Podcast 706 – Terence McKenna “One Last Timewave Rap”

Program Notes §

Support Lorenzo on Patreon.com

https://www.patreon.com/lorenzohagerty

Guest speaker: Terence McKenna

WARNING! If you don’t want to hear Terence talking about his Timewave idea yet again, then you should skip this podcast.

In this recording, Terence McKenna introduces a concept he humorously names the “Habit Reflex Increment” (HRI). He discusses the need for a unit to measure habit, reflecting on the significance of such a concept in understanding human behavior. McKenna jokes about not naming the unit after himself, contrasting his name with those of renowned scientists like Ohm or Ampere, which he finds more fitting for scientific terms.

He then shifts his focus to a broader philosophical reflection, asserting that the struggle humanity faces is not eternal. He conveys an optimistic message, declaring that “novelty is winning.” According to McKenna, the emergence of new ideas and innovations will ultimately prevail, bringing positive transformation and progress.

Of course, you will have to listen to many more little details about the Timewave than a lot of people can put up with.

Previous Episode §

Podcast 705 – Terence McKenna – “Don’t Take This One Seriously”

Next Episode §

Podcast 707 – After the Escaton

Similar Episodes §

• 576 - Countdown Into Complexity – Part 4 - score: 0.87222
• 205 - Appreciating Imagination – Part 5 (Timewave) - score: 0.85683
• 593 - Understanding the Chaos at History’s End – Part 5 - score: 0.84794
• 519 - Our Cyberspiritual Future Part 5 – TimeWave - score: 0.84683
• 539 - Novelty and Technology - score: 0.80443
• 029 - In the Valley of Novelty (Part 3) - score: 0.79597
• Podcast 701 – Return of the Timewave - score: 0.79028
• 347 - This counts, somehow it matters - score: 0.78081
• 412 - Permitting Smart People To Hope - score: 0.77352
• 449 - McKenna’s Speculations About 2012 - score: 0.77179

Transcript §

00:00:00 ► §

Three-dimensional transforming musical, linguistic objects.

00:00:09 ► §

Helvetians.

00:00:16 ► §

Greetings from Cyberdelic Space.

00:00:18 ► §

This is Lorenzo, and I’m your host here in the psychedelic salon.

00:00:23 ► §

And I know that I said there’d be no more time wave

00:00:26 ► §

podcast. And so I’m going to begin today with a spoiler alert. Even though sometime back I stopped

00:00:34 ► §

playing parts of Terrence McKenna’s talks where he went into detail about the time wave,

00:00:39 ► §

great detail sometimes. And I really meant it at the time when I said that I wouldn’t be posting

00:00:45 ► §

any more of these. Well, I changed my mind and I’m going to make an exception to that rule today.

00:00:51 ► §

The main reason I’m doing this is because, well, this particular recording, as far as I know,

00:00:57 ► §

was never released to the public. And this may be the only instance of it on the web once I get

00:01:02 ► §

this posted. So I think it’s worthwhile for historical reasons to make sure it’s up there.

00:01:08 ► §

So if you have already listened to all the time wave material you want to hear,

00:01:14 ► §

you can safely skip this last example.

00:01:17 ► §

As was recently pointed out in a live salon, moans could often be heard whenever

00:01:23 ► §

Terence began setting up his time wave

00:01:25 ► §

computer. In a few minutes, you are most likely going to understand why the moans are coming.

00:01:32 ► §

We were there to talk about psychedelics, and all Terrence wanted to talk about was world history

00:01:38 ► §

and in painstaking detail. So either turn this podcast off right now or sit back, relax, and open your mind to the

00:01:49 ► §

entertaining world of Terrence McKinness’ time wave hypothesis.

00:01:55 ► §

I’ve invented a unit, which I call the free. That’s H.R.I. Habit, something or other. that’s that’s uh h r i hr i

00:02:06 ► §

habit something or other

00:02:09 ► §

increment

00:02:10 ► §

you can tell how seriously we take this

00:02:15 ► §

habit

00:02:17 ► §

reflex recollection habit reflex habit something

00:02:21 ► §

increment anyway we needed a unit

00:02:24 ► §

of of habit,

00:02:26 ► §

and I didn’t want to name it after myself.

00:02:28 ► §

If only my name had been Ome or Ampere

00:02:31 ► §

or something cool like that,

00:02:33 ► §

but a McKenna, I don’t think so.

00:02:38 ► §

But this is not a Manichaean struggle.

00:02:42 ► §

In other words, it doesn’t go on forever.

00:02:44 ► §

The good news in all of this is novelty is winning. This is not a Manichaean struggle. In other words, it doesn’t go on forever.

00:02:49 ► §

The good news in all of this is novelty is winning.

00:02:59 ► §

Novelty is winning, and novelty will triumph absolutely at a certain future moment in time.

00:03:00 ► §

Okay?

00:03:01 ► §

Now… Novelty is like this.

00:03:02 ► §

Yes.

00:03:03 ► §

Let me explain how this is read.

00:03:07 ► §

I don’t want to start into the graph, but just so you get the idea.

00:03:11 ► §

This happens to be six billion years on the screen, more than the life of this planet.

00:03:21 ► §

Habit is down here and here I’m sorry novelty

00:03:27 ► §

habit is at the high points so don’t make the mistake of trying to read it as you

00:03:34 ► §

would a stock graph we’re not cheering this puppy when it goes up we’re cheering it when it

00:03:40 ► §

goes down these are the areas of recidivism, constipation,

00:03:47 ► §

tradition, momentum, entropy,

00:03:51 ► §

repetition.

00:03:53 ► §

You get the concept.

00:03:55 ► §

Down here is new technologies,

00:03:58 ► §

new connections,

00:03:59 ► §

experimentalism, new forms of life,

00:04:02 ► §

so forth and so on.

00:04:03 ► §

How do you did it that way?

00:04:05 ► §

As opposed to the reverse, but somehow seems logical.

00:04:08 ► §

I don’t know why, but…

00:04:10 ► §

It may seem logical at first, but I think if you analyze it, it won’t,

00:04:15 ► §

because if it were reversed,

00:04:18 ► §

uh, well, here was my thought,

00:04:22 ► §

that time is like a fluid,

00:04:30 ► §

and it’s flowing over a surface like a landscape.

00:04:35 ► §

But what it’s trying to do is reach zero altitude.

00:04:37 ► §

It’s trying to return to the sea.

00:04:44 ► §

It’s trying to return to the hypersatial ocean from which it originally came. So as it goes down, it’s getting closer to its ideal.

00:04:50 ► §

The other reason I did it this way is because I wanted infinite novelty to be quantified

00:04:58 ► §

by the number zero.

00:05:00 ► §

I wanted the one point in the system where novelty reaches infinity

00:05:06 ► §

to be assigned a value of zero.

00:05:10 ► §

And that’s what we have here.

00:05:12 ► §

These values here, 1,649,000, whatever it is,

00:05:18 ► §

free, but it flows eventually down to zero.

00:05:22 ► §

To give you an idea of how close we are to zero,

00:05:27 ► §

we have been below one HRI

00:05:29 ► §

since the crucifixion.

00:05:33 ► §

See?

00:05:34 ► §

So up here, this is a truly habituated universe up here

00:05:39 ► §

at whatever it is, 16 million, close to 17 million HRI.

00:05:46 ► §

So there has been a vast descent into novelty

00:05:52 ► §

and since roughly the crucifixion,

00:05:55 ► §

we have been below one free.

00:05:57 ► §

I think within the last 10 years or so,

00:06:00 ► §

we dropped below 0.001 free. and that’s why I say you know the the

00:06:08 ► §

thinness of the membrane which separates us from the eschaton is hair raising and this is why

00:06:16 ► §

these intimations of apocalypse and transformation are so present at hand because considering the

00:06:23 ► §

journey we have made toward it our hand is on the doorknob.

00:06:28 ► §

Our hand is turning the doorknob at this point.

00:06:32 ► §

Okay, now, before I demonstrate it, there’s an unpleasant little bit of business which we have to get through as fast as possible,

00:06:39 ► §

and that is, how did I figure it out?

00:06:42 ► §

In other words, how did I get an algorithm which would produce a wave

00:06:49 ► §

that will predict not only all of the future,

00:06:53 ► §

of which there ain’t much left, according to this theory?

00:06:57 ► §

But the good news is this theory also predicts all of the past.

00:07:04 ► §

And that’s much more interesting

00:07:06 ► §

because anybody can predict the future,

00:07:09 ► §

who the hell can say you’re wrong?

00:07:11 ► §

But predicting the past is a much dicier bit of business

00:07:16 ► §

because the past has already undergone

00:07:19 ► §

what Whitehead calls the formality of actually occurring.

00:07:24 ► §

So, so, calls the formality of actually occurring. So if you claim you have a theory that can predict novelty in the past and the future,

00:07:35 ► §

though history is not an entirely quantified data field,

00:07:40 ► §

nevertheless historians over many different stripes of historical opinion agree on certain general principles

00:07:52 ► §

such as that ancient Egypt represented a pinnacle of civilization of those times such as such as ancient Egypt represented a pinnacle of civilization of those times, such as that the Greek

00:08:12 ► §

Golden Age introduced certain kinds of unique novelty into Western civilization from which

00:08:19 ► §

we have never recovered and the implications of which we are still working out, such as that the Italian

00:08:28 ► §

Renaissance did ditto, new technologies, new ideas that forever changed the all subsequent history.

00:08:39 ► §

So if you claim you have a theory of historical novelty and your theory doesn’t predict high novelty in those areas, then you’re probably not going to make the grade.

00:08:54 ► §

Well, then once we have a theory which predicts those things correctly, let’s assume there were a class of such theories, then the way to distinguish between them would be to try and

00:09:07 ► §

look at other episodes of historical novelty and see if the relative importance which the theory

00:09:17 ► §

assigned to them was commiserate with your opinion about the matter. Are we all on the same

00:09:24 ► §

page here?

00:09:25 ► §

It’s not that difficult, I think.

00:09:28 ► §

Okay, so that’s what I did.

00:09:31 ► §

The question of where did this wave come from,

00:09:34 ► §

and this is a hard swallow for some people.

00:09:41 ► §

The original thing came out of a mathematical analysis

00:09:47 ► §

of the deep structure of the I Ching.

