It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Important Message for Humanity! - Terrence Mckenna: TimeWave Zero & 2012

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
This guy debunked his work www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



That's the opposite of what McKenna states, so your statement declares he was deliberately lying.

Is this the point where we say duh?

The point is that the TWZ is a contrived plot that has nothing to do with reality. It is a construction.

www.realitysandwich.com...

One account [L.E. Joseph, Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation into Civilization's End (Morgan Road Books/Random House, 2007), p.204] indicates that TM originally decided that the "best fit" would occur if he placed his "zero point" in mid-November 2012...but then he learned about the significance of December 21, 2012 for the Mayans, and decided to shift the graph along by a few weeks.

When I spoke to TM myself, I got a variation of this account: one of the key periods of time he was working with was 67.28 years: this equals both 6 x 64 x 64 days (6 x 64 = 384 days is quite close to 13 lunar periods, he noted, so 67.28 solar years could arguably be understood as 64 "lunar years") and, approximately, six 11.2-year minor sunspot cycles. He took this to be deeply relevant, as it related the cycles of Sun, Moon and Earth via the numbers 6 and 64, which are central to the I Ching (TM's account of all this can be found here). For some reason, he decided (reasoning backwards?) that the first use of an atomic bomb on a civilian population (Hiroshima, August 6, 1945) was especially "novel", then added on his 67.28 years to arrive at November 16, 2012 (which would have been his 67th birthday, as well as being very close, in historical terms, to the winter solstice of 2012).



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



No, actually you do!

If you've never eaten an apple how would you know if I was telling the truth if I told you apples are sweet?

How about if 1,000 people told you apples were sweet, but you still didn't taste for yourself?

How about if 1,000 people say they are sweet and 1,000 say they are bitter - how will you know who is the hoaxer?


Just as the pink elephant story was a hoax, this claim is also wrong in many ways.

The point about TWZ is that it can be tested and it fails miserably. There is little to nothing valid in his claims. Your apple story is completely inappropriate. It simply suggests that there are issues which are not decidable. If that is the case with McKenna then the validity of his claims is undecidable, i.e. they are worth little to nothing.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



I'll go back to a few videos and see if I can find the right one.
If my memory serves me correctly, McKenna claims that TWZ endpoint came out as 21.12.2012 before he had knowledge of the Mayan end date, but I might be misquoting.

Are you saying he lied? I believe that.

He did change the end date and he changed other things to create TWZ. It simply isn't connected to reality.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Sorry I have caused a misunderstanding, the apple analogy was not intended to validate TWZ.
I was referring to the bulk of McKenna's insights and ideas that were translated from his experiences with psychadelics.
Yes, of course, TWZ is potentially the most famous of these, which is why I am participating in this thread.
I'll look at the links and threads posted and try to sift through the bias and opinion to find some solid critique.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RogerT
 



I'll go back to a few videos and see if I can find the right one.
If my memory serves me correctly, McKenna claims that TWZ endpoint came out as 21.12.2012 before he had knowledge of the Mayan end date, but I might be misquoting.

Are you saying he lied? I believe that.

He did change the end date and he changed other things to create TWZ. It simply isn't connected to reality.


I didn't say he lied, I said what I said, you can read it again in the quote you posted!

Not sure why you feel the need to put words in my mouth, I guess it's because I'm not making my position clear enough. That's because I don't have a definable position on this yet, just an opening.

In relation to the apples analogy, this is highly appropriate when discussing things which require some kind of direct experience in order to 'understand' them (and I use the term understand very loosely).

You've declared several times now (and other posters) that TM changed the date to reflect the Mayan end date, yet none of you have posted direct evidence of this. Your quote above is the nearest thing to that but the critical link to the source is not active, so we are expected to believe someone's opinion as truth and someone else's opinion as a hoax?
edit on 3/1/12 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


The proof is in the first edition of The Invisible Landscape. In this McKenna does not give a date for when TWZ ends. He merely says that it will end some time in 2012. When a later edition was published this vague prediction changed to December 21, 2012. Of course this new edition came after the development of the GMT correlation, and in fact the date had already been jumped on by other New Age authors, such as Jose Arguelles.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


OK, I read the blog source of your post.

