Well, the parachute never looked more like a mushroom than it does right now. I couldn't really see you all in the firelight last night, so this is like seeing you for the first time. Welcome, and I hope you feel free to interrupt what's going on at any time and ask me questions. Ask questions, or if something needs clarification, please don't hesitate. My hope for these kinds of retreats is that it will quickly become so interesting to everyone that the presentational form will transform itself into dialogue among many people. It seems to me that's when it happens best, and I don't think people would be here if they didn't have strong opinions and ideas about probably everything which is said. So that's the way the group mind is generated, by everyone opening up and expressing how they relate to these things that we're going to discuss. I guess the place to start is sort of with looking at the notion that the dawning paradigm of postmodern consciousness seems to be the growing awareness that we don't know what is happening at all, that all of the models whose implications have been worked out over the past 500 years or so have come to a place where they are now recursive, and they no longer can be pushed forward as models of explanation. In other words, they are completed, and ontological analysis of how they work now shows us the limitations of their application to reality. They just simply cannot... there is not more blood to be squeezed from the stone of science. There may be further discoveries, but further growth and understanding along those lines now seems unlikely, what with complementarity principle, Bell's theorem, the primacy of language and the formation of ontology, all these things show the relative power of science to account for reality, where before it was assumed that science would ultimately give a good account of reality. So postmodern living is living in the light of the fact that that faith has dissolved away and that we're now living in some kind of intellectual free space or fire-free zone where everything is up for grabs. And the 20th century's fascination with the archaic, with shamanism and breakdown of perception through modern art, exploration of the unconscious through psychoanalysis, mass political movements, all of these things relate to this fascination with the archaic, which is an effort on the part of the culture to stabilize itself, because we really have, having seen the limitations of science, we have discovered we are in a small rowboat in a dark ocean and we're being swept we-know-not-where. So all past tradition is searched, magical traditions, alchemical traditions, lost philosophical traditions, preliterate tribal traditions, everything is frantically searched for a key. And while there are consoling perceptions that arise out of this search through all this other extended human knowledge, there haven't yet emerged certain answers about what is going on. This is why several people last night referred to how weird the time is, how hopeful we are with so little reason on the surface to be hopeful. And it's because the gelling out of this historical problem is happening right now, and it's not clear what it will become. Things like this are efforts to build an understanding of it. It doesn't appear that it's going to filter down through the transformation of institutions of control. It appears more like it's going to be some kind of proletarian upwelling of a shift of point of view. Now the shorthand way of saying what I just said is that we now know that we don't know anything. And things like the psychedelic experience and the use of psychedelic plants throws open doorways that science was able to successfully keep closed during its heyday, because they were areas where the number of variables exceeded science's power of description, and therefore they said, "Well, we'll just keep driving straight ahead, and we'll go up those rivers later." But now that is all changed, and the exploration of the existential dimension of not knowingness, which psychedelics makes possible, is what is forming modern people, I think. I mean, people who will be seen to have led lives that were relevant 50 years from now, or 100 years from now. People who had actually figured out the context of the world they were living in, and tried to come to terms with it. And this morning I think we want to talk about plants and how they relate to the planet. But before we do that, I want to paint a picture for you of a mandala, which then I will discuss later in other meetings. But my notion of what the postmodern person's mandalic projection onto the world should be in terms of a map of understanding is a quadrated circle in which psychedelics and feminism and cybernetics and space travel are the four parts of the circle. And in the center of the circle, looking backwards in time, there is a category that I would call conservation, which means conservation of the planet, conservation of traditional and historical knowledge, conservation of values, conservation in the sense of intelligence husbanding the planet. And when the mandala is flipped over and you look through it into the future, conservation has been replaced by art. Art is the ultimate expression of this transformation of unorganized matter into ideas which human beings carry on. And we carry it on in a technical mode out of necessity, but in the artistic mode out of a kind of upwelling of ecstatic self-expression about the universe. So conservation is the way we relate to the past, and human history is seen as an object of collective