Egodeath Yahoo Group – Digest 145: 2015-12-25

Hatsis suffers from the single-meaning, surface-meaning fallacy, literalism, like when people say the spaceship in the song does not refer to LSD, because it refers to a spaceship — as if poetry can only have one, clear cut, surface, literal meaning.

Specifically, Hatsis suffers from lacking the correct referent domain: religious mythology refers to entheogen-revealed experiencing of the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.

Mythology and acid popsike lyrics have two domains of meaning: the metaphor domain (whatever the specific surface analogy is; this is an open set; it could be any domain of metaphor), and the referent domain, which is entheogen-induced experiencing of Eternalism (a single specific domain that does not vary).

The New Testament maps the single fixed referent domain (Entheogen Eternalism) to, most notably and relevantly, two metaphor domains: the metaphor domain of mystery religion, and the metaphor domain of socio-politics.

“Put the needle in the groove” — there’s no way this can refer to intercourse, because plainly it is about playing a record. This meaning prevents mapping to a different meaning (according to tone-deaf outsiders).

Hatsis operates from an assumed paradigm of Literalist OSC Possibilism, so he is only prepared to read a single, brittle, literal meaning — like the word ‘die’ for him has not yet been problematized; he shows no awareness of the need to interpret the word ‘die’.

For him, ‘die’ means simply bodily physical death, and that’s it; there’s no possibility in his mind of it meaning any other kind of death or anything other than literal bodily death.

Even academics (clueless outsiders to the riddle) recognize that the Eden tree ‘die’ refers to “spiritual death”, as they put it.

He says these mushroom trees do not refer to mushrooms because they refer to trees and that this is simply how the school arbitrarily by convention depicts trees: they do it in an abstract mushroom-like way (and this is a secular book).

And Ruck has such a weak theory that he has nothing to counter that denseness with.

First of all we have to ask the initial key question: What kind of writing, what kind of art is this? The answer is religious mythology.

In a work of religious mythology, why would you choose to depict trees in a mushroom-like way? The answer is because mushrooms induce religious experiencing, which per Benny Shanon is quintessentially metaphorical in terms of cognitive psychology modes of mind.

Hatsis shows how flimsy the Entheogen theory of religious mythology is when it is not working buttressed in conjunction with the more important point of religious mythology, which is Eternalism — which is the actual referent domain.

Ruck is wrong in his assertion that religious mythology refers to mushrooms. In fact religious mythology refers to Eternalism. Which mushrooms induce.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The raised left leg refers to the initial, illusion-based mental model which is baseless, which rests on air and has no foundation.

The right leg on the ground refers to transcendent thinking, recognizing what you were and are actually resting on and what actually carries you.

The world model as imagined originally, based on possibility thinking with possibility branching and you with autonomous power of steering among those possibilities, is a baseless illusion, and it is not the actual basis on which you are actually dependent.

The raised left leg has no real basis, it’s standing on air like a unicorn.

The right leg is like the salamander: it is enduring, it is a real dependable basis foundation, the actual foundation on which you rest as a control agent.

It is the basis on which you are actually dependent.

The expression of poison, hand to forehead, also suggests remorse, mourning, repentance, the realization that your mental model was wrong and is now fallen, catastrophically failed.

Like Ruck feels since he realizes he was dead wrong in caving to Hatsis and was coerced into absurdly denying that the mushroom tree indicates mushroom.


Hatsis viciously attacked Irvin by hearty laughter out of control. I counterattack by laughing even far more heartily at the foolishness of Hatsis in respecting Harvard.

Only by recognizing Harvard as a pile of foolishness can we surpass Harvard in their deadlocked incomprehension of religious mythology.


Your left foot, initial mental model, catastrophically failed, and it was based on illusion.

Your previous basis, on what you thought you depended, turned out to be thin air having no foundation, and you realize in remorse or regret or shame, you turn and are converted and repent during ego death, you realize that your basis was complete fantasy, complete illusion, like a unicorn.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The Entheogen half-theory of religious mythic metaphor.

The other, missing, more central half of the theory of religious mythic metaphor is Eternalism Cybernetics.

Simple Simon says “evidence shapes theories; theories do not shape evidence.” Actually, evidence is theory-bound.

To perceive evidence, requires and utilizes one theory or another — either a naive theory, or a perspicacious theory.


Hatsis criticized circular argument as if that is bad and could be avoided.

All argument is circular, whether consciously or not. Hatsis adopts Literalist OSC Possibilism, as everyone naively does by default initially. Insiders go on to convert to Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

Either you are still an outsider electron initially orbiting in the circular orbit of Literalist OSC Possibilism, or you are an insider electron that has graduated to orbiting in the circular orbit of Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

At first in your mind, the sun has a circular orbit around the earth. Later in your mind, the earth has a circular orbit around the sun.


Do not characterize religious mythology as “secret”.

The correct way to understand mythology writing is as ‘veiled’ and bi-valent; 2-mode meaning-switching: it points in two distinct directions; to the outsiders, religious mythology points towards reifying their outsiders’ circular thinking.

To the insiders, this way of writing in religious mythology metaphor analogy points towards reifying and affirming confirming their insiders’ circular thinking.


The goal is not to avoid circular thinking, but rather to have superior circular thinking.

Ruck/Irvin/Rush has a half theory, better than Hatsis’ naive Literalist OSC Possibilism outsiders’ interpretation.

Ruck is neither an outsider nor an insider; he is in the outer area of the temple.

I have a complete theory, better than Ruck. I am an insider in the inner area of the temple.


Where I go, you cannot go; you cannot bear yet what I have to inform you, because you would freak and have control instability and run away fleeing to protect self-control from loss-of-control panic.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Brittle thinking; false dichotomies spoken like a true outsider:

“The man in the image has eaten this poisoned fruit and is now dying; not dancing, not experiencing visions—dying.”

As if ego death isn’t experiencing visions.


Religious writing, or a bestiary, or alchemy? Which is the correct category? Which one is it?

The correct genre is: bi-valent religious mythology (metaphor, analogy); describing transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

My accustomed feeling about the two modes of reading has nothing to do with secrecy and hiding, but with uniformly expressing in analogy.

Outsiders would be quick to label this as “secret hidden meanings” — that is not accurate.

The meanings are effortlessly self-veiling; the meaning will naturally be obscure to outsiders. Consider adults talking in euphemisms in front of children, who lack the target domain.

There is no great effort required to hide the meaning and keep it secret; naturally, inherently, the higher level of meaning will be obscure to outsiders, who lack the target domain of experiencing.

But from the insider’s point of view, the meaning is no more veiled than saying that “legitimate words are those with a repeated letter” — if you are not in on that pattern, if you have not yet picked up on that pattern, you will guess and misinterpret the pattern, and it will seem arbitrary.

There will be a discontinuous jump, an increase of meaning all of a sudden, once you simply perceive that the pattern is “repeated letters”.

Similarly, when a person comes to recognize that what is being discussed here is all being discussed indirectly, there is a discontinuous increase in meaning; they jump up in meaningfulness.

It is challenging and somewhat difficult to learn the reference target domain and how to recognize, how to read the mapping.

The mode of description in religious mythology is based on a kind of literacy about analogy, with more or less standard mappings between analogy domains and the target domain, which is visionary plant experiencing and mental model transformation.

The meaning is not available to outsiders, who lack the target domain of experiencing. Outsiders will have to fall back to superficial literalist reading and that is all they will have.

They will lack the higher meaning.

I would not over emphasize the secrecy; it is simply poetry it is simply a convention of describing by analogy; indirect description of the mushroom experiencing of changing one’s world model.

The bi-valent mode of religious metaphor is not especially secret or especially hidden; it is merely analogy, it’s a system of analogy.

Now you might be an outsider and you might not have the target experiencing. If you do not have the target experiencing, then you will have to fall back to the superficial surface reading.

If you do have the target experiencing, accessed through the mushroom, you have the key increasingly and the referent domain is not particularly hidden.

You have to do the work of learning the language, learning the analogy mapping, but it is not especially secret or hidden.

Like any language, there are various conventions; for example, turning to the right to look back behind you.

Religious mythology is more like a learning a language than like a secret that is hidden.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The encoding/decoding rule is simple: do not reveal the mysteries to the uninitiated.

That is, in fact, in effect, the rule that applies.

Distinct from that is justifications for that rule.

Regardless of justifications, that is the rule.

One useful property of that rule is that it is a simple rule. Always speak poetically; in analogy.

