The visual representations of faces of friends. Here the nose is missing this hole here, the symmetry that you turn it upside down, you swap the upper and lower and so on. And in the employment of these faces in prognostication, the faces were never particularly significant, only used to relate to the world, to apply the map, to do an application of the abstract map to the particulars of your life, from which starting point one then looked at the changes. The prognostication was always in terms of two faces. And the interesting information is in the changing lines between two faces. And that's why Terence has used the number of lines change from one hexagram to the next in the King-Wen sequence, in order to derive this way that even the faces of the I Ching, abstract as they are, are still too detailed for Terence's scheme. So to further drop off that information, to make contact with the essence of the application of the I Ching in ancient times to the present, to forget even those abstract faces and concentrate only on the changes. From this comes the power of the I Ching and also of Terence's wave. So one can then want to put the faces back in. And at the first level, you know, going down one level of abstraction hierarchy, one then could try to simply put back in the faces of the I Ching, the hexagrams themselves. >> I agree with that, but still, if it is the understanding of changes, you can't just talk about changes without knowing what the dimension of the change is, whether it's going to the southeast or the northwest. Because, I mean, that's your oscillatory function, isn't it? >> Well, there are different ways to think about that. There are global changes where this entire dimension, set of dimensions, is described as a point. Or we could extrapolate the wave out over the Earth's surface and then have like a longitude and latitude, a grid system where we would locate the changes. But there does seem to be this global character to change, which has made me reluctant to look for a way to tie the wave into three-dimensional space. >> I'd like to come in here, if I'm following this properly, a couple of things. One, I think it's really quite extraordinary that in a period of ten years that Terence would have come up with his understanding of the arrangement of the, well, the King-Wen arrangement in particular of the hexagrams of the I-Ching as a, as a, as some type of historical contour map. And that similarly would have happened with me within a very short period of time. The readout that I'm working with in Earth Ascending differs from Terence's in that it's based on a program that is operating within a magic square of eight that Ben Franklin came up with around 1750. But that doesn't invalidate Terence's contour reading at all. It's just like we're dealing with two different levels or two different programs. In fact, I think that as we get more of a study of the interfacings of these two, I think we'll see the quality that we're both talking about of the understanding of history in terms of resonance factors and resonance patterns, I think, is what is really most significant. And it seems like we definitely represent some type of effort to get a global and non-biased, culturally non-biased perspective, which I think then leads to the other part of it, which is like the seemingly faceless aspect of the interpretations that Terence and I have come up with. I know, speaking strictly for myself, that the appearance of interpretation or presentation of the I Ching in the manner that it is done in Earth Ascending, I think once I saw the process through, it definitely corresponded to a feeling on my part of trying to present a detoxified version, a detoxified template of the evolutionary process that we have been involved in, particularly in this period of time, this epoch of history, which is a brief evolutionary epoch. I think we could at some point get into where you are with your 2300 and where I go back a little farther, but nonetheless I'm in complete agreement that we are dealing with a particular evolutionary epoch and that it's very necessary at this point in time, in order to have a proper and happy interface with the resonance of the future, to have a detoxified understanding of the terrain that we have passed through, a particular space-time interval that we have passed through, which we refer to as history. Would you tell me what you mean by detoxified? Detoxified means, what I mean by that particular image there is that this isn't a Christian history, this isn't a capitalist history, this isn't a Marxist history. This is like saying, if we applied the same kind of so-called objectivity that we deem important for a revelation of the truth to an examination of who we are, what and where we've been, that's what I mean by... So pattern recognition, it's not culture bound. Is that possible, Francis? Well, the matrices seem to exist. I think not. I think pattern recognition is culture bound. Whitehead said, "Understanding is the recognition of pattern as such." Yes, through the eyes of one's culture. Well, inasmuch as we use numbers and we use conventional graphic representation, I suppose it is culture bound, but it is really an effort to at least indicate something which is transcultural. Well, numbers may be transcultural. Yes, they well may be, although I've heard you suggest the opposite. To everyone but mathematicians. The aim really is to... since there's no such thing as time and it's created by the calendar, what one then is duty bound