artifice-making in the future, culminating in the notion of the flying saucer. To do this, we have to completely redesign our understanding of reality, which in terms of practical experience will mean that reality itself will appear to be redesigned. And I touched on this just for a moment last night when I mentioned plants and said how admiring I was of them because they exist on sunlight, air, and earth, and that this is what we have to learn to do in order to release spirit out of the ape matrix that we're bound in. And strangely enough, the way this is to be done apparently is by a redefining of the nature of the biological world in relationship to this other kingdom of being, which we call plants. Plants represent some kind of entire other dimension of existence of which we view the topological manifestation of the form, but are completely occluded as to the network of energy and information that this represents. And like the zoological kingdom, which has thousands of forms of expression and progressively more complex forms which culminate in self-reflecting primates, the vegetable kingdom seems to have intelligent species and gradations of awareness in the world so that we are opening a dialogue at the end of history with this other form in the biosphere, which we are just beginning to cognize as our own understanding about what the world is really about falls into focus. And certainly a hundred years ago, no one would have thought that this was in the direct line of historical development of the high-tech civilizations, that they would have to explore the mind of the vegetable plant goddess, who was the only force contending with them for control of the planet. That's what it's come down to. So with that kind of idea in mind, the notion of plant and planet, which is a phrase of Anthony Huxley's, which is wonderful, Kat, maybe you would want to talk about this. Is this a good-- Yeah. I was thinking last night and this morning about plants particularly because of our talk that I anticipated and back at the tent a little while ago I had a gnawing feeling that I was ignoring the animals too much and then I arrived here and they all began to gnaw on me. I just got about 14 ant bites just sitting there. You see me scratching all over. So I feel grounded again. I don't know about having a dialogue with the end of history through plants, actually. I don't know about that. I do think that they are this obviously great and ever-present mystery which we ingest all day long without thinking of those as plants, without thinking of them as sacred plants in the way that we do the sacred ones. Their chemistry, their input is influencing us all the time, whether we eat meat or not. We eat plenty of plants and we breathe from them and we soothe our nerves by seeing them and being near them and we go out into places like this and see kinds we've never seen before and marvel at how they can survive. They're real models of graceful survival, aren't they? In the jungle where we've spent a fair bit of time, the competition it seems is for light and for protein, I guess, for organic matter, the animals competing. Here it's obviously for water. They have a kind of a deal. If you look around under the bushes, you see wonderful wildflowers. Right now the rains have just held on. The moisture's held on long enough that many things are going, the short life cycle plants are going through their short intense life cycle and they often need shade to do it. So you can see, we found something that we were sure was an African violet under a bush yesterday. You can see wonderful things if you look carefully and don't bother anybody else who might be under there. The question I've been asking of myself recently and of a few other people, now I have many of you to ask it, I hope I get some answers, is how can a plant be a teacher? I asked this of someone the other day who was deeply involved in neuro-linguistic programming and he got way off on a tangent about what does this kind of question mean, you know, and just broke down every part and phrase of it. It was wonderful, you know. We never got to anything like what he thought about the answer, but it does assume all sorts of things. You have to have an image of what you think of as a plant, which although we have a sort of language verified easy answer, doesn't really touch on the reality. And then you of course have to think what you mean by teacher. Well I know there's at least one biologist, serious biologist in the group here, so I'm hesitant to define a plant. I guess from my point of view as an observer, I've done botanical illustration and I really valued the opportunity I had to learn to really look at them. And then when you think you've really looked, look closer, you know. You can just keep on learning from them just visually that way. But they are organisms like us that draw in all the elements, fire in the form of sunlight and water and air and earth, and go through this transformation of energy into something else in the same way that we do. This moment right now is when they're doing that most energetically for the year. They're taking that moisture in there. You can look at each one, you know. The leaf tips are new and the tissue is soft and the colors are bright, as well as the blossoming and all that. They're also laying out the structure, as I understand it, for that growth to become more permanent, more woody, the perennials anyway. So that next year they'll, well during the year they'll fill that out, next year they'll come from that place. They're doing