Always speak in a veiled way.

Like drug songs broadcast during the Prohibition era.

Like 70s New Age that is discreetly based on LSD.

Like drug culture during Prohibition.

It is a simple rule: don’t be artless about these adult-like meanings.

Be discreet: talk in the standard semi-veiled discreet way about psilocybin inducing control seizure abduction of control, being r*p*d as a control agent by the god and being forcibly carried to his banquet.

Communicate this, in a semi-veiled way, not directly but poetically, per the art tradition, the high culture tradition.

Preserve the boundary between thise on the inside vs. those on the outside.

There are several reasons to list, used to justify veiling that God is the author of evil and of all control thoughts, that religion comes from mushrooms, that religion is entirely metaphorical.

I am not going to tell everyone at church, 100% Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

There is a standard traditional way insiders use, a conventional pattrrn of descriptive veiling.

Analogy hides and analogy describes loosecog experiential realization and transformation.

Carl Ruck is right: there are no mushrooms. Neither is religious mythology fictional. And, freewill is the case, and Copenhagenism manyworlds.

The correct view of religious mythology is Literalist OSC Possibilism. Jesus was not a mushroom teacher. We have no reason to doubt the existence of Paul, Jesus, Moses, Adam. There is no such thing as insiders; never mind Mark 4:12; nor outsiders.

The Munich Psalter shows mushroom trees like those that gave Jacob his vision. It depicts a scene from The Book of Jasher:

After Cain killed his brother, Abel: Lamech, Cain’s great grandson in this story, went hunting one day with his son, Tubal Cain.

Blinded by old age, Lemach accidentally shot Cain with an arrow.

These mushroom trees caused Jacob’s visions and these mushroom trees account for Lamech’s deadly mishap.


Mushrooms cause perceiving that the mind’s initial, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control is based on illusion.

The initial, youthful mental model is then repudiated and sacrificed.

The mind points to its exact error, identifies it as error, and the initial conception of self as control agent, and its model of the world, is ended and cast off, fatally mitigated as illusory.

This was not intended when the mind ingested mushrooms and looked around searching for a more coherent mental model.

The result is the rational, adult, fully developed Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Hatsis mis-asesses up front as axiomatic that a bestiary is a nonspiritual work and says that contradicts Rush’s assertion that mushroom trees are rare in secular art because this secular bestiary shows mushroom trees.

I hope Rush is not as dense as Hatsis, and recognizes religious mythology analogy in the bestiary.

This bestiary’s inclusion of mushroom trees doesn’t contradict Rush.

Hatsis is in error in categorizing a bestiary as nonspiritual ie secular.

Rush’s theory is incomplete; his is the Entheogen theory of religious mythology.

The correct, complete, coherent theory is my Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Here is a good example of how the “historical context” interpretation of religious mythology (per outsiders) actually amounts to the *literalist*, exoteric, surface interpretation.

When an outsider writes “in historical context”, strike that out and write the word ‘literalist’, meaning, blind to analogy alluding to the target domain of Eternalism Cybernetics.

Hatsis writes: “Gold Munich Psalter shows a style of tree that looks very “psychedelic” indeed, but it always ends up the same: when you put the “mushroom tree” in historical context, it never ends up being a mushroom.”

By “in historical context”, Hatsis means that when you read the mythology story in a superficial, surface, literalistic, outsiders’, noninitiates’ way, according to that reading, the item depicted is not a mushroom, does not refer to a mushroom.

For Hatsis, to read a story “in historical context” means to read in a superficial literalist outsiders’ way, without recognizing the analogy to mushroom experiencing.

It’s like saying that the item in the song cannot refer to an LSD trip, because the item is a spaceship traveling to a black hole.

When you consider the lines of lyrics “in song context”, they are about a spaceship traveling to a black hole, and “therefore”, do not refer to LSD experiencing.

What a strange implicit Siri you have to have to be an outsider! It’s a theory that poetry can only mean what its surface meaning is, thus denying it being poetry.

A big part of being an outsider is to commit a massive failure of genre identification right from the start, a failure to recognize what mode of writing and mode of representation is going on — or mode of communication, to put it in terms amenable to Cybernetics.

There is an implicit Siri hear, a wrong theory, of single meaning or more specifically a wrong assumption and interpretation approach, a lack of interpretation, an outsider’s wrong assumption that the analogy, that the metaphor is not a metaphor, but directly refers to its referent.

In fact religious mythology is metaphor that not only means itself on the surface direct level but also is analogy to the higher reference domain.

There is a higher reference domain, and this item is a metaphor that not only carries its direct meaning — this is the very definition of ‘metaphor’, so, Hatsis does not understand.

He’s an outsider, so he does not recognize metaphor as metaphor, because he lacks the experiencing of the loose cognitive state dynamics about self-control and the change of mental world model.

For Hatsis, the only thing there is is the surface meaning; he does not recognize this as a metaphor or as an analogy pointing to something else.

Hatsis lacks the something else; he’s an outsider, he’s a non-initiate.

Ruck/Irvin/Rush — the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology — is closer to recognizing and comprehending analogy as such recognizing that there exists something in addition to the surface meaning or as Hatsis puts it, something in addition to the “in historical context” meaning.

Proponents of the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology are beginner initiates in the outer courtyard of the temple; they are not inner-circle full initiates in the inner sanctum as is the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

By the way, this is not an invented scenario; prior to Rush responding in a music magazine interview stating they use drugs “all the time” and prior to the release of their Flashbacks album covering 60s popsike songs, many Rush listeners disbelieved the very idea I explained in full detail, that Rush wrote songs about drug experiencing; acid.

One girl literally argued that the song cannot refer to, cannot be an allusion to LSD experiencing “because” the song “is about” a spaceship — so she implicitly expressed a very strange poetry denial notion that doesn’t make any sense.

I’ve had a university course in literature, so maybe that gives me some special advanced concept of analogy that she lacks. I also had General Semantics university course.

It is baffling to me how anyone could have such a massive total failure of comprehending the very idea of analogy.

This is really scary to me that not only are people incapable of critical reasoning, but it pains me to say this, it is evident, I cannot deny that it is evident that people do not understand the very idea of poetry, which is that something can allude to something other than its surface meaning.

Outsiders are in denial of the very possibility of the poetic ability to refer, for an item to to be metaphor, for an item to refer to something other than its surface meaning.

They are in denial of that most basic elementary fundamental concept of poetry; if the item in the lyric is {spaceship}, by damn that’s the meaning, that’s the only meaning, and there is nothing, no mental association connection beyond that; there cannot be a connection beyond that.

So they completely fail to understand the very concept of metaphor.

Not only do they deny that religious mythology… not only do they deny that a particular item in religious mythology or in lyrics is an analogy, it’s worse than that: they prove that non-initiates and outsiders, mental children, lack the very *concept* of metaphor and analogy, in practice, in effect.

I’m not making this up, this is painful to egg knowledge, that people literally argued that the Rush song cannot refer to LSD experiencing, “because” the song “refers to” a spaceship or a car or whatever the surface item was in the song.

Noninitiates fail to recognize metaphor/analogy as such.

They are blind to the very activity of referring, or multi-meaning where an item refers to itself in a surface way *and* refers to something else, but here specifically that something else is in the engine revealed you ternal is him [entheogen-revealed Eternalism].

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Most astounding of all: some way-outsiders even disbelieve that the song Purple Haze is about LSD. Man what the hell?! Facepalm me with a wrecking ball.

How can people be so 100% perfectly clueless and ignorant?

They are outside of the outer outer outer courtyard of the temple of comprehension of Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The “critiques” by Hatsis amount to a heap of outsiders'(to a certain degree) bluster and confusion.

It’s not particularly worth unraveling and correcting his objections or garbled argumentation (like Letcher there seems to be indeterminacy in just what his position is and just what his argument argumentation is).

Hatsis provides us with a great valuable example of the various confusions that an outsider (to a certain degree) is subject to.

We have a great situation here of: Hatsis represents a relatively more outsiders’ cluelessness than Ruck/Irvin/Rush.

Instead of approaching criticizing Hatsis as setting him straight regarding interpretation and winning the debate against him to prove that ‘we’ are right and he is wrong, rather what is a useful exercise is to treat:

Hatsis as Exhibit A
Ruck/Irvin/Rush as Exhibit B
the Egodeath theory as Exhibit C

These amount to distinctive identifiable positions along the spectrum of cluelessness.

Here is how a mostly-outsider reacts… against what position?