I can see how someone could see this information as a plausible debunk, and whilst I have a lot of respect for Mr Watkins, especially the responsible way he writes, even he is clear that he is merely stating his opinions based on several assumptions and incomplete understandings of conversations with McKenna.

I see no proof here that Mckenna changed any dates, I see speculation, even if it is informed and credible.

I'll keep reading the other links ...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
OK, now finished the 'Watkins Objection' and although the maths is over my head, the context and semantics are accessible.

Here's my opinion, this debate is not one of 'was McKenna lying or hoaxing' as the answer to that is a rather obvious NO for anyone with more than token psychadelic experience.

A more interesting debate might be 'is there any value in exploring TWZ and other insights of McKenna?', to which I'd agree with Mr Watkins and state a big fat YES!


On a more positive note, I should add that I don't find McKenna's timewave exploit to be completely without value. Certain observations (such as the absence of 5's in the set [h(1),...,h(64)] and the correspondence of the Chinese 13-lunation ritual calendar with six 64-day cycles) are certainly worthy of further consideration.

It wouldn't surprise me if a fractal map of temporal resonance was encoded into the King Wen sequence, just as it wouldn't surprise me if something quite remarkable does occur on December 21, 2012. The world can be a very strange place, and we all have much to learn.

McKenna's hyper-imaginative speculation has fired the imagination of many. With this particular "theory" he has spread awareness of the I Ching and the Mayan calendar, both fascinating and poorly understood systems of ancient human thought.

I should therefore end by suggesting that the remainder of his published thought should not be dismissed as a result of my findings which are discussed here.


Watkins isn't trying to debunk McKenna, he's trying to bring attention to the inconsistencies he personally finds in the theory and calculations.

On a final note, if you've had a 'multi-dimensional experience' and attempted to extract information from this experience and then translate it into words that work in our agreed shared perception of 3D, you'll know this is always going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. there is simply no way to convey the quantum packet of information that is delivered instantaneously to someone who has not directly experienced it, and even then, two distinct experiences may differ dramatically.

My apologies for borrowing terms and misusing them or creating my own context for them.

Now as to whether McKenna arbitrarily picked dates or fudged them to fit in with other opinions is impossible to declare unless you can quote McKenna doing so, and even then, context is going to be very important.

From a personal perspective, and not understanding the maths or theory behind TWZ at all, even if he slid the graph up and down a timeline to get a best fit, the fact that the best fit indicated an end time within a month of the Mayan calendar, when TM had all of infinity to work with, is remarkable enough for me.

If he later decided to move the end date from November 2012 to December 2012, so what? Unless we know McKenna's reasoning for doing that exactly, we can but speculate and it appears ATS members are all too keen to speculate from a place of cynicism rather than a place of possibility. Watkins does a far better job at containing or at least confessing his cynicism as opinion and not claiming it as fact - I suppose that is a good example of healthy and valuable skepticism which challenges the subject matter without necessarily invalidating it.

If TWZ is not able to predict according to TM's subjective ideas of novelty, it's clearly not functioning as intended. However, that doesn't make it a hoax, or even valueless, just makes it flawed or misunderstood.
edit on 3/1/12 by RogerT because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/1/12 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by curiouswa
This guy debunked his work www.youtube.com...


This guy made a video debunking a TM fan's opinion of which events fit the TWZ curve in the past decade. That's not really the same thing now is it?

