This is a cleaned-up version of my voice-dictated posting, with substantial material added December 1, 2012.
I made a *great* revolutionary hour and a half voice recording today (November 28, 2012) and open letter to send to neuroscientists such as Metzinger, telling them to drop everything and first study and cite the ego death theory, if they want to advance the field by 50 years overnight and keep up with the other cognitive scientists.
Cognitive Scientists are already learning my theory about the extreme ultimate no-free-will, the extreme ultimate “no egoic personal control” view, the extreme ultimate timelessness version of “determinism” where the future already exists (an entirely different approach than causal-chain determinism acting sequentially in time), and the extreme concept of illusory possibilities that are not fated to be possible.
How do we say Yes to the only path that is truly possible: the one that is fated?
And how do we trust and put full trust in controller X, and fully understand that we have no power to steer away from and avoid our fate, no way to avoid the control thoughts and intention that is coming from controller X into the mind next? When we are bothered by this idea, we are also interested in and fascinated and fixated and caught up in this tree of ideas; we are compelled and drawn in to manipulating and exploring the ramifications of the circular dynamics of personal control-power.
If my future thoughts are pre-existing and I cannot avoid them nor can I control their arising, nor avoid and steer away from my possibly harmful near-future thoughts, then my control-power is doomed and I am potentially headed for disaster, unavoidable harm lying straight ahead on the crazy rail and I’m helpless and powerless to steer away from that possible future, which my thinking is now compelled to construct. Suppose I have a vivid idea — now picture a vivid idea of some self-thwarting, harmful, anti-desirable action.
Let us test this idea, can we steer away from it? While in the mystic psychotic genius state, the mind desires — to gain security and enlightenment and control-power — the mind desires to construct a bad intention as a test case, and then run an experiment with oneself as the test subject, to test to see if we have the power to steer away from it.
A *strength* is that my super-revolutionary theory is not published by any printed press or journal or peer-reviewed environment or conference, but is the work of an independent researcher publishing in hypertext on the World-Wide Web. Publishing such an important Theory in the form of an independent web page represents a revolution in publishing and Communication — if Thomas Metzinger is serious about the Internet changing our consciousness, then this is a strength and a revolution that such a massively important breakthrough theory is published on the World-Wide Web, not through old media, not printed on dead trees.
Writers need to base their thinking around my ego death Theory, because this accomplishes already what they are calling for better than they can, more strongly.
Cybernetics: Cognitive scientists advocate the nullity of personal control agency — I’ve already finished explaining that. I cover absolute nullity of egoic control agency more so than the cognitive science books.
Heimarmene: Cognitive scientists advocate no-free-will — I am already years ahead of them. My model of the single preset future and block universe goes far beyond conventional determinism which is causal chain determinism.
Dissociation: Cognitive scientists slightly advocate entheogens — but this should be their #1 hue and cry. They should be going on strike until drug laws (a recent, illegitimate, fraudulent creation) are thrown out. I’ve already finished explaining that, including loose cognition, and mental model transformation about self, time and control. I have already finished the entheogen theorizing going beyond what the cognitive scientists are starting to demand (The Ego Tunnel, Thomas Metzinger, pages 223-230).
Metaphor: Hofstadter
Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Douglas Hofstadter, Emmanuel Sander
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0465018475
April 2013
“Analogies are the building blocks of thought. A theory about the way the mind works. From the simplest forms (a single word, category, or phrase) to infinitely complex constructions (an idiom, proverb, or algorithm), they show how analogies are the tools our brains use to interpret and master daily life. Language, the mind, and intelligence.”
The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus
John Dominic Crossan
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0061875694
March 2012
I previously posted about other books approaching the Bible as fiction and comic fiction and riddling, which is the correct approach, when comic fiction is applied to Cybernetics/Heimarmene/Dissociation per the Egodeath theory.
The Unfolding Self: Varieties of Transformative Experience / Opening to Inner Light: The Transformation of Human Nature and Consciousness
Ralph Metzner
http://amazon.com/o/asin/098183180X
April 1986; 1998; 2010
Based on his 1980 article for Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, “Ten Classical Metaphors of Self-Transformation”.
