Monogamy represents a deepening of bonding into a kind of lifelong project that is entirely spiritual.
 Not that it doesn't have a physical and an ecstatic and an erotic side,
 but it all goes together to create something that should not be expected of adolescence
 and should not be preached as the ideal at all stages of life.
 And this is pretty much how it's handled in a number of non-literate societies.
 Marriage is taken very seriously, but before marriage a different set of rules obtains.
 So that's not a solution for those of us who are already into middle age or beyond,
 but it certainly gives indication of how we might think about it in raising our own children.
 I want to add something if I may.
 I think the objectification of women, which is not unique, it's only just markets that's been packaged so very expertly in the West,
 but the making women commodities really completely messes up the whole deal.
 Because if it is just an exchange of commodities, I mean, why stick with one commodity?
 And that is not just the Western thing, but it's just a collection of body parts, like the pinup girl or boy,
 which is sort of a way of getting into that.
 And I think that it really hinges, but it's very much the woman who's been the objectified one.
 I mean, the other one was sort of a blip of reaction in this transitional time.
 And I think that's something we have to kind of get through before we can really work that out.
 It's very hard to realize the power of woman as commodity in this society until you are away from it.
 I remember, well, this happens every time, but I remember particularly in the Amazon,
 we had been about three weeks up this river, a group of about six of us, women and men,
 and we came to this village, and there was the obligatory meeting with the head man of the village
 to let them know that we would be collecting plants in their area and so forth and so on.
 And we had been away from Iquitos by now, I guess, a month.
 And we came into the maloca, and it was dimly lit, and then he lit a little kind of a candle,
 and there was a girly calendar of the most innocuous sort.
 I mean, the kind that Spark Plug Company produced in the United States, you know, very mild.
 And I was trying to deal with this guy, and I was absolutely riveted.
 I could not tear my eyes from it, and I was even thinking, it came upon me,
 was it conceivable that without blowing everyone's mind, especially the fellow members of my party,
 could I get this away from this guy?
 And then, of course, other things happened, and time passed.
 And then later, I was back in Iquitos, and I came upon this same calendar in a libraria there,
 and it had no power whatsoever, because in Iquitos, I was saturated in these images,
 just the news vendors on the street.
 And this is very mild stuff, you know, it's a Latin Catholic country.
 But the power of this image is why it's used to sell everything from cigarettes to debentured bonds.
 [laughter]
 And it is dehumanizing.
 It is dehumanizing because it takes us literally to the surface.
 Everything is flattened.
 This is, again, this flattening of the primacy of experience,
 reducing everything to a sensation empty of emotional content.
 And if you can do it with women, you can do it with anything.
 I want to stop on that, because if you take just that away with you,
 as I think I said sometimes either last night or today, that what my work indicates
 is something that once you articulate it, it sounds obvious, but somehow it's been overlooked.
 And it's very simply this, that the way that a society structures that most fundamental of all relations,
 the relations between the female and the male half of humanity, because that's what women and men are,
 that that profoundly affects everything.
 It doesn't just affect our individual life choices and roles as women and men, which we of course experience very clearly,
 and now we're very aware of it, but it affects every one of our social institutions.
 And that's really the objectification of women.
 The domination of women is the template. It's the model.
 Because if you can do that to your female twin,
 if you can do that to the person with whom you have the most intimate relationship,
 you cannot do it to somebody whose difference is not one of sex, but of color, or of hairdo, or of politics or religion.
 It's the template. It's the model.
 And so what I really want to say to you is that these issues that we have been so thoroughly socialized to think of as,
 "just women's issues," are the central core issues that we'd better start paying attention to.
 And I am very definitely making a statement here that I passionately want to share with you.
 Because it's so obvious, you know, if you really think about it,
 but we've been so conditioned not to.
 And of course the reason that we're so conditioned to think of it that way is because once we start thinking of it this way,
 then we are challenging the very basis, the very foundation of the dominated system, and it extends into everything.
