Egodeath Yahoo Group – Digest 110: 2011-11-19

The Caduceus means better perception to see control-level relationships and establish harmonious peaceful accord between control levels rather than fearing the higher, hidden, uncontrollable control level that makes you have your control-thoughts. The caduceus is a testament, a contract of accord from the gods to man, or between the two control levels that steer the course of our lives.

The healing, mentally harmonious message that is forced upon your thoughts by the gods who pull your neural puppet strings is: your eye of awareness is lifted up on a pole and with wings to perceive that there are two separated levels of control in your mind, that need to work together in harmony: a lower, subservient controller-snake and a higher control-level snake, both control-levels perceiving each other and standing in a balanced, harmonious, healthy, calm relationship.

Ouroboros *actually* and primarily means what? First generally, religious metaphor, by definition, must mean:
1: cybernetic relationships/dynamics
2: heimarmene aspects
3: loose cognition and increased perception

Egoic and transcendent levels of control are put in harmony; balance cybercontrol systems or cybercontrol levels as in the caduceus message from the gods to initiates.

Not a vague disembodied flying eye, but rather, specifically, the eye in mythic art means “the ability to now perceive cybercontrol relationships”. flame = increased perception; new ability to perceive something that couldn’t be perceived before. A flame (per HKN version of caduceus) over 2 snakes enables perceiving 2 snakes. Most generally, snake = cybercontrol relationships. So snake on caduceus, on pole, ouroboros, means “knowledge of cybercontrol principles/relationships”; or “cybercontrol knowledge/wisdom”. The serpent means cybercontrol perception and knowledge.

Michael pinning the serpent means cybercontrol knowledge, or understanding of cybercontrol; cybercontrol understanding.

Moses’ snake on pole means render visible, display, cybernetic relationships and heimarmene. As in “remember this, always see this”; always keep this in mind; remember this: cybernetics in light of the presetness of your heimarmene-worldline. “Understand cybercontrol” — which includes the cybercontrol aspects of heimarmene. “comprehend cybercontrol”; “apprehend cybercontrol”. See and understand cybercontrol dynamics and relationships.

The “knob” on the caduceus is the elevated eyeball of increased awareness and perception, raised up to perceive the cybernetic levels relationship.


The 2 different control-level snakes that propel us are in a harmonious relationship, resulting in:
o peace
o integration
o a fully functional relationship
o non-dysfunctional control
o properly functioning control
o right control
o proper control
o correct control
o cybercorrectness


Per the correct application of the Procrustean method of forced interpretation, to produce the One Really True interpretation: the Caduceus *must* mean perceiving cybernetic noncontrol and heimarmene via the entheogenic state. How can the caduceus symbol be forced to mean perceiving cybernetic noncontrol and heimarmene via the entheogenic state?

The serpent in myth means one thing towering above all other meanings: heimarmene; the shape of the worldline in the simplest possible spacetime block
world-model, and heimarmene in relation to cybernetic non-control, or better, revealing of two levels of control, or levels of steering, with one level of control (steering) completely forcefully driving or steering the other level of control.

The two distinctly different snakes perceive each other on the caduceus: one is the lone snake at the egoic control level, and the other is the infinite-regress state. The one snake is a cybernetic control gear driven by the other.

The caduceus, two snakes in various images (the low-high pair of anythings: two torchbearers, two rebel bandits on crosses, two sons of Laokoon), represents an understanding of the driven-gear cybernetic relationship.

The caduceus — the specific message from the gods, or among the gods and fates and mortals and heroes — carried by The Trickster! — represents an understanding of all of these types of relationships:

1. The logically, cybernetically problematic nature of autonomous personal control.

2. The wrath and panic and terrifying, dread loss-of-control instability that results when egoic thinking first confronts the normally imperceptible, uncontrollable source of its control-thoughts.

3. The driven/driver control-relationship.


One humanoid escapee
One android on the run
Seeking freedom beneath a lonely desert sun
Trying to change its program
Trying to change the mode
Images conflicting into data overload

1-0-0-1-0-0-1
S.O.S.
1-0-0-1-0-0-1
In distress
1-0-0-1-0-0

Memory banks unloading
Bytes break into bits
Unit One’s in trouble and it’s scared out of its wits
Guidance systems break down
A struggle to exist — to resist
A pulse of dying power in a clenching plastic fist

It replays each of the days
A hundred years of routines
Bows its head and prays
To the mother of all machines


— The Electric Professor


Rod = staff = spear to pierce liver to cause “inevitable death” ie “death by heimarmene” = egodeath by perceiving heimarmene/egoic noncontrol. Thus long straight object = egodeath by perceiving heimarmene.

To say and feel and perceive — from the elevated-on-a-pole perspective, the caught-up tangled in a tree perspective — that I can’t change or make my thoughts in the present moment, is to say that I have no power (of any substantiality) over my life, in relation to the block universe. I appear to have power, but from a higher perspective, I’m a driven gear embedded in changeless 4D spacetime.

What’s so offensive about heimarmene? The presetness of my control-thoughts is what is poisonously offensive, a fatal snake-bite to my egoic soul. Presetness
= noncontrol at the egoic level. If my control-thoughts are preset, that exactly means that my egoic control power is (in a profound sense) an empty illusion.

I have power over my thoughts in one sense, but in a profound sense I have no power at all over my thoughts, I don’t exist at all to have even slight power
over my thoughts, to originate, create, or change my thoughts.


Ken Wilber’s “fear of death” and “death grins in” in his early books is nonsense, completely off-track, totally clueless and irrelevant: he fails to recognize the death-panic of ego upon seeing that it cannot control the separate source of its control-thoughts. Out of all the thousands of ideas smooshed together in the systems he tries to integrate, this particular idea towers above the rest, and any attempted explanation of religion needs to put appropriate emphasis on this particular idea — which Integral Theory does not.


The perception of two centers of control represented in the caduceus disturbs egoic control stability and restores it; poisons and fatally wounds ego to death by spearing the liver, and heals and calms and restores stability of personal cybernetic control. The caduceus concretely represents specifically *these* ideas, all of them at once.

Snake is worldline-path shaped, indicating understanding of the presetness and fatedness of your entire life past, present, future, floating in the stone-like changeless
spacetime block universe. Heimarmene controls you, therefore the egoic local visible you as a control-idea actually has non-control; the kuberne tes (steering agent) does *not* have primary control.

How can the dancing pair of snakes be forced by Procrustes to mean “perceiving cybernetic noncontrol and heimarmene via the entheogenic state”? The elevated-perspective loosecog state reveals, makes visible and illuminated, that there are 2 centers of control — a higher driving and a lower subservient driven level — not a single autonomous locus of control.

The twin snakes are the 2 levels of control in us self-controlling agents, as driving-gear and driven-gear.

Before cybernetic cognition is illuminated by mushrooms to reveal it, there’s the initial appearance of egoic autonomy. During increased perception, control is seen as a lower driven level (egoic control area) and a higher driving level (thoughts lying preset in the transcendent spacetime block of heimarmene). That seeing breaks the illusion of egoic autonomous control, and reveals egoic thinking as merely driven, thus killing its appearance of wielding power as a power source, or source of cybernetic steering-ability.

Egoic thinking is not an actual *source* (in a strong sense) of cybernetic steering power, but is merely a pre-set *conduit* of steering power, with all control-thoughts given and set by the block universe as the real source and determiner of what is being thought in the ego-shaped thinking (or mind) at all time-slices.

The caduceus represents loosecog, hidden transcendent control, and apparent egoic control. Awareness is neither egoic cybercontrol functioning nor the transcendent source of control-thoughts. Dove = Eagle = wings = Holy Spirit = ecstasy = increased perception, increased visibility, to perceive that egoic control doesn’t control the source of its control-thoughts.


God = Jupiter = one snake = the transcendent source of control-thoughts.

Jesus = Caesar = other snake = egoic cybercontrol functioning.

Dove = Eagle = elevated eye = increased perception, increased visibility, to perceive that egoic control doesn’t control the source of its control-thoughts, and = harmonious relation and unity, marriage, of the two domains of control that steer our minds and lives.


Hermes is the messenger. A messenger carries a message. Hermes carries a caduceus. The caduceus is the message carried from the gods to mortals. What is the message? Read the message. The components of the message: rod with knob atop; 2 snakes facing each other, interwoven/interlinked; wings.

The message of the caduceus reads: “In the ecstatic loosecog state with awareness-perspective lifted up (raised, heightened, elevated, increased), perceive the heimarmene snake as one locus of control, and egoic personal control as the other locus of control, and these two meshing levels perceive each other; the snakes look at each other in harmonious accord and mutual dependence.

After initiation, egoic control relies on the transcendent source of control-thoughts, and always the transcendent source of control thoughts relies on and utilizes egoic control-shaped thinking.

Perceiving heimarmene acting as the uncontrollable source of your control-thoughts kills and harms your former self, but then the egoic self is restored to stability and healed and cured by standing in conscious awareness of the relationship between the two levels or locii of control.


We shall call you Cygnus
The god of Balance you shall be


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Math axioms are functionally equivalent to vehement dogma and creedal confessionalism. Logical propositions, propositional logic, rules, have a severe strictness to them. This strictness is accustomed in Engineering, so that the Engineer isn’t even conscious of giving assent voluntarily into the strict contract struck with logic; chaining himself as a slave to the contract of logic.

This is the power of Analytic Philosophy and Propositional Logic. My main article is written in such axiom-driven style but can be taken to a more rigorous, simplifying, mathematical extreme of absolutism and extremist simplification.


Axiom 1: Cybernetics —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Cybernetics:

Before perception is increased per Axiom 3, personal cybernetic control is mentally structured or modelled as a single, autonomous center of control. After perception is increased, personal cybernetic control is mentally structured or modelled as two distinct levels of control, the higher one a driver of the other, driven one. All control-thoughts are forced onto the lower level by the higher level as the normally hidden, uncontrollable source of thoughts.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


Axiom 2: Heimarmene —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Heimarmene:

The future is preset and preexisting and single. Time is a spacelike dimension. Your worldline preexists and floats changelessly in the spacetime block.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


Axiom 3: Dissociation —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Dissociation:

Religion is the use of ground psilocybin mushrooms in Cabernet Sauvignon mixed with water in a ratio such that the peak loosecog level one kylix (cup) is equivalent to the peak loosecog level from 100 ug of lysergi saure di-ethyl-amide.

These mushrooms cause loose mental functioning binding, which increases perception of personal control cybernetic dynamics.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


Axiom 4: Metaphor —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Metaphor:

Religious myth is metaphorical description of taking mushrooms to increase perception of personal control cybernetics dynamics per Axiom 1 and heimarmene per Axiom 2.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


Axiom 5: Ahistoricity —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Ahistoricity:

Jesus, Paul, and all the Ancient Church Fathers are ahistorical. Ancient Christianity didn’t exist in Classical Antiquity and was later Photoshopped into the materials of Antiquity by monastics in 1525. There were only 350 years between 476 and 1525, not 1050 years; the Middle Ages were 700 years shorter than the Benedictines’ chronology asserted. 700 is aka 1400. 825 is aka 1525. Per Edwin Johnson.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


Axiom 6: Politics —
Dogmatic doctrinaire confessional creed fundamentalist axiom absolutist dictate of the Transcendent Truth about Politics:

The Enlightenment constituted by Axioms 1, 2, and 3 is contended between aristocratic hierarchicalists and egalitarian democrats, such as kings vs. the demos in Athens, and Roman Imperial social-political hierarchy vs. egalitarian house-church Christianity, using and leveraging either of the two possible interpretations of how Enlightenment purportedly advocates one of the two social-political configurations.

(All other ideas, variants, or qualifications are anathema; are counter-axiomatic and are a priori not permitted of consideration.)


These doctrines require absolute affirmation and commitment. No other thoughts are permitted. Any deviation from these infinitely narrow and maximally simple principles is accursed, destined for destruction, gets the guillotine, has negative infinite legitimation, and is anathema.

These axioms forcefully dictate and necessitate each other. To affirm any one is to affirm them all. Each logically implies the others.

You must marry these with full exclusive faithful commitment to them, only; to even look at another position or complexification of any of these fundamental axioms of mandatory assent is full corruption and total confusion, demonic insanity, insurrection, and a hatred-driven attack on mankind. Complete confessional Belief in this creed is demanded. The result of pure total assent to these maximally simple absolute axioms is an ultimate cornucopia, jackpot, and breakthrough into all Wisdom of the Ages.

Axiomatically committing to the simplest possible Theory of religious revelation produces the fastest, most powerful, most coherent, greatest possible 1) breadth of explanatory power, 2) conceptual coherence, and 3) ability to map to other theories, per Paul Thagard’s metatheory in Conceptual Revolutions.

The doorway to the core engine of mystery religion and wisdom traditions must be the soonest, simplest, most basic, most comprehensible model. The top priority by far is to build a complete-closure theory that is the very simplest possible theory; by definition, the lightning path is the shortest possible electrical distance between the earth and sky. The weakest link in the chain inherently breaks first.

This is an Achilles’ heel effect: what’s the weakest, most vulnerable point in your thinking? That is the measure of the most fundamental, important, important, profound, common, relevant, powerful, elementary, gateway-like Theory. That is the most desirable theory: the theory which cannot be matched for simplicity by any other theory.

The best, most effective theory, leading to the fastest, easiest, and perfectly true egodeath self-control seizure revelation and the most harmonious restoration of reconfigured control-configuration, is by definition the simplest theory. The very simplest possible theory is the very best possible theory, by any and all measures. There exists only one theory that is worth anything at all, it is worth everything, and it is whichever theory is simplest.

The utterly simplest possible theory deserves 100% of our allegiance, commitment, and faithfulness; all other theories deserve none, are anathema, and are accursed — destined for destruction.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Axioms of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence making it the simplest and most powerful theory of religious revelation:


The Cybernetics Axiom: Before perception is increased, personal cybernetic control is mentally structured or modelled as a single, autonomous center of control. After perception is increased, personal cybernetic control is mentally structured or modelled as two distinct levels of control, the higher one a driver of the other, driven one. All control-thoughts are forced onto the lower level by the higher level as the normally hidden, uncontrollable source of thoughts.

The Heimarmene Axiom: The future is preset and preexisting and single. Time is a spacelike dimension. Your worldline preexists and floats changelessly in the spacetime block.

The Dissociation Axiom: Religion is the use of psilocybin mushrooms in red wine mixed with water so the loosecog from 1 cup = 100ug LSD. Mushrooms cause loose mental functioning binding, which increases perception of personal control cybernetic dynamics and heimarmene.

The Metaphor Axiom: Religious myth is metaphorical description of taking mushrooms to increase perception of personal control cybernetics dynamics and heimarmene.

The Ahistoricity Axiom: Jesus, Paul, and all the Ancient Church Fathers are ahistorical. Ancient Christianity didn’t exist in Classical Antiquity and was later Photoshopped into the materials of Antiquity by monastics in 1525. There were only 350 years between 476 and 1525, not 1050 years; the Middle Ages were 700 years shorter than the Benedictines’ chronology asserted. 700 is aka 1400. 825 is aka 1525.

The Politics Axiom: Enlightenment is contended between aristocratic hierarchicalists and egalitarian democrats, such as kings vs. the demos in Athens, and Roman Imperial social-political hierarchy vs. egalitarian house-church Christianity, using and leveraging either of the two possible interpretations of how Enlightenment purportedly advocates one of the two social-political configurations.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Rod/spear/axis/pole = demo of hi lev’s ctrl of lo lev ctrlr

The proving that kills the egoic claim to autonomy, is the vertical line. For example, the spine of the caduceus = testing, demonstration, and determination of control-power directionality, which is concluded to flow one-directionally from the transcendent center of control down to the egoic center of control.

wand
rod
pole
thyrsus (fennel stalk) of Dionysus & Maenads
scepter
staff
spear
central tree trunk
world-axis
spine of caduceus

Don’t make the common mistake of vaguely writing “power”; rather, specify insightfully “cybersteering control-power”.