in seeing the calendar of past and creating a future event to create a calendar which is as little bound by culture as possible, so that all cultures can put their binding upon it. But it would be very difficult if you were a Navajo to even get into that aspect. You say to a Navajo, "Well, let's have a meeting," and they say, "Fine." And you have around eight days, a bracket of eight days, where that meeting might unfold. It's an indication of a relationship to time which is so different from our relationship to time or an African's relationship to time. They have to what? They just have to tighten it up. Does this have any parallel in like the world of astronomy? Have you worked with... Well, those resonances I mentioned, parallels to the zodiacal great year, sunspot cycles and things like that. I worked on the synodic cycles of Venus and Jupiter and I just could never... What I'm talking about is something like the creation and destruction of matter in the solar system. There's certain astronomers, at least someone I know, who thinks that creation is going on constantly. It's not something that happens at one point in time. Well, if what you're asking is, does this theory apply to the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, it seems I don't know, but I think probably Occam's razor would dictate that we just assume it applies to the earth until we have better information. So we're kind of a hyper-novelty whose brain is in the center of the particular mandala and then therefore our perception of these cycles external to us are simply in relation to the mandalic brain. The mandalic brain. I love that notion that Terence introduced, sort of linking your two concepts and it also, you know, Buddhism dances right into the center of the whole thing. I mean, we are seeing things fairly egocentrically or mento-pacentrically. Yeah? You know, as mind is the center of this mandala. What I would like to see happen as a way of testing this theory on a mass scale and for people in their lives, which is the only arena of importance, is how about a cable television channel, which is simply the line and the values and, you know, you realize your house is on fire, you flip on the TV and you see, my God, it is, it reflects it, it's in steep descent. And you could at any time of the day or night, you could just flip this thing on and ask yourself, does it agree with my intuition of what's going on? If it never did, you could quickly dismiss it. If it always did, you could immediately convert it. I'll tell you the story of, who's the inventor of biometrics? Is that bi-o-rhythm? Biometrics. Darwin's friend. Not Wallace. Francis, somebody or other. Oh, well, he was a wonderful mad guy who loved counting things and he would, you know, he made experiments like finding out where the most beautiful women in England, how many of the most beautiful women in England lived where, and he had a pocket full of little counters and going through the streets, you know, boom, boom, boom. Francis Darwin. And one day he thought that he wanted to see what it was like being an idolater. So he hunted around for the least likely thing to raise an idolatrous whim in himself. He thought it was a copy of the old Punch magazine, which shows Punchinello, who's got a great big nose, a donce's cap, you know, a fool's cap, a big hump on his back like a half-moon, and a great big belly, and he has a little dog, and around the cover there are three little sets of figures dragging on horseback, one of them doing a rather disgraceful thing with a very large cylindrical organ that he is carrying just between his legs. This is the old cover of Punch. So he tore it out and he tacked it up on his mantelpiece, and every morning as he got up he would go there and say, oh, he'd get on the floor, "Oh, great Punch," he would say, you know, and do his puja to Punch. After a week he discovered that the effect of Punch was getting much too strong for him and he wanted to get rid of it, so he took it down and he stopped doing all this, but he said for at least a year afterwards, whenever he went into his club and saw the copy of Punch magazine lying on the table, a terrible feeling came over him. [laughter] Well, I don't know how one can actually wipe out the effect of what you're proposing, because the existence of a fortune-telling machine of any kind is so powerful in people's lives that they touch them, you know, with fear to their future, because once touched there's a kind of superstition in it, because it must be true, mustn't it? And yet it isn't, and yet it is. Yes, well, this raises a question which is very interesting to me, which I tried to raise in criticising your thing, which is the innate ability of the human mind to extract meaning from chaos and just give somebody, you know, the dimensions of the Great Pyramid or whatever it is, and for some perverse reason they are able to extract cosmologies from it. And yes, I, you know, when I first had all these ideas, I self-diagnosed myself as schizophrenic and went to see psychiatrists and they agreed completely. [laughter] This is what schizophrenia is, is a runaway perception of inherent meaning. You must know people who, the deepest they get into numerology is that they interpret license plates, and of course California is a wonderful place to do this, and one needs no I Ching or anything else, you just interpret license plates. This is a perverse quality of language in the human mind that causes, this is why I hold belief, because I suspect