 And I really want to say this one thing, and it's about language, because you've spoken about language.
 I never used to be aware of anything, I think.
 I mean, I think that's really the only way one can describe my former state.
 But anyway, but I certainly was not aware.
 I was aware of a slight sense of discomfort.
 Well, more than slight, when I went to college, and everything was the study of man, and mankind.
 And all of the examples were male-centered, because the message was very clear.
 I was here, but I really had no business being here.
 None of this was really directed to me.
 But it was so, you know, wasty away, and I thought I was uncomfortable because I hadn't found the right guy,
 or wasn't wearing the right blouse, or, you know, I mean, I had no consciousness.
 But now it's very clear to me that the whole use of male-exclusive language, the term man instead of human,
 the term mankind instead of humankind, the term he instead of she or he, or we,
 that that's a way of really linguistically almost short-circuiting.
 It's really a way of short-circuiting any partnership circuitry in our head, okay?
 And it's tremendously important.
 Have you noticed you've been using the word history a lot?
 Is it like his story?
 And I was thinking you can use the word her story also.
 Well, you know, I was thinking about that, because the title of this is the, you know, past history.
 I was thinking how about our story?
 Good, yeah.
 I kind of like to move from prehistory to history to our story.
 I know that sometimes we play with words, because we just got married,
 and I had the same experience of feeling real resistant to being owned and all of that.
 And someone said, "Mrs. Charles Brink."
 And I said, "No, but this is Mr. Linda Brink."
 And, you know, when I think sometimes when you reverse the thing, it doesn't seem so--
 I mean, it wasn't that it was awful to be called that, because I'm proud to be married to him.
 It was just that if you start reversing it that way and how absurd it sounds to call him Linda Brink,
 then it makes it how absurd it is to call me Charles Brink, you know, where it doesn't sound so absurd otherwise.
 So I think when we start noticing those things, just to reverse them.
 No, I think that's a very, very good thing.
 But this is how we're all beginning to notice these things, and it's fun.
 And it's a little uncomfortable, but it's much more fun than that.
 Well, there's a fellow, Dr. Warren Farrell, who's doing that.
 He talks about walking in someone else's shoes.
 He has interesting workshops because he has the women line up in rows according to their insoles,
 and then he has the men stand on chairs and turn around so the women can see them.
 Oh, wonderful.
 Oh, wonderful.
 I think experiencing it really makes a difference.
 David, do you want to add something?
 Oh, okay.
 No, you have to get up.
 As we see a play, we're teaching some art because I think it's coded,
 and so you can see history as you said, and history.
 Mystery is more than history.
 I want to say something about this question that Tina asked me that Robin brought up this morning
 about the whole duality of us and them, us being the partnership model and them being the dominant.
 And I was really plagued by that in Lurch in thinking about how to get away from that
 because in our own work together to shift the paradigm in the world,
 if we come from a place of duality, if we come from that place that Eve got to when she ate that apple of good and evil,
 and got to that first duality of good and evil,
 then in a sense we're shutting ourselves out from the garden of partnership.
 And how I think we could get from the duality that's kind of naturally out there in terms of the partnership
 and the dominant would be to see these people that are actually all of us as people in pain.
 And I thought about that again when we were talking about male and female roles
 and seeing men as the dominant.
 It's actually a kind of expression of pain that men have been so out of touch with themselves
 that they would see women as objects.
 And such an inability to make contact with themselves makes an inability to make contact with another.
 And I see the whole pornography thing as kind of a painful for all of us area
 where we have just sought after contact real desperately
 and not been able to come into contact because of not being in contact with our own pain
 and being in a state of denial.
 And the kind of sexuality that's been promoted in our culture where it just is an obsession
 seems to speak of that kind of pain of living in denial.
 Thank you for sharing that.
 David wants, I think, to address this issue of dualism.
 He talked to me earlier.
 Oh, good.
 That's a very logistical perspective.
 I think it's a question of duality.
 It's so important that it needs to be thought through in a number of different perspectives.