Hatsis is not reacting against a fully formed coherent Siri.

This is pretty interesting and valauable.

What we have here is a full outsider responding to a half-baked theory of a semi-outsider.

Using an onion model, I am on the full inside, the innermost zone, the inner sanctum.

Ruck/Irvin/Rush is in the temple courtyard.

Hatsis is at the outer limit of the temple, he is perhaps just outside of the temple, on the path leading up to the temple steps and outer door.

Then there are people way in the dark, who maybe say have never heard of mushrooms or the Entheogen half-theory, much less the fully developed Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious metaphor. They could be exoteric religionists or secularists.

Positions along The Spectrum of Cluelessness:

1: Far outsider: Secularists and exoteric religionists. Drug-diminishing meditators.

3: Close outsider: Hatsis and LSD-inspired meditators.

5: Outer circle: Ruck/Irvin/Rush; the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology.

10: Inner circle: Hoffman; the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology, and the overall Egodeath theory, including the scientific, non-metaphor-focused Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.

Hatsis is a far outsider critiquing the views of a near outsider; he is a 2/10 comprehending person reacting against the views of a 5/10 comprehending person.

He is an 80% clueless outsider reacting against a 50% clueless outsider.

My critique is that of a 0% clueless outsider. Here is the origin of degrees of initiation.


Non-drug unity meditators are complete virgins.

Hatsis is 1 or 2 months pregnant.

Ruck/Irvin/Rush is 3 or 4 months pregnant.

I have given birth.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

One move that Hatsis has in common with Letcher is to conflate some particular variant of the entheogen theory with the entirety of the Entheogen theory in general.

Then when he fixates on the one theory variant he has chosen and he shows that that variant has problems, that this version that he has chosen to critique is easy to find problems with, then he (to some extent) acts as if he has rendered the overall general theory problematic.

Naturally it makes sense for him to gravitate toward poorly formed variants or sub-areas of a version of the entheogen theory, and point out problems with those.

But what’s wrong is the tone of saying that this problem with this variant amounts to a problem with the overall theory; that is just false. All he is shown is that there are errors in this version of the theory that he has chosen to focus on, or opportunistically fixate on.

That is a major move throughout Hatsis and Letcher. It is an instance of needing more organization in the argumentation structure, but there are factors that encourage them to avoid increasing the organization of that structure of argumentation.

They need to do more labor, more work, spend more time and more words identifying what they have and have not proved. This is Science progress in an explanation search-space.

It is against their interests rhetorically, to emphasize that they only have rendered problematic or have crossed out specific branches of the tree of possibilities. The tree remains standing fine.

My theory is not “the” entheogen theory; it is the best Entheogen theory; mine is specifically the Entheogen Eternalism theory.

In contrast , Ruck/Irvin/Rush by default is implicitly advocating the Entheogen Possibilism theory.

The mind begins with Possibilism thinking as the default. Then the mind is initiated and transformed into Eternalism thinking.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

I think I should just go with this

it seems I have developed a routine of posting where typically I post an immediate and lively posting with typos and then I correct those typos and add a couple of good points and then repost it and then I delete the original posting

this mobile phablet process works well to combine the lively immediacy of online writing with cleanup

I don’t want to give too positive an impression of Hatsis’ argumentation: I reiterate that Hatsis makes a massive genre category error in categorizing a bestiary as a non-spiritual genre, and that deep error complicates and mitigates when I suggest that he has refuted some theory-variant that the entheogen advocates advance.

I am not giving Hatsis credit with disproving (or finding problematic points in) a version of the entheogen theory — this depends on whether Ruck/Irvin/Rush agree that a bestiary is non-spiritual.

If all these guys make that colossal error, then then it just shows that Hatsis has refuted a particularly bad, particularly clueless version of the Entheogen theory

Hatsis is a confused critique of a somewhat confused variant of a theory.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s another instance of how hats is is strongly attracted towards a particular narrow week version of the theory and it is in his rhetorical interest to conflate the easy to break Amanita theory with the difficult to break visionary plant theory

to what extent does rock and crew fixate on amanita

I have observed that rock was so fixated on amanita that he was blind to the presence of the blue stemmed Psilocybe mushroom in the leg of Mithras so that rock made a longshot interpretation of looking at red and white colors in the fresco and saying there is the mushroom by virtue of the colors, it is a very secret very hidden reference to Amanita.

And then he stopped writing and that was all he wrote and he wrote nothing about the glaring blue stem Psilocybe mushroom in Mithras leg which stem is divided with lines into some seven segments of initiation levels like planetary spheres.

Here the fault lies partly with hats is and partly with rock and crew

hats is it’s in his interest rhetorically to fixate on amanita antiquate falsely the mushroom Siri religion with amanita theory in particular and to conflate the amanita very particular theory with the entirety of the visionary plant theory of religion.

My theory is not the amanita theory I have a stronger basis that is harder to overthrow then the theory which Hanses so loves to fixate on because it is so easy to problem ties so easy to find problems with

my theory if anything is based on Psilocybin mushroom.

We really need to throw away Ruck’s ‘secrecy’ model; it is not a matter of “secrecy” as the most accurate characterization of veiling and bi-mode referencing.

To outsiders, the surface items refer directly, and that’s all.

To insiders, the surface items refer directly, and also refer to entheogen-revealed Eternalism.

He is misleading us: secrecy is not the right mode, the right conceptualization of what genre this is, it fails as a description of the communication dynamics and the meaning dynamics, the interpretation dynamics, the esoteric concealing-and-revealing dynamics.

We have to understand better per freaking Gandy the relationship between exoteric and esoteric, how the mind grows and progresses from exoteric to esoteric thinking, first learning the surface and then unfolding the additional higher referent.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Entheogen scholars might celebrate that Hatsis brings more evidence of mushroom trees and mushrooms in art. That helps, it doesn’t hurt, but I emphasize that it is not necessary.

At this point, we can turn our attention away from this ever-increasing pile of mushroom depictions in art and really focus on theorizing.

At this point, the weakness is not lack of evidence or too little evidence; rather the weakness here at this point is in theory.

I solve that by presenting my theory, so to be particular, to be specific, the problem at this point is people’s lack of knowing my theory of interpretation of the mushroom evidence, such as 100% Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

In Antiquity, there was not explicit criticism of Christians for using mushrooms, because *everybody* used mushrooms, especially mushroom mixed wine. Hatsis does not consider this explanation.

It is unlawful to reveal the mysteries and by that convention people were already accustomed to not explicitly discussing the mushroom mixed wine used in banqueting and mystery cult.

It was a kind of censorship that you have to take into account. Acid Rock songs during Prohibition are not typically explicit; they are typically discreet, thinly veiled euphemism.

Regardless of how people thought about the justification of this, we are clearly told that there are things concealed from outsiders, from non-initiates, and we are clearly told it is unlawful to reveal the mysteries to the non-initiated.

You can quibble about why that was, but we are told that; that is not in question.

It is clear (as the given data to be explained) that what we have here for whatever reason is a cultural convention of only speaking in an analogy-based way.

To solve the riddle that we are given, we have to accept this given reality that it is presented to us by the world of evidence in a riddle format.

The ancients are not generally going to come forward to us with explicit discussion of mushrooms; that’s the given.

This is exactly why what we have here is a riddle, that it’s not easy to solve, and requires judgment and discernment, consideration from the point of view of what ancients called initiated insiders vs. uninitiated outsiders.

Mark 4:12 is what we are challenged to unriddle.

I don’t at all mean to imply that mushrooms cannot be depicted in art. We have to use judgment on the degree to which things were veiled, concealed and revealed, but Hatsis cannot validly frame this choice as brittle or make-or-break for the general visionary plant theory.

Generally in art and literature, people were discreet and did not come out in explicitly discussion, or we do not have records much of them explicitly discussing mushrooms, but we need finesse here, not a simplistic brittle proving or disproving.

We have to have an overall general model of expecting mushrooms generally to be concealed in some way and also revealed in some way.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Ruck is wrong: what is concealed (thinly veiled and then revealed) in religious mythology is not mushrooms, but rather, mushroom-revealed Eternalism Cybernetics, with the emphasis on Eternalism, not mushrooms.

What is concealed is mushrooms, Eternalism Cybernetics, and thoroughgoing metaphoricity.

What is revealed is mushrooms, Eternalism Cybernetics, and thoroughgoing metaphoricity.

God is the author of evil and all control-thoughts.

Free will is childish delusion. Our future stream of thoughts is given to us, frozen, cast in rock.