00:09:52 ► §

And the way I think

00:09:55 ► §

that makes it tremendously vulnerable

00:09:58 ► §

to being malarkey

00:10:00 ► §

simply because I know how critics work and a critic would say, well, now let me get this straight.

00:10:12 ► §

You’re proposing a revision of standard physics based on something that you did to a Chinese divinatory system that’s 3,000 years old?

00:10:26 ► §

Am I getting this right?

00:10:28 ► §

And the answer, unfortunately, is yes, but wait.

00:10:34 ► §

Because I realize that that sounds flaky in the extreme.

00:10:39 ► §

I mean, how is it different from Jose Arguezis?

00:10:42 ► §

How is it different from all of these people who fasten on one

00:10:47 ► §

artifact in the human world and seek to unfold it as an explanation for everything? Well, first of all,

00:10:58 ► §

let’s give the I Ching its due. The I Ching is the world’s oldest book,

00:11:08 ► §

and it is about change.

00:11:11 ► §

That’s what it’s named.

00:11:13 ► §

It’s the book of changes.

00:11:14 ► §

So this is a 3,000-year-old book,

00:11:16 ► §

about time,

00:11:18 ► §

that many people who have seriously studied it,

00:11:23 ► §

including people like Carl Jung and Wolfgang Polly,

00:11:27 ► §

the physicist and so forth,

00:11:29 ► §

have come away with the eerie impression

00:11:31 ► §

that it seems to work.

00:11:35 ► §

And I didn’t begin with any of such grandiose conceptions

00:11:43 ► §

as I’m laying out for you.

00:11:46 ► §

The dialogue I had with an angel and other myself,

00:11:54 ► §

the alien God Almighty or the galactic intelligence at the core,

00:11:58 ► §

whatever it was, it was very gentle with me.

00:12:03 ► §

And the problem seemed trivial.

00:12:06 ► §

It said,

00:12:08 ► §

you know that the Qing Wen,

00:12:12 ► §

you know that the E Ching is composed of 64 hexagrams,

00:12:16 ► §

yes.

00:12:17 ► §

And you know that these hexagrams occur in an order

00:12:21 ► §

called the King Wen sequence.

00:12:24 ► §

Yes.

00:12:29 ► §

Okay, here’s the problem. Is the King Wen sequence a sequence, meaning is it derived from rules or is it a chaotic jumble preserved

00:12:37 ► §

through tradition? This is a very simple, mathematically interesting after-dinner sort of of puzzle find the order in the

00:12:47 ► §

Qing is the name of this game well I looked at it how many people here have some

00:12:54 ► §

kind of familiarity with it good good good the first thing I noticed and many

00:13:01 ► §

people have noticed this but I discovered it on my own, but it’s not

00:13:05 ► §

brilliant, is it isn’t 64 hexagrams. It’s 32 pairs of hexagrams, and the second member of each

00:13:16 ► §

pair is the first member turned upside down. Interesting. Now, there are eight cases where inverting a hexagram doesn’t make any difference.

00:13:29 ► §

The first case is easy and intuitive to understand. If you have a hexagram with six solid lines,

00:13:36 ► §

turning it upside down doesn’t affect it in any way whatsoever. In these eight cases, a second rule is consistently applied.

00:13:45 ► §

If turning the first member of the pair upside down

00:13:48 ► §

affects no change, then all lines change.

00:13:53 ► §

And we find this to be the case in those eight situations.

00:13:57 ► §

Well, this took me about 10 minutes.

00:14:00 ► §

But now suddenly notice the nature of the problem has changed.

00:14:06 ► §

The question is not now, what are the principles which order the 64 components of the King-Wen sequence.

00:14:14 ► §

Now the question is, what are the rules which order these 32 pairs?

00:14:21 ► §

And I, and the thing said to me, look at the first order of difference and I said what is that

00:14:30 ► §

and it said how many lines changes you go from one to another stupid so I did I looked at this

00:14:39 ► §

how many lines change as you go from one hexagram to another through the King Wen sequence.

00:14:45 ► §

From one to two, the value is six. Six lines change. From two to three, something else. Three to four, something else. You make a nifty little graph with 64 data points ranging between six and zero. Okay? And I looked at this,

00:15:06 ► §

and I did not at first see any cemetery or anything to,

00:15:11 ► §

I seemed sort of like a blind alley,

00:15:13 ► §

and then the thing worked a miracle in my mind,

00:15:18 ► §

and it took the graph,

00:15:19 ► §

and it made a copy of it,

00:15:22 ► §

and it rotated it in space within the plane.

00:15:26 ► §

That’s what mathematicians say when they mean turned it upside down.

00:15:31 ► §

And I discovered, I mean, it was instantly apparent

00:15:34 ► §

that the thing had a weird isomorphism built into it.

00:15:39 ► §

The first three positions in this wave were a stereoisomer, a mirror image of the last three positions in this wave were a stereoisomer a mirror image of the last three

00:15:49 ► §

positions so when you brought these two structures together they fit together

00:15:55 ► §

like that at the beginning and at the end but nowhere in. And it formed this nifty little module.

00:16:08 ► §

And if you try this yourself, when you get it into the right position so they lock like

00:16:15 ► §

that, you discover that the hexagrams that pair across from each other always sum to 64.

00:16:24 ► §

In other words, 63 and 1, 62 and 2, 61 and 3, so forth and so on.

00:16:33 ► §

So this is cool, you know, you have this neat little thing,

00:16:36 ► §

and it’s got all the hexagrams running one way

00:16:40 ► §

and all the hexagrams running another,

00:16:43 ► §

the backward direction, and it fits together.

00:16:46 ► §

Well, this backward thing stuck in my mind.

00:16:50 ► §

So I went to the I Ching,

00:16:51 ► §

and I discovered in the oldest level of commentary,

00:16:55 ► §

there is talk about how the forward-running numbers

00:16:59 ► §

refer to the future.

00:17:01 ► §

The backward-running numbers refer to the past. In the I Ching, as we have it today,

00:17:08 ► §

there are no backward running numbers. It’s a meaningless statement. But in this thing I had created,

00:17:13 ► §

there were backward running numbers. And I thought, aha, it’s some kind of, I’m like the guys

00:17:23 ► §

who decoded Stonehenge or something,

00:17:26 ► §

except I’m doing it with the Yi Ching.

00:17:29 ► §

It’s a piece of smashed up Neolithic calculating machinery

00:17:33 ► §

that has this weird backward and running sequence inside of it.

00:17:39 ► §

Now notice if you have 64 hexagrams of six lines each, you have 384 lines.

00:17:49 ► §

And I fastened in on that.

00:17:52 ► §

That was the next level.

00:17:54 ► §

What is important about the number 384?

00:17:58 ► §

Well, at first I thought it couldn’t be a calendar because it will precess 19 days against the solar year,

00:18:07 ► §

and why would anybody make a calendar that was that squirrely?

00:18:12 ► §

But then I realized a lunation is 29-something, 28-something-something days.

00:18:21 ► §

Anyway, 13 of them are 383.82 days.

00:18:29 ► §

In other words, a tiny decimal

00:18:31 ► §

fraction difference from 384.

00:18:34 ► §

And I thought, oh, wow, now I see what it is.

00:18:39 ► §

It’s a calendar.

00:18:40 ► §

It’s a lunar calendar.

00:18:42 ► §

It’s a Neolithic lunar calendar. It probably was developed in the

00:18:47 ► §

southern part of China where climate, you know, seasonal change was not dramatic. And these people,

00:18:55 ► §

for some reason, maybe they worship the moon or something. I don’t know. Anyway, they have this lunar

00:19:00 ► §

calendar. It’s like, I’m well, and I thought, now will you go away to the angel of revelation?

00:19:09 ► §

Said, oh, no, no, we’re just getting started here, Terry.

00:19:15 ► §

So I said, okay, what next?

00:19:19 ► §

It said, take the numbers inherent in the E. Ching and play with this 384-day count.

00:19:30 ► §

So I did, and here’s what I discovered, 384 days, one day for each line in all of the hexagrams,

00:19:37 ► §

when you take that number by 64, the number of hexagramss and this is perfectly sanctioned in terms of the style of Chinese occult thinking I mean they would they understand this is how they think I will from Everhart who was a great sinologist blessed everything I’m saying to you so don’t think I haven’t been to the experts.

00:20:06 ► §

Okay.

00:20:18 ► §

When you take 384 days by 64, you get 67 years, 104.25 days.

00:20:24 ► §

Now, if you recall that this has been formed out of hexagrams then one sixth of that amount is

00:20:27 ► §

11 years plus it’s a sunspot cycle and not only do sunspot cycles have an 11 year

00:20:35 ► §

periodicity but they also have a 33 year periodicity well inside every hexagram is a

00:20:44 ► §

trigram composed of three lines so and and then I read periodicity. Well, inside every hexagram is a trigram

00:20:45 ► §

composed of three lines.

00:20:48 ► §

And then I read Joseph Needham, the great

00:20:51 ► §

historian of Chinese

00:20:53 ► §

technology and science, and he

00:20:56 ► §

talks about how the ancient Chinese

00:20:58 ► §

were the first people to ever

00:21:01 ► §

observe sunspots.

00:21:03 ► §

And they observed them without lenses

00:21:05 ► §

through smoking glass

00:21:07 ► §

by BC200.

00:21:09 ► §

They were keeping accurate records of sunspots,

00:21:13 ► §

so they knew about it.

00:21:15 ► §

So then I thought, oh, wow, this is so cool.

00:21:18 ► §

Look, it’s a 13-month lunar calendar,

00:21:20 ► §

and then you just use the 64 multiplier,

00:21:23 ► §

and it automatically unfolds and turns into a way of

00:21:28 ► §

keeping track of sunspot cycles on two levels. How about that? Well, why look a gift horse in the face?

00:21:38 ► §

Let’s take 67 years, 104.25 days and multiply that by 64. Then what do we have? Then we have 4,306 years and

00:21:50 ► §

some days in change. Well, remembering that it’s legitimate to divide the number to assign halves

00:21:58 ► §

to trigrams, you realize that this is the amount of time it takes for the procession of the equinox to move through one sign, roughly 2,200 years.

00:22:12 ► §

Now notice that every astronomical cycle I’ve mentioned, sunspots, the lunations, and the procession of the equinox are all naked-eye astronomical phenomena.

00:22:26 ► §

We’re not talking secret technology here.

00:22:29 ► §

We’re just talking smart, smart, and observation.

00:22:34 ► §

So I was ready to rest with this and just say, well, this is this amazing thing,

00:22:40 ► §

and clearly the eaching is an occult object,

00:22:44 ► §

and it had many applications and so forth and so on.

00:22:47 ► §

It said, no, no, no, that isn’t quite it.

00:22:50 ► §

The whole purpose of this exercise was simply to show you that the multiplier 64 can extend this structure

00:23:00 ► §

to a series of nested cycles into which any amount of time including the entire life of the universe can be dropped

00:23:11 ► §

And so I said, okay, what’s next? It said here’s what’s next and we’re getting close to the payoff this is a steep learning curve

00:23:20 ► §

There will be relief and no quiz

00:23:26 ► §

It said take this module that you’ve created

00:23:30 ► §

of the itching running one way

00:23:33 ► §

and then backwards against itself

00:23:34 ► §

with closure at the ends.

00:23:36 ► §

Take this and treat it like a line.

00:23:41 ► §

Treat it as you would the base component of a hexagram, and build a hexagram out of it.

00:23:50 ► §

And so I said, I did, and what I did was I took six of these things, and I laid them in a row

00:23:58 ► §

to be each one standing for one line in a hexagram.

00:24:04 ► §

And I said, is good?

00:24:07 ► §

It said, not quite.

00:24:10 ► §

It said a hexagram also has two trigrams in it.

00:24:15 ► §

So over the six, I laid two more, three times larger than the first ones.

00:24:23 ► §

Do you understand?

00:24:24 ► §

Everything’s starting from the same origin point.

00:24:28 ► §

And said, is good?

00:24:30 ► §

It’s not quite.

00:24:33 ► §

A hexagram also has a total and complete unity as a hexagram.

00:24:39 ► §

So over the six and over the two,

00:24:42 ► §

you lay one big one.

00:24:49 ► §

Well, what do you get when you do all of this a lot of little wiggly lines running all over the place on a piece of paper about seven feet long and i at this

00:24:58 ► §

stage in my life became a burden to my friends and a joy to my enemies because I knew the way they always do know,

00:25:10 ► §

you know, that I knew that this was a map of time and that the history of the universe was here

00:25:19 ► §

and so forth and so on. And of course, some helpful person pointed out a passage in Gertjeef, who to that

00:25:26 ► §

point I had always written off, but since it supported my delusion, there’s a passage in Gertjeefe

00:25:33 ► §

which says, in the future, there will be a diagram invented which people will simply unroll and

00:25:40 ► §

look at, and they will understand everything. And I was close to this.

00:25:47 ► §

I spent hours looking at this thing,

00:25:50 ► §

and what it was was on three levels,

00:25:53 ► §

you know, the hexagrammatic, the trigramatic,

00:25:55 ► §

and the linear level,

00:25:56 ► §

all these lines going all over the place,

00:25:59 ► §

going parallel, crossing over,

00:26:01 ► §

approaching, forming cemeteries.

00:26:04 ► §

And finally, after I had alarmed a number of people

00:26:08 ► §

and my friends were meeting, speaking of intervention,

00:26:13 ► §

on an idea, for God’s sake.

00:26:18 ► §

Ralph Abraham came to me on his own.

00:26:23 ► §

He wasn’t delegated by the interventions

00:26:26 ► §

and said,

00:26:28 ► §

you know, the problem here is

00:26:30 ► §

that you have an occult

00:26:32 ► §

diagram.

00:26:34 ► §

Only you understand it.

00:26:37 ► §

And only you can interpret it.

00:26:39 ► §

And therefore, you know,

00:26:41 ► §

it’s not very persuasive.

00:26:43 ► §

What you have to do is find a way to reduce it to an ordinary mathematical object

00:26:51 ► §

that the history of science and mathematics has some familiarity with

00:26:57 ► §

so that we can have a discussion about it.

00:27:00 ► §

And, you know, to me it was like telling a German shepherd

00:27:03 ► §

to learn the partial differential calculus or something.

00:27:07 ► §

It was just like, right, Ralph, thanks for the tip.

00:27:11 ► §

I’ll really get to work right on that.

00:27:15 ► §

And I think three years passed, and I basically prayed is the only way I can put it.

00:27:22 ► §

And then one day I had twisted a fatty

00:27:25 ► §

and I was sitting in my parlor.

00:27:28 ► §

No, I did not abuse an obese person.

00:27:37 ► §

It means I had smoked some cannabis.

00:27:49 ► §

And I was thinking about the great unsolved problem,

00:27:51 ► §

as I always was in those years,

00:27:54 ► §

and it was just like clunk,

00:27:56 ► §

and I saw the solution.

00:27:59 ► §

I saw how to do it.

00:28:04 ► §

I saw it from end to end, from side to side in a single moment.

00:28:11 ► §

And here comes a great piece of good news that you should greet with tears of joy streaming down your face.

00:28:13 ► §

I’m not going to explain it to you.

00:28:17 ► §

I did it.

00:28:19 ► §

And if you’re interested in how it’s in the invisible landscape in the mathematical appendices,

00:28:26 ► §

and it’s published as an article called Temporal Resonance in the Arcade Revival,

00:28:32 ► §

and it’s at the website, and the manual which accompanies the software, has 40 pages on this subject,

00:28:39 ► §

and I did it. And the result is the time time wave which is totally straightforward and makes extremely

00:28:49 ► §

precise predictions about where novelty should be found in history and the power

00:28:57 ► §

the reason we’re talking about this thing is because it works. If it didn’t work, it wouldn’t be worth spit. But because it works,

00:29:10 ► §

and I’m willing to defend it against all comers, it claims our attention. Because it not only

00:29:19 ► §

works, but implicit in the fact that it works, is an almost unimaginable conclusion,

00:29:27 ► §

which is, and has been referred to, the conclusion is that this planet, at least this planet,

00:29:35 ► §

is on a collision course with something that we can’t even conceive or imagine,

00:29:42 ► §

variously described as the philosopher’s stone, the end of the world,

00:29:50 ► §

the leap into hyperspace, the end of history, the eschaton, the apocalypse, the second coming,

00:29:58 ► §

the cosmic jackpot. And it lies, and it lies, it lies as I say

00:30:06 ► §

17 or 18 years in the future

00:30:09 ► §

this

00:30:10 ► §

attract now why do we say this

00:30:13 ► §

why does the theory make that

00:30:15 ► §

necessary

00:30:16 ► §

here’s why

00:30:17 ► §

the premise of the theory is

00:30:21 ► §

that this rising and falling

00:30:23 ► §

sawtooth wave

00:30:25 ► §

describes where in history

00:30:27 ► §

novelty and habit locate

00:30:29 ► §

so you take

00:30:32 ► §

history a data field

00:30:34 ► §

and you take this

00:30:35 ► §

a second data field

00:30:37 ► §

and you want to find the

00:30:39 ► §

maximum congruency

00:30:41 ► §

between the two data fields

00:30:44 ► §

and you can imagine this as having two saws that you move along,

00:30:49 ► §

trying to find the place where they fit most tightly.

00:30:54 ► §

Now, think in fact of two saws like that.

00:30:58 ► §

When you finally get them in the best fit configuration,

00:31:04 ► §

then you go to look at the end of the saws

00:31:08 ► §

to see what’s going on where they come to an end.

00:31:12 ► §

Well, the weird thing about this theory is

00:31:16 ► §

it gives a phenomenal description,

00:31:19 ► §

a phenomenally accurate and precise description

00:31:22 ► §

down to the moment of the entire career of novelty in this universe,

00:31:29 ► §

but only if it’s generated from a point 17 years in the future. That’s really a tough swallow.

00:31:42 ► §

I mean, that’s as tough a swallow for adherence to this position

00:31:46 ► §

as the Big Bang must be for the adherence of that position.

00:31:51 ► §

If it weren’t for that

00:31:53 ► §

unlikelyhood,

00:31:59 ► §

you know, I think this theory would be easy to sell

00:32:02 ► §

if we would just say everything we’ve said except that

00:32:06 ► §

the omega point is 150,000 zillion quadrillion years in the future then people say well i have no

00:32:14 ► §

trouble with that that seems perfectly reasonable but the thing which makes it tough is that

00:32:22 ► §

it predicts this enormous, beyond enormous change about to wash over us.

00:32:32 ► §

Okay, so enough infomercial and sloganeering and all that.

00:32:38 ► §

Let’s cut to the chase, and I will demonstrate it.

00:32:42 ► §

Let me say a little bit about it first.

00:32:46 ► §

There’s nothing magic about the computer.

00:32:49 ► §

This is a somewhat complicated mathematical object,

00:32:52 ► §

although those of you who know computers,

00:32:55 ► §

when you see the speed with which this old 386

00:32:58 ► §

can draw these graphs,

00:33:00 ► §

you can tell that this is not cray-level complexity we’re talking about here.

00:33:07 ► §

This is a reasonably complex compound fractal object, and what the computer software is allowing

00:33:15 ► §

us to do is move around inside it and see any amount of time at any level of magnification.

00:33:23 ► §

So, for instance, we could look at something as huge as, well, the condensation of the planet.

00:33:33 ► §

There it is.

00:33:35 ► §

Or we could look at something as small as the Kennedy assassination, or even smaller.

00:33:41 ► §

We could concentrate into a single minute and say where the novelty was and where the habit was.

00:33:50 ► §

So let me interpret this static graph, and then we’ll start through this thing.

00:33:57 ► §

This shows five billion years, six billion years on the screen.

00:34:09 ► §

billion years, six billion years on the screen, 2012 AD and indeed our entire world and all our history back to the Stone Age is slammed against this edge of the graph at this size.

00:34:17 ► §

This is the condensation of the planet. This is the first great rush into novelty.

00:34:24 ► §

And those of you who are fascinated by this,

00:34:27 ► §

you can see everything I’m showing you tonight by going to the website and exploring the page

00:34:33 ► §

called novelty and the page called novelty report. And all this stuff is there and is easily

00:34:41 ► §

downloaded. And here, this is an example.

00:34:47 ► §

Right.

00:34:49 ► §

Okay, so then the game here

00:34:52 ► §

is you have to know a lot about history

00:34:54 ► §

to play it or you have to have good reference books

00:34:57 ► §

open in front of you.