 All I want to share with you is two perspectives that occurred to me
 after Robin brought it up this morning.
 See, I see it as absolutely essential for us to differentiate what's partnership versus what's dominant.
 And it is very necessary to go through this us and them process.
 There's two levels of meaning.
 One is in philosophy.
 In order to reach any progression, one way of looking at it,
 you've got to state the status rather powerfully in order to get the antithesis stated powerfully
 in order to move beyond that towards the synthesis.
 What we don't want is the synthesis of the dominator and the partnership.
 That's the philosophical point.
 The practical point is this.
 If you look at the way a child grows up, or if you look at how an excluded minority, like the blacks,
 which you're very familiar with, advance themselves, in the case of a child,
 the child almost always has to go through that period.
 It happens at earlier stages, but it becomes particularly in the process during adolescence,
 where in order to differentiate itself from the parent,
 it hates that parent, goes through that period, "I'm not you. I don't want it."
 So there's that necessary negativity where they're differentiating.
 The same thing happens in black people, where there's a lot of white people
 who felt awfully uncomfortable with black power.
 They thought, "Oh, there's nothing worse than Alchemax."
 Well, Alchemax, the whole black power thing, was serving a very important function
 because it was differentiating.
 "I'm not white. I have nothing to do with white."
 This was a necessary transition stage.
 This is what's necessary for a child to go through adolescence.
 I feel there's a certain amount of duality that's absolutely necessary as a transition,
 sort of a better stage.
 But in other words, I feel that this needs to be articulated
 because I feel there's a very great danger in saying,
 "We don't want to have animals. We want everything to be lovely."
 And yet, we do have animals.
 And it is the dominator thing, all that it represents.
 Sure, these are people that must be dealt with in ways, and they are us.
 They are ideas, but they are ideas embodied in people.
 They're embodied in us.
 And I think that this is something that we must grasp and not avoid.
 Oh, I just wanted to further discuss that question that we talked about,
 that asking the question about duality, what is the smallest unit of partnership?
 And we were talking about that before, whether it was two or one,
 whether that conqueror inside me and that partner inside me,
 which is sometimes mind over body, when my mind says,
 "Go ahead and eat something that's not good for me,"
 conquers the health that I need to have.
 I'd just like to hear maybe you both talk a little bit about the idea of partnership on an individual basis.
 Well, I loved when you earlier came and posed that question
 and said that your intuition was that the basic partnership really started within us.
 And I agree with you because it's the whole thing of seeing ourselves as part of a larger whole
 and honoring our body and honoring our spirit and honoring the fact that they're the same,
 they're just different aspects of the same.
 So I see it like a prison where you just see different facets of it in different ways.
 And yeah, the smallest unit I think is every one of us.
 So I thank you for that.
 Don't you think that there's been talk about ego?
 Well, it seems to me ego inflation is what happens when within the partnership of the individual,
 a dominator model is applied because the manifestation of ego is the denial of intuition,
 which is a feminine function.
 So people who are strongly egocentric are living in the self-created hell of a dominator society of one.
 Besides the obvious reasons like fear of change and wanting to maintain a status quo or one system,
 why do you think there's this tremendous reaction or fear or backlash by the fundamentalists
 against the resurgence of, I mean, in their literature and sermons and everything,
 the resurgence of the return to the goddess, the archaic, the new age movement,
 anything that smacks like slightly different than their traditional or fundamental values?
 Well, they are the bearers of the patriarchy standards.
 Their lineage reaches right back to Pharaoh and they see it being threatened.
 Secularism, which began 500 years ago, threatened them at every step of the way.
 That's why I said last night I consider this monotheistic tradition to be the single most reactionary force in human history.
 Their bailiwick is threatened.
 The energy that they put into destroying the pagan world was tremendously ferocious.
 It took them centuries.
 In fact, they never completely succeeded in dismantling the previous world of pagan sensibilities.
 And theirs is, I believe, not a natural position.