The steersman or ruler has his hand on a rudder-handle, a pole of control and steering (equivalent), steering the ship of state, controlling the lower control-centers that are subject to his control. The spear of heimarmene pierces the liver and the egoic agent so pierced is destined for death by destiny, the ego’s power against the transcendent has been tested and disproved.

When on mushrooms exploring the revealed two centers of personal cybernetics control dynamics, the mind tests whether the local center of control can control the source of control-thoughts. It can’t. The testing, the demonstration, is a one-way power relationship. The higher center of control controls the lower center of control. The lower center of control cannot control the higher center of control.

Envision the rod, staff, bar, spine of the caduceus, or vertical beam of the Cross as a downward arrow: power flows down from the uncontrollable source of thoughts (including control-thoughts) to the local, egoic, reactive, moved, lower center of control power.

Moses’ rod and snake: the rod is the terrifying testing of control-power, and the snake is one’s preset, changeless worldline floating embedded helplessly in the spacetime block.

Dare to look at and directly perceive the uncontrollable source of your control-thoughts when in the peak window of increased perception — and face The Test of power-trust relationship between your lower, egoic, local and higher, transcendent, remote centers of personal cybernetic control.

The Test kills egoic delusion, the claim of simple single-center autonomy of personal control — if that egoic self-concept hasn’t been Put To The Test already: the lower center of cybersteering control power wrestling against the higher center of cybersteering control power. The higher center is always inevitably predestined to win this contest which is no contest for the higher is the very source of the control-thoughts of the lower level controller.

How can the woman win the wrestling, when the very source of her power and decisions in the battle are given to her by the Man? Like some rite in Mithraic initiation, he has her by the b*lls; that is, he has full control of her mind’s source of control-thoughts. He is even the very source of her desire to fight and rebel against him, testing him. Control-power flows strictly in one direction: from higher to lower.

Thus in a Control Systems diagram, the upper box is the God (Transcendent) control center, and the lower box is the Jesus (Egoic) control center, and the direction of control flows strictly from God to Jesus: thus the Dove of Harmonious Peaceful Accord flies downward from God to Jesus, serving as the arrowhead on the directional arrow from the Transcendent control-center down to the Egoic control-center.

The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence is superior to all other theories of religion in many ways. It can be scientifically tested by the community of testers/observers. Drink watered-down wine. With increased perception, observe the source of your thoughts. Try to control the source of your thoughts.

Try to prevent the thought from occurring, “Oh no, S.O.S., a thought is possibly about to arise of me losing control and thinking that I’ve been timelessly predestined to lose control, and there’s nothing I can do to stop that.” Try fighting against your own source of thoughts, and experience Wrath and control seizure/instability.

Then try putting your full trust in the source of your thoughts as if you are a vulnerable weak woman who is totally at the mercy of her husband and who always has been in that situation; pray to the higher level source of your thoughts to love you and be loved and trusted by you; and repudiate your claim to be an autonomous independent center of control.

Confirm that peace, harmony, and self-accord among your lower and higher control centers is reached. Experience the sacred marriage and imperishable stable state with transformed mental model of yourself as control center, now seen as a dancing relationship between two distinct control levels, the lower subservient to and dependent on, and helplessly at the mercy of, the uncontrollable higher center of control.

The vertical line is the testing and proving that there is a one-way power relationship from higher to lower, given that the higher is the source of the control-thoughts of the lower. Thus:

line = “my transcendent center of control has full power over my egoic center of control”

Rosicrucian Invisible College shows a high-to-low control-directionality line from JHVH down to the stably anchored philosopher in the lower right. Picture a dove as arrowhead flying downward along that line.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/photos/album/516071947/pic/5907724/view?picmode=large
Wings are used as complementary up and down arrowheads on 4 lines 2/3 up in the picture.

Icon showing Dove flying downward from God to speared-liver Jesus, destined for destruction, destined to die of death by destiny during the control-power levels testing. When Jesus tests whether he can control God, whether he can control the source of his own control-thoughts, he finds he cannot, and his initial claim to independent autonomous control-power dies.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/photos/album/516071947/pic/2068056640/view?picmode=original



God / Jupiter / Transcendent Control Center
|
|
|
|
V Dove / Eagle flying down
Jesus / Caesar / Egoic Control Center
|
|
|
|
V
marionette
|
|
|
|
V
object manipulated by marionette


Now I find peace of mind
Finally found a way of thinking
Tried the rest found the best
Stormy day won’t find me sinking

I can’t conceal it like I know I did before
I got to tell you now the ship is ready
Waiting on the shore/shelf.

Dare to look face the test on the eve
When you set sailing
What you’ve learned what you’ve earned
Ship of joy will stop you failing.

I can’t conceal it like I know I did before
I got to tell you now the ship is ready
Waiting on the shore/shelf.

Wind is high so am I
As the shore sinks in the distance.
Dreams unfold seek the gold.
Gold that’s brighter than sunlight.

Sail away see the day
Dawning on a new horizon
Gold’s insight shining bright
Brighter than the sun that’s rising.

3000 sails on high are straining in the wind
A raging sea below
Is this voyage coming to an end

— Bob Daisley, Sailing the Acid Trip Ocean


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

The ouroboros circle around the Wheatstone balance-bridge at top of HKN shield is formed by rays. Rays = Amanita undercap.

Compare JHVH at top of Rosicrucian Invisible College:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/photos/album/516071947/pic/5907724/view?picmode=large


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

The spine of the caduceus = testing, demonstration, and determination of control-power directionality, which is concluded to flow one-directionally from the transcendent center of control down to the egoic center of control.

Heimarmene control-power is greater above and lesser below; thus the snakes are bigger at top than bottom. Serpents represent cybersteering control-power. There is more of that power up at the transcendent level than down at the egoic level, and even less at the marionette level. Suppose God controls Fate.

God — great serpent power
Fate — large serpent power
Man — small serpent power
Marionette — tiny serpent power


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

A chain held by JHVH’s hand-from-clouds, down to Sophia, who holds a chain, down to the monkey: directional control from transcendent to egoic levels, from divine to human levels.

< below, means “controls”

Consider the divine Royal We as meaning *hierarchical* gods, not parallel gods; eg:
Demeter < Zeus < Heimarmene
Demeter < Heimarmene < Zeus
The Fates = plural — are they actually vertical rather than parallel?

Demeter < Zeus < Fate[1] < Fate[2] < Fate[3] < …

“We” can mean “Demeter speaking as Zeus and the hierarchy of the Fates above him”.

The 3 divine regions above the fixed stars can be “the Fates, under JHVH”

The chain Sophia holds can be to a puppet or to a chariot-pulling animal. Man’s lower, egoic level is a center of control-power activity; he pulls strings on inferiors, such as slaves, marionettes (puppets), and work animals.

king marionette < Demeter < Zeus < Fate 1 < Fate 2 < Fate 3 < …

The figure of a jester holding a jester holding a jester…

The Mysteries of Cybernetic Control. The Cybernetic Control Mysteries: as Watts asked, queried, puzzled, or riddled: “Who controls the controller?”

The higher controller can well be considered as a hierarchy of control-centers. Was that a common idea in antiquity, in Mystery Religions? They thought about heimarmene and gods. Typically they talk either of fate being above the gods, or below them. Either way forms at least 2 hierarchical levels, unless heimarmene & gods are exchangeable.

Fate allotted (Moira) realms to Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. The gods thus act as intermediaries between mortals/immortals & heimarmene. Heimarmene assigns control to the gods. The gods serve as a personification-interface to heimarmene. In Gnosticism, demiurge = heimarmene, God = controller over heimarmene. Gnosticism thus suggests the 3 or 4 levels:

God
demiurge
heimarmene
ego

egoic agency : heimarmene :: demiurge : God

CtrlLev[n] : CtrlLev[n+1] :: CtrlLev[n+x] : CtrlLev[n+x+1]
CtrlLev[n] : CtrlLev[n+1] :: CtrlLev[n+x] : CtrlLev[n+x+1]
CtrlLev[m] : CtrlLev[m+1] :: CtrlLev[n] : CtrlLev[n+1]

Demeter : Fates :: Fates : Zeus
Is Demeter ruled by Zeus and Fates? What’s the relation among Demeter, Zeus, and Fates, where those 3 are considered as centers of cybersteering control-power?


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Horizontal notation reveals the “spear in side, killing ego” idea:

Jesus<—-God

God—->Jesus

puppet<—-Jesus<—-God

God—->Jesus—->puppet

That’s missing the symbol of *increased perception of* control-levels dependency — eye, wings, torch/fire/sun.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

During mycoinitiation, egoic thinking (shaped as if independent autonomous center of cybersteering control-power) initially tries to fight against the now-perceived threatening, alien, uncontrollable source of the mind’s control-thoughts. Then egoic thinking realizes that it’s always relied on that source, and been actually impotent with respect to it, without perceiving that that was the case. Then egoic thinking learns it has no alternative but to trust the source of its own thoughts, even though that source can be seen as too mysterious to trust.

Similarly, nations initially rebel against Caesar (who is a helpless puppet of Zeus), who in his wrath, overpowers them. But then like a woman who has been abducted and overpowered by her new husband, the nation learns to trust Caesar, and a peace and harmony accord is reached, and calmness and ease is restored.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

The transcendent center of cybersteering control-power in one’s mind is male, sun, source of light (control-power). The controller of the source of one’s control-thoughts.

The egoic center of cybersteering control-power in one’s mind is female, moon, reflected light (control-power).

A person as a control agent is a combination of two centers of cybersteering control-power: egoic and transcendent, which work together.

The directional control-power relationship is:

Sun—->Moon

Moon<—-Sun

Sun
|
|
|
V
Moon


Male—->Female

Female<—-Male

Male
|
|
|
V
Female


Transcendent—->Egoic

Egoic<—-Transcendent

Transcendent
|
|
|
V
Egoic


That’s ‘Egoic’ in the sense of post-initiation egoic, not pre-initiation ‘Egoic’ which takes as real the impression (not yet exposed, pierced to death, tested, and disproved) that the mind has only a single independent and autonomous center of cybersteering control-power.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Every religious, mystic, mythic, or esoteric symbol or image represents using mushrooms to perceive the two levels of control in the person: the higher level of control, which is the uncontrollable source of thoughts; and the lower level of control, which is person as a controller in the world.

Two centers of cybersteering control-power operate in the mind, together forming personal control agency moving along one’s worldline that is embedded in unchanging spacetime.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Every religious, mystic, mythic, or esoteric symbol or image represents using mushrooms to perceive the two levels of control in the person: the higher level of control, which is the uncontrollable source of thoughts; and the lower level of control, which is the person experienced as a control agent in the world.

Two centers of cybersteering control-power operate in the mind, together forming personal control agency. This is helpfully represented as a control-agent moving along a worldline-path that is embedded in unchanging spacetime.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

This is a transitional draft posting, to demonstrate my ideas being roughed out and condensed, boiled-down to the skeleton, so that the only thing left is hard-core Pearl Of Great Price. This is of interest for the Theory of Discovery/Innovation, and Philosophy of Science. This is a technique to further condense and make more punchy, cogent, the Abstract that opens my main article.

This is part of my Phase 3 work. Phase 1: Core theory. Phase 2: historical/metaphorical extension. Phase 3: propagation/delivery/communication.


I discovered that my extremely condensed Abstract of my main Theory-specification article has a fluff or non-core sentence at the start and end; the general pattern in my Abstract has been:

Introductory fluff sentence
Hard-core essence of the theory, like “The cat sat on the mat.”
Criticism fluff sentence

I am now going to tell you some information.
The cat sat on the mat.
Other expressions of the information are incorrect.

Reduces to:
The cat sat on the mat.

In the case of this theory, the hard core reduces to:

using mushrooms to loosen cognition, thus gaining the ability to perceive:
two levels of control, the lower helplessly dependently controlled by the higher which is the source of thoughts
most easily modelled as presetness of thoughts as a worldline embedded in unchanging spacetime block with time as a space-like dimension and a single, preset, pre-existing future

What to call this hard-core piece of knowledge about loosecog, cybernetics, and heimarmene, and metaphor, and the socially practically important political use and abuse of this knowledge, and, how to shove aside the wrong, confusing, historicist misinterpretation of such metaphor?

When I finished, uploaded, and announced the final draft of the main article, Sally pointed out to me that the article was weak in one important point, about the meaning of the Cross in its cultural — political — context.

The article *barely* touches on it — deeply profound, but inappropriately fleeting (each word in the condensed main article costs a million dollars; not only is the article all “beef”, as in “Where’s the beef, Wilber and Ruck?”, but the article goes beyond that to be all top-quality pieces of “beef”, with zero fat — this is a plate of beef fit for a king, only the best cuts, trimmed, expertly optimally cooked.

Watts didn’t have the ultracomplicated edifice of all knowledge in outline which Ken Wilber strives to provide as best as Wilber can though lacking enlightenment about what’s the most important revelation and realization experience in religious experiencing, and Watts didn’t recognize that all religion is mushroom-based like Ruck, and Watts doesn’t see the merit and relevance of heimarmene like authors diasporically scattered apart in 15 separate fields attend to bits of determinism.

But what Watts did so right that makes him the most important and sober, perspicacious, perceptive writer on religion, is that he *did* focus on the very most important thing to focus on: the Satori revelation is about the personal problematization of “Who controls the self-controller?” This makes Daniel Wegner important too, as self-control psychologist, though like Watts, he’s still not good enough at using language to communicate with Philosophical precision.

Watts and Wegner aren’t masters of Semantics; they end up too ambiguous to grasp and express and comprehend, as I rightly and appropriately, adequately phrase it, “the specific, explicitly defined sense in which ‘self’ as control-agent wielding self-control power is real, and in which, illusory.” If you haven’t mastered semantics well enough to write that, you cannot write clearly enough, as you could and ought to, about enlightenment, revelation, satori.


Let the word ‘political’ mean social-political, as in “everything is political”, in my future writings. That is, ‘political’ in the broad sense; political philosophy; the power-structuring and control-structuring of society.


Label each part of the max-condensed Abstract as follows:

{name/label/title of knowledge-content}
{axiom 1: cybernetics} [most important]
{axiom 2: heimarmene} [2nd most import: useful organization to support grasping #1]
{axiom 3: dissociation} [3rd most; key doorway/window, not content of revealed mystery (vs Ruck)]
{axiom 4: metaphor} [4th most; merely for vivid communication of the content
{axiom 5: ahistoricity} [mere preliminary clearing of misinterpretation]
{axiom 6: politics} [application of content to societal control-structure, pairs w/ #5]

in brief… use a notation like Ruck’s Greek Myth book to flag key themes. Numbering is too volatile and indirect. Just define and state in terms of 1-word axiom names.