that there's something, there's a meta-level about language system building and meaning that if we had our hands on that we would just say, well of course, Jose is right, I'm right, everybody's right, it's all right, but it's all at a level which is not the highest level, and that the highest level is something about linguistic analysis, epistemology, and the nature of thought itself. So yes, I agree that this is a problem, but nevertheless, as Whitehead said, nevertheless there are stubborn facts. I mean, science isn't like that. Science works. Now that's a belief. A stubborn fact is a belief. I... [laughter] There goes his system. Well there might be stubborn facts. Take the fact that you say the end of history is the dive into the human imagination. Right. That's a good one, isn't it? What do I mean? Yes, but is that, what are you going to do with the human imagination? It's full of faces. Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. They do when... There are horses around. But they all, they all will ride when we enter the imagination. In other words, I see, I am sort of, one of the things people criticize me about is they say you don't, you don't value, or you have some kind of gnostic thing where you're always ascending and transcending, because I talk about shedding the monkey, creating cybernetic drug-induced group minds to explore the stars, and it doesn't resonate well with the Sierra Club. [laughter] But I really believe that we are not monkeys, that there are angels struggling to be born, and that the main thing we have to come to terms with is that we are, it's a, can be summed up in an aphorism. The planetary, you call it, no, how does it go? Forget the aphorism. We are transcending ourselves through a process of metamorphosis that will make us unrecognizable. Humanness is not... Pardon me? Yes, but that's not exactly, that's a thanatos, not a metamorphosis. Thanatosis. But I think, you know... This is a creatosis. James Joyce said man will be dirigible. Man will be dirigible. I agree. I mean, dirigible, I don't know. Dirigible? Dirigible? You mean dirigible? No, what he meant was a lens-shaped flying object, which is very light. I heard it in terms of thanatosis. Man is a dirigible phenomenon. Therefore... That idea, maybe that's what he meant. I mean, that's what could be meant. Well, to take a clearer poetic example, I think in "Sailing to Byzantium," William Butler mediates something about... First of all, he mentions the artifice of eternity, which is an interesting phrase. But he says after death what he would like to be is an enameled bird singing to the lords and ladies of Byzantium. And it's this image of the soul as an enameled metal, precious metal object. And that's the philosopher's stone, the enduring part of each of us that is incorruptible, transcendent, and strangely transhuman. And I think that the natural... See, this whole thing about saving the earth and what we're doing to the earth and this and that and the other, I totally believe that everything is all right and that what we're going through are birth pangs. Naturally, when a pregnancy comes to term, the baby must be expelled or there is danger of toxemia. And birth is an end to the stable, reinforcing environment of the womb. We are being expelled from the planet. It's very clear that human culture is too toxic a process to be carried out on the surface of any planet. To be who we are, we must leave the planet because to be who we are wrecks planets. But planets must be sacrificed to the cause. No, not sacrificed. Cosmos must be sacrificed. Do your mother a favor and be born. Yes, the earth is the cradle of humanity, but are we to remain in the cradle forever? Do we have to take our bodies? Messing it up? The body, yes, a real issue. Well, that's if you see the earth as your mother. Now, you can take another perspective and see yourself as one of the threads in the display of the earth, not as dominant or controlling or messing it up, but in this unfolding spatiotemporal display. Well, but isn't it clear that there is a crisis, that we are faced with either extinction or transcendence? You see, that's what's not... I mean, it's clear, but then it's not clear. I mean, it's absolutely clear. Ralph and I have been walking up and down the hill feeling sorry. But it's clearer if you're a Bangladeshi or... Right. I mean, this is where I... you know, when the Sierra Club mentality of stewards of the earth, the Native American mentality of earth mother, all, you know, this concept of kinship, when a slightly different perspective suddenly sees things in a slightly more total point of view. It's not the earth. Well, and the earth is us. We are in the earth and of the earth, and the earth is in us. And it's not so much in terms of hierarchy or stewardship or maternity or childhoodness or any of these relational definitions that, you know, imply a quality of relationship which is confining. But it's another thing. It's this faceless dimension, which I think is very threatening, why we've created religions to give definition to ourselves in relation to ourselves and everything around us. So, you know, why I'm sort of interested in, you know, I sort of loathe... I always speak in hyperbole, but the absence of poetry in your systems, in these two systems, as, you know, I read them and have read about them or in mathematics, why I've never been able to play with mathematics, because, wonderfully, you introduced this notion of cadence, of song earlier. So I haven't been