 Rian said this morning, you can do anything you want to partnership.
 It keeps springing up.
 It keeps coming back.
 It has a natural ability to recreate itself.
 I don't believe this is true of the dominator culture.
 I believe that it is fragile and frightened and feels itself always being eroded by the simple processes that reside in nature.
 So it is an untenable position.
 And if you have an untenable position, you have a siege mentality.
 I really want to just take that to a very personal sense.
 I think that it is fear and pain that really are the mainstream.
 And these are the most damaged people, are the ones that really are the most imprisoned.
 Because we are all imprisoned to some extent still by the dominator model.
 But in these people, the grip is so fierce.
 And the pain and the fear are so great.
 Because these things happen on various levels.
 One is the systems level.
 Societies are living systems.
 They tend to maintain themselves.
 That is just how we know from systems theory.
 But just on the very individual motivation level, for example, a lot of these women who are so horribly...
 I mean, who can go around chanting when they wanted this poor, aging Supreme Court justice to die.
 Do you remember?
 What was his name? I have forgotten now.
 Brennan.
 Beg your pardon?
 Brennan.
 Yeah, they were chanting.
 They were chanting for death for Brennan.
 And it was all in the name of "We are pro-life."
 And it was, "Wait a minute."
 I mean, what kind of distortion in these women?
 Well, it is terror. It is fear. It is pain.
 And they lash out.
 And that is exactly, you see, the whole lashing out process.
 You mutilate a child from childhood on to be in pain.
 Be it really through genital mutilation or be it through child beating or be it through psychological battering.
 All of these ways.
 And that is, I think, if you are asking in terms of the mechanics of it, it is very complex.
 But I think on the individual level, that is really...
 And it relates to your point about the enemy.
 If there is an enemy, it is us.
 I mean, it is what has become part of us, but we can leave it behind, the pain.
 And the whole thing that we are talking about now is healing.
 Healing ourselves.
 Yes?
 What impresses me about this particular subject is really the call to face the pain.
 Yes.
 And instead of looking out there for the source, either be it God or outer space,
 in which so many of the patriarchal religions head the gaze in that direction, in the skyward direction,
 and why your question about mind and body, I think it relates to what Rianna is talking about right now.
 The call that is being made, and I think the same with your work, is to actually face very deeply what is going on within us.
 The profound alienation between mind and body.
 The objectification, not just of the feminine, but of eros, the objectification of the body.
 And whether it is with the visionary vegetables, or simply by attending to breath.
 And watching the content of our minds produce in the way that they do.
 Coming to really, as the Oracle of Delphi said it beautifully,
 knowing oneself completely, becoming completely aware, heightened and deepened awareness.
 So, you know, I really resonate with what you are talking about in terms of coming into this partnership model, mind and body.
 And how we live this out, you know, in relationship with each other.
 How actually partnering in the world becomes a context wherein we can discover,
 we get a very extraordinary feedback when we are off.
 And why this, you know, evasive maneuvers to stay in relationship, to stay in community,
 to persist through the points of extreme pain that all of us experience in facing ourselves,
 whether it is on a psychedelic substance, you know, or whether it is sitting on the Zathos.
 But really knowing oneself profoundly.
 You know, I was also thinking why, you know, these model fundamentalists, the white Zathos,
 now they are not in very much pain. I mean, white Zathos are not generally mutilated.
 Arab men are not even circumcised. What men are they on home?
 No, they are.
 All right, they are. But the whole issue was, it proves partnership.
 Because the fear that they feel that keeps them sitting on top of people,
 it keeps them there, the fear gets off. And then that comes with the fact,
 they know they are causing all this pain. And they feel themselves pain.
 It is there, too. And then that is the reason they are not in.
 I would like to really reiterate this issue of the selective deadening of empathy.
 Because I think that empathy, this awareness that we are talking about,
 is so much part of this unique miracle that is our species.