{title}
{cybernetics}
{heimarmene}
{dissociation}
{metaphor}
{ahistoricity}
{politics}

The above is a perfect minimal-possible outline of the complete Theory, except that ‘title’ is an empty undefined variable name, declared but not defined; change it to “transcendent knowledge is the understanding of the following”; giving:

{transcendence=}
{cybernetics}
{heimarmene}
{dissociation}
{<–metaphor}
{-ahistoricity}
{–>politics}

<– means ‘metaphor is about the above’
– means “remove the historicity assumption, which is incorrect and prevents understanding the above
–> means “the above has been applied directly to politics in two warring ways, which is of topmost importance that we understand”

The *absolute* barest minimalist skeletal *backbone* arrangement of the phrases or components in my Theory abstract is:

transcendence=
cybernetics
heimarmene
dissociation
metaphor
ahistoricity
politics

Strip-down the Theory summary to only an introductory sheer label, followed by only the most essential key phrase of each axiom:


{name/label/title of knowledge-content}
Religious revelation and enlightenment, cybernetic ego transcendence, is the understanding that

{axiom 1: cybernetics}
personal control agency has two centers of cybersteering control-power
destabilizes self-control power
the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent
Self-control stability is restored
lower-level personal control agent is forced to trust the uncontrollable source of thoughts
The uncontrollable higher center of cybersteering control-power is heimarmene or a transcendent quasi-personal source of thoughts

{axiom 2: heimarmene}
worldline embedded in spacetime
experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future
Experiencing this model of control and time

{axiom 3: dissociation}
using mushrooms to loosen cognitive functioning and make it perceptible
trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose binding of cognitive associations
loose cognitive binding
mental model is transformed to take into account the helpless dependence of personal control on the uncontrollable source of thoughts
Religious initiation is a series of mushroom induced loose-cognition sessions and instruction on the two levels of control, and how the lower-level center of control is forced to trust the uncontrollable higher-level center of control.
transformation of the mental model of personal control

{axiom 4: metaphor}
Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and mental model transformation
An ordinary-state based attempt to figure out religious metaphor is futile because unable to perceive the two levels of control and the uncontrollable source of thoughts. Ordinary-state perception is limited so that it’s not able to perceive the uncontrollable arising of control-thoughts. Ordinary state attempts to interpret metaphor are unfocused and invent a wide variety of interpretations without recognizing the towering vastly greater relevance of asymmetrical control-level, one-directional … diode. Shining light on the control-directionality diode.

{axiom 5: ahistoricity}
Figures in religious myth are not historical, but are personifications of the realization that there are 2 control levels in the mind. Jesus, Paul, and the Ancient Church Fathers are essentially literary inventions and allegorical representations of transcendent knowledge about perceiving and understanding the two control-levels that exist in personal control power.

{axiom 6: politics}
Perceiving and understanding the 2-level control relationship in the mind, can be used as a template for social-political structuring, as either a power hierarchy with some people standing over other people in a controller/controlled or master/slave relationship (a power hierarchy); or, an egalitarian democracy with each person positioned in parallel because each person contains the same relationship of the two control-levels.


Class assignment: The final step in composing the ultimate compact clear expression of Revelation: put the above phrases into the following structure:

Transcendent knowledge is [or, Religious knowledge is]
cybernetics
heimarmene
dissociation
metaphor
ahistoricity
politics

To highlight this structure, provide two versions of the Abstract/Summary. In one, flag the above structure elements; other, omit. An ideal definition of a system includes examples, but first, minimize the use of metaphor; can add that in later versions, after the strictly minimal definition is summarized.

_____________________

Assignment

Using the following outline sequence, provide the most condensed, simplest, clearest possible summary of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.

religion is
cybernetics
heimarmene
dissociation
metaphor
ahistoricity
politics

1. Provide the minimal abstract/summary following the above structure. Omit examples and metaphors. Don’t flag the sections.

2. Provide the minimal abstract/summary following the above structure. Omit examples and metaphors. Flag the sections using the above keywords.

3. Provide the minimal abstract/summary following the above structure. Include examples and metaphors. Don’t flag the sections.

4. Provide the minimal abstract/summary following the above structure. Include examples and metaphors. Flag the sections using the above keywords.


The result must be better than the following:

Every religious, mystic, mythic, or esoteric symbol or image represents using mushrooms to perceive the two levels of control in the person: the higher level of control, which is the uncontrollable source of thoughts; and the lower level of control, which is the person experienced as a control agent in the world.

Two centers of cybersteering control-power operate in the mind, together forming personal control agency. This is helpfully represented as a control-agent moving along a worldline-path that is embedded in unchanging spacetime.

_____________________


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Testing (judgment, trial) may be a missing major component for the bare minimal outline. How do we conduct a trial to judge whether we can control our thought-source and see if our future is open vs. heimarmene-closed, in a relevant sense? It’s the old Trial and Judgment and delivering-over in chains as one who is accursed, destined for destruction.

In what way is the worldline/heimarmene model (the simplest possible 4D spacetime model, with time as a space-like dimension) helpful in thinking about problematized self-control (the inability to control one’s source of control-thoughts)? Why is the worldline/heimarmene model helpful? The worldline/heimarmene model is clearest, simplest, most forcible, most tangible, most concrete, most easily pictured, most easily modelled, most easily visualizable.

Is the closed-future premise what kills ego? Mostly not. It’s mostly the uncontrollability of the source of control-thoughts that fatally wounds ego.

Ego is fatally wounded, fated to die, fated to die of death by fate, fated to undergo death by heimarmene. Whether the future already always exists and is preset and single, or not, regardless of all that, ego dies because it has no practical control over the source of thoughts, particularly including control-thoughts.


This is truly work on the Core theory: exactly define the relationship between non-control of thoughts, and the idea of heimarmene. Does ego die because the mind sees that heimarmene is a fact? Does ego die because the mind sees that its personal control center is certainly not able to control the source of thoughts?

Things appear so uncertain. We need to be as keen a judge as Solomon. We need PROOF BY TEST. This need is nothing new!

Testing (judgment, trial) is a component of the Theory when stark axioms are well put forward. How are these axioms justified and co-justified? How do we conduct a trial to judge whether we can control our thought-source and see if our future is open vs. heimarmene-closed, in a relevant sense? It’s the old Trial and Judgment and delivering-over in chains as one who is accursed, destined for destruction.
____________________________

Proof and Judgment by Trial

Everyone knows for certain that we can’t know anything for certain.

Maybe the egoic local center of control *can* control the source of control-thoughts.

Maybe heimarmene is not the case: the future is open, or there are open-future manyworlds, or closed future (preexisting) manyworlds; my infinite parallel futures all exist or will exist.

Suppose Mithraism initiates are perfectly impossible to fool; they are hard-headed military S.O.B.s, same as heavy acid-enthusiast Metal musicians; they are perfectly rational and critical, the opposite of gullible (but neither are they radically skeptical to the point of absurdly). They are like engineers: focused on what works, and there’s no question about what works and what doesn’t work.

Only by proving to them with 100% certainty the facts of noncontrol and heimarmene, would any of those initiates ever have believed the hierarchical control relationships regarding the source of our control-thoughts.

Engineers, Mithraic soldiers, Zen masters, and no-nonsense intrepid Acid Metal frontiersman all readily agree: it is proven, tested, and demonstrated that you cannot control the source of your control-thoughts; your source of your control-thoughts is uncontrollable by you, where the latter ‘you’ means you in any practical sense.

Just like you can practically, generally, decide to go to sleep, you can, at most, profoundly relax your mind such that thoughts don’t arise — but you cannot dictate what those thoughts are, when they arise. Our control of our thinking is inherently roundabout and indirect and subject to the unfathomable whims of the mysterious imperceptible source of our thoughts. Thoughts arise by themselves, from beyond our practical domain of control.

We have no practical control over the source of our thoughts. That is the datum to be theoretically explained by hypothesis, modelling, and theory — and described by religious myth and esoteric symbol. A degree less, is the experience and hypothesis of heimarmene. If I have no steering-power, no steering-muscles, no steering-arms, then my future and worldline-path is, for all practical purposes, ever pre-set, closed, always pre-existing, forever pre-determined, forever predestined.

Even if we nebulously adhere to envisioning the future as “open”, still, if my arms of steering-power are illusory, then the future is practically closed, preset — so grins-in heimarmene in one equivalent form or another: the future is closed, one way or another, whichever exact way you choose to envision it.

A particular practical profound definition of ‘noncontrol’, “inability for the person to control their own source of control-thoughts” is necessarily logically systemically cross-entailed with the concomitant particular practical profound definition of ‘Heimarmene’ or ‘Fatedness’ or ‘Destiny’ or “Vertical Determinism” or Determinism. Perhaps what’s not at issue is “whether” the two axioms necessarily entail each other; perhaps the relevant approach is to say:

Banqueters in Antiquity experienced A) a particular kind of noncontrol; and B) a particular kind of presetness (unchangeability) — such that, that kind of noncontrol and that kind of presetness necessarily entail each other, or are co-entailed. Don’t question the co-entailment and worry about proving that; rather, worry about identifying the exact specific kind of so-called “noncontrol” and so-called “presetness” (so-called “heimarmene”) that are co-entailed.

Thus it might be safer to be vaguer and only speak firmly in terms of:

===========================
Loose cognition unassailably shows and demonstrates a kind of noncontrol and fatedness that are co-entailed.

= trial, judgment, test, prove
===========================

You can hurl all the postmodern skepticism you want at it, and cling to your claim to wield kingly power over the source of your control-thoughts… but in the pathetic end, why are you, in postmodern kingly glory, as you would have us agree, that although you are undeniably being led in chains to be nailed to the cross mockingly glorified as “the man who has power over his own thought-source”…

This analogy is not merely my clever idea I alone had, that occurred to me alone. The mocking of the soldiers, “If you are king, more powerful than Caesar, then prove it, then we will believe your claim: come down off your cross, king!”

If you believe you can control your source of control-thoughts, and if you care to know the truth about this, then you must put your claim to the test, trial by fire, to prove at least to yourself if not to anyone outside your mind, what you claim is the case. How can I prove to myself that I cannot control the source of my control-thoughts? How can I prove to myself that heimarmene rules my life?

You would have us concur, after your postmodern-skepticism lecture, that we can’t *prove*-prove that you can’t control your thoughts. However, *we have limits* to our gullible acceptance of your infinite demand for postmodern wise-guy skepticism. True, I cannot in fact *prove*-prove that I can’t control my thought-source. But: all testing of my power against that of God, who is controller of my thought-source, has always proved me the loser in the power battle.

I fought against the source of my thoughts. I ended up in panic and chaos, made to think the most terrible thoughts and I have been forced — it simply completely seems — forced to think terrible thoughts that kill my ability to control; I proved like I proved that hitting my hand with hammer hurts, I proved that I cannot control my thoughts, and in the battle-test, I tried; I fought; I tested; I lost.

My thoughts took off in terrifying direction and there was nothing I could do; I saw a vision of my inability to prevent and steer my own thoughts. It is a wonderful, glorious testing, burning away with fire my questions and my claims to power. I ended up nailed to the Cross, with mocking crown, pierced by destiny, destined to die a death by destiny. What exactly would you have me do and think, to prove, to prove-prove, my ability to control my thought-source?

How did they accomplish this persuasion in Mithraic initiation? How exactly do you *prove* to an infinite postmodern radical skeptic, that he is helplessly subject to the mysterious unfathomable uncontrollable source of his own control-thoughts?

We have a contest of who can be the most hard-headed skeptical:

o The Zen master, who doesn’t analyze and speculate, but merely observes how things are, in the mind, at the root of thoughts arising

o The venerable intrepid no-nonsense Acid Rock frontiersman who has pushed all the tests to their ultimate limits

o The definitively grounded and practical Mithraic soldiers, who have no time for nonsense and pretence, only time to worship the god of What Works, Not What Doesn’t Work

o And above all, the Engineer, whose circuit can only give the bottom-line executive, Emperor the answer, by emitting a green light or a red light.

The circuit either works to control, or doesn’t. Can you control the source of your control thoughts: yes, or no? Which is it? Don’t B.S. us, or yourself, or anyone. This is a serious matter. This is war. We live or die based on the accuracy of your position. Do we (as experienced as practical control agents in the world), control the origination of our own control-thoughts, yes or no? What is the simple, practical, bottom-line truth of this most-key matter?

All the mystics are unanimous: “We have run all the tests! We have scientifically tested this, observed, tested again, and shared our conclusions communicating among us. This is our conclusion, as surely as “hitting one’s thumb with a hammer hurts, as example of scientific testing of subjective experiencing”.

We cannot control the origination or source of our thoughts, emphatically including our control-thoughts. Do you really think that those who tested this infinitely offensive doctrine didn’t think of every way to try and struggle?

Every one who ever tried, tried their hardest, and ended up, to the extent they tried, tangled up in self-control seizure, panic, self-war, wrestling themselves to the ground, until they broke their own leg so that now they walk along their worldline path with one control-foot in the egoic control-center, and one foot forced upon their mind by the transcendent control-center.

The one-foot is the mushroom *but more than that*, the one-foot, the crippled cyberking, the hokie-pokie of king Jesus Christ, is: the old Egodeath “Hammer of Interpretation”. Recall:
______________________

The Hammer of Interpretation

Every religious, mystic, mythic, or esoteric symbol or image represents using mushrooms to perceive the two levels of control in the person: the higher level of control, which is the uncontrollable source of thoughts; and the lower level of control, which is the person experienced as a control agent in the world.

Two centers of cybersteering control-power operate in the mind, together forming personal control agency. This is helpfully represented as a control-agent moving along a worldline-path that is embedded in unchanging spacetime.
______________________

Therefore apply that to the question of “What does one-foot, one sandle, one leg-crippled king, limp” mean? The asymmetrical-pair master-key theme: the greater half and the lesser half. More specifically and helpfully: The dominant half and the submissive half. The control-power-originating half and the control-power-reflecting half.

All over myth appears asymmetrical pairs. “There are two things that are related and similar, yet different, and in relation.” This means: higher and lower control-centers in the mind, forming our personal control agency.

One leg this, but other leg that. The ego delusion exists before initiation, and in a lesser sense exists after initiation: ego becomes crippled, footnoted, profoundly qualified and delimited, chained, pinned, restrained, belittled, circumscribed, just as the serpent under Michael the Archangel’s spear is still alive, but is chained, restrained, pinned.

The crippled leg is you, as practical control-agent able to control things in your life; but that control-ability is actually carried by the whole, uncrippled leg, the one that is discovered and affirmed during initiation, the higher controller that gives your thoughts.

We cannot control the source of our thoughts.

We ran every possible test anyone could think of. If you rebel against the source of your thoughts, you are guaranteed –as much as science and math and engineering guarantee anything — that you will surely, inevitably, end up in self-control seizure: the Wrath of the Gods.

Every scientific test demonstrates and proves that only when you repudiate your claim to be able to control the source of your thoughts, and you instead trust, love, and rely on the uncontrollable “that which is the source of your thoughts”, does accord, peace, harmony, tranquility reappear in your cybernetic mind.

To claim you can control the source of your thoughts is certain ego death and self-control seizure — which is the wonderful rapture, the beautiful abduction, Judas, who delivers you over to the sacrifice, to sacrifice your claim to be able to control your thought-source.

Judas is the wonderful glorious divine Proving, the wrestling, the pinning and defeat of our claim, which is the method that we must use to be persuaded and convicted and convinced that — regardless of infinitely skeptical and impractical postmodernists — there is one thing we have tested, observed, and been shockingly *forced* and *overpowered* by the Power of God, there is one thing that we know for certain, in the most vivid and terrible, awesome way: we cannot control the source of our thoughts.

We are helplessly dependent on that uncontrollable originator of our own thoughts, and that originator is not “ourselves” in any practical sense.


No One at the Bridge

Crying back to consciousness
The coldness grips my skin
The sky is pitching violently
Drawn by shrieking winds

Seaspray blurs my vision
The waves roll by so fast
Save my ship of freedom
I’m lashed, helpless, to the mast

Remembering when first I held
The wheel in my own hands
I took the helm so eagerly
And sailed for distant lands

But now the sea’s too heavy
And I just don’t understand
Why must my crew desert me
When I need a guiding hand?

Call out for direction
And there’s no one there to steer
Shout out for salvation
But there’s no one there to hear

Cry out supplication
For the maelstrom is near
Scream out desperation
But no one cares to hear

— Professor Elektron


One what basis of 100% certainty and infallible proof did Mithraism initiates concur that indeed, noncontrol&heimarmene? Is unassailable proof of heimarmene unassailable proof of noncontrol? Is unassailable proof of noncontrol unassailable proof of heimarmene?

How do the Mithraism initiates Neil Peart and Bob Daisley *know* with *certainty* that heimarmene is the case?

How do the Mithraism initiates Neil Peart and Bob Daisley *know* with *certainty* that inability to control the thought-source is the case?