Psilocybin is the source and basis of religion and religious revelation.

Religion is entirely metaphorical, analogy, not Literalist OSC Possibilism.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Eusebius — as I speculated based on Edwin Johnson — is an empty cipher.

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/the-textual-tradition/eusebius-of-caesarea-as-myth

In this talk Martin Ball calls “BULLSH*T!!” on drug-free pseudo-shamanism.

He should take into account Harner was subject to censorship per Hanegraaff’s realization that newage is covertly based on psychedelics.

40:00

MWB@BM2011
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-entheogenic-evolution/id272825477?mt=2

54:30 if you trust and surrender then you have unity experience

He’s informally identifying the control-seizure gate to the inner zone.

Sep 5 2011 episode

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/thoughts-on-jan-irvin-tom-hatsis-primacy-of-cog-sci-eternalism-metaphor/

Deconstructing Hatsis’ writing strategy

There’s an element of cowardice and playing it safe when you restrict yourself to pointing out the easiest flaws on the part of those brave, bold, manly theorists (Allegro/Ruck/Irvin/Rush) who have put forth a positive conjecture and partially constructed the beginnings of an interpretive theory, while you yourself refrain from putting forth any conjectures of your own in this domain lest you be subject to criticism.

There are no dates on Hatsis’ articles and videos – why such a elementary scholarly gap here? That is a flaw a weakness, shortcoming in the egodeath website: I should have put dates when I copied my 2000-2007 postings to the site, I should’ve put dates and signature on every screenful of information there.

Apparently Hatsis’ somewhat cowardly work on critiquing his easiest-possible, narrowest-possible “secret Amanita cult” target came before his bold manly mature work on witches’ ointment — in the latter, he does put himself out there, he puts himself at risk, he subjects himself to debunking once he is confident that his evidence will stand up to criticism.

All these writers are outdated, Allegro through Rush. They advance the crude, unsophisticated 1967-1970 “secret Amanita cult” theory, which was motivated by Allegro wanting to portray early Christians as discreditable in a sensationalist way.

That was Allegro’s style of writing; his motivation was to discredit early Christianity and make it look despicable. Allegro makes for a very poor, skewed choice if you’re looking for a scholar who is trying to positively put forth a visionary plant theory of religion — that was not Allegro’s motivation or concern!

That *is* the concern of Ruck, Heinrich, M. Hoffman, Irvin, and Rush. I take it furthest: I like Christianity and religious mythology and I am intent on revealing Christianity as a psilocybin tradition and system of metaphor describing by analogy entheogen-revealed Eternalism.

My foundation has a theorist is not religious mythology; my motivation is not to debunk religion; my motivation is to form the non-metaphor Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence and then show it to be successful and coherent by virtue of it being able to do what no one else is able to do: decode religious mythology as metaphor for describing Eternalism Cybernetics.

It is impossible to solve the riddle of the meaning of Christianity if you hate Christianity. Only if you like Christianity and religious mythology is it possible to solve it.

Ruck is distorted by brittle overemphasis on “secrecy”, he carries an unsophisticated theory of secrecy.

The Egodeath theory instead advances the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology, including a far more robust and sophisticated variant of the mushroom Christianity theory, and including the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture, which Hatsis’ work, when corrected, serves as a supportive brick for.

A Prohibition-coerced element of cowardice: Hatsis wrote in such a way that he can pose as putting forth additional mushroom evidence, while pretending to disbelieve it.

This way you get to take credit for contributing mushroom evidence, while not subjecting yourself to any criticism.

This is a certain self-preservation mode of criticizing others. It is separate from any systematic critique; it is rather scattershot dancing, to work with evidence while avoiding being subject to criticism during Prohibition.

Why do writers write such an insane way during Prohibition? Prohibition has created, and driven writers into creating, a waffling and roundabout way of writing and theorizing. It’s all an awkward, inefficient, roundabout dance done under the boot-heel of Establishment Prohibition censorship.

There is a temptation to distort your writing and unfairly (and irrelevantly) beat up on other writers, egged on by Prohibition’s rewards which distort the debate and interfere with the positive work of theory building, theory correction-and-construction.

The Establishment forces of Prohibition want to get the researchers to tear each other down instead of constructing a successful theory.


I noticed a comparable kind of evasiveness in Wasson: he wrote in a strange roundabout way where he never made any positive assertions on exactly what his position is regarding the extent of psychoactives throughout Christianity but he instead indirectly alluded to and implied what his position is, and people indeed ended up very confused about just what is his position.

This made it challenging to criticize Wasson because with normal scholars, with normal writers, they write something clearly and then you critique what they wrote, so you for a normal scholar you would need to reread and check your sources once.

But with Wasson it was required to intensely decipher his readings three or four times to unravel implicitly just what exactly is he asserting. He was a terrible terrible writer!

It’s shocking that anyone would say that Watson is a good writer; he was extremely evasive and prevaricating, to the point of having to quadruple check and exactly quote every passage he wrote on the subject, because he was so intent on giving a misimpression of what his position is, of what he is and is not asserting.

It is extremely not my style to formally quote passages, but I had to take that writing style to an absurd extreme in my article on Wasson, because there was nothing but confusion over who wrote what and who asserted what.

To all those who say that Watson was a good writer: explain to me why everyone misunderstood what his position is regarding the extent of mushrooms throughout Christianity.

This confusion was baked into the writing style of both Wasson and Allegro; they made it very difficult for themselves and everyone else to follow the non-conversation, the strangely abortive non-debate.

They failed to put it out in the open, on the table, the clear Michael Hoffman question and discuss it openly like plain straightforward people:

To what extent were visionary plants used throughout our white Christian European history?

Why in the hell can’t researchers and scholars simply put this out on the table publicly and discuss it like adults straightforwardly? What’s the problem, what’s the hang-up? Why such shirking of this question and such a refusal to look directly at this question and discuss it openly and directly in a straightforward way? Taboo, Prohibition, censorship of the press? Censorship of the brain?

Tricycle magazine, Gnosis journal, Zig Zag Zen: The first thing all of them should’ve done on page 1 is to put the question out on the table: to what extent visionary plants in history?

All of them failed to do this. They all failed to look at the question, to raise the question, to put the question out on the table; instead, they all silently caved to Prohibition assumptions and silently assumed the lack of visionary plants in religion.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Hatsis fails to address this obvious question that his argumentation raises.

He says that the artists chose to depict trees in an abstract stylized fashion in a mushroom-like way, and denies that this refers to mushrooms.

The screamingly obvious question that he fails to raise and address is:

Out of all the ways that the school of artists could’ve chosen to abstractly represent trees, why did they choose such a mushroom-like stylization?

Mushrooms induce religious experiencing appropriate for these depictions-by-analogy describing what is experienced induced by visionary plants (psilocybin).

The fact that Hatsis neglected to address that obvious question shows that what we have here is apologetics.

Proper debate is a matter of stating what the opponents would argue and then addressing those stated opponents’ arguments. Hatsis should’ve stated his argument of:

In these abstract representations, why did the artists choose to use an emphatically mushroom-like style of trees?

Genuine scholarship, not apologetics, would have addressed that natural question of the opponents.

A hallmark of apologetics is its one-sidedness, persuasion by the deliberate omission of what the opponents would point out.

http://egodeath.com/christianmushroomtrees.htm

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

A radical difference of emphasis is the difference between a good and bad, true vs. false theories.

Wilber/Ball puts unity at the center, with slight mention (as if incidental inconvenience) of submission, trust, dependence, prayer, and the lack of practical control of our control-thinking during the mystic peak state.

They have a semi-articulate theory of unity consciousness and a weak, inarticulate, non-integrated, non-theory of non-control like the song Little Dolls or Twilight Zone or No One at the Bridge.

Yet Ball says that through trust and submission we arrive at unity. So you would expect a robust crucial theory of cybernetic noncontrol, trust in the unveiled source of frozen future control thoughts.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

My material, my theory is precisely the most profound part of what Ball criticizes as missing when he says that people leap over all their “shit” that they have to “work through” and they jump straight up to unity consciousness and then fall straight back down into the egoic, back into their “shit”, back into their egoic everyday thinking

Let me translate: when these people (Grof) talk about the “spiritual emergency” and their “dark material” that they have to work through, what the hell are they talking about?