able to get the poetry in your systems per se because I don't see things like that. I'm a woman. It's interesting, five men and five women up here. I just happen to be talking a lot. Actually, it's the men who are holding the logos of the discussion. Men in systems. Systems almost always confine me. And I'm, you know, sort of incising, sort of chopping up the system and trying to play it from another point of view. So I'm saying, you know, it'd be interesting to entertain a non-logo system, a sort of non-epistemology in trying to understand what the hell we're doing in terms of, you know, your epistemology. Is there a sort of non-epistemological perspective? Yes, I hear what you're saying. What troubles me is that we are so privileged, you see. And we talk, and there are even people who presume to suggest things like zero growth. You know, they have their half acre and a maid, so how about zero growth? But if you're a Bangladeshi, or if you live in the Sahel of Africa, it's clear that the momentum of history is unstoppable. We are not going to all acquire ecosystemic sensitivity and cultivate our gardens. Maybe around 1400 or 1200, if there had been sufficient understanding, we could have swerved from this course. But now I think the choice is departure from the planet to save it and ourselves, or complete destruction of it and ourselves. See, I look at that as a choice, not the choice. And, you know, it's just jumping into this Buddhist perspective, this is a relative line that we're dealing with here, and there are lots of relative lines. But the criticism that is always made of Buddhism is it's absolutely politically in the Stone Age. Maybe this is a blessing. Maybe. Because if we think this is not the political Stone Age or pre-Stone Age... But surely it can sort of all run together. I mean, I wouldn't mind getting to the space station waving goodbye. [laughter] That's right. That's it. What do all of you make of this? I'd like to ask a question. By unrecognizable, are you talking about unseeable? That we may become unrecognizable to ourselves? Yeah. No, I think that humanness is mostly a phenomenon of consciousness, that we could be very different animals, but that everything about us that is human is in our minds and in our ideas about our world, our bodies, ourselves, and that as energy and technology and understanding deepen, we will take control of the human form. We will put a firm hand on the tiller of history. One of the first things you figure out when you study biology, and now I'm talking about a species, is you discover the DNA code. Well, it's hard for me to believe that within 200 or so years of discovering it, you won't manipulate it, we won't have, in fact, electric linotypes that write programs into DNA. We are going to take control of our form. What do we want to be? There's no reason to be monkeys. It just happened that we climbed up through the phylogeny by that route. But once we can choose-- Now, that is a blasphemous heresy. [laughter] Man-- Humanity-- I mean, in the Renaissance, they said man is the measure of all things. Now, because that has a sexist connotation. But what was meant was, humanness must be the measure of all things. What else, for heaven's sake? Well, mushrooms. [laughter] Maybe it's just a little less than that. Maybe man is the measurer of all things. Oh, that's it, the ruler. You see, I don't consider myself to be my body. I stand outside of this body, seeing my body from an exterior viewpoint. So, you know, but-- But you must agree that your body fits you remarkably well. [laughter] I mean, you put your touch and your hand into your fingers, you know, like that when you come back. Your hearing goes into your ears, your sight goes into your eyes. Your mouth takes in just what it has to. It's a beautiful fit. [inaudible] Listen, I'm just-- You know, when we said up here, man is the measure of all things, and then someone said man is the measurer of all things, and then associating to you, yes, meaning man is the ruler of all things. I just want to sort of drop that again into counsel, because there are a couple of women who are practically hysterical out here. You know, as we recognize what we're saying by-- you know, in relation to mind at the center of the mandala, and what you're saying in relation to, you know, suddenly DNA is manipulating DNA. This is happening. I mean, it's a kind of self-reflection. There have been several stages where self-reflection has deepened. The invention of language, certainly, there was no turning back from what that meant, and it totally destroyed the entire set, mental set, that preceded it. This is something similar. And the invention of written language, which then took cadence, took the song out of communication. That's right. Any more questions? Yes. Anyone? Took Eve out of Adam's rib room. Yes. I noticed a great deal of resonance between what you were saying and the poor Hibberley's voice in your writing. Oh, well, thank you very much. [inaudible] Yes, he is definitely a mentor. The story of the sect of the phoenix in labyrinths bears examination. I'm getting the sense, Terrence, that there's the possibility of something being born from the planet, which we can hardly conceive of. So far, so good. Yes, that's it. There is no end to it. There is no end to what is possible and to the levels of human transformation. And I think when history is finally written of this era, it will be clear that industrialism, colonialism, mercantilism, communism, capitalism, these were only