How do the Mithraism initiates Neil Peart and Bob Daisley *know* with *certainty* that heimarmene and inability to control the thought-source necessarily mutually entail and cross-imply each other?


In the extensively experienced and thoroughly analyzed loosecog state, are we thoroughly justified in affirming heimarmene?

In the extensively experienced and thoroughly analyzed loosecog state, are we thoroughly justified in affirming personal inability to control the thought-source?


In the extensively experienced and thoroughly analyzed loosecog state, are we thoroughly justified in concluding that personal inability to control the thought-source necessarily implies heimarmene?

In the extensively experienced and thoroughly analyzed loosecog state, are we thoroughly justified in concluding that heimarmene necessarily implies personal inability to control the thought-source?


The given data to be explained:
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced heimarmene.
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced noncontrol.
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced heimarmene together with noncontrol.

Or perhaps even more pertinently to the challenge I’m facing of connecting the two revealed axioms, the datum to be explained is:
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced heimarmene together with noncontrol.
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced heimarmene in conjunction with [conjoined with] noncontrol.
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced heimarmene conjoined with noncontrol.
Ancient banqueting trippers experienced noncontrol conjoined with heimarmene.

“together with” stays agnostic about whether the two are deeply interlinked as two sides of the same coin, mutually entailed: maybe the are, maybe they aren’t. To *some* extent, certainly, as things that are experinced, heimarmene implies noncontrol, and noncontrol implies heimarmene.

I’m using “together with” or “in conjunction with” instead of “and”. Heimarmene and noncontrol are linked, fused, not merely summed, as if you might experience one without the other.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Generally relevant, on the theme of “two legs, one weakened”; two brothers battling; wrestling with the angel of the Lord:

Genesis 32 (Amplified Bible)

7Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed

9Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the Lord …

10I am not worthy of the least of all the mercy and loving-kindness and all the faithfulness which You have shown to Your servant, for with [only] my staff I passed over this Jordan [long ago], and now I have become two companies.

11Deliver me, I pray You, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and smite [us all] …

12And You said, I will surely do you good and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

…

24And Jacob was left alone, and a Man wrestled with him until daybreak.

25And when [the [a]Man] saw that He did not prevail against [Jacob], He touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob’s thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with Him.

26Then He said, Let Me go, for day is breaking. But [Jacob] said, I will not let You go unless You declare a blessing upon me.

27[The Man] asked him, What is your name? And [in shock of realization, whispering] he said, Jacob [supplanter, schemer, trickster, swindler]!

28And He said, Your name shall be called no more Jacob [supplanter], but Israel [contender with God]; for you have contended and have power with God and with men and have prevailed.

29Then Jacob asked Him, Tell me, I pray You, what [in contrast] is Your name? But He said, Why is it that you ask My name? And [b][the Angel of God declared] a blessing on [Jacob] there.

30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [the face of God], saying, For I have seen God face to face, and my life is spared and not snatched away.

31And as he passed Penuel [Peniel], the sun rose upon him, and he was limping because of his thigh.

32That is why to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the hollow of the thigh, because [the Angel of the Lord] touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh on the sinew of the hip.

Proving, demonstrating, and judging by testing-trial, that we cannot control the thought-source, is not an outline component as a sibling of Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Dissociation, Metaphor, Ahistoricity, or Politics. Such testing leads to self-control seizure and is part of Cybernetics and is part of the reason why the Cybernetics component is big and most important.

Cybertesting is a child of the Cybernetics component, not another top-level component.

In loosecog initiation, the autonomous single-center personal control-model splits into 2 parts, and annihilates part of the Egoic model, and adds perception and mental modelling of the Transcendent ever-present portion.


The Work of Translation and Mapping of the Theory to Myth Versions, such as the Passion Versions

I here post another draft-in-development example, as a valuable snapshot of breakthrough-in-process. And I need rest and attending to other things. This is more a matter of cashing in on recent breakthrough; I’m in the turn-the-crank phase, which however is important. Calculus in hand, I proceed to analyze everything in sight, which takes time; it’s a later phase of time-consuming labor, the playing out of the previous breakthrough.

As I perform the breakthrough translation and description of this Egyptian hieroglyph language, I exclaim in the midst of my success: These mythmakers were not unsophisticated! They knew what they were doing! They’re keeping me on my toes, as one who’s got the decryption code figured out and is laboring to apply it to work-through the translation. No wonder the Renaissance was nuts (enthusiastic) over the Egyptian hieroglyphics language. All this religious myth is a kind of high-art encryption/decryption game.

I have religious metaphor nailed, in terms of cybercontrol levels and mental model transformation (subtracting, adding, and transforming per Paul Thagard’s Conceptual Revolutions). But still, some adjustment of the core theory description is required, in conjunction with mapping selected entities of the Passion story, to be able to cleanly map the Passion metaphor-system to the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence (CTET) explanatory paradigm.

I *do* still believe that it’s fairly straightforward to map “the” Passion story (there are variants) to “the” Theory (variable in how it’s presented). Now that the Theory is in hand, that’s not a “hard problem” like figuring out how consciousness itself works. It just requires a number of pages of writing, more than 2 or 3, to list the poetic range of good mappings, then process and refine those down to a tiny compact hard-core summary.

Douglas Hofstadter can appreciate the inherent limitations and problems, choices I have to make, in translation, even if I am translating to an “Amplified Bible” format (allowing parenthetical clarifications and alternative wordings) instead of regular prose. There is a certain legitimate range of interpreting the upward bound rebel next to Jesus; of all aspects of authentic initiation experiencing, several can legitimately map to the figure of the upward bound rebel.

The initiate “goes up” in *various* senses! For example, even the humble egoic mental structure is *partly* retained in *some* form, in *some* aspects, after initiation, so is that not an “up” movement? “Down” metaphor in the Passion has challenges too: while in the tomb, Christ descends *down* to Hades/Hell/Purgatory to lift up the purified souls of the elect, the saints and prophets. So now it starts to get Gnostically elaborate like the set of all 4 Matrix movies.

Imagine a minimalist passion, with no Barabbas, no Judas, no rebels next to Jesus, no descent into Purgatory. The result — a simple Pauline version of the Passion — would be easy to map to the Theory. Jesus is crucified, then he ascends. Jesus = preinitiation personal control-model with single pseudo-autonomous, pseudo-independent center of control: pre-initiation egoic thinking (God or higher portion of your mind is working behind the scenes, unseen, unperceived).

After initiation, the purely delusion portion of your thinking remains in the tomb or underworld (that’s the false component of the Remainder). Christ = purified egoic thinking that remains; the true component of the Remainder; the true and valid lower control-center that’s been cleaned of demonic thinking. Christ also partly is the transcendent part of you, ever-working behind the scenes, now perceived; the God portion of you. Then God is sort of the same as the higher part of Christ.

So it’s slightly awkward designing a Theory and mapping it to the simple, Pauline version or equivalent of the Passion. But when Passion mystic mythmakers get all sophisticated and ambitious, incorporating Saturnalia themes, in addition to Dionysian themes, and Passover themes, and what have you… it becomes increasingly difficult and debatable what the “right” or “best” or “most elegant” or “simplest” way is to arrange the Theory, and to map the Theory to the Passion metaphor system(s).

Not to mention that we have 4 different Passion versions in the canon, and more extracanonical. So I have to specify “Here is the specific version of the Passion that I am going to demonstrate how to map to the Theory and how to arrange the Theory to enable one of the cleanest such mappings.”

The Theory is flexible in expression, and the Passion is flexible in variations, and the mappings between the two are somewhat multiple; there’s a bit of a range of possible mappings — such is the conceptual language of Myth, even when totally, ideally understood with a strong sense of the true priority-sequence (Cybernetics, Hiemarmene, Loosecog, Metaphor, Ahistoricity, Politics).

Now that I can translate the language, and I have the foreign manuscripts, I have to decide *which* of the myths to translate first, and how elaborately to translate — and “translate the Passion story of Christ” turns out to be a bit of a project when you get into it — not a struggle, not a mystery, but a labor of suitable translation-renderings and mappings. What is the best priority sequence in the queue?

This is the problem of a successful new paradigm: there’s a ton of work to do to apply and also still some work to fine-tune, fill-in, flesh out within the core theory. OK, here’s a way to describe my recent breakthroughs:

Phase 1 (1985-1988-1997): Core theory.

Phase 2: (1998-2001-2007): History/metaphor extention — applied to first, proof-of-coherence wave of metaphor examples.

Phase 3: Communication/propagation, and also, applied to second wave of metaphor examples (eg blowing wide open the Mystery Religions and important figures of Alchemy) — also tightening up some Core theory concepts and the expression of them.


Part of the ego goes up with Christ into heaven: the legit purified part of it — just not the purely-deluded, purely erroneous aspect of the egoic mental model; the latter, it’s easy to conclude, is a useful identification of what *cannot* be mapped to the upward-bound crucified rebel, so I can utilize “process of elimination” to some extent in mapping the Theory to the Passion hieroglyph-document I’m decoding.

The Theory explicitly provides the real meaning of the Passion — insofar as their is a single vastly dominant meaning. It’s like trying to map a jungle to a garden, to domesticate a wild beast, to explain rationally the mystic poetic inspirations. It works — but don’t expect the mapping and translation to be clean *by all measures*, just as the Greek word Heimarmene is not a perfect synonym for the Latin word Fatum, and both are a rather poor match with the English word Determinism.

Now I know the pain of translators! And the Poetic Science of translation. I am emphatically not saying metaphor is ineffable or untranslatable to scientific explicit Theory — but that translation is typically a matter of tradeoffs. There’s an expression in programming languages like “idiom friction”, metaphor system mismatch, dissonance, mal-fit, a limited degree (not radical or total) of incommensurability between competing paradigms.

Just like a conductor “interprets” a written score to form a particular “performance”, just like “the myth of Dionysus” is a flexible framework so you ask “Map the myth of Dionysus to the CTET — but according to which ancient writer, and which modern translator of that Greek to English?”

_____________________________________________________

The below is *less* meta-theory, more straight work of translation/mapping.


The ego is only partly illusory. After initiation, part of your self-model is cast off as dross, perishable, transient illusion. You are left with authentic lower self, and now-revealed higher self. In your mental model, you “subtract” — identify, characterize, study, model/map out, and repudiate — the supposed existence of the illusory part of the lower self. You add mental modelling of the uncontrollable transpersonal higher center of control that is part of you.

The mental model so profoundly changes, you are reborn, redefined, a spiritual death and rebirth of the person. It’s easy to define the model model before, and the mental model after; it’s hard to map the before and after structures. Before, one set of structures; after, a different set of structures, with some reuse of some structures.

This is why the metaphor story logic is hard to follow in the trial of 1) Judas-delivered 2) Jesus, letting 3) a prisoner escape, 4) one rebel descends and 5) one rebel ascends, Jesus descends into Hades then ascends, and there is then 6) Christ, and Jesus dies and also is resurrected.

There are many Passion entitities to map to Egodeath theory, and to construct Egodeath theory in reference to:
Mary, Joseph
Judas
Pilate
Jesus
Barabbas
Descending rebel
Ascending rebel
Christ
God
Mary, Joseph


Going into the Passion sequence/initiation:
Jesus, = your personal control-model before loosecog initiation

Coming out of the Passion sequence/initiation:
Christ & God, = your personal control-model after loosecog initiation. Christ = lower ctrl-ctr, God = higher ctrl-ctr.
Barabbas, = your ability to escape a disastrous fate when proving your inability to control your thought-source.
transcendent rebel/thief, = your higher ctrl-ctr after initiation.
egoic rebel/thief, = your lower ctrl-ctr after initn. & your cast-off dross self, Remainder, false claim.


Christ = God = transcendent rebel (count them as 1 control-entity/center modality/type).

Given that all players are aspects of each of us, it’s as if we throw Jesus against a wall and he breaks into ten entities/aspects of personhood-aspects.

The 1 splits into 2… but the dross is cast off, as rejected abandoned ghost, *not* part of revised ego. Is the higher, divine portion “added to the mind” during initiation? As ever, in one sense yes in one sense no. The higher control center was always secretly in place doing its work like a faithful donkey carrying you along your worldline-path through spacetime.

But the fact and situation, that God was steering your thoughts, wasn’t represented in the mental model (which is distinct from “what occurs in the mind, where ‘the mind’ includes portions beyond the current scope of perception”). Shoving aside Freud and Jung, stealing their terms for better use:

Before initiation, God is active in your mind, steering your thoughts, the secret pilot of your soul, but in a non-conscious way; that is, in a way that your mind is not aware of, in a way that isn’t incorporated into your mental model yet. The mind is not perceiving God’s control of your mind, and, distinct from that, your mind has not yet incorporated God’s control of your mind into the mental model held by your mind.


Who doesn’t come out from the Crucifixion or Passion? You *could* say: Jesus and the egoic rebel don’t come out. But Jesus has fecundity; sacrificing him, vitality and realness both are used moving forward, whereas the purely illusory and purely *deluded* aspect of the mental model of personal control is wholly burned.

o The egoic mental structure that went along with delusion is cleansed, washed clean, purified, made acceptable to God (transcendent thinking), retained and integrated per Ken Wilber.
o The purely wrong, purely deluded part is cast off forever (Ken Wilber in Atman project might say “The self no longer identifies with that old self-structure.”)

After enlightenment, the egoic self-concept remains, in a specific sense that can be specified with some precision and detail; and is done away with, in a different sense. The egoic portion of thinking remains and yet is changed. See Paul Thagard on how to model and conceptualize the process or procedures of theory-transformation.

It’s likely that the Jesus figure and story took in so many ideas and previous stories, that there are partially overlapped, multiple meaning-systems; overloaded. A simplistic model says “we have a higher and lower part”. A sophisticated, ambitious model can use ten entities in place of those two.

Mapping:

egoic control concept before initiation

After initiation:

no ego — that dross gets sent to Hades

Genuine lower self — Christ. This is, the practical self, moving through the world, as purified, de-deluded person, employing lower, local, egoic control-thinking (the true Remainder), now re-understood to not include the false part (the false Remainder).


Before initiation:
A (delusion, and real lower self, and veiled higher self)

After initiation:
B (pure delusion — perm. cast off during initiation, dross, no longer of any use)
C (real, still-useful lower self)
D (now-perceived higher self)


When the single control-center of the pre-initiation mind is split into lower subservient driven self and higher dominant driver self, when that transformation and splitting happens, there’s a third factor: the delusion portion of the pre-initiation self-concept (a portion of the control-center ideas) is cast off as dross: it is burned away in the purifying fire, leaving the real skeleton, the real portion.

It is nullified, sent to Hades’, … a complex number consists of a real portion and an imaginary portion (a multiple of the square root of -1). During initiation, the imaginary portion … these ideas are subtle and we have to decide whether we are trying to be complete and accurate, or, whether to be clear and elegant and comprehensibly simple.

During loosecog initiation, the truly deluded aspect, grossly imaginary portion of the mental self-concept is repudiated as unreal; as undesirable, desirable to be cast off and got rid of, destroyed. But the desirable, still-useful aspects of the previously constructed egoic mental model are retained, having been purified and washed clean, and are put to good use. See Wilber’s book Atman Project for some useful language about mental structures being largely retained, but “disidentified” and transcended, and transformed. Also see the book On the Existence of Fictional Objects.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s as far as I got in this great assignment exercise so far. This is top-priority and I’m looking forward to it — I must not get distracted and go deep now into any one of these ideas. This condensing-procedure will produce an awesome, tiny, powerful summary of the Theory, a diamond, an improvement on the Abstract in my main article (theory-specification).

Optimize for maximum stark simplicity. Avoiding 2nd order approximation/modelling, precision. Formulate the simplest possible, 1st-order approximation of the Theory, simplified to the extreme. But not a 1-sentence summary, which would be too ambiguous and general to constitute “revealing the mysteries”.

Assignment note: target 350 words ( = how many minutes, read slowly?)


