Podcast 706 – Terence McKenna “One Last Timewave Rap”

Play

Support Lorenzo on Patreon.com Become a patron on Patreon

Guest speaker: Terence McKenna

PROGRAM NOTES:

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.

Posted in 2012, Eschaton, Novelty, Terence McKenna (mp3), Timewave.

2 Comments

  1. I think he was right, fundamentally; time really is fractal and cyclical, and it does progress with this “habit-novelty” dynamic.
    It’s just that the “degrees of difference” are likely to be different, and even if we did know the correct sequence, it would be difficult or impossible to select the right end date (which would have to be precise down to the smallest possible increment of time – which we don’t even know what it is or if it’s measurable at all). Moreover, the measure of novelty is of the entire universe, not just humanity or our planet, so that complicates things further.

    Every criticism of the theory that I’ve seen doesn’t address these things. Hell, even Terence himself – including in this talk – tells us that his “zero date” prediction failing in 2012 would prove him wrong. The truth is that it didn’t actually prove the sequence wrong, let alone any other sequence, but just the end point.

    I really would have loved to pick Terence’s brain about this, and it’s a shame that apparently nobody ever did. It was rather a waste of time for him to correlate the incorrectly graphed wave with historical events, although it’s still of some value if we disregard the invalid correlation itself and focus on just the habit-novelty idea.

    I’m glad you put this tape out, thank you and best wishes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *