Egodeath Yahoo Group – Digest 170: 2016-09-18

Mushrooms vs. Meditation, getting the relationship right

Mushrooms vs. Meditation — getting the relationship right, unlike everything written in Zig Zag Zen, which is entrenched unconsciously in the assumption-set of the *Moderate* Psychedelic Theory of Religion and Culture.

The Moderate psychedelic theory of religion assumes that normal religion is non-psychedelic, and that deviant religion (religion+, enhanced religion; religion with something alien added) is psychedelic.

Abbreviations:
the Maximal psychedelic theory =
the Maximal psychedelic theory of religion and culture

the Moderate psychedelic theory =
the Moderate psychedelic theory of religion and culture

As an alternative to the divide-into-3 approach of “minimal/moderate/maximal”, it is helpful to divide into simply 2: minimal/moderate, on the one side, and maximal, on the other. Two options: diminish psychedelics (old terminology: the entheogen diminishment fallacies; implied new terminology would then be:

the psychedelics diminishment fallacies.

There is no question about it: certainly having available the term ‘entheogen’ enables more abbreviated, efficient writing THAT MIGHT TRULY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THEORIZING.

Having separate words ‘psychedelics’ and ‘entheogens’ might be dictated by the target domain being accurately modeled. Even if the chorus of demon-possessed “entheogen advocates” are now agreeing among their band of demon-scholars that they are going to push Ott off a cliff and steal his angels’ dictionary and rewrite it to insert demon-worship in the angels’ dictionary — they have agreed to mean, among themselves, when they say ‘entheogen’, they now really mean “nondrug meditation considered historically normal as per the Minimal/Moderate entheogen theory.

There is little difference between the Minimal and Moderate theories of {psychedelics in religious history}. There is great difference, which I am focusing on modelling, between the Moderate vs. Maximal theories. My fight is against, all at once, the Minimal & Moderate theories. They make the same mistakes, regardless of whether they adhere to the Minimal or Moderate views. It is not necessary to differentiate:
contrast Minimal vs. Maximal
contrast Moderate vs. Maximal

It is totally sufficient to differentiate:
contrast Minimal/Moderate vs. Maximal.

thus we can leverage powerful:

high/low. = eso/exo.

high = the Maximal Psychedelic Theory of Religion and Culture
low = the Minimal and/or Moderate Psychedelic Theory of Religion and Culture

This loses a little precision, and gains much clarity and theory power, a substantial net gain in Thagard units. I am feeling that the work of differentiating Minimal vs. Moderate is weakening the Theory, the clarity. I am standardizing on inserting my outdated ideas into a new framework prioritizing the high/low distinction.

There are 2 kinds of people, because there are 2 modes of thinking.

In the low mode of thinking, scholars assert either the Minimal or Moderate psychedelic theory of religion and culture.

The word ‘entheogen’ feels clearer than ‘psychedelic’, there, despite the demons’ shenanigans by Jesse Dunstad Hanegraaff, of falsely including meditation and the infinite list of placebo/avoidance techniques in the word ‘entheogens’:

In the low mode of thinking, scholars assert either the Minimal or Moderate entheogen theory of religion and culture.


Define every idea or domain in terms of the two ways of thinking, high vs. low.

This provides the ideal basis for criticizing and analyzing poor thinking vs. superior thinking.

According to the exoteric view:
meditation (silently assumed nondrug) is the authority, the point of reference
mushrooms added, is a deviation, or an enhancement added to the normal genuine meditation, which is nondrug

According to the esoteric view:
mushrooms are the authority point of reference
meditation can be added to that, and can be done without the mushroom state, but meditation doesn’t trigger loose cognitive binding and widespread mental transformation.


According to the exoteric view:
Meditation, with Mushrooms added

According to the esoteric view:
Nondrug meditation is Meditation done outside the Mushroom cognitive state.
Mushrooms, with Meditation added


‘cognitive’ vs. ‘mental’: not simply synonyms, nor is ‘cognitive’ merely posturing scientism-speak for ‘mental’. mental construct processing, is not same as analyzing the mind and experiencing in terms of “thinking”.

My concept of mental construct processing (from 4/87) is designed to cover not only thinking, but everythink in awareness.

‘entheogens’ vs. ‘psychedelics’.

The story of reality according to the exoteric view:

The story of reality according to the esoteric view:

‘exo’ means outer. ‘eso’ means inner.

There is nothing special about the labels ‘exo’ and ‘eso’, and there must be better terms; these terms come from outside the Egodeath theory.

When did I first start emphasizing as an organizing scheme, “the two ways of thinking”?

Since 1986: egoic thinking vs. transcendent thinking.

That naturally later around 2000 mapped onto Freke & Gandy’s The Jesus Mysteries’ use of ‘exoteric’ vs. ‘esoteric’, which pointed back to Pagels’ use of ‘Orthodox vs. Gnostic’.

egoic thinking ~= exoteric ~= Orthodox
transcendent thinking ~= esoteric ~= Gnostic

I picked recently the characterizing contrast “high vs. low” instead of “inner vs. outer”, because I wanted to more clearly disparage the “regular” nondrug version of each field, and more clearly “elevate” ie advocate, the psychedelic version of each field.

When I write “psychedelic”, I generally don’t mean a surface styling, but far more hardcore I mean thoroughly based in the cognitive (experiential + mental) state that specifically and literally results from ingesting psychedelic drug chemicals such as acid and shrooms.

Each field has its low and high version.

Each topic has two versions:
genuine/real/authentic/durable/ high/invincible/source
vs.
pseudo/ersatz/fake/imitation/ counterfeit/vulnerable/low/ inauthentic/bunk/derivative

Each topic has its low and high understanding.

Each topic has its nondrug conceptualization and its psilocybin-based conceptualization. low = nondrug (non-psychedelics informed).

high = informed by intense psychotomimetic psychedelic drug chemicals (psilocybin and LSD), which is how the the intense mystic altered state is induced throughout our religion’s history.

“real vs. pseudo” is useful.
real/eso/high/psychedelic
pseudo/exo/low/nonpsychedelic

Instead of speaking in euphemisms and downplaying — as I did 1988-1997 — the drug aspect, I maximally emphatically emphasize and highlight chemicals, the strictly chemical-ingestion basis of our religion, of esotericism, of accessing the intense mystic altered state.

For those who try to downplay and turn away from this the source of the mystic state, that the source of the mystic state is not something other than psychoactive drug chemicals, I am forcefully blocking that escape with maximum forcefulness, maximum emphasis.

THIS IS THE METAL WAY: Don’t try to turn down the forcefulness; *turn up* the forcefulness. Crank the amp to 11.

I destroy adherence to low Christianity, and I make available high Christianity.

I destroy adherence to low religion, and make available high Religion.

I destroy adherence to low science, and make available high Science.

By igniting as mushroid the Eucharist and mixed wine throughout Christian and Greek culture, I am not destroying religion, science, academia, I am killing adherence to low religion, low science, low academia, and making available high religion, high science, high academia.


DOMAIN DYNAMICS

A long-term historical unclarity is what was my 1987 understanding of my idea of Domain Dynamics?

The idea of Domain Dynamics was a sizeable part of my April 1987 breakthrough in idea development technique.

The major parts of my breakthrough April 1987 idea development technique:

mental construct processing
acronyms
domain dynamics

The idea of Domain Dynamics didn’t play an explicit central part in my history of idea development.

Meditation (with Mushrooms added)

It’s not that there’s meditation, and then there’s meditation enhanced by psilocybin.

Rather, there is pseudo-meditation, and then there’s actual normal real meditation, which is *not* meditation with psilocybin added, but rather, tripping on psilocybin, with meditation added as an activity to do while in the psilocybin loose cognitive association binding state.

Meditation is an activity to do while in the psilocybin-induced loosecog state.
Not adding psilocybin to meditation; rather, adding meditation to psilocybin.

Meditation with Psilocybin added
Psilocybin with Meditation added

Delusion about strict critical historiography says:
There was meditation, and
sometimes Mushrooms were added to Meditation.

Enlightenment about strict critical historiography says:
There was use of Mushrooms, and
sometimes Meditation was done during Mushrooms.
Meditation was sometimes done without the Mushrooms that gave rise to the activity of Meditation.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

‘contemplation’ (vs. ‘meditation’) is correct term for *Western* bullsh-t ersatz substitute inauthentic pseudo-religion.

Typo correction, per nonsense spewed by confabulations of the Western Esotericism writers, since I’m destroying exoteric esotericism to make available esoteric esotericism, I’m supposed to write ‘contemplation’ as a euphemism for ‘meditation’.

In everything I ever posted about Western Esotericism, change ‘meditation’ to ‘contemplation’.

Per the principle of Parity of Eastern bulsh*t pseudo-religion and Western bullsh*t pseudo-religion.