Put best points first in each group, then delete bottom items in each group.

[religion is]
Religious knowledge is the transformative understanding and testing of personal noncontrol of thoughts in changeless spacetime, perceived by loosening mental functioning through mushrooms, how these insights are metaphorically described, recognizing such description as not literal historical reportage, and how these ideas are used to support hierarchical or egalitarian society.

[cybernetics]
Before initiation, personal control is mentally modelled as a single autonomous, independent center of control (the initial ego). After initiation, personal control is mentally modelled as consisting of two distinct centers of steering agency or control-power.
The revised ego is the lower level of and lower center of steering and control-power; this is the person experienced as a control agent in the world. The lower control-level is dependent on and helplessly subject to the higher level. The higher, dominant level of and center of steering and control-power is the uncontrollable source of thoughts:
heimarmene or a transcendent quasi-personal hidden agency as the source of thoughts. The higher control-center creates the personal thoughts inside a person’s mind, and is outside the realm of personhood; it is transpersonal.
destabilizes self-control power
the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent
Self-control stability is restored
lower-level personal control agent is forced to trust the uncontrollable source of thoughts
upon seeing helpless dependence of personal control on the uncontrollable source of thoughts, take a defensive stance against it, try resisting it, but forced to learn to trust it; establishing an asymmetrical trusting control-power relationship between personal control and the uncontrollable source of thoughts.

[heimarmene]
worldline embedded in spacetime
experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future
Experiencing this model of control and time
helpfully represented as a control-agent moving along a worldline-path that is embedded in unchanging spacetime.
The worldline/heimarmene model is clearest, simplest, most forcible, most tangible, most concrete, most easily pictured, most easily modelled, most easily visualizable.

[dissociation]
using mushrooms to loosen cognitive functioning and make it perceptible
during which the mental model of personal control is transformed
the mental model of personal control is negated, expanded, and transformed. Illusory control agency is identified and subtracted from, added to, and transformed transformed and partly repudiated as illusory, and is expanded upward;
trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose binding of cognitive associations
loose cognitive binding
mental model is transformed to take into account the helpless dependence of personal control on the uncontrollable source of thoughts
Religious initiation is a series of mushroom induced loose-cognition sessions and instruction on the two levels of control, and how the lower-level center of control is forced to trust the uncontrollable higher-level center of control.
transformation of the mental model of personal control
using mushrooms to enable perceiving

[metaphor]
Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and mental model transformation
An ordinary-state based attempt to figure out religious metaphor is futile because unable to perceive the two levels of control and the uncontrollable source of thoughts. Ordinary-state perception is limited so that it’s not able to perceive the uncontrollable arising of control-thoughts. Ordinary state attempts to interpret metaphor are unfocused and invent a wide variety of interpretations without recognizing the towering vastly greater relevance of asymmetrical control-level, one-directional … diode. Shining light on the control-directionality diode.

[ahistoricity]
Figures in religious myth are not historical, but are personifications of perceiving that there are 2 control levels in the mind.
of transcendent knowledge about perceiving and understanding the two control-levels that exist in personal control power.

[politics]
Perceiving and understanding the 2-level control relationship in the mind, can be used as a template for social-political structuring, as either a power hierarchy with some people standing over other people in a controller/controlled or master/slave relationship (a power hierarchy); or, an egalitarian democracy with each person positioned in parallel because each person contains the same relationship of the two control-levels.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Yet another new idea/mapping just now, regarding non-personified theme, of “the wheat sprouted vs. the chaff discarded”:


In loosecog initiation, the transcendent uncontrollable thought-source is made perceptible, and is mentally modelled for the first time, adding a new upper area of your mental model of personal control agency; “wheat sprouting”. The wheat grain was always there, but was veiled, hidden, not manifest consciously in perception.

In loosecog initiation, the useless junk dross portion of the egoic mental model is forever discarded as sheer delusion, “chaff”. Other aspects are retained.


Demeter = wheat
Sheer delusion aspect of Persephone = chaff

Sacrificed or pinned bull = wheat thereby produced (produces new, divinized, consciousness (mental model extension) of what you are)
Sheer delusion aspect of bull = chaff


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Downward & upward torchbearer/”thief”:

Downward: Part of your pre-initiation mental model is discarded as useless dross.

Upward: Your mental model is expanded upward to map, now that you are made to perceive it, the higher-level control center that was secretly steering and giving you your thoughts.


Thus we have two positive figures and two negative: a pair for what you are, a pair for your *mental model of* what you are, re: personal control agency:


High/low aspects of what you always are:

God/Sol — higher control-center portion of you

Jesus/Christ/Mithras — lower control-center portion of you


Added/subtracted aspects of your *mental model of* what you are:

Up thief/torchbearer — mental model expanded upward to map higher (formerly veiled) control-center, the uncontrollable source of your thoughts. Wheat.

Down thief/torchbearer — mental model portion that’s utterly discarded and not used at all, the useless part of the egoic control-agency delusion. Chaff. Dross.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

The torchbearers and thieves “off to the side” mean your *understanding* (mental model) of what you are.

The more central figures mean what you are:
God/Sol
Christ/Mithras
Jesus/Bull


A thing is central. A mental model of the thing is off to the side. In loosecog initiation, part of your mental model goes down, is discarded. Part of your mental model goes up, is added. Like a new building goes up, or wheat sprouts up.

“I must decrease so that the other may increase.” Understanding increases, though that’s off to the side of the main thing, which is what you are — and were but didn’t know, perceive, or understand it.


Torches = added perception.

You can *perceive* on mushrooms that the dross portion of ego is dross, chaff. And after perceiving, you can understand; revise your mental model.

The down torchbearer means the perception and then understanding (mental modelling) of the dross portion of ego as such, that that corrupt part of mental functioning is chaff, destined for destruction and sacrifice.


You can *perceive* on mushrooms that the there’s a transcendent thought-source that’s been giving you your thoughts. It springs into view like wheat sprouting. And after perceiving, you can understand; revise your mental model.

The up torchbearer means the perception and then understanding (mental modelling) of the transcendent thought-source that’s been giving you your thoughts.


The common soldiers of the Roman Empire understood all this. In olden days, every Western culture except mushroom-illiterate, OSC-only late-Modern era people understood all this.

AXIOM: The true meaning of religion, myth, and mystery religion initiation in Antiquity, through the early Modern era, is *not unduly complex* — nor is it stupidly superficial like “it all means the sun” or “here’s our explanation of how nature works” per clueless Evolutionary Psychology 1800s throwback theories.

The decoding of the hieroglyph has to be basically simple and not unduly complex — *everyone comprehended the hidden meaning*.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Per Edwin Johnson — and perhaps Brown — I think “renaissance” is misleading. The knowledge people had in antiquity didn’t die, so 1525 didn’t have to re-figure it out. People in 1525 understood the meaning of the Mysteries, myth, and religion in Antiquity; that knowledge and comprehension was kept fully alive during the Middle Ages. And I like the hypothesis that there were only 350 years instead of 1050 between 476 and “1525” which is therefore aka 825.

The culture of “1525” looks to me like it sat in the year 825, just a little bit after Antiquity. Does it look like the comprehension of the Mysteries died out in 476, was lost until 1525, and then the people in 1525 figured out the meaning of it? Evidently the people of 1525 were smart on this subject, and filled with understanding of the Mysteries and religious myth.

I cannot believe that understanding of the Mysteries and the esoteric initiation meaning of Christianity was lost from 476-1525 and then was figured out in full, again. Evidently comprehension of Mysteries and religious, mushroom-based myth was retained without a dip from Antiquity well into the early modern era, especially where there was hierarchical society and mushrooms and religion: those are the natural habitat of comprehension of the Mysteries, Esotericism, and religious myth.

As a “typical” member of late-Modern culture, it was a long haul for me to reach this state of fully blowing open the Mysteries and the Christian version of them. But it was so hard for me, for us, for me as a capable, well-equipped representative of my culture, to successfully decrypt Esotericism and the Mysteries and mystic religious mythic metaphor, because today’s OSC-based, egalitarian culture stands on opposite premises from that which begat and sustained such encrypted, ASC-based knowledge.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

When you take a defensive, untrusting, stance of enmity against the threatening source of your thoughts, you are bound to lose that contest, because of your Achilles’ Heel: the very source of your ability to take a stance against your source of thoughts, is a product of your source of thoughts, as if you are trying to shoot an enemy when the enemy has fully control over your weapons and can turn them against you.

The feared, unknown agent that you test, challenge, or distrust as threatening you is the uncontrollable source of your own control-thoughts and thus is in control of your control-power that you presume to wield against that unknown mysterious agent.

Achilles is dipped in non-mortality except for the heel he was suspended by: the source, the wellspring, of his thoughts, including his control-thoughts. Your mortal self is destined for overthrow because it is falsely premised on having control of its source of control-thoughts.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Religious knowledge is the perceiving of the uncontrollable source of one’s thoughts, testing this dependency, and transforming one’s understanding of personal control.

Personal control is initially imagined as a single, independent center of control. During initiation, personal control is perceived as dependent on an uncontrollable, hidden source of thoughts, experienced as the unchangeable universe or an unknown agency. Personal control tries to control and defend against the revealed source of thoughts, demonstrating that personal control power is dependent on and vulnerable to the source of thoughts.

Personal control learns to trust the source of its thoughts. The mind discards its assumption that personal control controls the source of thoughts. Personal control becomes mentally integrated with the source of thoughts, and control stability is established, in a newly explicit, 2-centered configuration of control-power.

The easiest model of spacetime to organize thinking about personal control-power is that the person’s experiencing, including control-thoughts as a steering agent, is laid out as a worldline-path embedded in a changeless space-time block universe with time as a space-like dimension.

Religious initiation is the use of mushrooms to loosen cognitive functioning and make perceptible the dynamics of personal control cognition. This perception and loose cognition disengages the previous mental model and helps construct a revised mental model by subtracting, adding, and transforming ideas about control.

Myth, including Mystery Religions, is metaphorical description of the above. Figures in religious myth are not historical, but are personifications of the above.

Perceiving and understanding the 2-centered control-power relationship that propels the mind has been used as a political template for structuring society, to purportedly follow the divinely revealed pattern:
o A power hierarchy with some people standing over other people in a controller/controlled relationship, because each person contains a control hierarchy.
o An egalitarian democracy with each person on the same level, because each person contains the same relationship of the two aspects of control: personal control thinking and the source of thoughts.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Innovations in this Condensed Summary of Transcendent Knowledge, or Abstract of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

Less reliance on metaphor. More direct and neutral.

I removed ‘levels’ and became more explicit, more direct: personal control, and the source of thoughts. ‘Levels’ is a metaphor and thus is indirect. ‘Centers’ of control is more neutral, closer to systems theory. Anyway instead of ‘levels’ or ‘centers’

‘Egoic’ and ‘transcendent’ are problematic. Before initiation, there is a certain version of egoic cognition and unperceived transcendent cognitive activity. During initiation, the transcendent source of thoughts is perceived, grappled with, and mentally modelled, along with cancelling some previous mental modelling of personal control power. After initiation, the … [aw, damn that Neil Peart, the Theorist trails 36 years behind the Poet — I just recognized the uncontrollable source of thoughts in “The Fountain”] , and after, different egoic cognition, and newly per…


“The key, the end, the answer, stripped of their disguise. I’ve reached a signpost. Now at last I fall before the Fountain of Lamneth. Many journeys end here, but the secret’s told the same.”


The Fountain

Look the mist is rising,
and the sun is peeking through
See the steps grow lighter
As I reach their final few

Hear the dancing waters
I must be drawing near.
Feel, my heart is pounding
with embattled hope and fear.

The key, the end, the answer
Stripped of their disguise
Still it’s all confusion
And tears spring to my eyes

Though I’ve reached a signpost
it’s really not the end
Like old Sol behind the mountain
I’ll be coming up again

Now at last I fall before
The Fountain of Lamneth
I thought I would be singing
But I’m tired, out of breath

Many journeys end here
But the secret’s told the same
Life is just the candle
And a dream must give it flame


The terms ‘egoic’ and ‘transcendent’ are problematic, ambiguous labels, given the following dynamics.

Before initiation:
Egoic model: independent autonomous self-control power
Transcendent model: no mental model. Unperceived transcendent cognitive activity.

During initiation:
Egoic model: modified. cancelling some aspects of the previous, egoic mental model of personal control power.
Transcendent model: uncontrollable source of thoughts indirectly but distinctly perceived and tested. Add mental model of it.

After initiation:
Egoic model: Delusion habit returns but loosely held, utilized as tool.
Transcendent model: uncontrollability of the source of thoughts is again not perceived. Retain and organize mental model of transcendent.


In loosecog, do you perceive the uncontrollable thought source? In a sense yes; no. You perceive the arising of thoughts without personal control power over that arising; you perceive the uncontrollability. The source itself is The Unknown God, the mysterious stranger.


Grappling with the Unknown God

KJV Genesis 32:

And Jacob was *left alone*; and there *wrestled* *a man* with him *until the breaking of the day*.
And when *he saw that he prevailed not* against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh;
and the hollow of Jacob’s *thigh was out of joint*, as he wrestled with him.
And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou *bless me*.

And he said unto him, What is thy name?
And he said, Jacob, *the supplanter*.
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, *contender with God*:
for as a prince *hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed*.

And Jacob asked him, and said, *Tell me, I pray thee, thy name*.
And he said, *Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?*
And *he blessed him* there.
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
for *I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved*.
And as *he passed over* Penuel *the sun rose upon him*, and *he halted upon his thigh*.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Innovations, changes vs previous summaries:

o Used direct characterizations “personal control” and “the source of thoughts”, rather than indirect labels eg ‘egoic’, ‘transcendent’, or metaphorical terms ‘higher’, ‘lower’.

o Highlighted politics, and cogently

o Connected with Mithraism: torch up (add mental model) down (accordingly subtract mental model)

There’s too much innovation compared to the Abstract of my main article. I need to post a full-text commentary.

Weird, I wouldn’t say the core theory has changed since 1988 or 1997, but now much more mature, developed, broad, many points to choose from, many figures, many connections to evoke w/ various mythemes. Wasted few words on Metaphor and Ahistoricity; all the more radical for how little I say: it’s all figurative description for the above bombshell ideas, period.

I didn’t belabor heimarmene, but gave it its due nonetheless. I used the topic to keep the emphasis on the main point: control-power experiencing. I didn’t point out worldline = snake-shaped: the assignment statement dictates “no metaphor”.

Great allusion to sacred marriage, trust-relationship.

Surprised – I deleted “self-control seizure, panic”, even ‘instability’! ‘defend’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘stability’ are enough.

Impact strategy: be low-key and awesomely profound but provide just enough indication of the shock wave alarm, almost understated. Don’t sell it; let it sell itself.


Kicked b*tt on the heimarmene-dislike problem by leveraging unobjectionable gentle handling. Maybe I just need to deemph it by bracketing it as “auxiliary”. You got to have Cybernetics, Loosecog, Metaphor… but Heimarmene is really powerful, but on par with cyber revelation? I here framed Heimarmene in the main scenes of the film, but never the central ultimate focus, which is Cybernetics. Here, this summary fine-tunes the relationship between the 4 pillars and amount of attention.

Each — per my 1987 Domain Dynamics model — each main area of the Theory serves a unique kind of function. Cybernetics and Heimarmene are related, co-entailed perhaps, but not parallel, not “equal”.

I only claimed you might “experience … unchangeable universe” and “The easiest model of spacetime to organize thinking about personal control-power is … worldline-path embedded in a changeless space-time block universe” — light-touch involvement of the heavyweight topic of determinism. The issue, the transformation of personal control agency, isn’t determinism: it’s cybernetics.