this, envisioning the future, what they'll have to deal with, how to move to make their interface with it, and then how to reproduce. And their little messages are going into the seeds coming from pollination of other plants. So it's always like with us, when you choose a mate, it's your choice for how you'd like the future to be, right? My genes, your genes, here it goes, down the line. Really all I have about this is questions. I hope you don't mind if I just throw questions up and then if anyone wants to say anything, please do, including you, you know. One thing I wonder is, we regard ourselves as such individuals, we don't think of ourselves as a species much. Terence talks about that a fair bit, but in our daily life we really identify ourselves as individuals, as some of us having more power, more clarity, more energy, more talent, whatever, we divide that way. With plants we tend to think of each plant on the species basis, you know. I wonder if, how much that's true. Plants we're familiar with, like ayahuasca, Banisteriopsis capi, in the South American jungle. If you want to make this visionary drink, you go and find a member of that species, but different members have different potencies and different takes on the same kind of message. This gets to the teacher part. A friend of ours, Eduardo Luna, interviewed a number of shamans in the jungle. They use this term "plant teacher" in Spanish, as we've come to use it too, and he asked them, "Do you think that all plants have a plant teacher in them, or do you think that some do?" And they were divided on this question. Some people think that only the sacred plants do, right? Other shamans said, "No, all plants do, just some of the spirits." They call them the mothers, the mother of the plant, or the spirit, or the teacher. Some are stronger. So that implies that every time we eat any plant, we're taking in that teacher. They mix these plants with ayahuasca, which already provides the vision, then they take a new plant that they don't know so well, or that they want some particular aspect of, and they mix it in with that and take it, and feel that they're irradiating what is that plant, what is the personality, whatever you want to call it, of that plant, and that they can take on the qualities of that plant. So I think the Indians in this area, as I understand, did that too with their plants. They wanted to take on the quality of the peyote, is a good one, you know? I mean, it lasts a very long time in a very subtle way, doing who knows what all that time when it's not being eaten by something which is metabolizing the teacher in it. Is the teacher in it when it's just sitting there all that time? Is it experiencing the visions that come into the animal organism that ingests it? I mean, I don't know. And I guess on the species and individual thing, I wonder, as an adjunct to that, you know when you grow your own plants, anyone who gardens, you grow your own vegetables, how they taste different than vegetables that obviously at the store, the ones they've probably not been grown with even the same kind of physical care, but certainly not the same kind of attention. That's the question for me or what always astonishes me about it is where does the information come from? I mean, the peyote plant or the ayahuasca vine or the mushroom growing there in the jungle or on the desert, how did it manage to tap in and become filled with a universe of alien platonic beauty? Why is that there? All the rules of orthodox evolutionary theory conserve only what is necessary, is conserved. So it's very hard to understand how, why a plant needs a library card, the intergalactic library, because it's just sitting there in the desert of some planet alive and living. But each plant is different too. I mean, their library cards don't take them to the same libraries even. Each one of these visionary plants provides something distinct. And sometimes you can see how it's a cousin of that one and sometimes you can't see that they're related at all. Well isn't it that mind is somehow at the reflexive level chemical and that when you change the chemistry of the engine which is giving the pictures, the pictures change. There sometimes it seems almost like a biological radio that you tune into very strongly broadcasting stations, some of which are alien, high tech, insectoid, science fiction places. Others are jungle worlds or things that you can't even English. Giant human teachers, I met one. He was 40 feet tall, you know, and took me by the finger like I was a little child and led me through. What was that doing in the plant? Yeah, what is it doing? Sure. Yes. When you take a longer slice, you realize that the individual, the existence of the individual is like an illusion and that really the planet is involved in some kind of chemical process which is like a gene swarming. And it's been going on for a billion years with more and more and animals and plants as species and as individuals are just aggregates of genes of varying degrees of permanence. The individual is a very impermanent aggregate of genes. The species has a slightly longer duration. But what's really happening is these information transferring molecules are just swarming on the surface of the planet and controlling, as you mentioned, the weather, the chemistry of the soils, the rate of heat transfer. They've discovered now that plankton control weather in the oceans by controlling the surface reflectivity. The question I think is the peculiar dualism in the world of information. Why does it seem that reality