00:34:59 ► §

And the way the game is played is we look at a point

00:35:02 ► §

like this and we say, okay that the theory is predicting

00:35:05 ► §

high novelty there what happened there uh in this case the answer is check the october

00:35:13 ► §

n94 scientific american a mars-sized object collides with the earth and the impact splatter

00:35:22 ► §

forms the moon the moon earth system.

00:35:26 ► §

Believe it or not, a nutty thing like that is orthodoxy in planetology.

00:35:31 ► §

Apparently there’s no dissent from this.

00:35:34 ► §

They all agree on such a catastrophic scenario.

00:35:39 ► §

And that maricized object impacting with the still molten, unsettled infant earth creates our planet right here.

00:35:50 ► §

Almost immediate, this is at 4.83 billion years ago.

00:35:55 ► §

At this scale theory, meaning the graph, and paleontology are in, as far as we can tell, 100% agreement.

00:36:06 ► §

But of course, this is a long way back.

00:36:09 ► §

Yeah.

00:36:10 ► §

What sense the period of time of the rotation of the Earth

00:36:15 ► §

and the rotation of the Moon around the Earth,

00:36:18 ► §

why the Moon’s rotation is correlated

00:36:22 ► §

so that we only see one side of the Moon?

00:36:24 ► §

Oh, the reason we only see one side of the moon is because in the past as the earth spun,

00:36:32 ► §

it raised the tides, and that’s a transfer of energy to the earth,

00:36:37 ► §

and eventually it was what is called despun, and then it makes one revolution per one revolution, and consequently always keeps the same face to the earth.

00:36:49 ► §

There are many satellites in the solar system that are despun and therefore what’s called tidily locked to the object they orbit around.

00:36:59 ► §

Ordinary Newtonian mechanics will pump that out for you. It’s not mysterious.

00:37:05 ► §

Well, it’s…

00:37:06 ► §

And the rate of rotation of the Earth itself?

00:37:09 ► §

Why does it rotate that…

00:37:11 ► §

Well, that has… I mean, it had a certain amount of angular momentum in the beginning,

00:37:17 ► §

and of course it is slowly transferring that angular momentum to the sun,

00:37:22 ► §

and will eventually itself be despun and tidily

00:37:26 ► §

locked to the Sun as Mercury is now because Mercury is a smaller planet nearer to

00:37:31 ► §

the Sun more rapid transfer of angular momentum to the solar tides more rapid

00:37:37 ► §

de-spinning okay so the Earth becomes a solid planet here then right over

00:37:44 ► §

here the earliest life emerges.

00:37:50 ► §

You’re saying rotation will actually be locked, and it will stop.

00:37:53 ► §

It will then rotate once.

00:37:57 ► §

The day and the year will become the same.

00:38:00 ► §

The year will never become, we’ll never have change of seasons.

00:38:05 ► §

Change of seasons. Change of

00:38:05 ► §

seasons.

00:38:06 ► §

That’s a

00:38:06 ► §

different thing.

00:38:07 ► §

That’s a

00:38:08 ► §

back and

00:38:08 ► §

forth rocking.

00:38:10 ► §

Yeah.

00:38:11 ► §

Yeah.

00:38:13 ► §

Aslin

00:38:14 ► §

Mercury,

00:38:15 ► §

which keeps

00:38:15 ► §

one side

00:38:16 ► §

always toward

00:38:17 ► §

the year.

00:38:18 ► §

Yeah.

00:38:19 ► §

Yeah.

00:38:21 ► §

Now you

00:38:22 ► §

can see

00:38:22 ► §

that at this

00:38:23 ► §

scale, the

00:38:24 ► §

descent into novelty has been an almost unbroken process.

00:38:29 ► §

The only major exception is this major hiccup here.

00:38:33 ► §

Of course, it lasted 300 million years.

00:38:37 ► §

So, you know, there have been retro times of great duration.

00:38:42 ► §

And what we identify this to in the history of the earth

00:38:46 ► §

is the episode in which early primitive life produced oxygen,

00:38:54 ► §

a reducing element and a toxic gas in that situation.

00:38:59 ► §

And it’s thought that we almost went extinct

00:39:02 ► §

before we got started.

00:39:04 ► §

To give you an idea of how far back in time this is,

00:39:09 ► §

all evolution of life on land is from the top of that last mountain down.

00:39:16 ► §

It’s 500 million years from here to here.

00:39:21 ► §

500 million years from here to here.

00:39:26 ► §

So this is way back.

00:39:28 ► §

Remember Mr. Peabody in his way back machine?

00:39:32 ► §

Now, I have a Zoom function, and I want to use it here,

00:39:38 ► §

and we’ll get closer into some more…

00:39:44 ► §

What value is starting up here, or what do you mean?

00:39:51 ► §

To the far left.

00:39:53 ► §

You mean what’s over here?

00:39:54 ► §

5.802 billion years.

00:40:00 ► §

Up here, it goes up to

00:40:02 ► §

roughly 17 million

00:40:06 ► §

here. Here?

00:40:10 ► §

Around

00:40:11 ► §

a million free

00:40:13 ► §

10 million free.

00:40:17 ► §

Well, no, this is just the earth.

00:40:20 ► §

This is 5 billion years. The Big Bang

00:40:24 ► §

is back here.

00:40:26 ► §

You know, and beyond

00:40:28 ► §

that, who knows?

00:40:29 ► §

Let me get this thing going, because if I lose

00:40:32 ► §

my focus, I’m out of luck.

00:40:34 ► §

Approach factor

00:40:35 ► §

00:40:39 ► §

Okay, now

00:40:39 ► §

while we’re talking, it’s slicing

00:40:42 ► §

this thing in half with each

00:40:43 ► §

picture. Six billion years. years, three billion years.

00:40:51 ► §

1.4 billion. This is all life on land.

00:40:58 ► §

The last 735 million years.

00:41:15 ► §

335 million years the last 367 million years now the important thing about this is notice that this is not shy of making predictions this thing doesn’t fudge it

00:41:22 ► §

doesn’t shuffle the deck when you’re not looking.

00:41:25 ► §

It boldly predicts where no one has ever predicted before.

00:41:31 ► §

These are incredibly dramatic and rapid descents into novelty.

00:41:39 ► §

And if you go to my website, you will see how these correlate to extinction events, commentary impacts,

00:41:49 ► §

very large catastrophic events which shift the gene pool around.

00:41:57 ► §

At this point, of course, there’s no technology, there’s no human beings.

00:42:02 ► §

The building blocks to play with on this scale are genes and species.

00:42:08 ► §

And so these are…

00:42:10 ► §

And so what we’re actually seeing

00:42:12 ► §

is a picture of the famous punctuated evolution

00:42:15 ► §

that was proposed in the middle 70s

00:42:19 ► §

and became so controversial,

00:42:21 ► §

but is now pretty well accepted.

00:42:24 ► §

These are enormous extinction events,

00:42:28 ► §

which then create novel situations

00:42:31 ► §

where then genes are mixed together and so on.

00:42:35 ► §

Now I’ll restart to the Zoom.

00:42:42 ► §

Let’s see, approach factor.

00:42:44 ► §

Let’s do a slightly less radical approach factor.

00:42:48 ► §

How about one point, one point one?

00:42:57 ► §

And now we’re just flying toward the present is what we’re doing.

00:43:02 ► §

That’s 334 million years. Now one of the great events in the life of the earth that we must correctly predict to be taken seriously is the extinction events 65 million years ago that created the Cretaceous tertiary boundary and wiped out the dinosaurs and so forth.

00:43:25 ► §

You all know about that.

00:43:27 ► §

We do.

00:43:29 ► §

Here it is.

00:43:31 ► §

We predict it to within, so far as the two dates are concerned, zero error, dead on.

00:43:39 ► §

Now, if you have a good memory, you may notice that this is also the signature of the place where the

00:43:46 ► §

Mars-sized object impacted the earth and made the moon. This brings in another part of the

00:43:52 ► §

theory. Here it is. Resonances. Those two things are resonant with each other on two different

00:43:59 ► §

levels. The alignment of those two events through a formal mathematical theory is eerie.

00:44:05 ► §

Do you understand what I’m saying?

00:44:08 ► §

Do you understand what I’m saying?

00:44:09 ► §

Because it’s impressive to me, that particular one.

00:44:13 ► §

Okay.

00:44:14 ► §

All right.

00:44:15 ► §

What I’m saying is this.

00:44:17 ► §

If we took away all these numbers that are being printed up right now,

00:44:21 ► §

this is the same picture we had on the screen when I said we were looking at six billion years,

00:44:27 ► §

and this was the condensation of the early Earth,

00:44:31 ► §

and here was this planetesimal impact,

00:44:34 ► §

and here was the first life.

00:44:36 ► §

But we’re not looking at six billion years.

00:44:39 ► §

We’re looking at a tiny fraction of that.

00:44:42 ► §

We’re looking at 70 million years, but strangely enough, in this system

00:44:49 ► §

of nested resonances, this point twice in the history of this planet has been associated

00:44:56 ► §

with an enormous extinction event involving an impact with an object from outer space.

00:45:03 ► §

So this, as I say, this introduces the idea of resonances.

00:45:08 ► §

I’ll give you a more close-to-home example, which we will see in detail in a few minutes.

00:45:14 ► §

When we get down into history, you’ll discover that there is a direct resonance between dynastic Egypt and Nazi Germany.

00:45:27 ► §

Well, now at first, this seems highly counterintuitive.

00:45:31 ► §

What do these two things have to do with each other?

00:45:35 ► §

But when you deconstruct it, it’s very obvious.

00:45:38 ► §

Let’s talk about Egypt for a moment.

00:45:43 ► §

They invented the cult of the god leader the word pharaoh and the word

00:45:51 ► §

furor can be traced to one root by some people both of these people became obsessed

00:46:01 ► §

with tasteless large-scale architecture,

00:46:09 ► §

constructed with slave labor, much of it Jewish.

00:46:17 ► §

Now, that seems to me a string of coincidences that argue that there actually is a kind of resonance.

00:46:25 ► §

And, you know, the ant-hill quality of Nazi society and the ant-hill quality of primitive kingship,

00:46:32 ► §

the leader cult, the millennial sense of destiny, the reliance on slave labor, the abuse of Jews.