Well-leveraged my call for focusing on visionary plants as making perceptible, specifically,

And I waved-off the entire nervous distraction of “we don’t know for sure the mixed wine” by just saying look, you guys can’t think straight because you’re worrying about details and blind to the forest. For Christ’s sake, just axiomatically declare “mushrooms”, and be done with it so we can think clearly! It’s what they should’ve been using, what I would use in their case, and the evidence supports it; we have no reason for this enfeebling hesitation. We’ve got way better things to worry about!

In 2112, we suggest the electric invention from 1943, and the priests retort “Yes we know, it’s nothing new, mushrooms — er guitar — is just a waste of time. We have no need for ancient ways, our world is doing fine. Just think about the average, what use have they for you? Forget about your silly whim — it doesn’t fit the plan.”


Focused more focus on contending against or testing the source of thoughts: the seeing, testing, sacrificing, marrying/pact sequence.


Nice length, long enough to have total scope and less ambiguity, long enough to fully violate strictures against revealing the mysteries.

Against Ruck and the Moderate Entheogenists, I barely focus on the plants themselves — it’s almost incidental; loosecog’s the thing but not even that; the thing is, what loosecog *shows* you – hint: it’s not plants, except the snaking vine of Dionysus, seeing which turns the king to stone.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

The Professor knew religion long ago young.

1960, 1973: Robert Graves writes 83 pages on mushrooms as the key to Greek myth and religious myth.

1975: Neil Peart writes Caress of Steel and 2112: “We have no need for ancient ways, it doesn’t fit the plan”

A snake shape is underneath your personal control thinking. Heimarmene brings your worldline to the krater, which makes you perceive heimarmene

Krater = mushroom
Snake = your unchangeable preset worldline out of your control that secretly steers you along your path through life through changeless spacetime. Is there change with respect to time, in a sense, yes; no: does a vein in a block of marble change? Does the curve of a function graph (eg sine) change? In a sense, yes; no.

Panther drinks krater under Triumph chariot of steersman Dionysus carrying passive Ariadne
Snake drinks krater under bull in tauroctony
Snake under chariot in other mythart

If snake under = worldline, so panther.

Panther = pet cat = chase/hunt/kill = Actaeon as hunter myth = worldline path = sacrificial labyrinth = (ego)death by Fatedness

Antiquity liked the = sign

The 1993 cat of Dionysus that yawned between my profound mental relaxation and the divine realization of my vulnerability to my uncontrollable source of thoughts was again with me– in another of its lives — last night or this morning when I posted my nonmetaphorical 300-word rebalanced and expanded-scope summary of the CTET.


Theory Architecture including shell interface. Idea of ‘core’ (nonmetaph sys theory vs ‘application’ (history/metaphor) needs refinement: the deep core doesnt chg since Jan 11 88 but I admit that more connections or indexings are added. Does my Core theory chg from 1988 1993 1997 2001 2007 2011?(see Dates thread & 93= vulnerability&trust–>my ascension day). In a sense, yes; no.

Dont underest metaph; mapping Core to it feels like dev’ing the Core not merely the interface layer out to the jungle of overgrown brands of mythic-relying myth-dressed religion– This is why u get ‘perfected’ in one Mysteries brand then go thru another & another. It was satisfying to deepen the grasp.

All Mysteries brands show exact same Core, *the* Wisdom, Transcendent Knowledge, but they provide such a diff iface, like diff Rock festivals. Even do initns w 1 hierophant of Mithm, then start again w a diff hieroph of Mithm in diff Mithraeum, produces diff experience despite all relig brands of Eso’m, 10 diff brands of housechurch protoXy, brands of Jewish initns, Secret Societies, etc


Play-hunt w cat: its path looks like heimarmene-shaped inevitable zigzag closing in on the prey is you. Panther = powerful scaledup cat, same shape of its hunting-path, = labyrinth to Minotaur.

DUNAMIS = POWER = KUBERNETES = TAUROS = DRAKO =
HEIMARMENE APOCALYPSE = LABYRINTHOS = FATUM = MUKES = EGO’

Minotaur = Mithraic bull = shoulder muscle = Bull = power domesticated under ctrl. = our ability to control power, = steer power = wield cybernetic power = steering-power.

Who Steers The Steersman??

Who steers the bull of personal control-steering power?
Mithras perceives that you are SOL-
steered and that underneath you is the snake-shaped worldline-path rails which you are secretly — LIKE A SNAKE HIDDEN IN A COVERED BASKET lid apocalyptically blown up via my college electric – forced to steer along, to forced willingness to ingesting the MUKES KRATER OF DESTINY: I AM SOL the invincible and my bull is going off the rails on a crazy train tracks inevitably destined for trainwreck shipwreck the serpent-swallowed Jonah warns but unless you turn repent sacrifice your claim to power of laying the tracks yourself


Minotaur = overpowered ctrl-power in our mind, perceived by the Nectar Ambrosia of us non-mortals that has the ingredients list:
M., U., K., E., S.

Graves’ wine-holes today though are thought of as feeding the immortals buried there with the brand new traditional recipe of 1956, to mix modern Ambrosia from the secret ingredients
M., Y., C., O.


Having been programmed by Professor Daedalus, I reveal I was always determined to engineer the magic
DIAMOND HAMMER OF INTERPRETATION
by reconfiguring this morning’s Max-Condensed Theory Spec as the infinitely dense hard core
Hammer of the Athanatos:

MYTHOS = KUBERNETES DUNAMIS KAI HEIMARMENE KAI MUKES


Copyright 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Snake under Michael: God has cybersteering control-power even over Heimarmene itself; our God is more powerful even than the Fates of the Demiurgic powers of this passing era

— MtA

Downfall of Pagan religion was its affirmation of heimarmene, this rescues my hated advocacy of heimarmene as heart of transcendent truth and revelation and the key to Antique religion. Xy (which is to say, Gnostic ultratranscendence) killed them by climbing over the head of the god of Fatedness. Luther Martin: Heimarmene was the Hellenistic religion and was used to excuse (Marcus Borg:) domination-hierarchy. Xy was all about superceding “Judaism” as proxy for Heimarmene-culture, w housechurch gospel of egalitarian interp of mycology and, transcending Heimarmene: task to construct Ptolemaic astral ascent mystic cosmgy by adding layers above serpent-wrapped fixed stars.

THE BIG ISSUES:
Heimarmene sucks power from demos to Caesar’s domination hierarchy. F heimarmene and F domination hierarchy and all pagan religion is ruined shot through with these: rid us of such “religio” of evil: we reject it and affirm the unknown God above demiurgic heimarmene and reject domination hierarchy for egalitarian democracy. HEIMARMENE IS POLITICAL


Copyright Michael. Rights over that revealed information are reserved.

One-foot limping king lost sandal
Person walks along fated hiemarmene-path by combined power of personal control power (impot/illus) and the veiled uncontrollable Source Of Control-Steering Thought. The worldline snake hidden in the basket is the god that secretly controls and steers and gives you your cybernetic steersman-agency power

My power to walk with my legs along my Fate-governed worldline is an asymmetical system of 2 components, 1 w pwr over the other.

Hokie pokie of John Rush’s Christ icons explained:

One foot that propels me along my worldline = personal ctrl pwr
One foot is the unctrlble Source of my Thots particly ctrl-thots


Copyright 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

WTF?! OMG what a POS video game, I can’t believe it– IT’S ON RAILS! I’m driving along on my ride, next to the vine yard, and then figured out that I was unable to turn either to the left or to the right. All the moves I make are given to me beyond my control, under the covers! What a disappointment: I assumed that this game would give me the freedom to move around freely through this virtual world. I want a better engineered game.

Contents:
Why the psyche is Female, receptacle, concave, womb.
Hellenism worshipped domination-power.
Why women created Christian Mystery Religion.
Why it was more popular than Pagan Religion.
Are Moderns the only ones who didn’t (until now) understand this “language”?

___________________________________

Why the psyche is Female, receptacle, concave, womb

Serpent = spear into body = heimarmene = uncontrollable source of your thoughts = phallus of God = inserter of thoughts = male = that which overpowers you.

Personal control agency = passive = concave = cave = hole in side = receptacle = cup = womb = krater = that which thoughts are inserted into = female = the you that is overpowered = wound in Mithras’ bull = bull bowl-oriented crescent moon = bowl-shaped horns.


All glory goes to Controller X, the unknowable, unseen, uncontrollable fountainhead of our thoughts, including our control-thoughts! The universal god worshipped is the phallic Fountain of Cybernetics which, when made perceptible by loose cognition, makes us pregnant with Transcendent Knowledge. A transcendent part of what I am is Controller X; I am Controller X.


The wound willingly permitted in Jesus’ side, made by Jupiter/Eagle/Caesar, is like our mind’s passive receiver of control-thoughts that are injected by God, and the seeing of that, particularly the mushroom-enabled perceiving of thoughts that are specifically about the source and foundation of self-control power, and personal control’s inability to control such thoughts, and how trying to test, judge, and resist thoughts, steer away from such thoughts, leads inevitably to self-control seizure, panic, loss of control, doom, disaster, defeat.

So this wounding, this testing, this perceived and understood penetration of God into our mental thought-source, results in the discarding of old ideas about personal control agency, and gaining new areas of thought about identity, agency, and control – as well as preservation and transformation of some aspects of control-thinking.

The mental model of control agency involves a subtract, add, and transform, in a Conceptual Revolution. The ego-killing wounding and invasive forced penetration also gives rise to new life, cleansing, regeneration, purification: Alchemy.


Mary, mother of Jesus, is you, rap’d in your mind’s cup, perceiving that you are receiving your control-thoughts from the finger of God, the Dove that’s a member of God’s body, that does the two-part impregnation of the divine new self-concept and transcendent-self awareness in your mind: the Dove is new perception ability in conjunction with the ever-ongoing insertion of thoughts into your mind upstream from your will; creating your will, injecting himself into your thought-receptacle whether you are willing or not, against your will, overpowering your will, as the very source of your will (given that your movements of will are themselves thoughts, or mental constructs, forced upon you, regardless of whether you are willing or unwilling).

The Dove as the moment of fertilizing climax, refers to not the always-the-case injecting of thoughts into you, but rather, the specific receiving of thoughts (understanding, idea, mental construct) specifically about the uncontrollable source of your control-power. The Dove is the ability to watch and perceive thoughts at their source in your mind, in conjunction with receiving the specific thoughts that demonstrate your helpless vulnerability and overpoweredness.

Jupiter sends down his Eagle to assault and rapeture you and kill you and humiliate you like a mere woman or slave, to mock and jeer your pathetic state, putting you in your place. It’s enough to give a woman pause: are we to respond to this by worship and praise? When the thereby-justified domination-hierarchy makes life hell for 90% of the population? What bizarre upside-down values are these?

If *this* is what “glorious” ‘religio’ and entheogenic banqueting must be taken to be about — as they asked again in 1630 — perhaps we’d have a very good chance of being better off without it. But we can give it one chance: it’s do or die for Hellenistic religion at this point: either you adapt to the demands and needs of the 90% on the bottom of the pyramid, or else, you die: we refuse to propagate the meme of “worship that which abuses you”.

The Last Chance for Hellenistic religion to redeem itself is to find a positive, healthy expression of altered-state revelation of noncontrol and heimarmene, and a vision of something better, higher than heimarmene, and use such a variant strain of Mystery Religion initiation and Banqueting to construct a just, humane, egalitarian arrangement of society.

Since Jews aren’t a domination hierarchy, and since they rebelled successfully for a moment against Roman Empire and since they refused to assimilate, we can commandeer and repurpose their resources for a Jewish-themed version of the Hellenistic uber-religion of Heimarmene-and-cyberpower worship, but with several mutations to render the religio meme acceptable:
o A loving god (JHVH, not Jupiter)
o A peaceful bird (Dove, not Eagle)
o A *suffering* god-given ruler (Jesus, not Caesar)
o A more positive coitus/coupling theme (love, not violent assault).


Socrates corrupting the youth: he taught them that the mind has a female cup that receives thoughts from the uncontrollable source of thoughts. That personal responsibility is illusory in a profound sense. That transcendent Heimarmene has absolute power over us. That sheer power, not moral agency, is real (in a profound sense). Did he also teach them that Heimarmene (-interpretation) is Political (which is the seed idea of Christianity)?


I don’t mean to overly equate our noncontrol with heimarmene, but never did two distinct ideas fit together so well, as to form the religion of the overpowering of personal control power by the uncontrollable source of thoughts, hand-in-hand with Heimarmene.

When I determined to crack the code of Mithraism, I didn’t expect to find a shocking worship of the idea of overpowering, a religious glorification of the sheer forceful aspect of cybernetic control power. “You dominate and overpower me, therefore of course my natural response, as anyone’s would be, is to worship you.” The idea goes perfectly against the direction of late-Modern era thinking, where domination and oppression and power are demonized.


My head officially exploded today, and I got it on tape, which I would like to transcribe and post, and upload as audio. My cup overfloweth: I am having too many good ideas too fast to post, so they are piling up on my voice recorder and text files. I have written valuable drafts I might overlook and not post. I’m the dumb jackpot winner watching the coins pile out in an endless torrent.


It is so obvious, these aspects of mystic mythic metaphor encoding, I am embarrassed that all those professors out there who figured this out but are afraid like Robert Graves and self-censor like he wrote that he did, to protect his sales.

Loudmouth ignoramuses who haven’t done their homework are loved by publishers and given every opportunity and encouragement to publish: Andy Letcher, I wave my finger at you, shameful failure of independent, sound thinking. But I also see why your shameful, harmful pseudo-scholarship was thereby rushed eagerly into print by the Prohibition-complicit publishing industry, and was able to deliver a few bits of helpful information to the world, lurking in your pile of superficial non-research.

Anyone who figures out truth is censored — coerced to censor themselves, and censored by the publishing industry. The truth is only permitted to slip through in metaphor encoding in Acid Rock lyrics. “Yes we know, it’s nothing new, it’s just a waste of time. It doesn’t fit the plan.” I am anything but the first person to figure out this metaphor.

Those of you ahead of me like Neil Peart in many ways, are not so much waiting in anticipation for me to inform them of this meaning I’m about to write — they already figured out the meaning (one may speculate and imagine). They are actually waiting for me to figure out the “kind of obvious and simple” truth which they already figured out, which every two-bit Esotericist and mystic understood until perhaps 1700.

It’s easier to state the brief period and fraction of culture where this was *not* common knowledge in Western history. In my paranoia, I fear I am the last one in history who hadn’t yet figured it out. I feel more like a dunce than a genius: I am the sharpest knife in a drawer of completely dull knives. This revelation I’ll tell you is only news to us, a few people in the late-Modern era. We are mystic-metaphorical dunces.

I was so smart, I figured out afresh, anew, from zero, with no help from the dunces around me, the decoding, which all other groups (I paranoiacally fear) quite evidently had an easy, full comprehension of. In this subject, we Moderns are complete imbeciles and fools, and the early Moderns are geniuses compared to us: even their pitchfork-armed farmers understood this. It was obvious to them. It was passed on to them.

I am the smartest person in the late-Modern era but I am embarrassed on all our behalf… and there might be many others who figured out this obvious metaphor-decoding in the past 100 years (the max-dark era regarding this subject). My achievement is towering yet embarrassingly modest compared to our previous culture, who routinely understood this. I have, however, explicitly expressed this knowledge.

It’s a great achievement, mitigated by our being tardy in cracking the code *and* writing about it publically rather than self-censoring.

Those who (perhaps) already figured this out are cheering not my *discovery* of the ideas, which they privately held already (one may wonder and suppose), but rather, my apt *expression* of the ideas — mapping non-metaphorical, precisely defined explanatory Theory components to metaphors, which are inherently an imperfect match; a metaphor says “A is partly isomorphic with B.”


Soldiers’ Mithraism was worship of overpowering. They made a religion of worshipping overpowering. The uncontrollable source of thoughts is revealed to have been injecting its payload into you your whole life, whether you are unaware of willing or unwilling. Before initiation, you couldn’t perceive that the phallus of God was being inserted into your cup in your mind, where God’s fountain comes into your mind. During initiation, you gained perception that the divine was inserting his finger into your cup.