Reviewer Michael Hoffman writes:
“Metaphors describing dissociative-state experiencing: This book is an organized inventory of the various metaphors that have been used to describe the phenomena encountered in the mystic dissociative state. Dissociative psychoactives are mentioned in an integrated manner throughout the book. This is a revised edition of Opening to Inner Light: The Transformation of Human Nature and Consciousness. Benny Shanon’s book Antipodes of the Mind is a good companion volume similarly explaining dissociative-state cognitive phenomenology as the origin of mythic metaphor.”
Metzner notes that the book doesn’t cover what I consider as meme propagation and collective state-flipping per the arrival of the Kingdom of God with all the Elect united in spacetime by the Cybernetics/Heimarmene/Entheogen revelation.
Metzner notes that the book “does not delineate linear developmental models showing sequential stages of evolution. This is not to say that development does not proceed in stages — only that agreement on mapping these stages seems quite elusive. Much of the literature on evolutionary stages seems to me to be overly abstract, highly subjective and sometimes indicative of a kind of premature conceptual crystallization. Subtle judgments of spiritual superiority [like Ken Wilber’s error in treating “mythic consciousness” -mh] seem to slip too easily into discussions of levels and stages.”
Well said, making points that I posted the other day on my frustration at Dan Merkur and Zaehner, writers of books about mysticism theory, and writers about the evolutionary development of early, middle, and late Greek religion and philosophy, with their stupid overconfident stilted and stuffy self-assured categories and schemes when they understand jack squat about the content and meaning of the ideas and mythemes they *presume* to — with great fanfare — emphasize and rely on.
The result is pseudo-knowledge, misleading, leading away from understanding — substitute for comprehension. *First* you must understand mythic metaphors as I have solved, and *then* you can do the trivia of sorting those into eras with different emphases. As it stands, we have the abominable faux knowledge that Greek “religion” gave way to Greek “philosophy”, while totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting both.
See Myers’ book Gnostic Visions (or my work) for some sanity on that matter: Greek religion and philosophy were both drenched totally in the entheogen-induced loosecog state; it was entheogenic myth, and, entheogenic philosophy, not the God-forsaken ordinary-state modern-era type of analytic philosophy. I hold that now and before the modern era, the use of entheogens to produce a fully transformed mental model always has required multiple sessions of loose cognition.
Through pressing one’s mind against the loosecog realm repeatedly, the mind is impressed and sculpted in compliance with the altered state observations of mental dynamics regarding self, time, and control, together with learning the traditional metaphors and analogies that express the loosecog dynamics, such as ‘king’, ‘death’, ‘snake’, ‘tree’, and ‘sacred food and drink’.
Gnostic Visions: Uncovering the Greatest Secret of the Ancient World
Luke A. Myers
http://amazon.com/o/asin/1462005462
April 2011
Entheogens including Syrian rue + acacia, throughout Western religion and spiritual philosophy.
Cognitive scientists are on a trajectory: I am pulling them in like a tractor beam. The ego death Theory is inevitably their destination and I am already standing there right in the middle on top of that peak. I already reached where they are headed in 1988, and then in 2001 I extended that to cover myth, religion, and religious experience to fully explain religious myth, a subject which is barely on the radar of cognitive scientists, despite Hofstadter’s focus on analogies. They have a crude model, and a call to begin work on self/nofreewill/psychedelics/analogies, and I have a finished model.
My voice recording tonight contains new, important, profound connections about sacrifice as desirable demonstration of violating, of willing against itself, of transcendently violating control of your will, playing with your inability to avoid possible near-future thoughts intentions of self-harm in order to secure and increase personal control, by gaining understanding of the dynamics of personal mental control. This inability, a kind of cybernetic blind spot and vulnerability built into our self-control system, is profound.
Our doorway to transcendence is our control-vulnerability, the glorious malfunction and limitation we have, which brings the idea of mythic king Jesus saying “I hesitate to drink this cup of Ayahuasca and die ego death, but not my will, Controller X, but yours be done” giving himself over to transcendently violate his own will to satisfy and fulfill our comprehension of how Controller X can be trusted as merciful and harmless to us although Controller X can force us to will to violate our own will, such as could be demonstrated through a kind of self- harm like my ritually scrambling my dorm room in violation of my egoic will, possessed by Dionysus, where my mind was ecstatically unified with the mind of Dionysus.
