The pyramids were built day before yesterday. Charlemagne was King of France early this morning. It's all, very, very, recent. I mean the emergence of mind out of non-mind is an event, practically (ahh), on top of us. Now let's start it up and we'll get really down [8:58:30] to the…

Audience: Can you hear me?

TM: Huh, huh.

Audience: Is the progression of time changing...[inaudible]


Audience: Is the progression of time changing...[inaudible]

TM: Well, yes in a sense because you see what happens is when you, it's a built-in mathematical property of this wave that when you get to the end of a big wave, there's, when you get to the end on any scale there's a sudden drop, to the next scale and then it goes along to the end [8:59:00] and then there's a sudden drop. So if what we're saying is that a universe is made like, a universe that actually have this structure that i outlined for you, of 26 levels, where each level was 1/64 smaller than the level which preceded it, a universe built on that kind of architectonics would only be half way through its, life, an hour and 35 minutes before the end. [8:59:30] Do you see how that would work? But in the last hour and 35 minutes it's going to go through as much development as it went through in the previous 72 billion years. So yes, time is accelerating, accelerating into, you know, we've gone from, barely moving to approaching a staggering speed and i maintain, you know, that in 2012, the last, 6 days preceding the approach to concrescence...[9:00:00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos


Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

TM: [9:00:00]...will be the jackpot. I mean the laws of physics will break down, everything will be in a state of visible motile transformation. This isn't happening in the human world, it isn't happening in our minds. It's a crisis in the strut- the structure of physical law itself and that's why, people, that's why, this theory will be hard to disprove or prove until so close to the end date [9:00:30] that you'll barely have time to make a telephone call to say whether it's true or not before if it is true your telephone call becomes totally irrelevant you know.

Audience: [inaudible]...space time itself are being contorted, twisted and...[inaudible]

TM: Yeah, that's right.

Audience: [inaudible]...to make that particular note.

TM: No, that's right. And in fact seems unlikely to you, let's always, let's never forget what the Orthodox guys are peddling. [audience laughs] They're peddling the Big Bang Theory [9:01:00] which says the universe sprang from nothing in a single instant. I would prefer what i called the big surprise cosmology because it seems to me if you have to have a singularity, the, the least likely place to find the singularity would be in a featureless high vacuum. If you want to find a singularity look in a corner of the universe where there are planets, stars, elements, organisms, alphabets, civilizations, [9:01:30] mines, in other words look in a complex domain if you want to find a singularity. That's where you might have some chance of finding it but finding it in a unflood nothingness is a strange place to look even.


Audience: One of the arguments, maybe being proposed by those on the...[inaudible]...that in fact is a very complex universe that then push through a membrane into the singularity which then creates another entire…

TM: Well, one possibility [9:02:00] is that it's a wrap around that we're just not, we're not whistling dixie when we talk about the archaic revival. We're actually, what history is, is a finger reaching for the reset button and when you finally touch if you find yourself at the moment of the Big Bang. You know, you've actually sent it screaming back to the first moment.

Audience: [inaudible]...exercise in, in holographics...[inaudible]...that final experience is a very pertinent important holographic description [9:02:30] (ahh) the whole, the whole…

TM: That's right and every cycle is a holographic description of the cycles that preceded it.

Audience: We've just seen.


TM: Right. So in 1945 when the bomb flickers into existence over Hiroshima, this is the resonance of the Big Bang. It's being caused by the Big Bang and, the entire life of the universe, is then [9:03:00] somehow reenacted in the remaining 67 years. In the same way the, remember there was a 4306 years cycle. We are reenacting that cycle in, in the present 67 year cycle. We have reached A.D 700 right now, i mean if you wonder why things are so benighted, it's cuz we're in the heart of the Dark Ages. [audience laughs] You wonder why you can't understand the nature of the collapse [9:03:30] of the state vector? Well it's because you have an AD 700 intellectual machine looking at it. My God, the Calculus hasn't been invented, Algebra hasn't been invented, the New World hasn't been discovered. These things will all happen ahead of us. (ahh) Right now we are in the heart of the Dark Ages by the late nineties will be closing distance with the Renaissance. Clearly we have to put up with a bunch of Christ fundamentalism, epidemic diseases [9:04:00] and general not headedness until we get to that point, but then after the turn of the century we can expect the equivalent of (ahh), (ahh), the (ahh), Renaissance, the Industrial Reformation, (ahh) the rise of Napoleon, the Civil War, Adolph Hitler. It will just be coming quick, quick, quick, quick and finally you know, you just, it just, pulls you in and everything happens at once. One way [9:04:30] of thinking of this is that the entire rest of the future history of the universe is being compressed into the next 20 years.