The Egodeath theory, my theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, specifies exactly what they’re talking about in incomprehension: most profoundly, we are not talking about workaday psychotherapy; what we’re really all ultimately talking about that I have refined systematically, we are actually talking about possibility thinking, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control, free-will thinking, egoic delusion — that is our so-called “dark material”, the so-called “shit” that we have to “work through” as Ball puts it vaguely, woefully inadequately.

Putting together Ball’s inarticulate mentions of surrender and trust, it becomes clear that the unity theory is inadequate to the extreme. Ball’s theory is entirely missing the real action.

Where the real action is at in enlightenment is not the unity consciousness goal, but rather the gateway of how to get there.

Everyone has been focusing, theorizing on unity — that is wrong. You have to do what I do, which is focus and zero-in on the *gateway to* unity, which is “surrender and trust”, which is, to be specific, transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism thinking — cybernetic egodeath. Eternalism self-control cybernetics.

It is impossible to enter fully in or remain in unity consciousness when you lack the complete Egodeath theory, including the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, and the Entheogen Eternalism theory of religious mythology.

Woe to those who would venture into unity consciousness, trespassers lacking the access password, bringing their contamination, their impurity of control-thinking into the inner sanctum.

You will be thrown out of unity consciousness by control seizure, thrown out into the outer darkness outside the banqueting garden wall gate, with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The furies sleeping around the omphalos navel tombstone trap in the inner sanctum of the temple are awakened when you bring your Possibilism-thinking impurity and contamination into the sacred holy no-free-will zone of clear light of coherent thinking in the torch-illuminated loose cognitive state.

Hera is furious when Apollo’s impure thinking awakens the Furies sleeping around the omphalos net tomb stone of rock birth.

Where the real action is at in enlightenment is not the unity consciousness goal, but rather the gateway of how to get there and how to remain there in peace, legitimately, authorized, with authority, legitimate, blessed — not being in unity consciousness while you are under the curse of control instability due to contaminated, accursed thinking, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.

Non-drug unity meditation is illegitimate bastardized imitation of religion that cannot endure, that cannot stand testing, that testing proves to be no foundation for practical control.

Authenticity, authorized, legitimacy, authenticated, trial by ordeal, trial by fire of loose cognitive binding, trial by testing control stability to see if it collapses into instability and self defeat, or if it stands durable and reliable, enduring foundation, or a foundation of impotent air and illusion.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

The teaching gesture is pointing down while pointing also up.

Pointing down to the noninitiates’ outsiders’ mundane surface exoteric lower meaning per Literalist OSC Possibilism; ‘Orthodox’ per Pagels’ first 3 books.

While *also* pointing up to the initiates’ insiders’ profound transcendent referent esoteric higher meaning per Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism; entheogen-revealed Eternalism noncontrol Cybernetics; ‘Gnostic’ per Pagels’ first 3 books.

Catholic leaders teach exoteric to lay and esoteric to elite, and the New World natives compete against understood Catholic esotericism teaching. Catholic writers about the Eucharist clearly understood it as mushrooms.

There was the same flame war of rhetoric among pagan and Christian: you eat at the table of demons, we eat the divine flesh of the savior.


Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings

If there’s a bustle in your hedge-row, don’t be alarmed
It’s just a Spring-clean for the May queen


Cast out the demon of Possibilism thinking.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

It is curious that psychedelics writers recommend as standard but CRUCIAL the vague, strange, alien, undefined saving-advice “trust” and “surrender”, amounting to submissive prayer of formal conscious dependency.

What the hell are they talking about? Explain this in terms that a no-nonsense, self-respecting Acid Metal guitarist or soldier can make rational sense out of.

Where does this vague informal folk wisdom come from?

Explain to the tough level-headed soldier or fraternity brother football player why he must surrender to the hidden controller of his control-thoughts, invincible Mithras inserting sacrificial knife into the fatally wounded shoulder on which the bull’s power depends.

In my main article, see my relatively formal writeup of testing control and having to consciously trust in, surrender to, and be submissive to the normally hidden uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, on which you always have been dependent, but previously unconsciously dependent on.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Friendly angels poking at the philosophers in the furnace, cooking them in the loose cognitive binding state, demonic animals consuming the mortal, impure, irrational, illusion-based free-will Possibilism thinking, producing enlightened insiders, esoteric religious philosophers, who are fated to be in on the riddle joke analogy language

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/photos/photostream/lightbox/426548791?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=desc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/426548791

Another standard phrase to track is “let go”.

There’s a folk informal practical linguistic equivalent of the Egodeath theory’s explanation of:

consciously repudiating

dependence on egoic freewill autonomy as the foundation of personal control power

and affirming instead

the uncontrollable source of pregiven control-thoughts lying frozen in the block universe as the foundation on which the mind’s control-steering now consciously depends.

This changed model of the source of control is integrated with a changed model of possibility and time — that doesn’t come through in the folk language of “let go, surrender, trust”.

Martin Ball diminishes shamanism as reifying imagined constructs while enlightenment recognizes those as mental constructs.

Similarly I diminish and disparage the folk knowledge that you need “trust, letting go, surrender”, to reach unity nondual consciousness.

The Egodeath theory points precisely to what’s really required, specifically and explicitly: transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, to fully reach and remain in in peacefully, stably, nondual unity consciousness.

The goal per the Egodeath theory is not nondual unity consciousness, but enlightenment about control,

Cybernetic enlightenment, full mental development and ability to access and fully utilize, authorized, loosecog.

I have provided the specific practical key to go in and out of loosecog garden banquet party with stability.

For example now the Loose Cognitive Science lab is domesticated and open for research business, no longer an unmapped frontier.

Now we can map and explore, the dragon threat is harnessed.

This achievement includes ability to enjoy nondual unity consciousness, but my focus is mental model transformation and civilizing the wild threat of the dragon, to be permitted to access all loosecog state realm and mode. Like harnessing the wild dangerous technology of cranked guitar amps.

I have harnessed dangerous and wild loose cog as a now fully usable technology, not only made nondual unity consciousness sometimes available.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

A report of full intellectual comprehension of the Egodeath theory (the 1988 Cybernetic Theory of what Ego Transcendence & Transcendent Knowledge is centrally about) in conjunction with beginning access to loosecog.

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/description-of-my-altered-state-experiencing-watts-the-joyous-cosmology/

With reference to Watts.

Martin Ball is like Wilber not Watts; focused on nondual unity consciousness through non-drug unity meditation.

Watts focused on enlightenment about control, eventually incorporating exploring that through LSD.

Wilber/Ball vs. Watts/Hoffman.

The difference between Wilber and Ball is Wilber lacks entheogens.

Ball is Wilber on entheogens, still lacking Watts’ satori, which blossomed in Hoffman’s Egodeath theory, about Zen and the Problem of Control.

My father gave me Wilber and Watts, said Wilber covers others, yet gave me Watts seoarately.

Watts breaks the Wilber/Ball paradigm of seeing nondual unity consciousness while being blind to Eternalism Cybernetics which is central and a hard requirement, the main requirement, to fully access and stably at peace remain in unity consciousness.

Unity consciousness is not the goal or the central focus or the motivation for the project. My motivation was not unity; my motivation was enlightenment to gain practical control in personal self-help enlightenment.

I read Cyber’s postings with interest in reading my earlier writing. I never get a chance to read my earlier writing. It is new to me. It is like studying for the GRE — I knew that stuff in a previous lifetime and I am encountering it again to re-learn it.

The above report is of a deliberate first learning of Egodeath theory (Cybernetic Eternalism and re-location of dependency, re-pointing of assumed dependency for control and revision of the world model of possibility) in order to then enter and leverage and utilize and explore loosecog.

This report and the Egodeath theory has no particular emphasis on unity nondual consciousness, which has been overemphasized.

The Egodeath theory (which is a model of x, y, z that enables a, b, c) de-emphasizes nondual unity consciousness.

1978-1988 newage Transpersonal Psychology overemphasized nondual unity consciousness. I am setting things straight.

My grandfather: primitive OSC New Testament Christianity.

My father: led me through newage spiritual self-help encounter groups and holotropic breathwork and Transpersonal Psychology, almost totally stripped of its psychedelic origin.

When you remove psychedelics, the result is the idol of nondual unity consciousness.

When you restore the censored and suppressed psychedelics origin and source of religion and newage spiritual psychonautica, the balance is corrected, to emphasize Eternalism Cybernetics rather than nondual unity consciousness.

We are in a special phase now with Martin Ball all focused on nondual unity consciousness but having little focus on the Cybernetic Egodeath theory although we conversed around 2007 and I helped point him in the right direction for entheogen podcasts after Max Freakout.