is not reality? Why are there co-present, actually two worlds are co-present in our experience? This is the taboo subject that we're here to talk about. The weird fact that there are two worlds, one of which our culture doesn't acknowledge but we all experience. That's a very schizophrenic situation to be in. We all exist in both of these worlds, but our language, our culture, our institutions tell us, no, there's only one world. We have gotten into this lethal cul-de-sac where by not acknowledging the second world, we have veered off on a tangent which threatens our extinction now. This obsession with control of world one, matter, energy, and the complete ignoring of the world of consciousness which stood in front of it and manipulated it, but just taking that as a given, has created this fantastically imbalanced culture. I think that gets back to the plants as teachers, because since we do, in your words, play with fire as human beings, perhaps the question you were asking as to the plants as being teachers, my feeling at the time was, they're in communication with us as we are in communication with them. We're all transparent beings. You're talking of genes swarming on the planet. There's no safe in which we lock our own human knowledge. We're transparent to all around us. If you get into intelligent plants, which is what we were talking about earlier, perhaps, if you follow that logically out, why not have teachers as chemicals? That's how they can manifest within this particular body and do, use library card as your words. They realize they're virtuous shakers. Well, I think there's only one life on the planet, though, and to say that we're separate from the plants or from this or from the air is a fallacy. So that's a great image, the growing transparency. That's a good idea for what the end of history is. It's that everything becomes clearer and clearer and clearer, and as it becomes clearer, boundaries disintegrate, and everything is seen to be of the same stuff. I think for much of the world, and still, for instance, in the Amazon and other cultures where it tuned into nature, it was very transparent for very, very long. Progress was the losing of that transparency and the forging ahead of certain parts of it, and almost to the point of just either eliminating to extinction or to the extinction of memory the lessons. One day, I was just, I think I was doing bookkeeping or something very mundane, and the little voice that interrupts every once in a while said, "A plant teacher is a teacher who has taken the form of a plant," and then that raised all these questions for me, because does that mean there are teachers floating around looking for places to land, and ways to interface with the other species? I've always thought of rocks, big rocks in many places in the world. You can sit on them and you can just hear them and feel them. Really. I'm sure you know Rupert Sheldrake's theory. Well, it's basically the idea that things of like kind resonate together. And I've thought about this problem before, about LSD and where does it fit into all of this. LSD is in the morning glories of central Mexico and the far Pacific, and I think that what makes a plant teacher complex is how many people it's taken. And that a plant that has been used 100,000 years is filled with all of the contents of the minds of the people who took it over that time. But I want to introduce the notion that life, the plants and the animals, are intrusions into three-dimensional space of some kind of topological manifold of a higher order. You see, the way in which a chair differs from a giraffe is that if you slice through the chair and then come back and examine it 12 hours later, it will be the same, but the giraffe will have changed radically. This is because by cutting into the giraffe, you have intruded into the temporal dimension of its existence. It is more like a musical note than an object. It must be born, grow, mature and die. And that process, growth, maturity and death, is how three-dimensional beings like ourselves describe the intrusion of these hyper-dimensional vortices into our world. That's the mystery of life, cannot be encompassed in three dimensions. Life is a hyper-dimensional object. All hyper-dimensional objects are organisms, whether they be societies or animals. So the question of what is the plant, you know, when you ask yourself, "What am I?" what you immediately concentrate on is what philosophers call your internal horizon of transcendence. You look into yourself to understand yourself. When we try to describe a plant, we inevitably give a topological mapping of it, how it appears to us, its uptake of minerals, its surface reflectivity, its weight. But the plant obviously experiences itself very differently. All life has an internal horizon of transcendence toward which it aims. It's - Whitehead called it "appetition." Its inclusion of sensory data out of which it maps being. But what the nature of this higher dimension is that these vortices are intruding into our dimension from is absolutely anybody's guess. I mean, you can call it a mathematical conundrum or a religious mystery, but it's what's making the world happen. It's what - how the mystery of our being will eventually be shed one more level of veil to let us understand it. You see, an organism is a chemical system which does not run down. The second law of thermodynamics says that the whole universe tends toward the dissipation of structure and the release of energy and heat, and then everything - all structure, all energy is dissipated. But