00:46:43 ► §

I mean, it’s just weird once you start thinking about it.

00:46:46 ► §

I’ll just think of a large, well, anyway, I’ll just drop that line,

00:46:51 ► §

that in all these ways to try to look upon a graph and see similarities in event.

00:47:00 ► §

But if someone who was fairly familiar with the history of earth and, loosely speaking, the concept of the ratio of habit and novelty were to, in the absence of familiarity with your work here, be able to construct a chart that could be demonstrated to have a correlation with the one you’re getting, that would be very consistent

00:47:26 ► §

and to me that would be the most interesting test.

00:47:30 ► §

Well, that would be an interesting test.

00:47:32 ► §

I would love such a test,

00:47:35 ► §

but I don’t agree with part of your premise

00:47:38 ► §

because not only can you not coax

00:47:43 ► §

these kinds of correlations out of any theory or any line,

00:47:48 ► §

you can’t coax them out of this theory if you move the end point.

00:47:53 ► §

At this scale where we’re talking millions of years, the fudge factor is pretty good,

00:47:59 ► §

but I’ll move you into the last thousand years of history,

00:48:03 ► §

and you’ll begin to see

00:48:05 ► §

that you don’t have much room

00:48:07 ► §

to play. That if we move

00:48:10 ► §

the thing even 10 or 15

00:48:12 ► §

years, whole

00:48:14 ► §

galaxies of correlations

00:48:16 ► §

fall away and they are not

00:48:18 ► §

replaced by new ones.

00:48:20 ► §

Most of us in this room are relatively familiar

00:48:22 ► §

with the last 30 or 40 years, which may be

00:48:24 ► §

squeeze it too tightly. Mm-mm. Mm-mm. Let me put it this way are relatively familiar with the last 30 or 40 years, which may be squeezing too tightly.

00:48:26 ► §

Mm-mm.

00:48:26 ► §

Mm-mm.

00:48:27 ► §

But let me put it this way then.

00:48:28 ► §

We haven’t yet seen this.

00:48:30 ► §

You suppose if we each took 15 minutes to identify what we thought were the most significant

00:48:35 ► §

events of the last 30 years and rank them in terms of some sense of novelty versus habit and compared the hierarchy, the rank hierarchy that we got,

00:48:52 ► §

with the hierarchy of peaks in your chart that they would correlate?

00:48:57 ► §

Absolutely.

00:48:58 ► §

That’s what I’m saying.

00:49:00 ► §

But I’m saying before we see it.

00:49:03 ► §

Oh, sure.

00:49:05 ► §

Anyway, it’s set.

00:49:07 ► §

It’s not going to change.

00:49:08 ► §

It’s been decided since 1973.

00:49:13 ► §

So whether we see it or not see it, I know what it is.

00:49:18 ► §

I can tell you sitting here what it says the most important event or areas of time in the 20th century are.

00:49:28 ► §

I would, if…

00:49:29 ► §

Maybe I’m either I’m missing the point or I’m not expressing my…

00:49:35 ► §

What are you getting at?

00:49:37 ► §

What are you getting at?

00:49:39 ► §

What I’m getting at is the equivalent of a blind test here.

00:49:43 ► §

Well, you think the big events in history are open to opinions?

00:49:46 ► §

Are we not going to agree with World War II?

00:49:50 ► §

Well, wait a minute.

00:49:51 ► §

I think that rather than argue, rather than argue this, I think we can settle it.

00:49:57 ► §

I’m not sure we can settle it, but you should each think of three events in the 20, three periods of time.

00:50:08 ► §

You don’t even have to name the event.

00:50:10 ► §

Three periods of time in the 20th century that you think were extremely novel.

00:50:20 ► §

Well, that’s yours.

00:50:23 ► §

And then I will show you.

00:50:27 ► §

But see, I don’t think we have to formalize it.

00:50:30 ► §

My idea is that the entire lecture is a test.

00:50:35 ► §

Every single person, every single moment,

00:50:38 ► §

should be asking themselves,

00:50:40 ► §

oh, this guy is peddling this rap.

00:50:42 ► §

Does it agree with what I think about the important points of history?

00:50:47 ► §

Let me keep flying toward the present

00:50:50 ► §

because I think if you’re going to win your argument,

00:50:55 ► §

it will be closer to the present

00:50:56 ► §

where there’s greater precision.

00:50:59 ► §

So let me do that.

00:51:01 ► §

Can I have a few questions before you can.

00:51:04 ► §

I’m very open to hearing the whole thing explained,

00:51:07 ► §

and maybe I’m anticipating this.

00:51:09 ► §

And I notice that at the various troughs,

00:51:13 ► §

there are significant historical events marked with their exact date

00:51:19 ► §

because that’s what the model predicts.

00:51:22 ► §

And at some troughs, there are no dates marked or events

00:51:27 ► §

labeled this is just a teaser so does that imply that you looked at the various troughs

00:51:37 ► §

and chose no no no I’m willing to make an astonishing assertion, which is it never is wrong.

00:51:52 ► §

It’s not sort of right or really good at this.

00:51:57 ► §

It’s never wrong.

00:51:59 ► §

It has to be that way because of deeper metaphysical underpinnings that hold the whole thing together.

00:52:07 ► §

This is not a partial thing or a statistical thing. This has to be on the money to the millisecond

00:52:15 ► §

from the first syllable of recorded time down to the last.

00:52:20 ► §

So the troughs that aren’t labeled, the valleys that aren’t labeled,

00:52:27 ► §

which we would assume are other points of novelty.

00:52:32 ► §

If we were to go find out what happened on that date.

00:52:35 ► §

You would find novel.

00:52:39 ► §

If the trough is as deep.

00:52:41 ► §

If the trough is as deep.

00:52:44 ► §

Yeah.

00:52:45 ► §

What about the cultural bias?

00:52:48 ► §

The cultural bias question

00:52:50 ► §

sort of disappears

00:52:51 ► §

behind the peculiar phenomenon

00:52:53 ► §

that great cultural leaps forward

00:52:57 ► §

are made simultaneously

00:52:59 ► §

in different parts of the world

00:53:01 ► §

and in fact it becomes an argument

00:53:04 ► §

for the theory that you know

00:53:06 ► §

here you have a steep descent and somebody says well it’s the fall of rome well yes it is but it’s also

00:53:12 ► §

the disintegration of the han dynasty and it’s you know so the cultural now let me there is a

00:53:19 ► §

different dimension to this cultural bias thing some people say oh god you’re God, you’re so Eurocentric. I mean, you get

00:53:26 ► §

down to talking about Newton and all this. Yeah, but I’ve got news for you. What kind of world do you

00:53:32 ► §

think you’re living in? Do you think the culture of ancient Assyria is casting a long shadow over the

00:53:39 ► §

land? I don’t think so. Do you think the Maya are major players in forming global civilization at the end of the 20th century?

00:53:49 ► §

Like it or not, the ideas spanned in Europe have now affected and infected and defected to every corner of the planet.

00:54:00 ► §

So in that sense, it’s Eurocentric, because if it weren’t Eurocentric, it wouldn’t be true to the facts.

00:54:06 ► §

Is the OJ.K.’s on that? Is the OJ.K.’s novel?

00:54:10 ► §

Absolutely. It’s the largest collection of consciousness on the planet ever.

00:54:15 ► §

No, no. The Schumacher-Levey-9 comet crash on Jupiter brought to bet together a much higher crowd, a much, if by IQ points what we’re talking about.

00:54:30 ► §

I don’t think the OJ thing even can tip the scale.

00:54:34 ► §

But let’s not argue that.

00:54:35 ► §

Let me lead us into the future here, and all mysteries will be revealed.

00:54:43 ► §

Isn’t this fun?

00:54:45 ► §

You see, it’s not so much whether you believe it or any of that.

00:54:49 ► §

It’s that this causes thinking.

00:54:52 ► §

And thinking…

00:54:54 ► §

Well, we don’t have enough data.

00:55:00 ► §

This is 88 million years.

00:55:05 ► §

And this is the common impact point at 65 million that off the dinosaurs.

00:55:11 ► §

And all this novelty down here is the emergence of the mammals and the flowering plants and all that good stuff.

00:55:20 ► §

Okay, now we’re looking at 66 million years.

00:55:25 ► §

And one thing, let me say,

00:55:27 ► §

it treats the earth as a point, which is an objection.

00:55:33 ► §

It doesn’t, there are, apparently novelty has a dimensionality to it,

00:55:40 ► §

such that the earth can be treated as a point.

00:55:43 ► §

That doesn’t mean that it’s novel everywhere all the time.

00:55:49 ► §

This one?

00:55:51 ► §

It’s about 35 million years ago.

00:55:54 ► §

I think it’s the Ponji deradiation, which is the spread of the monkeys worldwide.

00:56:01 ► §

But not all of these things have filled in.

00:56:03 ► §

After all, I’ve also got to have a life.

00:56:06 ► §

I have to be hearing of the American Civil War, because the American Civil War was the

00:56:12 ► §

collision between warfare and technology, and warfare has been the accelerator of technology

00:56:19 ► §

ever since that time. We’ll see it. The thing is slightly muddled by the Franco-Prussian war,

00:56:26 ► §

which was going on in Europe shortly after, but we will see it.

00:56:35 ► §

This is 19 million years now. And this function, which we’re seeing, Zoom, is only one function.

00:56:45 ► §

You do understand that no matter how far back in the past a moment in time is,

00:56:50 ► §

we could go down and look at it on a scale of days.

00:56:55 ► §

I mean, we could actually look at a day, 5 billion years in the past,

00:57:01 ► §

and this theory, without blushing, tells you its absolute novelty parameters and so forth

00:57:10 ► §

and so on in other words it’s it tells you it answers questions you haven’t even thought to ask

00:57:17 ► §

my birthday my birthday my birthday is not terribly, although it comes a year after the discovery of the atom bomb.

00:57:31 ► §

Right after World War II, there was this thing called the Return to Normacy.

00:57:36 ► §

And, of course, it shows as an upswing, a punctuated upswing.

00:57:42 ► §

We’re now six million years.

00:57:44 ► §

And this is the story of the evolution of the high. punctuated upswain. We’re now six million years.

00:57:51 ► §

And this is the story of the evolution of the higher primates.

00:57:59 ► §

And these are solar energy cycles, glaciation.