He concludes with 4 points:

1. 2012 was chosen not calculated: so what? what does that debunk? does TM claim the date was directly the result of calculation or does he say "we made some calculations, then did a best fit with history and the end date came out to be 2012"?
2. If failed to predict: he states this in the conclusion but doesn't demonstrate it with the content. He merely argues someone else's opinion of what constitutes significant expressions of novelty
3. he uses arbitrary maths: this is purely from watkins objection. Watkins states in his own opinion that the maths is arbitrary, but admits this is just an opinion. The video guy initially accepts TM could have had specific reasons, but fails to stay open minded in the conclusion and chooses to invalidate his own initial observations
4. no idea what he means by point 4 or why it debunks anything?
5. cherry picked events: well duh! with a nearly infinite data set to chose from how else would you choose events?

Bottom line for me:

Trying to predict by using historical events, cherry picked according to some subjective criteria of a concept only TM really understands (or not) is bound to be flawed. Any debunking based on the plotting of events and claiming they 'don't fit' is equally flawed.

However, TWZ is quite specific about an end time date and how TM considers that may show up in real world experience. So far, I'd say his general observations about the 'speeding up of time and increase in novelty' are fairly accurate, although it can be argued that's pretty obvious and we don't need TWZ to see that. As for specific dates, surely it's all about the end date, occuring according to TM in 2012 (November 16 or December 21 depending upon which transcript you read), so we should be able to assess how accurate TM's translation of his insights were in less than a year from now



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by RogerT
 


of course i do :

the evidence is in my thread



thanks for making and linking to this thread, I had not taken Evasius seriously up until I read his initial response to your thread beginning here: www.abovetopsecret.com... which resonates with me and was kinda what I was trying to clumsily say in my posts above.

things are getting clearer (for me) so thanks OP, i am enjoying this ride

edit on 3/1/12 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


It's quite clear from Mckenna and his constructions that he changed the date. He has never disputed that when confronted with issues such as the objection which I posted a link to.

It's clear that TWZ is not fractal yet people continue to call it fractal including McKenna.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Hi RogerT, I hope you had a happy New Year! I agree on you on the absurdity of 'debunking' an already flawed theory, which is pretty much what I believe the whole TWZ thing to be. I do, however, have to disagree on what you say about time accelerating. Time isn't speeding up, not even our perceptions of time is. It's the transfer of information which has not only sped up, but broadened exponentially as well, which is what is giving us the 'feeling' that time itself has sped up. For the 'time speeding up' theory to be proven correct it would have to be an uniform perception all across the world. That means that we would have to test both the people in a major urban center, such as New York or London, who are constantly bombarded with information, and say a person from some isolated Amazonian tribe that has no contact whatsoever with our modern age. If they both happen to have the same 'perception', that they cannot complete the same amount of tasks because 'time is not enough anymore', then the theory would be proven correct. If on the contrary, we hear the people from the tribe say that they have no problem doing exactly the same things they have been doing for the last five hundred years, then that would prove it wrong. Who's up for the challenge??



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



A more interesting debate might be 'is there any value in exploring TWZ and other insights of McKenna?', to which I'd agree with Mr Watkins and state a big fat YES!

It is such an obvious construction unrelated to reality that I say NO. Your opinion of yes is based on what evidence? What is there to TWZ other than some sappy numerology?


On a final note, if you've had a 'multi-dimensional experience' and attempted to extract information from this experience and then translate it into words that work in our agreed shared perception of 3D, you'll know this is always going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. there is simply no way to convey the quantum packet of information that is delivered instantaneously to someone who has not directly experienced it, and even then, two distinct experiences may differ dramatically.

Your continued insistence on experience is irrelevant to TWZ. It is a construction. It is contrived. It is not based on reality.


From a personal perspective, and not understanding the maths or theory behind TWZ at all, even if he slid the graph up and down a timeline to get a best fit, the fact that the best fit indicated an end time within a month of the Mayan calendar, when TM had all of infinity to work with, is remarkable enough for me.

It is rather obvious that you have no idea what the math is. Sliding the graph to get a fit is not the same as getting a best fit. There was no best fit effort. The fact that he changed his construction to match up with a Mayan date is rather meaningless since that date in the Mayan system is not important.


If he later decided to move the end date from November 2012 to December 2012, so what?