Martin Ball has as sophisticated a model of entheogenic phenomenology as you can have given the limitation of knowing nondual unity consciousness without knowing Eternalism Cybernetics.

He has the very barest, folk, crude knowledge of “trust, surrender, let go” (prayer, submission; a shift in mental assumption about what our control power is dependent on and what it means to steer among possibilities in time).

A focus on nondual unity consciousness is of no use, without a full understanding and mastery of the conditional gateway, how to sacrifice and repudiate erroneous dependency and revise it to correct dependency, a stable foundation now for not only, not merely having unity nondual consciousness, but more powerfully and usefully and broadly than that, having an ALL-ACCESS PASS now properly equipped as explorer and researcher.

We were explorers before, hunting the prey of nondual unity consciousness, but we had no dragon arrows. Now Apollo has equipped us with the divine tools engineered by Hephaestos, which we need.

We were explorers of the Loose Cognitive Science research lab but we lacked the necessary tools that are required to have a legit, authorized, authenticated, viable, stable access to loosecog.

Now we access not only nondual unity consciousness in lasting, authenticated, earned mode, properly equipped now to do so in peace and stability, but now we also access all areas of the loosecog realm or mode.

— Michael Hoffman, birth day of controller X, Xmas 2015.

On this day, the avatar of controller X is born, savior given to us by controller X, as a sacrifice for new life paradigm that we are brought into.

In him we are made to correct, revise, die, sacrifice, repudiate, and be reconstituted, transformed, given a-thanatos and purity, the offensive-to-divine thinking impurity done away with, now authorized to go in and out through the gate to eat of the Tree of Life.

Now we have been brought into the garden wedding banquet, authorized for All Access of the loosecog lab, no longer being thrown out as malformed trespasser, by higher thinking.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Ball is restricted to a small area within loosecog exploration space. He is permitted to go into the garden banquet party through the gate, but he has bare minimum folk knowledge of trust, surrender, let go, and he fails to appreciate how rich and crucial that subject is, he doesn’t recognize that that closet is the most major area to explore and the most important to map out and domestiate, civilize, develop — it is prime real estate but he merely does away with it, although it is attractive and will demand and command the full attention of a serious sustained explorer.

He has temporarily turned away from that door by folk trust and folk degree of surrender. But the rational mind sees more attraction to Medusa’s snakes.

Ball has opened up a little ability to explore some of loosecog space but his folk technique of trust and let go and surrender is completely inadequate to do a proper scientific exploration of the attractive control riddle, the enigma of surrender, what does this mean really?

We need to know more. We are drawn to know more.

The Egodeath theory equips to explore this in proper adequate scientific detail rather than turning our back to control seizure to gaze hazily at nonduality.

Trust is not a paradigm shift and does not enable exploring loosecog space.

Eternalism Cybernetics per the Egodeath theory is the required equipment to truly explore this realm and not merely appease the mysterious threat.

Nondual unity consciousness is what beginners, dabblers, initially focus on.

I see it as a fireworks distraction, like Ball belittles the pop reifications of shamanism spectacle.

Ball puts down superficial fireworks. I put down Wilber/Ball’s nondual unity consciousness as shallow superficial fireworks for beginners.

Advanced insiders (knowing Eternalism Cybernetics) have access to a superset of that and have stronger, fuller, more stable access to nondual unity consciousness. They have more connections, a more developed model.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Ball calls on us to not jump to nonduality and back to egoic delusion, doing a flyover (ignoring, bypassing) of our dark material that we need to process-through.

I disagree that nonduality is THE goal, and I disagree with the psychotherapy tone of conceptualizing or dark material.

What Ball conceptualizes as dark material is the heart of enlightenment, it is the central matter of enlightenment and transformation, it is more important than non-duality and it is more the destination.

The real goal is to thoroughly understand, thoroughly achieve mental model transformation about control and possibility and time, after we have achieved full adequate mental model transformation, then we can enjoy exploring the overall loose cognitive state realm.

We then have
full access to non-duality,
full access to the loose cognitive realm.
full understanding of the limitations of control,
full understanding of mental model transformation, the two models of time and control.

Which one of these is the goal, which one of these is the gateway?

The gateway is the journey, and the goal is to have a successful journey to the promised land, and the goal is to be in the promised land exploring and growing more, after having finished basic training of mental model correction and purification.

Non-duality appears soon in the journey but fast on its heels is the threatening dragon of control-loss.

Folk trust and surrender will keep the dragon at bay, but you have to really truly engage, fully engage the threat, fully explore the threat.

You cannot be at peace in the promised land when you have not fully explored and tamed the vulnerability, the threat of the dragon of surrender.

Yes initial crude basic trust and crude surrender does enable you to not be kicked out, but you’re not really in the promised land until you have fully confronted head-on, fully mapped out this dragon threat and enjoyed your full attraction to the Medusa attractor.

Ball things that we want Is nonduality consciousness and that Medusa is an unfortunate minor requirement demanding folk surrender/trust.

What we actually want is to fully engage and explore Medusa.

You have not really passed through the gate in any full sense until then.

The goal is not just non-duality; the goal is to explore the loosecog space particularly Medusa monsters.

Therefore the goal is to explore the threat, not just surrender; but to fully understand what surrendering is all about.

Ball leaps over this too quickly. Just because he succeeds via folk trust and surrender does not really mean he has transcended or explored the Dragon threat, no way.

Ball doesn’t have transcendent knowledge even if he understands in some way non-duality; it is a beginner, very inadequate, very minimal understanding of non-duality.

That’s not what we are attracted to. We are attracted to the valuable treasure-guarding threat that Ball would have us folk-curtsy to and move along past.

The treasure is not nonduality consciousness, but mental model transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, which includes full access to nondual unity consciousness.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Ball’s folk degree of trust/let go/surrender doesn’t enable or accomplish full sacrifice and repudiation of delusion and achieve full mature stability of control.

Thus his nondual unity consciousness is dirty and combines nonduality with mental-model impurity and delusion — an unstable mixture of incompatibles.

As soon as you relax into unity consciousness, the dragon will loom forcing looking at the most-attractive problem of loss of control.

Enlightenment is not by stealing unearned nonduality through folk trust/surrender, but through looking *fully* at the guarding dragon, mature completed nonduality subsequent to *full* exploration of noncontrol, and full *intellectual* revision of mental model of possibility and control and time.

The result is fully durable nonduality that now is compatible with thinking about and testing self-control.

There can be no satori, no resting in the sensation of nonduality, without full sacrifice of childish *thinking* about control and time.

We must correct our thinking, explore it, not just avoid it by incomprehending surrender/trust/letting go, which fails to climax, fails to enlighten, fails to transform.

First we have the sensation of nonduality and we have folk surrender/prayer, then full mental model transformation, Eternalism cybernetics study and grappling and full sacrificial repudiation.

You cannot steal unity without paying the price: sacrifice fully Possibilism thinking, to purchase full enlightenment, which is Eternalism Cybernetics as well as partial unity nonduality.

YOU CANNOT HAVE FULL NONDUALITY WHILE HAVING egoic freewill Possibilism incoherent cybernetics foundation — and folk trust will fail when pressed, out of unsated curiosity about Transcendent Knowledge.

Enlightenment is not just about the sensation of nonduality, but constructing a durable reliable basis of transformed mental model of control and time and possibility.

A superficial inadequate folk trust is feeble and inadequate.

We *cannot* trust and surrender *adequately*, without full formal intellectual sacrifice of assumed control power premised on the initial, Possibilism mental worldmodel.

Folk trust/surrender doesn’t cut it — doesn’t satisfy higher thinking, doesn’t produce the climax and new enlightened mental model we want and are driven to pursue.

People want more than unthinking nonduality that explodes into panic as soon as the mind perceives its control vulnerability.

Folk trust doesn’t satisfy and will run out when inevitably inspected and tested.

The mind is not only attracted to nonduality feeling; the mind is attracted to the Cybernetics noncontrol aspect of nonduality.

We need a full complete intellectual model of the Cybernetics aspect of Zen nonduality per Watts, per the Egodeath theory — THAT is what we want, not an inarticulate illiterate feeling of nonduality that is all too amenable to deluded freewill confusion and mental incoherence.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Always speak in a semi-veiled way that is obscured enough.

How hidden is hidden enough?

Do not reveal the higher referent (psilocybin-revealed Eternalism) to those on the outside.

Revealing only an isolated piece keeps the overall referent meaning sufficiently concealed.

