/Nexus - 1601 - New Times Magazine/pages/0050/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
the emotion is many, many, many times longer than what Heisenberg principle of uncertainty in the immediate was felt after 9/11. But that isn't to say that it's going to be _ scene, no, I don't believe that that's the case. Undoubtedly, emotionally as intense that way continuously. at a quanta [sic] level, there's some of that going on. Now, That rarely would happen, I would think... if you're asking, "Because we see this, will the Universe KC: On Rense.com, you talked about how there were — change?", we don't know about that... proportions within the actual event—a certain amount of KC: Are you able to tell the difference when you look military, a certain amount of economic. Explain that. at what you've got, that it's positive versus negative? CH: Correct. But that's not within the event. That's CH: Positive and negative have an interesting within the state of the model-space at the time the event connotation within our work, and within the lexicon and occurs. Bear in mind, we don't do prophecy. We construct — within language itself. A lot of it is culturally based. a highly quirky and weird little interface in time in a KC: Well, how about constructive versus destructive? model-space in the computer, and then advance it tick by CH: Destructive, yes, we are able to tell that. And at tick by tick and watch as it makes changes. And then, on this point in our reading, in terms of how we're going top of that, we have to look for something significant. through the data, the release language from October 7th So what we're seeing is, at the point at which this trigger onward is not what anybody would consider to be event or precipitating event—however we think about it— —_ pleasant, so you may want to put a deconstructive nature occurs, the emotional tension balance is about 48 per cent on it. It's something that we must go through. Let us economic, shading up to about 51 per cent at the moment, —_ understand that. but that may back down by the A revolution is a horrible, time we get to October 7th. An terrible, brutal thing in which lots then about 40-45 per cent is "The data seem to suggest that, of emotions and people are shed, military. Then the rest is what di Gory h h . but it is a positive thing in the we call Terra Intrusions, which is regar' ess of what the trigger end. Good, bad, whether they really Earth changes kinds of event is, over those next five win or not, the revolutionary things, hurricanes, that sort of . . means is positive. It brings along deal. or six months the economic with it a lot of brutality and KC: But when you say it excesses, and so on. But you've could be a small thing that lasts system goes from really, really got to get that out of your system, five months in duration, it could nasty now to something we just the way that we must have be triggered by a tiny thing— ' 4 iT the coming crash in the economic even innocuous? don't want to even describe... system, which will start on CH: Correct... It could be a calamity... October 7th regardless. The data seem to suggest that, regardless of what the trigger event is, over those next five or six Interpreting the data sets months the economic system goes from really, really nasty KC: It looks like you track what looks like "trends" in now to something we don't want to even describe... language, because I'm noticing that some of your key KC: So what you are seeing in the future, at least in words are words like "revolution", "transformation", — the next five months, linked to the October 7th economic "duality". situation, is that it's dire now but it's going to be CH: Okay, they are metadata layers. Those are not key —_ something... words. What happens is that we build our model-space. It CH: Brutally true. Okay. This weekend we're putting gets sliced up into all these various different entities, and up a new report that continues to refine that, because we're then over time we allow the Universe to give us words to _ getting in new data. In the market descriptor, the market populate them. It turns out that, over time, whole lots of section there, we're going to be describing it as brutally words that all fall under the context of "revolution" —_ transformative... showed up in the markets entity, and showed up in our KC: Are you seeing a rise in chaos that continues up to representations of the populace of the US, and showed up _and beyond 2012? in global populace representation, and so on. CH: No. Our data sets... As a rule, we start losing So these are not key words. We don't go hunting for granularity at about 19 months. That's because of the those. Those are derived contexts. Those are showing up _ nature of language—that most of the language, for serendipitously. Rather, the data is coming back that instance, that might impact on your particular life in any nicely and neatly sorts, in all of our entities, into those — given week, that would extend beyond 19 months, you categories that are headed by those words... don't use. You would rarely use language which had that KC: I'm also interested in the way you're looking at _level of duration. So granularity falls off after 19 months. your data, such that you're interpreting your data. Do you We did have some spotty bits of information and we're find that looking at it changes it? starting to put together this new entity that we're calling CH: No, I don't believe so. If you're talking about the FuturePop that is going to be about the populace that will Heisenberg principle of uncertainty in the immediate scene, no, I don't believe that that's the case. Undoubtedly, at a quanta [sic] level, there's some of that going on. Now, if you're asking, "Because we see this, will the Universe change?" , we don't know about that... KC: Are you able to tell the difference when you look at what you've got, that it's positive versus negative? CH: Positive and negative have an interesting connotation within our work, and within the lexicon and within language itself. A lot of it is culturally based. KC: Well, how about constructive versus destructive? CH: Destructive, yes, we are able to tell that. And at this point in our reading, in terms of how we're going through the data, the release language from October 7th onward is not what anybody would consider to be pleasant, so you may want to put a deconstructive nature on it. It's something that we must go through. Let us understand that. "The data seem to suggest that, regardless of what the trigger event is, over those next five system goes from really, really nasty now to something we don't want to even describe..." Interpreting the data sets KC: It looks like you track what looks like "trends" in language, because I'm noticing that some of your key words are words like "revolution", "transformation", "duality". CH: Okay, they are metadata layers. Those are not key words. What happens is that we build our model-space. It gets sliced up into all these various different entities, and then over time we allow the Universe to give us words to populate them. It turns out that, over time, whole lots of words that all fall under the context of "revolution" showed up in the markets entity, and showed up in our representations of the populace of the US, and showed up in global populace representation, and so on. So these are not key words. We don't go hunting for those. Those are derived contexts. Those are showing up serendipitously. Rather, the data is coming back that nicely and neatly sorts, in all of our entities, into those categories that are headed by those words... KC: I'm also interested in the way you're looking at your data, such that you're interpreting your data. Do you find that looking at it changes it? CH: No, I don't believe so. If you're talking about the 50 ¢ NEXUS or six months the economic www.nexusmagazine.com DECEMBER 2008 — JANUARY 2009