means to lift the species off the planet, ways of organizing to do something that no tribe could do. I don't have... I'm not... Dualism is the root of all evil, is what I'm trying to say. So I try not to divide things. I really believe it must all be all right. And I really believe the historical process serves biology just as much as biology serves the inorganic. And I believe that culture serves history and modernity serves humanity. And that it's okay. We are on the right track. It's a narrow neck. It's a birth. Nothing is easy. A birth is a time of danger. Don't kid yourself. If something goes wrong, it's terrible. But nevertheless, even if things go right, there's screaming and moaning and blood is shed and tissue is torn. And there is... And that's if things go perfectly. And the courage and love to conceive. That's right. I wanted to throw a question out maybe to Jose because I sense that... Well, I don't know. I mean, Terence is talking about now this process of leading up to leaving the planet. I don't sense that particularly in your material. No, that's correct. Correct. I don't think that there's any from the voice that I've been listening to. My voice. None other than yours, Robin. I have not at all been led to that particular conclusion. I think to put it in very simple terms that... To go back to the situation, the comment there about man, the measure of all things, I think that that's a dangerous place to be. I think that it's dangerous to consider that mind is a human property and it's dangerous to consider that consciousness is a human property. I think that we're ignoring the fact that we ourselves are members of a larger organism, which is a member of a larger organism, and so on. And that rather than... I agree that we're at this very rapidly approaching point, end of history, whatever we wish to call it. I believe that we can participate by tuning into the signals and messages of the larger organism, which we could refer to as planet, that we could participate in a type of collectively-willed transformation that would put us in what we might call a renewed condition of alignment with the larger planetary field or planetary organism, which would not necessarily mean that we have to leave it. On the other hand, I would certainly leave open the option that if there are those who would see that that is the direct logical thing to do, that again, nothing should be stopping that from happening. But basically, as I said, where my voice has been leading to is to these propositions of understanding, first of all, that we are members of a much larger organism, planet, and that all that planet wants from us is some kind of signal that there are a sufficient number of us at this point in time who understand that and who can send a signal back to planet so that we can go through this very, very, very narrow bottleneck or razor's edge without dropping the chalice. I have a sneaking fear that heading for the stars may amount to exporting the plague. [LAUGHTER] Well, you're talking about, you know, when you say the launching pad, that's a very sort of, it's like the technological thing we were talking about before. It's a very primitive notion of leaving for the stars. We can leave for the stars in ways which are inconceivable to us. That's right. I think that is really what the bottleneck is all about, the method by which we leave and under what circumstances we leave. We either export the plague or it's right to leave. That's why I say freedom into the imagination. To me, outer space and inner space are the same place, and it may not be necessary to lift us off the planet. There may be, I mean, psychedelic drugs, it looks to me, but if you take them seriously, hold out the possibility of leaving for the stars through inner space. I think that we're in the childhood of our understanding of ways and means, and what you say is very true. It's the launch pad. It is the launch pad being. Yes. In a way, I mean, you need to create that. You need to create the experience on Earth, the creation of it. History is the story of a species leaving, and this thing about how the Earth will go. If we go, everybody will go. This isn't about the human species going into space. We will take every species on this planet with us. This planet is a very constrained environment, not only for human beings, but for all life. Life aspires to radiate through the galaxy. I don't see us--I see us as the trigger species. Simply, we are the hands of Mother Nature. There is no seam between us and the will of the planet. We are the technological catalyst species that is going to carry DNA on this planet out into the universe, not human DNA, all DNA. And long after this planet has collapsed into its star or been absorbed in the expanding shell of a nova, the life that began here, all the life that began here, will be spread throughout the universe. I'm very--my vision is, I think, biological, not cultural. And I even believe, you know, that the mushroom is the cat-- you can view the mushroom as the catalyst for this process, that 100,000 years ago, there were only monkeys and the mushroom. And human history-- Human history is a genetic experiment by an extraterrestrial resident in the environment. I wonder, Terrence, that if life was not already radiant throughout the whole universe, we would not possibly be here. Yes, Terrence, don't you think-- Take your picture of these other worlds. Isn't space filled with DNA that's already established? Life exists on many planets, most people