Doubting Thomas wouldn’t Believe until he put his finger in the hole in the side. AT LAST!!! I HAVE FIGURED OUT THE SPEAR IN THE SIDE. Finally; Jesus! Duh! Countless jeer and laugh at me for being so tardy in figuring out what was obvious common knowledge. (Carl Ruck et al say it’s the center of the underside of an Amanita cap, as the target meaning — go laugh and jeer at their cluelessness, not mine!)

Rod = staff = thyrsus = phallus = Fate’s or God’s uncontrollable thought-injector imposed into the heart of our mind.

We are accustomed to thinking about ‘awareness’ in the mind, but we are less accustomed to thinking about the ‘source of thoughts’. Yet these two are complementary modules in the most elementary diagram of the mind and self-control. That’s one profitable mapping of the up/down torchbearers: the Up torch makes ‘awareness’ visible, and the Down torch makes the ‘source of thoughts’ visible (on the receiving, incoming side; not the ever-dark, ever-unperceivable side — the arm of JHVH is seen, but nothing else).

The cup, the receptacle, the hole, the cave, the female opening: is the veiled place in our personal control thinking, where thoughts originate; where the Trojan horse is delivered to, where the spear of heimarmene penetrates into us, where the uncontrollable source of thoughts is, inserting our control-thoughts into us.

The idea of heimarmene is supremely revered and useful and powerful because it emphasizes our cybernetic powerlessness, which is the goal of religion. Determinism is extremely popular, commonly found in some 15 fields (such as Philosophy, Theology, Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Science, and Analytical Philosophy). Yet determinism is despised.

Why is Determinism a controversial doctrine? Determinism is a huge affront to our claim to egoic power — and that’s what religion is all about: taking that claim down. We recoil and bristle against the doctrine of Determinism, like the n*ked guy apprehending the Red Star of overpowering Fatedness on the 2112 album.

God as uncontrollable thought source injecting himself into you, and heimarmene portraying you as a helpless puppet farcically pretending to move itself freely along its fixed track through spacetime, like a vein in a block of marble claiming that since it “changes” from one part of the block to another, it is now going to leap out of the marble and dance around and crown itself king.

The propositions of Heimarmene and noncontrol couldn’t possibly be any more offensive to the egoic claim to wield a certain profound conception of autonomous power.

Now my theory will tell all about heimarmene: why it was worshipped, why it is a powerful, overpowering idea, why it is despised, why Gnostics demonized it, why people engineered a way for religion to transcend heimarmene, why the religion that made that move, Gnosticism and Christianity, was popular and caused the unpopularity and collapse of the single religion of Hellenistic world, which was, the worship of heimarmene.

The Hellenistic uber-religion of Heimarmene-worship was disliked in Antiquity because it harshly mocked egoic power — it was Triumphalist over personal control power — and because it was abused to excuse domination-hierarchy as the social-political arrangement “given by the gods and revealed in the Mysteries”. As if what’s revealed in the mystic state is the gods-given, Fated-mandated domination hierarchy arrangement of society, per Roman Imperial Theology propaganda.

Jesus Mysteries asked “Were ancients happy with Mystery Religions?” That is a malformed question. The correct question is: “Which ancients were happy with Mystery Religions?” Answer: Top 10% of the domination hierarchy pyramid, not the bottom 90%.


It’s funny that as much as soldiers worshipped overpowering, they put on wedding dresses and considered themselves (or their normally perceptible mental self as control executor) to be female, in the religious department; the mind has a cup where its thoughts are inserted by the finger of Sol. The soldier’s higher, dominant — but not normally perceptible — self-identity was male, Sol, Mithras.


I continue to suspect that despite Modern scholar’s literalism, the Maenads are men and women, focusing on the mind as a passive receptacle of thoughts injected by the penetrative member of Dionysus, the uncontrollable, normally hidden, source of our thoughts, secret pilot and steersman of our souls, governor of the steering wheel which is us.

We thought we were driving the car, but it’s revealed to us now that ours is merely a toy steering wheel, as Dionysus proves to us by steering the car straight at a tree, the Angel of Death, despite our efforts to steer aside from the threat that inseminates Belief into us while we test the fact of the matter: as personal control agents, do we or do we not have practical useful control over the source of our thoughts? If not, can we trust Agent X, or JHVH, which is the unknown source of our thoughts? Do we have a choice? No.

Are we justified in trusting something we don’t know anything about except that it is the source of our thoughts we depend on? Yes; it got us here; it is the foundation of our own personal thinking, crazy but true; truth is stranger than fiction; it takes some ambitiously strange fiction to match the strangeness of the relationship of local egoic personal control agency and the Mystery of the uncontrollable and imperceptible source of our thoughts.

Is Heimarmene or the Fates trustworthy? Venerable? Worthy of worship? Worthy of marrying, of love, of affection? Ask Job.


Perhaps we should take a stance of distrust and take up arms in paranoia against the source of our own thoughts — good idea? Mind the self-control seizure.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.


— Controller X, via the Communicator


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

In the otherworld realm of mythic metaphor, Amanita is the undisputed King of the Fungi, even King of the Entheogens, but psil mshr are more effective, ergonomic, popular in mixed wine practical use. Metaphor is often visual, and Amanita is much more visual than psil. Recycling might apply to either. I consider Amanita to be mainly a representative of the actual use of psil. To show Aman in myth is to indicate the use of psil.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Entheogens are more precisely, relevantly, termed as Noncontrol-Revealers. The latter phrase speaks from POV of local personal control agency, which is to say, POV of the central processing executor, Sol’s consort Luna, the egoic mind (which is, during initiation, subtly and profoundly reformed/transformed/exorcised/purified).


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

I can further clarify the non-metaphorical Core theory to usefully define the mental model of thoughtsource/thotreceiver before/during after initiation. See summary in very recent post.

You are the creator. And you are a creature. As the creator, you control your mind’s source of thoughts. As a creature, you don’t control your mind’s source of thoughts. But better terms are needed for your transpersonal identity (it forces thoughts into the mind; it is “the phallus of God”), and your personal identity (it helplessly passively receives thoughts from God and executes them obediently, mechanically, automatically; it is “the consort of God”).


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

My Core theory needs fixed terminology that cleanly maps to these central primary myth-expressed referents/components, without “analogy leakage” as I’ve suffered today since the Great Collapse of the Incomprehension, the Great Falling of the Remaining Scales from my Eyes. My sight has been cleared fully, and I see that my core theory terminology and modularity, object design, design patterns, is not quite rising up to serving the purpose of mapping myth, now that the latter language is fully understood and decrypted, the code cracked. A bit of design refactoring is needed:

Break out clearly, discussion of mental models of personal control 1) before, during, and after initiation, specifically 2) in terms of “male” source of thoughts, and “female” receiving and executing thoughts using the reformed egoic sense of being a control-agent moving itself through spacetime under its own power. The concepts ‘egoic’ and ‘transcendent’ require too much (ie an unnecessary amount of) freeform verbiage to express these potentially cleanly cogently expressible ideas; in some sense, myth is more cogent than my 1997-era structuring of the Core theory.

This morning, I posted a summary of this “before/during/after” and “thoughtsource/thotreceiver” sequence. In short, the “refactoring” needed, is to fold these ideas back into the various main few topics of my Theory, enabling a more condensed, clear, powerful expression of my theory, similar to my “maxly condensed summary of the theory” I posted this morning, which I’m pleased with, and does have these new handles, this new object-design refactoring into before/during/after,

Now that I have a crystal clear grasp of the helpful useful tangible vivid metaphors, I’m seeing some weakness, some terminology holes, some needed concept-handles/names, that are better… that are non-metaphorical, that are unambiguous, and …

Now I myself need a glossary for myself, and diagrams, to finalize better terminology, that makes the core theory clearer and more systematically expressed/mapped/described in a way that enables terser, less ambig, more precise, *routine* terminology/communication — to ensure we are all on the same page, to disambiguate, and, to make it easier to map to the wise metphor mythemes we inherited, for greater and more efficient, compact, unambiguous explanatory power: Paul Thagard’s Pri3 criter for good theory: it must map to previous theories.

Pri1: conceptual coherence: the Core was finished, *in a sense*, the mmoment I created it 1/11/88. But, generally along the lines of Thagard, the Core still needed deepening and what I’m fiding undeniably is… until now, I used to think that I developed the Core, locked it down upon uploading to PrinCyb ~1/1/97, and then I added sep. extension covering the mapping to history&metaphor.

In mapping myth to the Core theory, I discovered that the *expression* of the core, the *format* of it, has room for improvement — *not* that I’m revising the actual axioms or content that define the core; but, that I’m changing, improving substantially, the *expression* or “embodiment” of the core — the word “packaging”, I long used, gives too superficial an impression. Myths are quite good at talking about the most interesting ideas, though not explicitly; in some cases, the referents of mythemes are more relevant than the nearest-equivalent concepts in my 1997 Core theory or 2005 theory-specification of the Core + metaphor-extension.

“Packaging” the core can deeply affect the wording I use to express the axioms, the terminology usage, the phrases, and eg I had as fundamental terms, or concept-bag handles, “egoic” and “transcendent”, but I ended up overloading those to the point where I myself hardly know what those terms are supposed to mean anymore. They are ancient going back to year 1, 1986, if not Year 0, 1985.

‘egoic’ used to mean “deluded about control; having self-frustrating, ineffective self-control”
‘transcendent’ used to mean “enlightened about control; having non-self-frustrating control”

That’s a problematic and simplistic target scheme. ‘egoic’ and ‘transcendent’ meant alot before the Core discovery of 1/88. And I got much mileage out of them through the end of the Core work in 1997, and through the end of the History/Metaphor extension in 2007.

But with my latest, total breakthrough of metaphor that was enabled by the Nuke of radical maximal extremist fundamentalist purist hard-core dogmatic commitment to the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation (myth describes heimarmene, cybernetics-power, and mshr; mythos = heimarmene, kubernetes dunamis, kai mukes), by becoming infinitely narrow-minded, I fully deciphered and learned the native language of myth, and tranalated and read it at lenght.

I found that my language terminology was inadequate, ie wasn’t tuned and divided well enough, fittingly enough, to smash and reduce all myth cleanly into my own conceptual framework’s conceptual slots.

Translating myth to non-metaphor scientific systems theory, domain-specific style of explanatory conceptual framework, taught me how to be a better myth-free, non-metaphorical theorist, as if defining a better universal virtual-machine language to which all programming languages can be translated. Every breakthrough in mapping myth reflects back causing some improvement refactoring of the Core theory to provide a superior direct way of expressing what the myths are very relevantly describing. The Poet has some advantages over the Theorist, tho v.v.

Just as it doesn’t occur to other writers to even *consider* heimarmene and cybernetics as the ultimate master referent of myth, and many would never even *think* of mshr as a key role for myth, either; similarly, a modern determinist or systems theorist, it might not even occur to them to arrange their model in a way that well matches the male and female conjoinment and distinction, though in practice, during initiation, such a modelling-choice, a design-choice of expression of dynamics of thinking and control in the mind, turns out to be a more powerful design than the modern non-metaphorical theorist would think of – tho note the common use of ‘male’ and ‘female’ in plugs and sockets for vine-shaped wires carrying information, thoughts.

Playing my occult album DoaM, I put the needle in the groove, and heard metaphors unfold profundity, freedom problematized, control lost, becoming no one. It behooves the metaphor-free theorist to follow the lead of metaphors, and design his non-metaphor model and terminology such that they map well to metaphor, because that metaphor was freely chosen in the jungle of overgrowth, to convey the most pregnant, suggestive, *relevant* experiences. Thus I gain the best of both worlds: the best referent ideas and best implicit models from mythic metaphor, and, the most optimally designed non-metaphor explicit model.

By adjusting, reconfiguring, the non-metaphor-origated, engineering-originated model, for ease of mapping ot metaphor, the nonmetaphor model gains the best fruit, the best underlying referent ideas, from the Great Wise myth-spinners. Do not underestimate the power of metaphor, even as the ultimate non-metaphor, explicit Theory surpasses them.


I never thought that the core theory’s “inner packaging” would need to benefit by being taught by the analogy-leakage jungle of mythic metaphor, but some of the target components that are meant by mythemes are not wrapped suitably, not encapsulated… I find that the analogy-leakage jungle of mythic metaphor is requiring me to improve the, refactor my code, refactor my core theory! Not changing my axioms; that is, not correcting errors, but improving the arrangement, just like Newton and Liebniz both invented “the calculus” but Newton’s expression of it — the “inner packaging” (you can’t call it the mere “surface”, the mere API…)

You can have a code base that works, that’s not broken, and yet that needs improvement for increased practical power. I always thought that “packaging” the Theory was “mere surface styling”, but that idea of a separate core and surface expression seems misleading: what’s needed is more like a deeper refactoring. My Theory is a tremendous success… but there’s room for improvement in the structuring within it. There Comes A Time when a code base calls out for refactoring.

I’m in the position as if Liebniz created his calculus, then improved the arrangement of it, the internal expression of it, to produce Newton’s superior configuration of the same technology — the two presentations, arrangements, are mathetically equivalent, yet Newton’s is more useful and thus *practically* has greater power, in a sense. Newton’s is not truer than Liebniz, and in a sense they have the same explanatory power, but in a practical, applied sense, and in terms of visualization and comprehensibility, Newton’s arrangement of the calculus is more powerful, and elegant, than Liebniz’s.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Prometheus is a Titan — an experienced, very knowledgabel initiate on brink of enl.

He stole fire (Ambrosia recipe M., U., K., E., S.) from the gods [mshr]

The ambrosia made him immortal [no further ego-death after series of initiations completed]

As punishment, he was chained, bound to the rock [embedded in the frozen spacetime block] forever [sense of timelessness].

Purpose: to bring Ambrosia and its resulting athantos (non-dying) to mankind.

The eagle of Zeus ate his liver every day. Beak into wound = God’s phall inserted into mind’s receptacle to insert our thoughts, as the usually non-perceivable (veiled, lid-covered) source of our thoughts, particularly our control-thoughts, inserted into our personal control functioning (local, personal, executor functioning; central processing unit, control unit).

Heracles/Hercules kills the eagle and frees Prometheus.

Liver is the organ of heimarmene, prediction, will; the ancient equivalent of modern “in my heart & soul”.

Prometheus challenged Zeus’ omnipotence

During a sacrificial meal [mshr, egodeath] marking the “settling of accounts” between mortals [not ego-died via mukes yet] and immortals [those who underst TK/metaph/egodeath], Prometheus played a trick against Zeus, making it only *look* like the best part of the sacrificed animal is given to the gods [sacrif = egodeath, discarding seizure-inducing false claim by personal executor functioning, a claim to power over our source of thoughts], but the worthless portion was given to the gods instead [the useless, confused portion of deluded egoic freewill thinking].

That angered Zeus, which is the whole reason why fire [mukes, Ambrosia of egodeath/rebirth] was hidden from man in the first place (cmp JHVH kicking Adam/Eve out of paradise, requiring mycojesus to give mycoblood of non-dying back to us).


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

If you answer wrong you die? If you answer successfully you die, egodeath.

Figuratively, the Q is “What walks 4, 2, 3 legs: baby adult elder”

But a truer metaphor q is: “What walks on 4, 2, then 1 1/2 legs?” A: The initiate, who walks themselves propelling themselves along their worldvine-path by using the transcendent control-power forced upon them (the male component of the psyche: source/giver of thoughts into mind; wand; phall; lingham), and their ego-dead executor functioning (the female component of the psyche: receiver/receptacle and processor of thoughts; cup; yoni).


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

If you drink the blended mixture in this recipe, it will make you immortal:

Mercury, Umbrella, Schlitz, Heineken, Rust, Ontology, Oboe, Manikin

Our youthful self = our child = our son, is our initial self-concept as pseudo-autonomous, pseudo-independent control-agency, able to steer the future and our thoughts one way or the other.
During initiation, that self-concept is repudiated and judged by testing and trial to be false.