It means that the graph does not reflect reality. That shift means that the importance of events have changed according to the TWZ. TWZ is not a reflection of reality. It's a pointless construction of no value.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



we made some calculations, then did a best fit with history and the end date came out to be 2012"?

To suggest that some sort of best fit was done is your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this statement? Of course not. This is nothing more than a wild guess on your part.


Trying to predict by using historical events, cherry picked according to some subjective criteria of a concept only TM really understands (or not) is bound to be flawed. Any debunking based on the plotting of events and claiming they 'don't fit' is equally flawed.

Your continued claims that experience is required is rather flawed. Your claim that TM needs to be involved is a poor excuse for saying that the plot is valueless and that its basis is flawed. Your claim that the graph can't be debunked by showing its flaws is based on what? Is it based on your lack of understanding?


So far, I'd say his general observations about the 'speeding up of time and increase in novelty' are fairly accurate

Do you have anything to support this rather preposterous statement or do you have to get in touch with TM?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RogerT
 


It's quite clear from Mckenna and his constructions that he changed the date. He has never disputed that when confronted with issues such as the objection which I posted a link to.

It's clear that TWZ is not fractal yet people continue to call it fractal including McKenna.


OK, so what? he changed the date from 16 nov 2012 to 21 dec 2012. Evasius explains the hows and whys of this in the post i linked. I can see you want this to validate your assertions about TM being a hoaxster - it doesn't for me.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkVeela
reply to post by RogerT
 


Hi RogerT, I hope you had a happy New Year! I agree on you on the absurdity of 'debunking' an already flawed theory, which is pretty much what I believe the whole TWZ thing to be. I do, however, have to disagree on what you say about time accelerating. Time isn't speeding up, not even our perceptions of time is. It's the transfer of information which has not only sped up, but broadened exponentially as well, which is what is giving us the 'feeling' that time itself has sped up. For the 'time speeding up' theory to be proven correct it would have to be an uniform perception all across the world. That means that we would have to test both the people in a major urban center, such as New York or London, who are constantly bombarded with information, and say a person from some isolated Amazonian tribe that has no contact whatsoever with our modern age. If they both happen to have the same 'perception', that they cannot complete the same amount of tasks because 'time is not enough anymore', then the theory would be proven correct. If on the contrary, we hear the people from the tribe say that they have no problem doing exactly the same things they have been doing for the last five hundred years, then that would prove it wrong. Who's up for the challenge??


Ok, but doesn't that depend on your definition of perceived time (we're talking about perception, not the speed the hands of a clock move at right?)
If perception of time represents the amount or density of events in the present moment it's a different conversation.
Regardless, I have my own experience, and those of people close to me. There is no debate amongst us that our perception of time has dramatically changed and the rate of change appears to be accelerating.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


hmmm, sorry, I am finding this a bit tiring.

I know my view on this is full of holes, some of them are being filled in as I continue posting in this thread.

I'm sorry you can't understand why experience is helpful when discussing a theory that is based on one man's psychadelic adventures.

Without even that bridge, I doubt you and I are going to get much satisfaction from the interaction. Playing tennis with isolated points of opinion is not my bag today.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RogerT
 

To suggest that some sort of best fit was done is your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this statement?

errm, it's been quoted to death in this and the other thread about TWZ?!?!




So far, I'd say his general observations about the 'speeding up of time and increase in novelty' are fairly accurate

Do you have anything to support this rather preposterous statement or do you have to get in touch with TM?


yes, my own experience. There's a clue in the statement where it reads ' I'd say ' !
Invalidating and/or ridiculing the direct experience of others says more about you than them, don't you know?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



OK, so what? he changed the date from 16 nov 2012 to 21 dec 2012. Evasius explains the hows and whys of this in the post i linked. I can see you want this to validate your assertions about TM being a hoaxster - it doesn't for me.

It certainly suggests that the TWZ is not connected to reality and is a construction devoid of reality.

It also goes to show that you are willing to support an idea which you know little about.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join