 And the Dominator model is so fascinating, because here is this gift we have been given,
 and institution after institution, practice after practice,
 is then ingeniously developed to deaden that gift of empathy in us.
 And, hey, but I think that that is really one of the things.
 But you can't really kill it off, you see.
 No, no, you are right. You are right about that.
 But I think the point here is that as long as we do not face our own pain,
 we will create a lot for others.
 Wouldn't that, you might say, the Dominator mentality would be like in a prison.
 It would stay penitential.
 You would take that feeling of being incarcerated, where you had that much fear,
 where there was all that much power.
 But, see, I think the incarceration image is a very apt one.
 I spoke about Theodore Rojack, and he spoke of how the 19th century wave of feminism
 really was one of the first really historic frontal challenges to the Dominator system,
 to what he called patriarchy.
 And he said that the reaction to it was one of terror.
 But the greatest thing was we had to keep imprisoned not only the women
 and the so-called inferior people and the enemy,
 but the woman that every man, as he put it, keeps locked inside his psyche.
 And I think that's a very apt image.
 But, of course, women, too, can be very cruel.
 And I think it's really very important that we disabuse ourselves of this whole idea
 that we're talking about women are terrific and men are, you know, forget it.
 Because the Dominator model distorts both women and men.
 It is true that the caring, I mean, that's one of the ironies.
 You know, really the most important work in the society,
 which is the caring and the nurturing work of the society,
 has been relegated to the inferior group, you know, to women.
 And then we wonder why we can't have social priorities that are more caring
 if those very people are excluded from power, right?
 Right.
 I mean, talk about catch-22 here.
 So we're back to the "women's issues," aren't we?
 What concerns me once again is this new role of the feminist man.
 If you go back and you see this image of erotic Pan, who was a consort of the goddess,
 who, if you go into history enough, was often sacrificed at the end of each year
 as part of this refeeding the goddess back.
 There was a blood sacrifice since the man did not bleed.
 If you look at some of the Menon frescoes, it's very easy.
 They're beautiful, and I wish I had some of them.
 The role of the man, well, I mean, you see a fresco of a man with fish.
 He fishes.
 All right?
 So, I mean, you know, the register productive role.
 You see the so-called young prince, which is really fascinating.
 Most of the recovered Minoan single figures have been a tribute to the goddess
 with a female priestess as the representative.
 But they find this one figure of a man, and they decide he's the young prince, right?
 Which is very, very interesting because there's not a trace of any king in Minoan culture.
 Nonetheless, he is a beardless youth, and he has flowers and plumes,
 and he's walking through the garden.
 I mean, it's hardly your macho warrior image.
 I mean, there are other things that men can do.
 Men did the bull leaping, and that was very interesting
 because it was a partnership with the women.
 If you look at the bull leaper fresco, so they obviously just did all kinds of things.
 They just didn't happen to specialize in killing.
 [laughter]
 Yes?
 Do you want to make a summation?
 Is it time already?
 Yes.
 One more.
 Oh, my goodness.
 Yes, I think that we should just--
 Question over here.
 Yes, please.
 I see technology as a symbol of dominance in society,
 and I wanted you to address the question, if you could,
 of what the interface will look like and how we get to the interface
 in a partnership society with technology.
 I see a clash with technology, but I wonder if that's actually what you want to address.
 I'm so glad you brought that up because that makes a wonderful, wonderful place
 for something that I really felt that I want to very much address.
 What I'd like to suggest is that we look at technology
 as something that is really a human function, a human capacity.
 From day one, language is a technology of communication, isn't it?
 The stick that even chimpanzees use to help them dig up plants and what have you,
 that's a technology.
 It's a tool.
 Our tool-making capacity is really an extension of natural functions.
 I mean, an airplane does something that a bird does, but we've built it.
 So I look at technology neither as the villain or as the savior.
 I look at technology as something that we--
 I mean, other species have some technology.
 I think dolphins and whales probably would if they had hands
 because they seem to have a high intelligence, but they don't.