00:58:05 ► §

We’re still moving in the realm here of large-scale cosmic inputs.

00:58:11 ► §

Humans begin to emerge, well, advanced hominids,

00:58:15 ► §

the earliest advanced hominids are about three million years ago.

00:58:18 ► §

Probably I’d choose down in here.

00:58:22 ► §

That’s all so imprecise that you can have it any way you like, really. But obviously, this is a domain of high novelty, a very long period,

00:58:28 ► §

a period longer than the time that separates us from Moses is down in here.

00:58:35 ► §

This may be where that partnership paradise, you know, the early influence of psychoactive plants on consciousness,

00:58:44 ► §

although these creatures living in here are not human by any stretch of this, you know, the early influence of psychoactive plants on consciousness,

00:58:50 ► §

although these creatures living in here are not human by any stretch of the imagination.

00:58:56 ► §

I believe, well, I’m not sure, I better not say.

00:58:58 ► §

How long did you work in this?

00:59:01 ► §

Since 1971.

00:59:03 ► §

This is a fractal.

00:59:06 ► §

This is a fractal. It is a fractal.

00:59:07 ► §

It is a fractal.

00:59:09 ► §

That’s why it has resonances.

00:59:16 ► §

The whole theory of resonances has to do with the presence of fractals within it.

00:59:21 ► §

This is a million.6, a million point four.

00:59:29 ► §

Now this, now you’re getting bipedalism, grassland dwelling, it’s beginning to happen.

00:59:39 ► §

It’s beginning to happen. And down here it is happening. I mean, this is like, well, we’ll see when we get there.

00:59:46 ► §

But see how far, you know, we’ve come a long, long way. Now we’re under a million years.

00:59:53 ► §

And remember, it wouldn’t have any of these correlations if the end date were different. Of course, at these large scales, you could move the end date a century, and you would hardly notice.

00:59:59 ► §

But when you get down into the nitty-gritty, Tiena Men Square, murder of Chalchescu, the fall of the Berlin Wall.

01:00:07 ► §

You’ve got 24 hours to play in, you know, and you’re using a structure that’s worked on scales

01:00:17 ► §

of billions, millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands, and hundreds of years.

01:00:25 ► §

That’s half a million years.

01:00:27 ► §

Now this is the last, oh, I don’t know,

01:00:31 ► §

125,000 years is up here.

01:00:35 ► §

In other words, you know,

01:00:38 ► §

the modern homo sapient-sapian type emerges,

01:00:42 ► §

and at this scale, that’s all it takes.

01:00:45 ► §

It’s just a formality.

01:00:46 ► §

All these wars and migrations and everything that looked so botched up.

01:00:50 ► §

At this scale, it’s a straight shot into the eschaton.

01:00:56 ► §

That’s 375,000, 290,000 years.

01:01:02 ► §

My, I think this is a wonderful stimulus for thought

01:01:06 ► §

but my problem I think as I’ve listened to this

01:01:09 ► §

on several different occasions is in the definition of novelty

01:01:12 ► §

and assigning really objective novelty values

01:01:17 ► §

to different events.

01:01:19 ► §

You know, you think like the assassination of John Kennedy

01:01:21 ► §

or the something producing novelty

01:01:24 ► §

and the explosion of the

01:01:25 ► §

bottom erosion of the project’s model of that but there’s no way to really compare those

01:01:31 ► §

to the numerical I agree that that’s a real pain in the neck if we could if I could

01:01:38 ► §

attract enough attention somebody could figure out how to quote there is a numerical

01:01:44 ► §

history an effort to quantify. There is a numerical history, an effort to

01:01:46 ► §

quantify history. If you label as many tracks as possible, then you would have a lot of data.

01:01:53 ► §

Well, what I want to do is make a chronological database so that you can touch a point

01:01:58 ► §

and immediately fill the screen with data. I just need funding and time. This is the last 100,000 years.

01:02:07 ► §

Wouldn’t that contribute to it to being a self-fulfilling prophecy, though, if the effort was to

01:02:14 ► §

if you began locating a trough and then to notice corresponding to…

01:02:18 ► §

No, you wouldn’t do it like that. You would just enter all the chronological data you could

01:02:23 ► §

possibly find without bias using some objective standard.

01:02:28 ► §

I don’t know, the 13th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, or some damn thing.

01:02:33 ► §

And then wherever you pointed, it would tell you what data you had there.

01:02:39 ► §

This is the last 62,000 years.

01:02:43 ► §

Are your points derived from the answer to some time?

01:02:46 ► §

No, that’s the miracle.

01:02:49 ► §

No, I just chose one date, December 21st, 2012.

01:02:54 ► §

Through best-fit exhaustive analysis,

01:03:00 ► §

and then discovered it was the Mayan End date.

01:03:03 ► §

And a winter solstice. and then discovered it was the Mayan End Day.

01:03:07 ► §

And a winter solstice.

01:03:13 ► §

42,000 years, this is the mushroom paradise back here.

01:03:20 ► §

And then this is a caring capacity problem or the desertification of the African continent.

01:03:23 ► §

It’s not clear.

01:03:25 ► §

This is what’s up here is what’s called the Magdalenean explosion, the beginning of bone antler technology.

01:03:34 ► §

People are making art.

01:03:36 ► §

They’re burying their dead with offerings.

01:03:39 ► §

There is a sense of the afterlife, ornamentation, social status, on and on and on.

01:03:48 ► §

And then down here, this is where agriculture is invented, and subsequently warfare.

01:03:57 ► §

In the archaeological record, there’s something here called the Tanged Point Techno Complex,

01:04:02 ► §

from Ireland to Manchuria, which is assemblages of

01:04:07 ► §

arrowheads, and these aren’t arrowhead factories. There are sites of battles between human groups.

01:04:14 ► §

Warfare is invented. This is the end of the Paleolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic,

01:04:21 ► §

and the end of the partnership paradise and the mushroom dispensation.

01:04:27 ► §

And then this incredible stab into novelty here, what you find in the archaeological record down here is

01:04:36 ► §

Chattalhuyuk in Anatolian Turkey, which the students of Middle Eastern archaeology agree. It was described as an vast anticipation

01:04:49 ► §

of future civilization, unrivaled in its complexity

01:04:53 ► §

and brilliance until over here.

01:04:56 ► §

The Great Pyramids, the Great Pyramid is built right here.

01:05:01 ► §

Along this descent, you get Sumer, Er, Caldea, and then Egypt. Along this upswing,

01:05:08 ► §

you get these warfare, patriarchal, city-building societies, the Metani, the Hittites, the Assyrians,

01:05:18 ► §

but these deep stabs into novelty are things like the invention of the phonetic alphabet,

01:05:27 ► §

a bunch of stuff.

01:05:30 ► §

Up here, Homer sings his song.

01:05:33 ► §

That’s the Homeric era. And look at the straight shot to the Eschaton from there.

01:05:37 ► §

It’s basically all over, but the shouting once Homer sang his song, this deep, deep descent,

01:05:46 ► §

this stab into novelty

01:05:48 ► §

even deeper than the general descent

01:05:50 ► §

exactly defines the Greek golden age,

01:05:56 ► §

a time when Menchus, Confucius,

01:05:59 ► §

Ezekiel, Lao Tzu, Sophocles,

01:06:02 ► §

Pythagoras,

01:06:04 ► §

and several other notables were all alive at the same time.

01:06:08 ► §

Amazing moment.

01:06:11 ► §

The crucifixion, I’ve lost myself for a moment, where are we?

01:06:18 ► §

Is here, I think, right here.

01:06:21 ► §

And then that launches this drop.

01:06:24 ► §

This is the fall of Rome here.

01:06:28 ► §

This is the birth of Muhammad here.

01:06:30 ► §

This is the consolidation of Islam,

01:06:32 ► §

and one screen more.

01:06:36 ► §

And I want to stop it.

01:06:38 ► §

Okay, we’ve got 1,500 years on the screen.

01:06:41 ► §

We’ve come from 6 billion years into the past. The theory is as robust as ever. It’s filled the screen with predictions. We know a great deal about the last 1500 years. How are we doing? All right.

01:07:13 ► §

Muhammad is born here in 530, I believe, 570, and dies here in 630. And dies here in 6.30.

01:07:18 ► §

This is the consolidation of Islam right here.

01:07:23 ► §

Europe was a rat’s nest at this point.

01:07:26 ► §

I mean, this is where the art,

01:07:28 ► §

and for those who say the cultural bias argument,

01:07:31 ► §

get a load of how the emphasis on Islam,

01:07:35 ► §

because it’s not only here,

01:07:37 ► §

but this enormous descent into novelty,

01:07:41 ► §

which, by the way, is in resonance with next year.

01:07:44 ► §

And if you go to the website, you’ll see a graph of the Sung Dynasty and the Umayyid

01:07:51 ► §

caliphate at Cordoba, showing that these two enormous cultural efflorescences were in exact

01:07:59 ► §

alignment with this descent into novelty.

01:08:03 ► §

And this is the moment when Arabic numerals are introduced into Europe, a whole bunch of good

01:08:09 ► §

stuff like that.

01:08:10 ► §

I would think that the birth of Islam would be associated with a retreat from not, you know,

01:08:16 ► §

move towards conservatism because they really, their society is just based simply on the

01:08:21 ► §

Koran and they’ve got a real rigid system.

01:08:26 ► §

Well, that’s what it became,

01:08:27 ► §

but the world had never seen anything like Islam.

01:08:32 ► §

These guys were desert tribes dealing water to each other

01:08:35 ► §

for millennia at the edge of organized civilization.

01:08:39 ► §

They were barbarian, desert barbarians.

01:08:41 ► §

And suddenly, one guy,

01:08:47 ► §

Mohammed, not only founds a world religion

01:08:49 ► §

that claims the allegiance

01:08:50 ► §

of 700 million people,

01:08:52 ► §

but he founds a political order too.

01:08:55 ► §

Buddha didn’t pull that off

01:08:57 ► §

and neither did Christ.

01:08:59 ► §

There’s a book called

01:09:00 ► §

The 100

01:09:01 ► §

that, playing this same game

01:09:04 ► §

of quantification, seeks to list the 100 that playing this same game of quantification seeks to list the 100 most influential

01:09:10 ► §

people in human history and guess who is number one mohammad mohammed built a political and religious

01:09:19 ► §

and philosophical order that has maintained its coherency i mean it, it’s a big deal, arguable, but a big deal.