We cast out and repudiate that self-concept in order to take into account our executive agency’s inability to control the source of its thoughts, particularly including control-thoughts.

The symbol of Jesus represents each person’s (each man’s) youthful self-concept, or son who is destined and identified for sacrifice. The pre-initiation youth-self of any man, the ‘son’ of each person.


eternal life = imperishable, a-thanatos, non-mortal, not subject to ego-death.

forgiveness/cancellations of sins: Heimarmene cancels moral culpability. (heim = double-predestination, fatedness, determinism, preexisting or preset block universe).

You die the egodeath, and thereby become non-dying, immortal. Gain non-dying life by dying. Every noninitite is accursed, destined to be punished by death, for their moral sin, their moral sin, of thinking of themselves as an autonomous moral agent. You are guilty of having the audacity to think of yourself as a morally culpable and therefore power-wielding freewill agent; you are punished for your guiltiness by being bound to spacetime and killed by ego-death; doing so purifies you of your error and pollution and guilt, and you gain non-dying, everlasting life, imperishability.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Describe the exact seizure thoughts coming from the lit-up fountain. block univ diagr showing worldline thread, provide sep zoom diagrams of before, during, after initn-seq.

convention: discuss “initiation” as if a single 6-hour session is sufficient, rather than seq for deepening.

torch = light-up, lit-up

The temple of Mithras is a cave, containing a fountain. Sol is the creator of the world. Mithras is associated with the sign of Aries and the planet Mars (male; unseen uncontrollable-by-executor thoughts-source). The bull is associated with Venus (female; thoughts-receptacle; command-instructions receptacle).


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

At the end of time (which is today, November 22, 2011), all mysteries are unveiled, all wisdom is revealed.


The entire language of myth has fully opened, more than in 2001-2007 — continuing same vein as 2007, but I only had a view through the crack then, now it’s blown all the way open — the turning point was when I got radicalized in reaction to Rinella’s taking the moderate enthoegen theory too far to conversative, and he raised question of the political downsides of mshr mysteries, that harmed the demos.

Actually, the contention in Athens was about the political downside & abuse of the revealed secret of non-kubernetes, and Heimarmene-dunamis, actually, more specifically than Rinella’s too-vague “mshr use”.

I told-off the entheogenist for being weak-minded and complicit in Prohibition, in the bunk story the Establishment is coercing their weak, compromised minds into caving into. We must think as an independent press! Quit giving an *inch* to the Establishment! Do the radical opposite of the view they advocate. Purely and totally ignore them. Refuse to be the slightest bit influence by the Establishment view, that creeps and infests the minds of the purportedly leading-edge scholars. Weed out that confused, inquisitional thinking from your mind.

Be a pure, unchained, radical, independent thinker: follow venerable manly Edwin Johnson: per Robert Price: How tragic; we can no longer take the received views for granted; we have to actually think, now.

Set up an echo chamber — that’s how I achieved my great breakthrough Sep-Nov 2011: by making my thinking as simple and purely extreme as possible, hammering repeatedly in my echo chamber, screaming louder to drown out the voices of the Establishment contaminating my thinking, covertly inserted into my brain by remote control — and, chillingly, taking over Ruck’s brain, too, making him part of the Establishment Borg, so that we get the most sinister: revolutionary rebellion co-opted by the Establishment, complicit, coerced.

The Establishment has infiltrated the minds of Rinella and Ruck, to corrupt their would-be “alternative” views. Mother Jones has been bought out by Mega News Corp. Books by Andy Letcher rushed out by big-name Establishment presses, making loud-sounding arguments about nothing in particular, a shell game, in which we nod our heads in dizzied consent that this constitutes an argument:

“The mshr on the ch door is evidence that there’s no hidden mshr in Christian art. Therefore I have shown there’s no evid for mshr in relig, such use is late 20th C only.”

Yes Letcher your logic is dizzying, I give in! You are right (in your theory and position, whatever it is, that shifts on every other page, as needed, to give the right surface impression of something having been proved). Any other views, all of them are wrong, whatever they are. His book has all the logical structure of a pile of oatmeal.

I haven’t seen argumentation with that level of soundness since I tore Wasson to shreds leaving nothing standing, regarding Plaincourault and related proxy issue of the supposed nonuse of mshr throughout Xn history, in Our religion. When Hoffman was done with the temple of Wasson, not one stone was left standing on the other. Not to mention contributions from Irvin and Letcher toward same. Wasson is forced to start from scratch with a *genuine* investigation of these Christian history questions this time.

Ruck does well so far as he goes, in sticking to his guns even more, when the Establishment-hypnotized know-nothings say “Ruck can’t be right, because he sees mushrooms all throughout myth.” That’s the same argument as I totally demolished from Wasson/Panofsky: “Plaincourault fresco cannot be mshr, b/c there are hundreds of what the art historians call ‘mshr trees’ known in art.”

That’s a kind of begging the question; of assuming that which is to be proved, with the superficial air, tone, and style of writing that tries to covertly mask-over that bunk move (Wasson/Panofsky *assumes* as an uncrit presupp that m-trees can’t repr msh, and then uses that assumpt *as if a concl of considered thinking*, to argue that this Plainc instance must “therefore” not repr mshr. Just slather-on proving-sounding, argumentation-sounding, logic-sounding words, on top of a total non-argument.

To boot, in addn, Wasson puts forth a crass brazen Argument From Authority: “The art authorities are familiar with these m-trees and they know that these m-trees don’t repr msh.” That statement *is* the argument; there is no reasoned argument behind, under, prior to, supporting that statement; we are supposed to gullibly *imagine* such. How weak are our minds?!

Such was my hue & cry leading to my great complete breakthrough: the collapse and fall of the Myth Empire by the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation (“myth means cyb, heim, & mshr”). I suppose I got good at myth interp as cyb/heim/mshr by 2007 (proved by posts & main artic) — but this lang interp skill is a matter of degree of fluency, and I got way more fluent, literate, skilled, clear on the grammar of myth, along w/ tightening my theory-interp/technique a la defining tinier, denser, simpler, more rigid and hard-*ssed, toughened, more firmly *committed*, zealous, …

I am known on the Web as “the Enth Fundamenist”, take that to heart, own that, yes, we need to rise up to be that! We must quit failing to be fundamentalists, radicals, purists, extremists — then we can as I have now fully proved break through into coherence and truth and remove the worm of Establishment programming, virus contaminating our thoughts, programmed by the Demiurge and his rulers of this passing age. Diamond Hammer of Interp: mythos = kubernetes’, heimarmene dunamis, kai mukes. Including narrowing vague “enth’s/psyched’s” to “mshr, which make the mind perceive the unctrlbl [by executor mind] src of thots”.

The God part of the brain, the unknown Controller X, *can* control my thoughts (directly or as creator/programmer of my frozen worldine instruction-thread), but me/mind as local executor, control unit, cannot, can only *receive* and mechanically *read and process* the command-instructions that Controller X, via his Heimarmene-vine instruction-thread, forcibly injects and transmits into my mind, thus remotely controlling my thoughts, making me will to do things, by “his” command.

I am Controller X, and so I control and program everything that happens in the world; Controller X is me; I am transpersonal (you are deluded and crazy). I thus insert my own commands into my mind, forcing myself to will things, indepdendently of my will. I am the executor, the helpless reactive mechanical vessel who God forces command-thoughts into. I am Sol, the totally overpowering Programmer, the source of all of everyone’s thoughts.

I am Luna, the Executor, in whom Sol inserts thoughts. I am Mithras, who is forced to perceive the fountain gushing fecund thoughts into the loosened mind. I am the bull, discarded, dualistic, egoic thinking, and I control the power of freewill. I am the serpent of hiemarmene, inevitably led to drink the mshr blood from the receptive vessel forcefully filled with transcendent thoughts, that is neither bone, nor metal, nor wood. I am a program er. Metaprogramming is forced upon the steersman, who is made, his will is coerced and turned against itself, by entities he is forced to believe in.


I am Controller X: I force my control-thoughts into my mind against its will, coercing the will, injecting my payload of control-overriding software into the helpless obedient vessel executor control unit, weak, obedient, female telepresence hardware dancing at my remote command.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Map Core theory to Sol/Luna, male/female, and to cog sci and comp sci. Does Core theory per 97 explicitly or equivalently have concept of mind’s v; cup; place in diagram where cmd-thoughts are recvd? What’s the closest to that conceptual arrangement/internal packaging, within the Core theory?

mshr loosen cognitive functioning and makes the mind perceive thoughts arising independently from personal control power that the personal mind wields. This is like a fountain in a cave, where a person lives, as a control agent, but a control agent that has no freedom, is sheerly a reactive mechanism, and receives commands, like a program receives machine-language instructions from the call stack or stored program and deterministically, as a network of latching switches (relays), is made to execute the instructions.

The instructions that are imposed into the mind (into the executive subsystem) are laid out along the worldline-path suspended and embedded in changeless spacetime.


The really existing higher you. The commander — or, the sequence of instructions/commands, laid out along the worldline path by a mysterious programmer/creator.
The really existing lower, executive, local, personal control agency cognition, subjectively vividly always experienced as “myself, the controller-agent”.

strong = thotsource thotsrc
weak = executor, local persctrl executor, slave of the commands, just as a computer or robot is a slave controlled by its programming, or a
better:
a remote-controlled robot, telepresence?

worldline = source of thoughts, in that they… like a program is the source of thoughts, but a programmer wrote the program. Who wrote the program? Is the stored program … there is a stored program laid along your worldvine-path. Where did it come from? Who or what wrote it? the demiurge programmed your , or set in place, your instructions on your *thread*.


Acronym Glossary:
transcendent knowledge (TK)
cybernetic theory of ego transcendence (CTET)
egoic (e’c)
transcendent (t’t )


cybernetic TK concept computer architecture/robotics term
————————— ——————————————–
personal control = processing unit; control unit, Luna = control unit = hardware
heimarmene = thread; stored program instructions controlling hw/registers
unctrlbl src of thots = call stack; stored program instructions
Controller X = programmer

“analogy leakage”: A is in some ways like B, in some not (<– analogy leak)

A given idiom in Objective C programming lang is in some ways like C#, in some not.

Luna = control unit = hardware
Sol = program, by programmer (demiurge, in strictly heim system) = software

Ironic — we’d think hardware = male, software = female. But the software controls what the hardware is made (forced) to do.

include terms from Body Electric and last trk of Mvg Pics. Moving Pictures is popular but the orig moving picture is tree/river/rocks on back of CoS.

worldline = cassette tape
block univ = record
minotaur = repeating loop at center of “Bike” and Sgt Pep side b.

Metaphor from my 1987 & Rucker’s 4D — integrate into various topics: film strip. imagine an instructions/cmd seq along the filmstrip. frames. frame[t] of worldline contains instruction[t] or (schiz) command[t]. The command at [t]; the thot (particularly the control-thought) that arises in one’s mind, at time t.

heim snake under bull in Tauroctony, or under a chariot, = command thread worldline in spacetime block. worldline of the command thread. vine = sequence of command-thoughts in spacetime.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

mytheme “The Trial” (cmp Saturnalia, ancient novellas)
judging whether we have the ability to ctrl thots
judging the truth of heim

worldthread path

thread/line/snake/path/course/river/vein/wire/cable/[Greek square meander] winding snaking meander

bull’s tail ends in wheat [explain per Hammer. cmp snake (or heim-panther) leading to krater], tail is heimarmene-shaped. “the worldline, not you, is what brought you to the mshr / to the new birth per transformed self-concept”

heimarmene path (worldvine in the marble-block universe) worldvein worldline vein/path/vine/snake/meander/course/river/sinew


my chg of project 1/88 (was “get ctrl”, then was “writeup the revelation of new conception of ego t’c cmp to eg JTP Journal Trasnper Psy’s conception of e t’c”: going into laby, one goal (get ctrl); coming out, enl re nonctrl. That brkthru-that-spun-my-goal-itself-around — that deflection-vector, is classic, characteristic.

Project of hunting for ctrl, see the gdss, hunt conception/goal/objective gets wholly reconfigured.

2nd-order (indirect) metaphor: wine = thoughts. ie wine in concave krater bowl is shaped like the payload of thoughts that come into the mind like sparks thrown off by a sparkler.
Does a goddess couple w/ a mortal to produce a hybrid child in her womb? Isn’t it always the male gods pene a mortal woman, so that a divine child is conceived in her womb?

bladder = womb re: recy aman (Diony’s 2nd birth after titans tore him to pieces and consumed him [check myth, Graves])

Diony’s mortal mother Semele died upon “embrace” (intcs) w/ Zeus

late modern era definition: Starting in 1983, universities no longer taught Grk, Latin, classics, Greek and Roman culture, Roman Empire. In 1987, it was harder than ever before in history, to figure out TK/CTET; there was 0 passing-on of the key to interpreting mythic-metaphor. But I did have 100% of the resources native to 1987, every possible support, tool, supportiveness, opportunity, of modern content, not classics (that wasn’t encouraged at all).

Had non-metaphorical self-help & transpers psy & zen & hum pot mvmt. Thus truly my CTET = truly new, fresh, original, independent dispensation of TK given to man, *native to* late-Modern era, pure, the “racial purity” of derivation of 1987 CTET (breakthrough & inspiration on 1/11/88 but heavy liting in 1987 esp my fresh stylistic MCP-based restart in 4/87 thus approx 4/15/87-1/11/88 was the heart of the period in which my Theory, the CTET, was created; the core style of CTET, if any, is purely natively based in leadingedge style of 1987.

If Core is dated, smells of 1987 ivy league private but no-longer-classical university, a univ that’s abandoned classical-ism, cancelled the Classics dept/college, built Engr bldgs/dept/college instead. “It came from Engineering” (& self-help/hum pot/transper psy/zen) *not* from Classics tho i had a bit of familiarity with going to jsh temple and non-icon’ic, Amer-born, NT-only liturgic, Xy (a denom that rejects “Protes” label as much as “Cath”) — and other brands of typical Xy (not Cath/Anglic) of 1970s/80s.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

What item in Tauroc does up torch illum? What top-level topic does that map to in Core theory?
Sol (& Luna). nonctrl or esp, source of thoughts

What in Taur needs no torch? What top-level topic does that map to in Core theory?
Bull. Middle level. ctrl-loss

What item in Tauroc does down torch illum? What top-level topic does that map to in Core theory?
Snake. worldline; heimarmene; block universe.


See 3-level taurocs.

Top Layer/Level (above the mind)
Sol (really existing giver/source of thoughts) and Luna (really existing executor) are in top layer outside the cave curve ceiling.

Middle Layer/Level (the mind)
Awareness (Mithras’ looking), bull, and dog (faithfulness/trust/loyalty/obedient dependence) are in middle.

Lower Layer/Level (underlying the mind)
snake, sometimes leading to mshr krater cup/receptacle, or = to that, up to blood of bull which comes from krater woumd (cmp monk collecting jesus’ spear-wound blood into cup: there, direct connection is made between wound & cup thus wound & krater, womb = tomb = wound; m-wine = spear = blood).

Holy Grail = womb = the thot-receiver (receptacle/vessel/womb) component of the personal control system in the mind = mshr. in grail is liq is spm is thot inserted by Gd or by the program instruction sequence programmed by Gd.


Mithraism some tauroctonys show:
one torch flame held up above cave ceiling, lighting-up (making us perceive) Sol, the uncontrollable injector of command-thoughts into the mind, as a control-thought-stream ray; and
the other torch held down below the bull, lighting-up (making us perceive) the hiemarmene-snake underneath us — the hidden, vine-shaped rail that we are steered and forced along like in a haunted house carnival ride, or the branch-path a squirrel follows from the trunck to the branch the squirrel ends up at, or like a snake winding up a tree.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.