Bullsh*t = low/exoteric/apologist/Western priest scandals/ Eastern priest scandals

authentic = high/esoteric/psychedelic = Maximal psychedelic theory of religion
inauthentic = low/exoteric/nondrug (nonpsychedelic) = Minimal and Moderate psychedelic theories of religion

Crooks, priests, gurus, scandals, it’s all the same sh-t, the same low, ersatz, substitute, egoic, Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, Minimal/Moderate Psychedelic Theory of Religion and Culture.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

The Minimal vs. Maximal psychedelic models of religion

The Minimal vs. Maximal psychedelic models of religion and culture

Not developed in this post, but suggested by the clearer pattern I’ve gained:
the Meditation vs. Mushroom models of religion
the Meditation vs. Mushroom models of religion and culture

the Exoteric vs. Esoteric models of religion
the Low vs. High models of religion

Terminology for refactoring “Minimal/Moderate/Maximal psychedelic theories of religion” into a simple contrast-pair:

the Minimal psychedelic model of religion
the Maximal psychedelic model of religion

The distinction between Minimal vs. Moderate (psychedelic theories of religion) wasn’t pulling its weight.

There is negligible difference between “Minimal” vs. “Moderate”; the two are hard to differentiate, producing little gain in explanatory power.

The mind begins with the worldmodel Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism worldmodel, including the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.

The mind then goes through a series of mushroom sessions (with redosing in each session), which is not instantaneous.


From age 0 to 16, the mind adheres to the Minimal psychedelic theory of religion, and to Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism overall.

From age 16 to 18, the mind transforms from the Minimal to Maximal psychedelic theory of religion, and transforms from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

From age 18 to 80, the mind adheres to the Maximal psychedelic theory of religion, and to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism overall.


Changing only the hypothetical initiation age: 13, 16, 18, or 21.

Changing the duration of furnace transformation: with the Egodeath theory in hand, this can be instantaneous overnight transformation, from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Given the Egodeath theory in hand, in this region of the frozen unchanging preexisting spacetime communication block, a semester suffices, even a year is much longer than needed.

My Egodeath theory is so powerful, that I claim the mind is capable of transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism in just 1 semester; 2 quarters of freshman university courses.

In a single university undergrad course, the mind now — because the Egodeath theory is so ergonomic — can change from Possibilism to Eternalism in just 1 college quarter.

Mapping to old terminology/divisions:

new term =
old term(s)

the Minimal psychedelic model of religion =
the Minimal entheogen theory of religion +
the Moderate entheogen theory of religion +

the Maximal psychedelic model of religion =
the Maximal entheogen theory of religion

Exoteric scholars adhere to the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.
Esoteric scholars adhere to the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

Low scholars adhere to the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.
High scholars adhere to the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

Follow the theorists’ holy guiding star of extremism. Winnow, divide rightly the scriptures.

There are two opposed views:
low/high
exoteric/esoteric
Minimal vs. Maximal Psychedelic Model of Religion and Culture
Minimal/Maximal

According to the
I’m going with this idea and need acro’s/shortcuts.

the Minimal Psychedelic Model of Religion and Culture
the Maximal Psychedelic Model of Religion and Culture

the Minimal Psychedelic Model of Religion
the Maximal Psychedelic Model of Religion

the Minimal psychedelic model
the Maximal psychedelic model

mnpmr: the Minimal psychedelic model of religion
mxpmr: the Maximal psychedelic model of religion

Defining an acronym = reworking the concept labels/modules.

Testing the acro’s/shortcuts:

Low thinkers, stupid people (noninitiates; those on the outside) have the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.

High thinkers, smart people (initiates; those on the inside) have the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

My new phrases strangely, awkwardly put totally drug-free religion scholars into the same category as all the hardcore pop psychedelics advocates:

What does McKenna have in common with totally drug-free academic schoalrs of religion? They both disagree with my theory, which is the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

Against McKenna I say “No, McKenna, you are the opposite of the truth! You say __ but I say the opposite, __.”

McKenna says Christianity didn’t understand or recognize or utilize Eucharist = psychedelics.

McKenna asserts the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.
According to this view, psychedelics have only a slight and deviant and exceptional role in [our] religious history.

Hoffman asserts the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.
According to this view, psychedelics have the central, originary role in [our] religious history.

Advocates of Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, which inherently includes the Minimal psychedelic model of religion:
McKenna, Leary, Grof, Ruck, Rush

Advocates of Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, which inherently includes the Maximal psychedelic model of religion:
Hoffman

I can see why I formed the complicated 3-slot scheme, of Minimal/Moderate/Maximal entheogen theory of religion and culture: to put entheogen scholars into a separate slot from establishment nondrug scholars.