Judas’ affirmation is our own affirmation of “send King Ego to the cross and disprove his illusory power, in order to know truth and have full, satisfactory demonstration that his power is nullified by pre-set fatedness”.
Instead of taking the physical action of physically ritually scrambling my dorm room as a way of firmly demonstrating the unreality of egoic control constraints or chains, I could’ve merely mentally understood the idea of Jesus willing to be harmed and have his will repudiated. No other DEMONSTRATION of transcendent self-violating of the personal will is needed, only the mental comprehension of the myth of Isaac’s willing sacrifice, or the Eleusinian piglets’ willing sacrifice, or Jesus’ willful affirmation that he should be sacrificed.
When it comes to satisfactory complete forcing of mental model transformation, the idea is the thing. Even if we do sacrificially harm ourselves to drive home and prove the point of our ability to transcend our egoic self-constraints, that physical action can fail to transform the mental model of self, time, and control; we end up with mere uncomprehending magical sacrifices that have to be repeated.
God gave us his son Jesus as an idea, the idea of demonstratively sacrificing our own youthful egoic self-concept, “childish things, thought like a child”, a totally and completely satisfactory sacrifice, as an idea, once and for all, for this very purpose of violating and cancelling our egoic will, to understand God’s power over our control thinking and to fully explore this idea of self will violation which we desire to fully explore. Total absolute forceful sacrifice of our child-thinking requires an idea, comprehension — not a harmful action as proof.
When we arrive at Peter’s gate in the heavens, our completeness of mental model transformation is measured and assessed not by what physical action we have done to disprove and repudiate egoic-control thinking, but rather, we judge ourselves effectively by asking: do you comprehend the meaning of the idea or figure of the king willingly sacrificed on the cross, to bring in the hidden kingdom of God?
We must intend to violate our intention, though it is not clear how to gain and achieve full satisfaction, is a matter of meaning and intending to violate intention it is not a matter of doing some physical magic action or harm or destruction to destroy the ego illusion requires what type of action, intend that the mystic king intend to violate his will and give himself to wake you deviation fastened to space time the point is not suffering or pain the point is to destroy and cancel out and support and trip up and wreck or dominate absolutely the ego sense of control over intending.
I need and want to break my illusion of having control over what I intend. How can I do this? Compare breaking in a cadet or breaking in a horse to establish dominance of control and subservience of control. The egoic power of control must be proven to be merely an illusion or secondary type of control. How do we accomplish this? What do we think, to prove we have transcended the egoic control delusion? What must we think, to prove that our control of our will is merely secondary control?
During the course of making the voice recording, on-the-fly, I proved how powerful the interpretive key is, using the Egodeath theory to decipher myth, by on-the-spot figuring out profound, fundamental myths that are the most important mythemes in the Bible: the main line of connection between Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac and God’s sacrifice of his son Jesus.
I deepened connections about the ram of Abraham and Isaac, which is a kind of lamb sacrifice analogous to God providing his son as a sacrifice that we may come to comprehend the potential of our mental control. God provided the ram (a kind of lamb) which is a willful creature with its powerful horns caught in the (cybernetic possibility branching) bush equivalent to God providing his mythic son who willingly is fastened to the tree or pole or cross which represents the egoic agent physically fastened to frozen unchanging spacetime and the illusory cybernetic possibility branching tree
They say we scientists must provide a replacement for no free will , and the no-Jesus scholars say we must give a way for Christianity to go on
The New Testament is precisely what the cognitive scientists are calling for: a set of guidelines meant for people who have drunk the cup of Ayahuasca (Syrian rue and acacia-bark) and realize no-free-will and have ritually violated their egoic will, by playing with the source of our control thoughts to gain self-knowledge and Know Thyself.
I am the modern theorist who first discovered that the New Testament *is* the “new system of morality” for people who have seen through the illusion of free will, the illusion of autonomous authorship of our thinking, and the illusion of the open future (based on the 4D, no meta-change, altered-state perspective, *not* the ordinary-state speculation based on the hypothesis of sequential causal-chain determinism).