“Do not reveal the meaning to outsiders.”
This principle thankfully is relatively clear.

Possible reasons why writers and artists followed this tradition of meaning-veiling, is a distinct topic. I listed such reasons in past postings.

Regardless of their reasons for veiling and being obscure to the outsiders, that is what they did, and recognizing that helps to decode analogy into the loosecog cybernetics referent.

The esoteric artists have manifestly been successful, because now people who ought to recognize a mushroom as a mushroom (blind man Hatsis and his follower Ruck) are reduced to denying that what is plainly depicted as a mushroom is a mushroom.

Hatsis fails to even perceive that the bestiary is in the language of {sufficient concealing of analogy-for-Eternalism from outsiders}.

This can be characterized as a definitely evident ambiguity, but this is a very specific ambiguity: write and draw in such a way that those who are on the outside are uncertain, even if it does look like a mushroom, they lack the other connections to make any real coherence out of this.

Why would it be a mushroom? Why would there be a mushroom in this secular non-religious art?

Esoteric artists can reveal mushrooms and yet the outsiders remain completely puzzled and in the dark over the meaning-connections, so the mushroom might as well be hidden.

The meaning is hidden from them, so they are left saying things like “the mysterious mushroom-shaped object” or “this mushroom-shaped tree” without really comprehending the meaning behind it, which only the insiders have locked onto.

Only those who are inside have locked onto the framework, the language of making sense out of this.

The outsiders see a mushroom, but in a way, they don’t see a mushroom.

They are unable to connect the idea of {mushroom} to the other symbols and mythemes presented.

Outsiders can’t even recognize mythemes as such; they can only perceive the surface, not the higher referent; they are outsiders to the higher, referent meaning.

Outsiders cannot even perceive that there is an activity of referring going on here.

The mysteries (analogies referring to entheogen-revealed Eternalism self-control cybernetics) have been effectively concealed from those on the outside.

It is an emphatic non-goal to persuade or convince outsiders to adopt isolated elements of the insiders’ comprehension, the insiders mapping.

I will discuss the incomprehension of the outsiders and how that works: how is it that the outsiders are prevented from comprehension?

How does veiling work? How does concealing and then revealing work?

The outsiders lack the target referent experiencing domain.

Even if you do reveal to an outsider-to-Eternalism like Ruck that a mushroom tree in a bestiary refers to a mushroom, it actually refers to more than a mushroom: {mushroom tree} refers to a systematic whole entire system of connections (entheogen-revealed Eternalism).

A mushroom tree refers to the use of mushrooms revealing frozen-time no-free-will and mono-possibility.


A non-goal is to convince outsiders to use the insiders’ reading/decoding. It is not a goal to persuade outsiders.

A goal is explain why outsiders cannot perceive the referent, and why the referent remains hidden from them, obscured, veiled and not visible.

It is a goal to reveal the mysteries on the World-Wide Web. All will be revealed.

All has been here revealed by me to anyone who is made to learn this.

My role is figure useful sh*t out and present explanations. Not to try to persuade outsiders.

Those who are given to me hear my voice and follow me.

Those whose ears are closed to my voice do not see what I have revealed; my words remain concealed to them.

As the Hatsis/Ruck school of interpretation asserts (since Ruck is a follower of Hatsis), these are not mushrooms; they are trees.

For you they are trees. Stay on the outside. The gate is closed for you.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Read Kilindi Lyi to prepare for the military militant radical durable righteousness of the non-Prohibition-complicit Egodeath theory, which stands up to vigorous testing.

I was also stunned by the lack of Prohibition-complicit compromise by Vivian McPeak, as freedom-comprehending as Steve Kubby.

I am so accustomed to expecting compromised thinking and rhetoric, it was almost shocking to see other clear-thinking radicals.

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/the-textual-tradition/christian-peer-review

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/the-textual-tradition/home
See “Academic Control”


Shun the tainted Prohibition-complicit entheogen-diminishing academic Establishment, who are in bed with the Creator’s delusion enforcement automatons. You’ll no sooner find a quest for truth there than in the non-drug unity meditation zendo.

How far behind does academia, with its retarding ball-and-chain of Prohibition compliance, lag behind the Internet? Is academia falling behind, or catching up?

The Establishment is committed to a false narrative of “our white religion lacks entheogens”. This narrative causes Harvard’s Schultes to dance awkwardly in his 1975 Golden Guide to Hallucinogens, as I deconstructed previously.

Don’t trust *anyone* while this narrative clouds the mainstream mind and skews research and theory-construction, just like the apologetics motive prevents unbiased “research on early Christianity” (aka experts in unicorns farting rainbows). Most entheogen scholars fell headlkng into

Most academic scholarship on entheogens is as heavily compromised as Bart Ehrman and relies on the same non-foundation of argumentation style as Ehrman: credentialism, old boys’ network, discussing the credentials and esteem and who you are friends with at the moment, who has written about you favorably.

“Is Doherty right? Let us put him to the test: let us examine his Establishment academic credentials. Who is he friends with?”

That is the foundation of Bart Ehman’s argument for the historicity of Jesus.

The Establishment in-group view doesn’t agree with Doherty, therefore this reduces the credibity of Doherty’s research.

This needs the concept of correction mechanisms in Science and academia.

Irvin is right to not respect Harvard. Its correction mechanisms are weak. Correction is likely to come from outside The System.

Harvard eg. Schultes wrongly asserts that our own white Christian history lacks entheogens at the heart of the church.

Even McKenna dug us into this self-defeating, dead-end, most-crucial and fatal fallacy.

McKenna invested in the Establishment narrative that Catholocism wasn’t mushroom-based, but the way the Eucharist is described indicates mushrooms to those who are on the inside, initiates.

It is now clear, easy to theorize, why the Catholic dominators demonized natives’ mushroom use: competition.

Harvard needs radical correction, which is unlikely to come from within macadamia given that it is in the bed with Prohibition, complicit, and is therefore hopelessly compromised by a conflict of interest.

When evaluating the Egodeath theory, all groups can go to Hell, as far as me whorishly trying to curry favor with them and trying to ingratiate myself with them.

I am an adult mature constructive theory builder: where Ruck is wrong, I point that out, and right similarly. What is relevant is the theory elements, not esteem and credentials. ‘Esteem’ means the *appearance* or *semblance* of merit.

Everyone is a mixed bag, (even the Egodeath theory, in theory, although almost every hypothesis in it is durable under genuine critique and will withstand the fire of critical testing).

The Egodeath theory targets clarifying for insiders, not ingratiating with outsiders. Not complicity with the entheogen-diminishment Establishment.

A proven effective strategy for developing the Egodeath theory is, approaching it as an exercise in circular/systemic theoretical consistency.

Sure-footed Hephaestos magically forcing interpretation, is the unimpeachable, fire-tested, invincible, all-conquering Mithras’ Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence and 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture.

Academic esteem counts for shit. Fools peer-reviewing fools, blind will both fall into the pit.

Who you are for the moment pretending to be friendly with counts for shit.

Everyone judging the Egodeath theory, go Hell; judge it on the genuine basis of content merit, not transient social esteem.

You can all bl*w me; which is to say, you must judge my content based on its merit, not on my credentials and social standing.

Don’t be like Bart Ehrman judging Doherty on his credentials; instead, read the content of arguments in his book.

Academia deserves no respect when it props up the Jesus figure’s historicity on the foundation of sand, of focusing on Doherty’s credentials. Is that all you’ve got?! Alas we are disappointed it is.

The entheogen-diminishing theory of white Christian practice must stand up by itself, not propped up by worthless meaningless diplomas unearned by people who know nothing of Apollo’s laurel wreath victory shooting arrows at the dragon threat of control-loss to gain fire-durable mental worldmodel transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

My credibility has nothing to do with my Establishment credentials.

I am proudly planting the flag of IEEE/HKN on my mountain of breakthrough priority of discovery.

I claim this victory for decoding Entheogen Eternalism on behalf of EE students.

I am only interested in destroying the system of Establishment citations network. Fools citing fools, a matrix of error. I just figure shit out.

A citation network leading deeper into a labyrinth of folly, or correcting towards the direction of wisdom? It has gone both directions.

At the heart of the labyrinth of searching, is the Egodeath theory: Mithras puts the sacrificial knife in your hand to seize the bull, bring down his linchpin of illusion-based control-power foundation.

Insert the pointed thought into the seizure wound opening at the bull’s foundation of power.