 So we have this tremendous capacity for making tools,
 all the way to the most extraordinary things that we're getting today.
 That, I think, is a wonderful thing, and it can also be a terrible thing.
 And we're right back to the issue of technology being used--
 using the template of a partnership or a dominator model of society.
 I'd like to suggest to you that the invention of machines, per se,
 did not have to result in these dehumanized assembly lines
 where people themselves became cogs in the machine.
 I would like to suggest to you that if this prehistoric shift had not happened,
 that maybe the machines would have been used in a very, very different way.
 I would like to suggest to you that the great breakthroughs in technology
 actually came in what we may call more of a partnership-oriented era.
 In fact, all the basic technologies on which civilization is built came out of that era.
 They weren't as glitzy as what we've got today,
 although Minoan Crete had the first paved roads in Europe.
 It had books. It had indoor plumbing.
 I mean, it got lost again. We don't find it again until much later.
 But, I mean, they were what we would call--
 well, they compare very-- they're much more high technology
 than a lot of the so-called developing worlds today.
 Okay?
 So, let's look at technology in terms of this template.
 But the dominator system--
 I've divided technology, really, and that's a whole new session.
 Okay?
 By trying to categorize it in terms of different types of technologies.
 And one is technologies of domination, of destruction.
 And I'd like to suggest to you that technologies of domination and destruction,
 be it the use of the greater musculature and the development of this,
 you know, of the bronze to kill of the so-called classical warrior, or the missile,
 that that's built into the dominator system.
 It really doesn't have that much to do with technology at all.
 And so that the issue for us isn't,
 "Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater here."
 I mean, I don't want to go back technologically.
 I mean, I think that we don't want to do that.
 What we want to do is to use the most advanced modern technology.
 And it almost takes us immediately back to the whole issue
 of how we use the hallucinogens.
 Because we're right back there.
 You know very well that there have been experiments,
 not with some of the synthetic drugs, to use them for mind control.
 I mean, that's the ultimate dominator technology, isn't it?
 I mean, thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge,
 because I've just given you in your water supply, you know,
 the chemical that makes you sort of, you know, completely pliable.
 Well, I'm saying, no, no, no, no, no.
 I made the distinction between hallucinogens and drugs.
 You know, and pharmaceutically produced drugs.
 And there are experiments with that.
 But I'm saying that let's think of technology with those two templates.
 And I'd really like to leave that as my summation.
 [Audience member]
 It's a much powerful dialogue.
 And LSD is a much powerful way of thinking knowledge.
 [Audience member]
 Yes.
 [Audience member]
 Yes, that's right.
 [Audience member]
 And the financial infrastructure would be,
 one would be laissez-faire private ownership,
 and the other would be shared, socialized.
 [Audience member]
 Well, there would be degrees.
 [Audience member]
 You might say capitalism and socialism, you know.
 Maybe oversimplified, but that's what I'm getting down to.
 [Audience member]
 It's somewhat oversimplified, but certainly a more equitable,
 you know, distribution of wealth, wouldn't you say?
 And an abandonment of the notion of private property.
 [Audience member]
 Oh, great.
 [Audience member]
 No more reading.
 [Audience member]
 Let's see, I don't agree.
 [Audience member]
 They killed a pope for saying that.
 [Audience member]
 I don't agree with that.
 [Audience member]
 Let's end in tumult.
 [Audience member]
 Well, instead of ending in tumult, could we end just almost on time?
 [Audience member]
 Yes.
 [Audience member]
 Oh, I thought we just had this.
 [Audience member]
 That's nice.
 Now they've got a few more moments.
 [Audience member]
 Well, it seems we moved around this afternoon.
 There's a great concern as to how to realize this in the here and now,
 one on one, which is encouraging, because otherwise it remains an abstraction.
 Bringing these models forward into the present isn't easy,
 because the context for over a thousand or more years has been set by the dominator culture.
 Nevertheless, what we have going for us is that the partnership way of thinking
 is really scripted into the bones of the planet.