01:09:28 ► §

But the very fact that there could be a difference of opinion about it

01:09:31 ► §

I think really reinforces the idea that there ought to be some way,

01:09:35 ► §

if this is truly to be testable,

01:09:37 ► §

there ought to be some methodology for quantifying large versus small…

01:09:44 ► §

No, I’m absolutely agree with you.

01:09:46 ► §

There should be.

01:09:47 ► §

We’re waiting for it.

01:09:49 ► §

That’s what we want.

01:09:50 ► §

Let me start this going again.

01:09:54 ► §

1.1 is good enough.

01:09:59 ► §

I want to really, I want you to see these later ones in detail.

01:10:04 ► §

This is the Umayyid, Caliphate at Cordova and the Sung Dynasty and so forth and so

01:10:10 ► §

and also the Fatimids were doing their thing.

01:10:13 ► §

But this, it reaches maxima in 1122.

01:10:23 ► §

This is the great crusade,

01:10:27 ► §

which establishes the kingdom of Jerusalem

01:10:29 ► §

for I believe 120 years.

01:10:34 ► §

Europe actually retook the Holy Land from Islam

01:10:38 ► §

and held it.

01:10:39 ► §

This is St. Anselm, St. Boniface.

01:10:42 ► §

This is a moment of very high novelty

01:10:47 ► §

because these crusades broke open

01:10:50 ► §

the closed civilization of Europe.

01:10:54 ► §

There were to be successive such episodes,

01:10:57 ► §

but this really begins the fomentation

01:11:01 ► §

that builds European civilization.

01:11:07 ► §

Okay, then this one over here,

01:11:10 ► §

this is an interesting one

01:11:11 ► §

because see how quickly it descends deeply

01:11:14 ► §

but how quickly it returns to normal.

01:11:18 ► §

It’s a different signature than say this one,

01:11:22 ► §

which we’ll get to in a minute.

01:11:24 ► §

Okay, this one reaches maxima in 1355.

01:11:30 ► §

Any takers? Is anybody holding in their mind an event? See, part of the problem is the failure of the

01:11:38 ► §

educational system to provide the database. What happened in 1355 is within 18 months, one third of the population

01:11:49 ► §

of Europe died. And yes, bubonic plague. And no one knows how many people died in Europe.

01:11:56 ► §

And it’s an interesting signature because let’s analyze a plague catastrophe. It certainly is

01:12:04 ► §

novel to have one third of your population drop dead.

01:12:08 ► §

But on the other hand, no new technology is introduced. No new religious reform is set in motion.

01:12:16 ► §

No great new markets swim into view. All that happens is a whole bunch of people die,

01:12:23 ► §

and a whole bunch of people who don’t

01:12:25 ► §

die, move into their shoes and restore order, and boing, the thing bounces right back up again.

01:12:35 ► §

And the signature is, I maintain, arguably in agreement with such a scenario.

01:12:41 ► §

Though I would think that a plague would quote a high level of superstition, which would probably be a straight jacket in terms of change, and certain rituals would be a scenario. So I would think that a play would quote a high level of superstition

01:12:45 ► §

which would probably be a straight jacket

01:12:47 ► §

in terms of change.

01:12:48 ► §

Certain rituals would be adopted

01:12:50 ► §

and people would follow them

01:12:51 ► §

as a way of trying to ward off

01:12:53 ► §

the plague.

01:12:55 ► §

Well now I think you’re just being the devil’s

01:12:57 ► §

advocate because I will turn devil’s

01:13:00 ► §

advocate and say

01:13:01 ► §

superstition is orthodoxy’s

01:13:03 ► §

name for heresy. And what you’re really describing isition is orthodoxy’s name for heresy and what you’re really describing is

01:13:07 ► §

a rigid orthodoxy losing control over its population in favor of unsanctioned thoughts. In any case,

01:13:17 ► §

we’re both wrong because the 13th century was not nearly as full of superstition as the 16th,

01:13:26 ► §

which is coming up.

01:13:29 ► §

Here is… But we’re using this as a measure of whether we’re both right or wrong or some other combination.

01:13:35 ► §

Well, until we have quantification, what we have is a very strong mathematical theory

01:13:43 ► §

with a verbal wrap behind it. However, there is a way

01:13:48 ► §

to satisfy you and me and everybody else, and that is, we only have to live through December 21,

01:13:55 ► §

2012 to put this baby to bed once and for all. In the meantime, if somebody can come up with a

01:14:02 ► §

better idea, we’ll try that first.

01:14:05 ► §

If you don’t mind, this is partly devil’s advocate and partly another fellow.

01:14:10 ► §

It strikes me that the most modeling of this sort, probably far in a way the most modeling

01:14:16 ► §

has been concentrated on the financial markets.

01:14:19 ► §

Maybe not the brightest minds, but certainly a great many people interested in making planning very simply.

01:14:25 ► §

And it seems that what people typically do is to create an algorithm that attempts to

01:14:31 ► §

incorporate what they consider to be the relevant variables.

01:14:35 ► §

And then they back-tested, which is essentially to compare what their model predicts with

01:14:40 ► §

what actually happened, which the model being exacting and financial information being exacting,

01:14:45 ► §

can really be tested quite precisely.

01:14:48 ► §

So far, so good.

01:14:49 ► §

And it is the case that it’s quite, I shouldn’t say quite easy, but it’s often done that people create models

01:14:56 ► §

that in back testing would make someone a hell of a lot of money.

01:15:00 ► §

In other words, looking backward, they did an excellent job predicting the market.

01:15:07 ► §

But that’s a curious argument because, listen, this could have been invented 2,000 years ago,

01:15:16 ► §

in which case are you saying it would have worked for 2,000 less 17 years,

01:15:22 ► §

but then failed from the present forward.

01:15:26 ► §

And the point is that to the extent that there is,

01:15:32 ► §

that the financial modeling is analogous to this in some respect.

01:15:36 ► §

It is clearly a frequent event that people can backcast very successfully and fail

01:15:42 ► §

for the future.

01:15:42 ► §

But in the case of the markets, if someone did create a very useful algorithm,

01:15:49 ► §

then in fact the market, to the extent of the algorithm became well known,

01:15:55 ► §

the market would immediately shift to remove the accuracy in the algorithm.

01:16:00 ► §

I agree with that.

01:16:01 ► §

And I believe that this could happen in this case,

01:16:03 ► §

which would mean to the extent that there is any kind of agreement

01:16:06 ► §

about an end state,

01:16:10 ► §

and to the extent that we had any control

01:16:12 ► §

over those events that are more or less novel,

01:16:15 ► §

then at that moment we would erase the significance of the end.

01:16:19 ► §

Well, then that’s what will happen in 2012.

01:16:24 ► §

Total acceptance of the idea will destroy its efficacy,

01:16:28 ► §

and that’s why it ceases there.

01:16:32 ► §

Do you see?

01:16:34 ► §

Let me go forward, because if there’s hope for critics,

01:16:38 ► §

it lies in the near future.

01:16:40 ► §

But let me say one more thing about this.

01:16:42 ► §

Since I’ve had this since 1972, your argument doesn’t have force with me personally

01:16:50 ► §

because I predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall.

01:16:55 ► §

I predicted Tiananmen Square.

01:16:57 ► §

I predicted Chernobyl.

01:16:59 ► §

I predicted all of these things.

01:17:01 ► §

I didn’t say what would happen, but I said the day, the day. Yes, I said,

01:17:07 ► §

this day will be the most novel day of this year. I just took years as arbitrarily given

01:17:16 ► §

divisions. It’s very easy. I can, these culturally skewed, what, The most novel day of the next six months or year?

01:17:26 ► §

What? The most novel day of the next year?

01:17:31 ► §

Yes, I am flying toward it through a cloud of flack at hypersonic speed.

01:17:38 ► §

I am trying to get to the present.

01:17:42 ► §

And then we’ll go back to the future.

01:17:45 ► §

All right. So let me… trying to get to the present and then we’ll go back to the future.

01:17:59 ► §

All right, so let me, yes, no, approach factor 1.1.

01:18:03 ► §

Because what I want to show you, you can see it here, but I want to show you in greater detail,

01:18:05 ► §

is this one, because in my deluded state, I think that this one is, and it’s nearer to the present.

01:18:13 ► §

As we get nearer to the present, there’s more to say.

01:18:16 ► §

But what this one depicts is a very abrupt and sudden descent into novelty that is not able to recover itself like this one. In fact, it initiates

01:18:28 ► §

an age of novelty down here, which is only recovered up here. So here, I’ll let it go one more,

01:18:36 ► §

and then I’ll give you the skinny on that. Let’s get the… All right.

01:18:45 ► §

Okay.

01:18:47 ► §

So what happened up here?

01:18:54 ► §

This is 1440, right at the top there.

01:18:55 ► §

01:18:59 ► §

Gutenberg invents printing in Mainz, Germany.

01:19:02 ► §

Now, I submit to you that we’re getting into an area where people who don’t think this was a novel of the cemetery-breaking event

01:19:07 ► §

should begin to feel the heat.

01:19:11 ► §

But that’s not all.

01:19:13 ► §

Not only does what’s his name invent printing in 1440, but 15 years later, right after the cemetery break and causing this cascade, the Ottoman Turks

01:19:26 ► §

sees Constantinople and Europe is unable to entertain commerce with the east. It’s like a total

01:19:35 ► §

blockade of Europe and its economy goes into a downspin. What is the response to this? European entrepreneurs immediately begin financing

01:19:50 ► §

new shipbuilding and navigation technologies to build ships to sail around Africa to avoid the

01:19:59 ► §

embargo at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and the plan works, and more money pours into

01:20:08 ► §

Europe than anybody had ever conceived of before, and the people who invested in this used this

01:20:18 ► §

unimaginable wealth to patronize the arts and the sciences and create courtly city states

01:20:26 ► §

and the Italian Renaissance, flowers over the land.

01:20:31 ► §

And the Italian Renaissance, everybody you’ve ever heard of,

01:20:35 ► §

Michelangelo, Donatello, Da Vinci, da, da, da, da, they’re all here,

01:20:41 ► §

and it descends down here until it reaches maxima in 1492.

01:20:50 ► §

Now, I submit to you that the discovery of the lost half of the planet is a novel event.