We are simply returning to original Christianity and Greco-Roman thoughts about violating the free will illusion through the sacrifice idea, exposing the illusion of personal control agency, the illusion of autonomous self authoring, the illusion of initiating our actions, and the illusion of authoring our future. All together at once, we reveal as an illusion time, self, free will, and alternate possibilities. There is only one possibility: the fated pre-existing permanently existing future. There is no other true possibility, only virtual possibilities.
All in the same sense, time is an illusion; self is an illusion; free will is an illusion; and alternate possibilities are an illusion. No free will, no self, no time, no possibilities, only the one fated path.
Iron Maiden
Somewhere in Time
1986
Take my hand
I’ll take you to the other side
To see the truth:
The path for you is decided
I invite and urge Cognitive Neuroscientists to play with the self violation of the will to demonstrate and comprehend the ramifications of personal non-control, the illusory nature of the controller self, and our inability to control our thoughts across time. In today’s voice recording, I warned Cognitive Neuroscientists of the potential to harm oneself by playing with thoughts about harming and violating one’s own will.
That is the purpose of this figure of Jesus: God provides the ram or his king has a willing demonstration of violating the egoic personal will, in order to know and enter fully the awareness of the kingdom of God. Entering the secret kingdom of God means in the intense altered state of loose cognition, gaining awareness of the transcendent power of control of thoughts, rather than egoic illusory control power.
The most attractive thing for power and military power is playing with our inability to prevent and steer away from our near future thoughts of self violation. This kind of dangerous and profound demonstration is the way to forcefully, completely, thoroughly, and systematically transform the mind’s mental model of time, self, and control.
This mental exercise of violating the personal will is the way to fully understand no free will, fully understand the illusion of self as control agent that initiates thoughts, fully understand the illusory aspect of time and change, and fully understand the illusion of possibilities and the open future. This is the most profound thought-experiment in Cognitive Science, and produces understanding of the figure of the king willingly repudiated, fastened to the tree, cross, or branchless pole (“stake”).
We sacrifice our delusion of autonomous kingship creating our future by steering among open possibility-paths, to purchase enlightenment and comprehension of the kingdom of God: not our will be done, but the will of controller X be done.
To fully understand no-free-will and the emptiness of the self-symbol, we must mentally violate and repudiate the illusion of the power of the personal egoic top-level controller, therefore meditate on the mythic meaning of the king willingly sacrificed on the cross as a cybernetic possibility-branching tree.
Thus I have demonstrated that to advance Cognitive Science by 50 years overnight, you must study and cite my name and the Egodeath theory, which is already finished at what you Science writers are advocating that we begin doing: developing ideas about no free will, no self, no time, and entheogens — psychedelics, per Thomas Metzinger in the section “A New Kind of Ethics”, pages 223-230, keywords: psychedelic, psilocybin, LSD, Huxley, Pahnke, Griffiths, psychotic reaction, panic, psychedelic sacraments, 2C-B, 2C-T-7, religious ecstasy, classic hallucinogens, altered states, drug policy.
I would mention 4HO-DiPT, which produces classic psychedelic effects with an ergonomic, 1-hour duration.
No-self, no-free-will ethics is not actually “new” per Metzinger’s subheading; antiquity and the New Testament believe no-free-will and provide no-free-will ethics, per my original research incorporating Luther H. Martin’s book Hellenistic Religion, which focuses on heimarmene.
We scientists, when we reveal no-free-will to society, must provide guidance and a replacement system for society. We scientists remove the illusion of free will. This is the consciousness revolution, which is the same revolution as the New Testament in 325 and 1525, a social and metaphysical alternative to Caesar’s Empire or that of worldly popes and “renaissance” pagan kings.
A forged new testament is perhaps, per Bart Ehrman’s 2013 book “Forgery and Counterforgery”, better than no new testament and it was good enough for the early proto-Christians it should be good enough for today’s hapless Christians finally brought to enlightenment instead of literalism and the historical Jesus and Paul.
Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Bart D. Ehrman
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0199928037
December 2012
These are most of the ideas that are in my hour and a half voice recording today.
— Michael Hoffman, November 28/29, 2012, with expansions December 1, 2012.
Copyright (C) 2012, Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com. All Rights Reserved.
The Egodeath theory 