Audience: [inaudible]

TM: Yeah.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: But in other words the heat death of the universe is 20 years away essentially is what is being suggested. Because time is beginning to accelerate at such a rate that this compression factor is enormous. Okay (ahh), (ahh), let me see, what have we got. We got 22 thousand [9:5:00] years on the screen and we talked about it, so let me shift here. Oh no! Zoom, yes. Set minimum, no.

Audience: What gives us to be able to, sense this acceleration of time?

TM: (ahh) Yes, i-i think you know, Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book (ahh) anybody read it, what was it called? Nobody read it. [audience laughs] It was called, anyway the premise of the book was that time is accelerating but he thought of it as social time, [9:05:30] cultural time. I don't. I think it's embedded in the fabric of space-time itself. Yes i think in a few, you see, you can only react to crises that you understand. So if i tell you the ozone hole is disappearing, you're alarmed. If i tell you an asteroid is going to strike the Earth, you're alarmed. But if i tell you that the Earth is about to collide with a hyperdimensional knot in the nexus of space-time...[audience laughs] [9:06.00]

Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

[Audience laughs]


Transcribed by Tiago Ramos

[Audience laughs]

TM: [9:06:00] (ahh) You know. But that’s what’s happening. Ahead of us is an enormous speedbump. We are colliding.. We’re about to collide with something that we can barely cognize. So, it’s hard to know what to think about it. Yeah?

Audience: Uh, this may be a little lala, and a bit simplistic but you said in words uhh, you know we all have experienced this sort of sudden shift in time, just the experience in one lifetime (uhh). You know, like a two or three year old, (uhh) the moment that we experience it seems to last along a period of time. I mean, my god, some of it lasted (inaudible), well we don’t have that sort of. Well, that’s what happens over a course of a lifetime. What happens when consciousness.. consciousness shifts out to infinity, what happens to the moment then, does it become vanishingly small or, in terms of the frequency..

TM: It stops! It stops! Yeah, well, see.

Audience: Or, the whole process of speeding up, that it takes forever.

TM: [9:07:00] Yes, it’s possible that dying takes forever.

Audience: Right.

TM: You see.

Audience: [inaudible]


Audience: Right.

TM: You see.

Audience: [inaudible]

TM: And, and, and, so you know. You start to die and then you die and die and then realize you’re going to die forever, and never approach it. Because the, the seconds become stretched to millions of years. It’s something, it’s something like that. It’s about, and I think the psychedelics are about the fabric of time. [9:07:30] When you strip away the hallucinations and the personal reference, and the crazyness. The barebones of it are, it’s about time, it illuminates what time is. Yeah?

Audience: [inaudible]... when time is.. [inaudible].. towards and end-point. [9:08:00]. [inaudible].

TM: Yeah, I mean, part of the problem with proceeding what’s going on is that we’re mayflies, something. I mean, we live so briefly, that to us it looks like the world is standing still. But in fact, staggering amounts of strange are going on. I mean (uhh) [9:08:30], the automobile is a hundred years old for crying out loud, we can’t conceive of a reality without the automobile. So, uhh, and just in my lifetime, you know, I’ve seen immense change. So, and this is going to accelerate eventually to the point where I believe they’ll hold conferences on the acceleration of time and, people will, boards will be appointed to try and figure out if anything can be done about it.

Audience: [laughs]