People should be citing Thagard when they cite Kuhn — Kuhn merely *presented* the paradigm incommensurability problem, Thagard *solved* it rationally.

Institutional researchers have lost control of the conversation.

The Internet democratized independent scholarship to stand on its own merit, not the Establishment system of prestige (the *appearance* of greatness and insight). I shun that failed game.

The Establishment’s citations network has led to folly perhaps as much as wisdom.

The System wants to cite my Theory? Cite all of it, damn it: 100% Metaphorical 100% Entheogenic 100% Eternalism. The most radical extreme theory possible. None More Extreme.

You worship print? Here is my peer-reviewed comic book salvation tract from the rave and Rock arena. But who are my peers? Not Doherty, Ruck, barely Freke at best. Cliff Burton (but he’s dead).

Where are the peers to review a multiply radical revolutionary novel theory? I am teaching everyone and I am stating what everyone is prevented by The Rules from saying (or thinking).

Peer review is irrelevant posturing. Peer review of censored unthinkable tabooed realizations: Peart cannot comment.

Peer review is not viable when a theory combines forbidden Metaphorical forbidden Entheogenic forbidden Eternalism.

Peart’s peer review assessment of the Egodeath theory: “Holy shit!!”
Sam Harris’s peer review assessment of the Egodeath theory: “Holy shit!!”

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Stop citing my 100% Metaphoricity/Ahistoricity theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.

Stop citing my 100% Entheogen theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.

Stop citing my 100% Eternalism Cybernetics no-free-will theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

John Bartram’s site is fresh, recent, reached a certain milestone and he’s ready to summarize as videos.

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/

Seems like what I wished for: a modern-day Edwin Johnson. The clue that bothered me was the scholarly just-so storybooks that had no pictures of Jesus or the cross or Christianity in the first centuries, only generic images with fake Christian captions attached like:

“This depicts Jesus with the attributes of Apollo.”
“These people banqueting indicates a Christian agape meal.”
“This depicts Jesus secretly, disguised as Dionysus.”
“This Chi-Rho is how the cross was depicted in the first Christian centuries.”
“Ok, that’s the pictoral evidence for Christianity in the first centuries. Next up, the Holy Roman Empire.”

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Scholars only know one language: Literalist OSC Possibilism.

I am the first to decode and translate the second language: Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism. I’m the first bilingual modern scholar.

The first one is mortal, the second a-thanatos. I am lately of two minds, two legs, two mental models.

Dukes of Stratosphear:

Collideascope
Everything looks topsy turvy
You will see one young girl split into two
One half who’s false one half true
You better get your glue ready

Boy and girl carried by ram flying, girl falls to her death

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

Man on horse battles subterranean serpent underneath horse

Serpent is worldline heimarmene fated future path of rider who steers horse

After ingesting the cognitive loosener, the mind perceives its hidden underground invisible preset rail that forces control-thoughts into the mind along the time axis in the frozen rock universe, and control-thinking struggles to retain control that is premised on the illusion foundation of freewill autonomy power.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

IT IS *IMPERATIVE* THAT WE FLIP THE NARRATIVE!!

from “Catholic religion eliminated mushroom use” to “Catholic religion was always understood as based on mushroom use.”

How close is James Arthur to recognizing that mushrooms were the center of Catholic Christian practice throughout history? I don’t recall discussing this particular point with him. I suspect his book is closer to this view than are Heinrich, McKenna, Ruck, and M. Hoffman.

Even Internet radicals are incapable of wrapping their mind around this idea.

Too many — everyone — follows McKenna the mental mis-leader down his dead-end, self-defeating path, of being blind to the presence of mushroom use and comprehension within Catholic historical normal practice.

The System has tricked entheogen scholars into denying and suppressing mushroom use within our own religion’s history. With complicit collaborationist allies like this, who needs Prohibitionists?

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

More effective entheogen scholarship and theorizing

Everyone who writes about entheogens in history, here is my better leadership in mentally framing the narrative:

#1 most important, that entheogen scholars fatally failed to do and must emphasize, is: *explicitly* pose the question, at the start of every investigation, the Michael Hoffman question, out on the table:

THE EXPLICIT CENTRAL QUESTION AT HAND: TO WHAT EXTENT WERE VISIONARY PLANTS USED IN OUR RELIGIONS AND CULTURAL HISTORY?

What kinds of ways of handling kinds of evidence are possible per Feyerabend’s “anything goes” scientific method, to construct a durable Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture?

Stop silently prejudging and assuming. Assume the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture in order to sincerely try your hardest to perceive the evidence.

Do not be complicit with appeasing the entheogen-belittling Prohibition Establishment like Letcher/Hatsis initially were.

Be conscious of all possible strategies and their pros and cons. Don’t just latch onto the first strategy you happen upon. Be ready to adjust and change your strategy of conceptualizing entheogen scholarship.

You can prostitute yourself to be a paid lackey of the Prohibitionist Establishment by the initial Letcher-Hatsis strategy of conflating the broad entheogen theory of religion with the narrowest conception you can invent or fixate on, which is the “secret Amanita cult” theory, which is crude, outdated, and unsophisticated.

You will be eagerly published and rewarded by Prohibition Press, Inc., by striving to suppress and cripple and isolate the kinds of evidence for the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture.

Don’t be fooled by insincerity: although such writers said rheorically “the entheogen scholars need to explain problems a, b, and c”, they were not (prior to their correction of their strategy) seriously interested in finding and constructing successful answers.

Entheogen-diminishing scholars, committed to complicity with the Prohibition narrative, were interested in crippling the argumentation possibilities, shutting out a viable theory.

The valid strategy is to adjust the theory of interpreting evidence to make it sophisticated, such as I have written new conceptions of ‘semi-veiling’ and writing by analogy-only.

Assume myth writing is semi-veiled and analogy-only, written to communicate to insiders and sufficiently conceal the referent domain from outsiders. This enables recognizing Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

Study skilled concealing and revealing per esotericism. Consider the exoteric surface referent and esoteric ultimate referent.

It is unlawful to reveal the mysteries to the uninitiated, Mark 4:12.

Don’t have a brittle, crude concept of “hide/secret”; have a sophisticated concept of speaking veiled to insiders to communicate to initiated insiders while sufficiently concealing meaning from noninitiated outsiders.

Be more strategic in your nuance of narrative. Religion was always understood by initiates as based on psilocybin and visionary plants.

An analogy is broadcast Rock lyrics, which had to semi-veil to use encoding. Even the Grateful Dead don’t explicitly write lyrics about acid.

Don’t expect esoteric writings to be fully explicit. Expect them to clearly enough allude to Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

See Hanegraaff’s keynote paper Entheogenic Esotericism, about initially being blind to the psychedelic traditional basis of New Age practice, and then after writing the history book I was waiting for in the 1990s, Hanegraaff realized he made a huge error, being “naive” to censorship and suppression by Prohibition.

Realize that everyone agrees with the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture but is blocked from expressing agreement.

Don’t be deceived by the Prohibition view appearing to be popular.

That’s an illusion caused by selective permitting of publishing. There’s *not* free speech, under the predatory forces of Prohibition.

Letcher-Hatsis initially got his start by being a writer-for-hire employed as a Prohibition Establishment propagandist, like Hanegraaff initially mis-describing Esotericism and New Age as rejecting entheogens, and subsequently writing the truth of the matter, self-correcting.

Read the Egodeath theory; read my writings. Recognize Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.

Don’t see Amanita everywhere, like the first, off-base generation of entheogen scholars; instead, perceive and recognize Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism everywhere.

Science is self-correcting. Correct the theory-errors of the first-generation entheogen scholars; preserve their accomplishments and discoveries but reframe them in a corrected, revised, more coherent explanatory framework.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.

We insiders are more focused on Eternalism Cybernetics than on visionary plants (cognitive-binding dissolvers) that induce the Eternalism state of consciousness.

You outsiders err in thinking we are centrally focused on concealing entheogens. Your entheogen history theories don’t ring true, because you have only the entheogen half-theory of religion.

Myth analogy isn’t focused on entheogens, but rather on the Eternalism noncontrol that they reveal.

We insiders are centrally focused on semi-veiling then revealing entheogen-revealed Eternalism Cybernetics, *not* entheogens! The referent meaning-domain is two degrees removed from your ability to perceive it.


Another error rife throughout your outsiders’ crude first-generation entheogen scholarship is your failure to fully consistently systematically take into account the major distortions caused by Prohibition Censorship and taboo.

Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.