 This is how it's always been done.
 This is how nature does it.
 The Darwinian model of nature that we've inherited from the 19th century
 is simply another dominator fiction used to reinforce dominator mechanisms.
 The fact is that what nature really maximizes is cooperation, integration,
 and mutuality of support and relationship.
 What we're really trying to do, what becoming post-historical means, I think,
 is removing the veil between ourselves and nature that the historical experience has raised,
 because the historical experience has been an alienating experience,
 has caused our perceptions to rise to the mere surfaces of things,
 and our feelings to be completely undercut and invalidated.
 What we have to do is see more deeply into the context of being
 and the situation in which we find ourselves, and to see that we are of it.
 It's a seamless web.
 The dynamics that rule the biological and natural world
 are the dynamics that are going to work for us.
 We didn't fall here out of the sky.
 We weren't made by a jealous god who set us loose in a kind of reservation.
 We are of the stuff of this place, and its dynamics can be our dynamics.
 The problem is one of awareness, realization, recovery of this perception,
 sharing it, revivifying it, and realizing it.
 Thanks so much.
 [Applause]
 I really have a need to clarify the private property issue,
 because I really don't equate the partnership model with the evolution of private property,
 and I want to really clarify that.
 I think that it's much more complex than that,
 and that as I speak in the Chalice and the Blade,
 that what is going to be emerging, I hope, is a whole new economic model
 where we put in central value the caring work
 that has traditionally, of course, been relegated to women and to so-called effeminate men.
 We have that opportunity now as we move from industrial to post-industrial society,
 and we have to redefine what is productive work.
 And I really wanted to leave with this idea that I think we're going into a post-capitalist
 and post-socialist era.
 And forgive me, I don't need to have the last word, but I did want to say that.
 Well, I'll have the first word tomorrow.
 [Laughter]
 [Applause]
 This is KPFK Los Angeles.
 We have been listening to the evening of the first day of the seminar
 "Man and Woman at the End of History" with Terrence McKenna and Rian Eisler.
 Rian Eisler is the author of the current book, "The Chalice and the Blade,"
 which has been highly recommended by Helen Caldicott and Dan Ellsberg and Terrence McKenna
 and Ashley Monague.
 Ashley Monague, an anthropologist, said,
 "It's the most important book since "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin."
 So that would be the most important book in about 140 years,
 which, well, that's heavy praise indeed.
 "The Chalice and the Blade."
 We will continue with the second day of the seminar next Tuesday night,
 Wednesday morning at midnight on Earth Tuesday.
 I'd like to thank two subscribers, by the way,
 Marlon Rojas of Los Angeles and Mick Lydell of Northridge.
 Marlon has not subscribed for a while, but he's back,
 and Mick is a starving musician.
 I know a Mick who's not a starving musician.
 Anyway, he's subscribing for McKenna, Johnny Otis, Alan Watts, Roy, and Reggae.
 Terrence McKenna.
 Oh, the tapes and Terrence's appearance in Los Angeles,
 which is now not two months away, not three months away, not two months away,
 not a month away, ten days, a week from Saturday,
 Terrence is going to be in town.
 More about that in a minute.
 The tapes of "Man and Woman at the End of History,"
 this is a set of--sorry for the squeaky book--this is a set of five cassettes,
 and they are available from the Ojai Foundation Wild Store.
 I believe the set of five is $40, "Man and Woman at the End of History."
 Their address and phone, if they answer the phone, I guess they do,
 is Ojai Foundation, Post Office Box 1620, Box 1620, Ojai, California, 93023.
 The Ojai Foundation, Box 1620, Ojai, California, 93023.
 And again, the seminar is "Man and Woman at the End of History."
 The phone number of the Ojai Foundation, area code 805-646-8343,
 area code 805-646-8343.


{END}
Wait Time : 0.00 sec
Model Load: 0.65 sec
Decoding  : 0.84 sec
Transcribe: 2399.26 sec
Total Time: 2400.75 sec