feel sure. Most people feel sure. The mushroom itself, you have suggested, has come to us from another planet. This is the faith. So if life is already there, also consciousness, and in many places evolved more than this, are we departing to infect the galaxy, or are we simply connecting up somehow? Well, this is like asking the question, "Is nature good?" You want to debate the morality of the evolutionary drive to expand into new territory. Who knows whether it's good or bad? It's just what biological systems do. No, I'm looking for a less Earth-centered universe. That life exists in many places. But that is a faith. Consciousness transcends space-time localization. Do you think that our ignorance of what is going on in the rest of the cosmos is because our connection to higher intelligence has been limited, self-limited perhaps? That's right. No, we don't know. I run into this all the time. People come to the desert, it's a dead waste. That's how they see it. But if you live there, the life, you have to tune into the life. And then you see it's teeming with life. It's just different to what you expected. That's right. That's right. I suspect-- I think we should come back to the rather humbling notion of not believing one's beliefs. I personally have found that I couldn't understand much of what's being said, but at the same time, I don't believe why I'm not understanding it. And so I would encourage all those who think they have understood it also to disbelieve that. I would like to have the most enlightened distortion of linguistic regression that goes from face to face-ination to face-shism. [laughter] Okay. I'm wondering when that issue would return. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a eternal return. Who is it directed to? Probably you. But I'm the no-face person. There is this discussion that we have that we've seen systems that don't seem to-- or where a face doesn't seem to figure quite prominently. And in very close proximity to this, we've seen fetal systems where the center of the journey is made up by a face, and I identify the face as a fool becoming a sorcerer. And I wonder whether we might perhaps combine the two so that Earth ascending, basically, is a planetary fool ascending to a planetary sorcerer, where in reverse, the face of the fool is not just the face of an individual person, but it is the person that has become planetized, where the nervous system of the individual fool becomes the world's sensorium that Oliver Reisz is talking about. So in a way, that Reisz's edge, bottleneck world, the novelty system, is about how the fool, in its tumbling through the galaxy, assumes a face that is then recognizable to us. And I think it's basically what you say, we become unrecognizable to us. It is that the Earth recognizes her own face. It's the same process. Very well put. And I think that in your book, there's a line in there where you talk about the harmonization of the planet and that the next step will be the planetization of man. And I think that's very, very key to the whole issue and that we really are developing-- we have developed as the organs of perception for the planet and that we have this incredible ability through our joint DNA to do something. Yeah. May I just come back to the linguistic progression? My sense is that if you look at a system that you are fascinated by, and the system doesn't have a face, that results in fascism. Facism. Facism. But if you reduce your fascination to a concern with a face, with a personalized face, you lose the gender perspective of that process. The face is round and the fascia is linear. I hope you're not being facetious. Well, on that note of levity-- I think this is a bit multifaceted. We should probably-- It's like that with him. We have a hall who are interfacing. And when you hear the sound of the bell, that means that lunch will begin. Thank you. Self-maintaining over quite a long period of time until then it's overcome. And it is in this period that I mentioned this morning that all these things happen. Now let me demonstrate some of the commands within the program. These are the position numbers of the wave here. And as I mentioned to Francis, we could take those position numbers, and if you have a copy of the "Invisible Landscape," you could look at the drawing of the wave in there and derive this set of hexagrams that would give you feeling-toned rather than mathematical information about what's going on. Anyway, here are some of the commands. The question mark and one of these numbers, such as, for instance, 157, gives you the absolute value. It's 308 right there. So this trough is riding along at about the 300 level. Okay, now, if we query D157, we're asking a different question about this point, and the answer is, the 11th day of the third month of 533 B.C. is right there. So--and I, through long experience, happen to know that these blips are 11 years long. So I'll just save us the trouble and tell you that that flat area there runs then from the 11th day of the third month from early in 533 B.C. to-- let's see, we subtract-- to 511 B.C., right in here. Now, when I query 158, which is in there, with the command N, which stands for near, N15--let's make it N57-- it now goes to the history file, and it searches. And you programmed all that history? Yes, that's just a chore to enter a huge bunch of historical data. I used the London-- [silence] {END} Wait Time : 0.00 sec Model Load: 0.64 sec Decoding : 1.97 sec Transcribe: 2616.25 sec Total Time: 2618.85 sec