01:20:58 ► §

It happened only 500 years ago that the lost half of the planet was discovered and…

01:21:04 ► §

By Europeans, but I mean that they went

01:21:08 ► §

everywhere until about 1500. I saw an amazing map the other day. Until 1500, basically,

01:21:16 ► §

the earth was racially segregated. The white people were in Europe. Everybody was where

01:21:21 ► §

they belong. Around here, the Russians started moving across

01:21:29 ► §

Siberia. You can see it like clouds of smoke, and white people began flowing into the new world.

01:21:37 ► §

So there was no rebound back into habit. The bite that had been taken was too big to swallow and from roughly let’s say

01:21:47 ► §

1500 to right here 1619 there is an era in history called not by me but by historians

01:21:58 ► §

the age of the marvelous and this is the great age of European alchemy it’s the the court of, it’s the Rudolfine court in Prague.

01:22:09 ► §

It’s the age of automata, magic.

01:22:14 ► §

It’s the age of the marvelous.

01:22:16 ► §

What can I tell you?

01:22:17 ► §

It ends with incredible abruptness like hitting a wall here in 1619. Well, what happened? What happened to end this?

01:22:30 ► §

And I would submit that the little peak down here in the bottom is the return to brutality

01:22:36 ► §

and slavery and barbarous habitual forms of behavior that Europe slipped into in order to

01:22:44 ► §

conquer the new world.

01:22:46 ► §

I mean, has it never struck anybody?

01:22:49 ► §

What were all these Christians doing dealing slaves?

01:22:54 ► §

During the Middle Ages, if you had a slave, you owned one slave.

01:23:00 ► §

It was like owning a Rolls-Royce, a houseboy or something that you paraded around.

01:23:05 ► §

The Latifundia, the Roman slave labor camp, disappeared in the fourth century, brought back in the 15th by enterprising Portuguese,

01:23:19 ► §

because the effort to extract capital from the new world was so important that a thousand years of Christian programming

01:23:28 ► §

and the wrath of the Pope and all the rest of it meant nothing to these people.

01:23:33 ► §

So marring the age of the marvelous is, you know, the atrocity of slavery here.

01:23:40 ► §

But back to 1619.

01:23:42 ► §

In 1619, the 30-years war begins.

01:23:46 ► §

In this country, it’s presented as this hogwash called the Protestant Reformation.

01:23:51 ► §

Forget that.

01:23:51 ► §

It was the 30-year’s war for crying out loud.

01:23:54 ► §

And at the beginning of it, Europe was ruled by popes and kings.

01:24:02 ► §

At the end of it, in 48, 1648, Europe is ruled by popes and kings. At the end of it, in 48,

01:24:06 ► §

1648,

01:24:08 ► §

Europe is ruled by parliaments and peoples.

01:24:12 ► §

All that.

01:24:13 ► §

Now, this thing here,

01:24:15 ► §

but the age of the marvelous

01:24:16 ► §

had given way to the age of commerce

01:24:19 ► §

and colonization and brutalization

01:24:22 ► §

and, you know, all that was spreading.

01:24:25 ► §

This is Newton’s notch.

01:24:28 ► §

And up here at 1740 is the birth of what is called the European Enlightenment.

01:24:40 ► §

And as you see, it’s set off, well, that comes a little later.

01:24:44 ► §

But the European Enlightenment, 1740, sets off a cascade.

01:24:49 ► §

Rousseau, Voltaire, all those people are writing.

01:24:52 ► §

And down here are Americans in North America and French people in France taking this seriously

01:25:01 ► §

and launching their two revolutions.

01:25:04 ► §

And these are two interesting revolutions.

01:25:07 ► §

One succeeded.

01:25:09 ► §

One failed.

01:25:10 ► §

They occurred within a decade of each other.

01:25:13 ► §

And look how the wave portrays them.

01:25:22 ► §

I’ll telegraph the punch.

01:25:25 ► §

The American Revolution begins at a cemetery break

01:25:29 ► §

at the top of a slide into novelty.

01:25:32 ► §

It succeeds.

01:25:34 ► §

The French Revolution begins at the bottom of a novelty trough

01:25:39 ► §

on an upturn into habit, and it fails.

01:25:43 ► §

So, you know, it’s true. we don’t have a quantified view of

01:25:48 ► §

history, but if we pile up 300 million of these kinds of examples with one wave in one

01:25:55 ► §

position without ever moving it, I maintain that at some point intellectual decency

01:26:02 ► §

compels considering the veracity of the proposition here is here’s the

01:26:10 ► §

American Revolution right here beginning here ending here and the French Revolution

01:26:16 ► §

beginning here ending here this is the restoration Louis Napoleon so forth

01:26:22 ► §

this is the mid 19th century now. Now, this is interesting. The low

01:26:28 ► §

point is 1837. Most historians, with a Marxist, leaning, take 1848 to be the important year.

01:26:38 ► §

I couldn’t figure this 1837 thing out until some… No, no. Charles Babbage invents the difference engine in England

01:26:47 ► §

and the die is cast.

01:26:50 ► §

Is this what?

01:26:51 ► §

The difference engine, the first computer.

01:26:55 ► §

This is after the Franco-Prussian

01:26:58 ► §

and American Civil War.

01:27:00 ► §

There’s a crash here.

01:27:03 ► §

This is the 20th century, and I will stop this right there.

01:27:07 ► §

Right at like January 1, 1900, or within two or three days,

01:27:12 ► §

the cemetery break occurs, and this is the signature of the 20th century.

01:27:19 ► §

An almost continuous descent into novelty from 1900.

01:27:24 ► §

You get here 1905 the general theory

01:27:28 ► §

special theory of relativity 196 powered flight radio is is right up in here too

01:27:36 ► §

World War I the Russian Revolution Dada surrealism it’s the 20th century for crying out loud. It’s modernity.

01:27:48 ► §

And it gets down here to the bottom of the novelty trough, and an obscure Austrian colonel becomes

01:27:56 ► §

Chancellor of Germany. And what have you got then? Big time novelty. All through the late 30s and into the 40s,

01:28:07 ► §

this is World War II across here.

01:28:13 ► §

And it culminates right there with the atomic bomb,

01:28:18 ► §

the end of the war, and the return to normalcy.

01:28:21 ► §

And here you see it sweeping up.

01:28:24 ► §

Highly punctuated,

01:28:26 ► §

1950, the invention of the hydrogen bomb.

01:28:29 ► §

That definitely is picked up on.

01:28:33 ► §

I don’t want to name this because I’m not sure.

01:28:36 ► §

But I know that up here,

01:28:41 ► §

1967, right. In fact, for those of you who, 1960 Right.

01:28:48 ► §

In fact, for those of you who are true fans

01:28:51 ► §

of predictive accuracy,

01:28:52 ► §

the day of the human being

01:28:55 ► §

January 13th,

01:28:59 ► §

1967 is the day we go over the hump.

01:29:04 ► §

Isn’t it wonderful that it validates the most squirrelly?

01:29:10 ► §

Well, but hell, it was the cemetery-breaking moment.

01:29:14 ► §

And then after that, almost just after that,

01:29:18 ► §

the landing on the moon and the cascade into novelty.

01:29:22 ► §

Now, wait, wait, wait, we have an invention like the print of print.

01:29:26 ► §

Yeah.

01:29:26 ► §

Given that, looking back on the reason,

01:29:28 ► §

very serious invention,

01:29:29 ► §

but the actual impact on the sociology of the world

01:29:33 ► §

took years for that invention

01:29:35 ► §

that actually impact world

01:29:37 ► §

in terms of that we produced for our product,

01:29:39 ► §

maybe 10, 20, 30, or years before.

01:29:42 ► §

Well, remember the down,

01:29:43 ► §

remember how we said it was invented in 1440,

01:29:47 ► §

and then 15 years later,

01:29:49 ► §

the Ottoman Turk and all that.

01:29:50 ► §

It wasn’t, it didn’t immediately plunge.

01:29:53 ► §

It’s about on your scale.

01:29:55 ► §

Well, 20 years is pretty rapid.

01:30:01 ► §

You know, it amazes me.

01:30:02 ► §

Like, we went to the moon 30 years ago or something. You go to Mexico.

01:30:09 ► §

You go to these badass places in the mountains of Wahaka

01:30:13 ► §

way, way up there. And you find like a cathedral in stone,

01:30:18 ► §

you know, 600 feet long, 200 and 50 feet across.

01:30:22 ► §

You say, wow, this is weird. When was this built? And they say,

01:30:26 ► §

1533. You know, they didn’t just go there and collect a bucket of soil and come back. They

01:30:36 ► §

immediately poured all the capital, all the creative power. By 1533, they were building

01:30:43 ► §

cathedrals in the Wahakian Mountains.

01:30:46 ► §

And these are people who had no antibiotics, no vaccines, no radios, no nothing.

01:30:54 ► §

They weren’t wusses.

01:30:56 ► §

That’s how they were able to do it.

01:31:00 ► §

Okay.

01:31:01 ► §

So now, let’s go for the gusto here.

01:31:04 ► §

The final thing.

01:31:11 ► §

And thankfully, I want to say, that is where this tape ended.

01:31:16 ► §

I checked the next tape in the series, and it looks like there is another 40 minutes left in this wrap.

01:31:23 ► §

But this seems to me to be about as much of Terrence McKenna’s time wave

01:31:27 ► §

that you’d need to listen to so as to get the gist of the way in which he told the story.

01:31:34 ► §

You know, while listening to this rap with you just now,

01:31:37 ► §

in the back of my mind I could hear the voice of Mr. Spock from Star Trek saying,

01:31:42 ► §

Well, it sounds good, Terrence, but it’s not logical.

01:31:48 ► §

Now, I suspect that you can also understand

01:31:51 ► §

why there were often moans and groans

01:31:54 ► §

when we saw Terrence lugging his time wave computer into the room.

01:31:59 ► §

And for you old-time listeners,

01:32:01 ► §

who have repeatedly asked me to never bring up the time wave again,

01:32:05 ► §

I apologize, but you have to admit that this is a good example of the enthusiasm that

01:32:12 ► §

Terence still had for this idea of his back in October of 1995.

01:32:18 ► §

But for now, I think that that is enough of the time wave.

01:32:24 ► §

Namaste, my friends.