life has achieved the miracle of by being an open system and taking material into it and extracting energy from it and getting rid of waste, life has been able to leave the main stream of thermodynamic degradation and establish itself at an equilibrium point off that graph and maintain itself there for, at least on this planet alone, four billion years. Now the average life of a star in this galaxy is on the order of two and a half billion years. Some last longer. But that means that biology is no epiphenomenon, no iridescence off the surface of matter as the 19th century physicalists wanted to describe it. It means that life is indicative of a physics of higher dimensions which intrudes into this otherwise thermodynamically degrading system which we call the physical universe. And information, there seems to be an informational ghost of this universe which is somehow co-present at all points within the matrix, perhaps a la Bell's theorem or something like that. And that's what the psychedelic experience shows you. It shows you a hologrammatic space of information where by sitting still in your room and sending the mind, you can cross the universe in an instant, you know, and return. And the question of is this real is in bad taste. It violates the two ontological categories, you see. I mean, it just isn't done. But you're right. But the plants seem to be the things which shake us out of these cultural conventions. We have this very bad habit of when we encounter a new experience, we describe it. And as we describe it, we erase its reality and replace it with a map. And forever after, when we encounter that input, we access the map and overlay it over the thing and say, aha, I know what this is. And so by the time a child is five years old, they have completely entered into a symbolic construct which hides the real world from them. And fortunately, these plant teachers seem to have the unique ability of showing you the relativity of language, which for us is the relativity of being. And then you are freed because you have seen something incontrovertible. There's no going back then. That is the great first gateway on the path to realize the relativity of language and the malleability of the world. I mean, for instance, coming out into the desert is typical of people seeking visions. The first thing you have to do is leave the polis. Culture is this effort to hold back the mystery and replace it with a mythology, which is then in the control of those who recite that mythology, whether they be shamans or priests. This holding back of reality is what Christian theologians call the fall, our strange alienation from nature that causes us to crowd into cities and mint money and put a price on everything. This is why it's so important to go back to the Amazon and eastern Indonesia and these places and try and understand what spark it was that those people kept over the millennia while we became the prodigal son and wandered into matter and to, you know, hoard in the cities on the plain and have now come full circle and returned at the end of history with the dilemma that we have made such a mess of things that there's nothing we can do now but lay. Each stage is a greater distancing from the wellspring of being and it's brought us, you know, to the valley of dry bones, to the valley of the apocalypse, and now the fat is in the fire. Now we'll find out what stuff man is made of as the chickens come home to roost. But, well, no, I'm very optimistic. Is it my metaphors or my pessimism? Oh, the horrible metaphors. The rhetorical hyperbole unbridled. I'd like to ask a question about this two world thing. It interests me greatly. Do you think that there's two worlds or that there's one world? I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. I think that there's two worlds. Okay, go ahead. Okay, so the time-splitting event had to do with the career of Christ, who was an extraordinary manifestation of energy in the historical time stream, not to be confused with a Buddha or a Muhammad or a Zoroaster who were great saints. And it was something else. It was, in some sense, what it claimed to be. But in some sense. Okay? So now, at the moment of, and you can choose either the Immaculate Conception or the Resurrection, depending on which side of the bed you got up on today. But at that moment, the time stream split, and this other place came into being without having any awareness that-- and they were identical at that moment, these two worlds. Now, Christ had no children. So--oh, what I forgot to say was that the event, the fractal soliton of improbability, has this quantum mechanical half-charge so that in one of the universes it happens, in the other universe it doesn't happen. And so everything about these two worlds was the same, except that in one of them the Immaculate Conception had not taken place, or the Resurrection had not taken place. Now, because Christ had no children, in the world in which he was absent, it was not a genetic line which was missing, it was an ideological line which never received expression. And consequently, as time passed, first decades and then centuries, the absence of this particular intellectual influence in the world changed the world radically in the following way. Greek science did not suffer the suppression that occurred with the conversion of Constantine. The academies were not closed. The Hermetic knowledge was not repressed. www.drexel.com [BLANK_AUDIO] {END} Wait Time : 0.00 sec Model Load: 0.65 sec Decoding : 2.13 sec Transcribe: 2724.77 sec Total Time: 2727.54 sec