It’s awkward to shove the two (McKenna and staid academics) to the left end of a polar dyad spectrum:
either you are thinking at this extreme end of the spectrum
(psychedelic drugs are deviant and exceptional in religion)
or
you are thinking at the other extreme end of the spectrum
(psychedelic drugs are normal and the source of religion, the authoritative point of reference).

So my first analysis will be contrasting Minimal (including Moderate) vs. Maximal,
my second more detailed level of analysis subdivides “Minimal” into Minimal (staid academics) and Moderate (McKenna).

Robert Graves, James Arthur, and John Allegro feel closer to my Maximal position than McKenna and Leary.

Robert Graves told R. Gordon Wasson the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

Wasson sold out by publically only asserting the Moderate psychedelic model of religion.

There are two kinds of psychedelics scholars: Moderate and Maximal. If you are a psychedelics scholar, you are not a Minimal advocate (per the 3-slot system), but are either Moderate (Wasson) or Maximal (Allegro).

With regard to psychedelics in shamanism, Eliade was __.

With regard to psychedelics in Christianity, Wasson was Minimal.

The trajectory of views changing now from Minimal, to Moderate, to Maximal:

In 1970 in academia:
With regards to psychedelics in primitives’ religion, academics asserted the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.
With regards to psychedelics in our own, “World Religions”, academics assert the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.

In 2016 in academia:
With regards to psychedelics in primitives’ religion, academics assert the Moderate psychedelic model of religion.
With regards to psychedelics in our own, “World Religions”, academics assert the Minimal psychedelic model of religion.

In 2020 in academia:
With regards to psychedelics in primitives’ religion, academics will assert the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.
With regards to psychedelics in our own, “World Religions”, academics will assert the Moderate psychedelic model of religion.

In 2024 in academia:
With regards to psychedelics in primitives’ religion, academics will assert the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.
With regards to psychedelics in our own, “World Religions”, academics will assert the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

Appreciate the Egodeath theory now — beat the rush.
Skip straight to the endpoint view.


Moderate psychedelic model of religion: Schultes, McKenna, Wasson, Leary, Letcher, pre-conversion Hatsis — THESE ARE DRUG SCHOLARS WHO DENY THE MUSHROOM EUCHARIST.

Maximal psychedelic model of religion: Michael Hoffman, Robert Graves, James Arthur, John Allegro — these are drug scholars who assert that the Eucharist was recognized and understood as mushrooms throughout Christian history.

The relevant key important critical litmus test: how do you answer the Michael Hoffman question:

To what extent was the Eucharist recognized as mushrooms?

The Minimal psychedelic model of religion asserts “Not.”
Schultes, McKenna, Wasson, Leary, Letcher, pre-conversion Hatsis, Hanegraaff.

The Maximal psychedelic model of religion asserts “Normally.”
Michael Hoffman, Robert Graves, James Arthur, John Allegro, Clark Heinrich.

Fact-checking citations are in order to fine-tune eg. did M. Hoffman’s Entheos magazine assert my Maximal view? It wavers.

Entheos is transitional between the old Minimal/Moderate view and my new, Maximal view — like Ruck wavers, asserting the Moderate view, yet putting forth such copious evidence that it instead *implies* my Maximal view.

Actually these people would fall across a spectrum, possibly clustered around Minimal and Maximal.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

1950: As an academic scholar spewing apologetics for Establishment Prohibition Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, you write nothing about psychedelics in religion. There are no psychedelics in religion.

_____________________________

1950: You assert that
primitives/others/deviants didn’t use psychedelics in religion.
World Religions didn’t use psychedelics in religion.

1970: Then you assert that
primitives/others/deviants used psychedelics in religion a little,
but not in World Religions.

1990: Then you assert that
primitives used psychedelics in religion a lot, but
barely at all in World Religions.

2000: Then you assert that
primitives used psychedelics in religion a lot, and that
our World Religions used psychedelics a little.

2010: Then you assert that
primitives used psychedelics in religion a lot, and that
our World Religions recognized and used psychedelics to a moderate extent.

2020: Then you assert that
primitives recognized and used psychedelics in religion a lot, and that
our World Religions recognized and used psychedelics a lot.

_________________________________________

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com, spewing forth strict critical historiography — that’s a joke usage of a phrase, mocking Hanegraaff’s clueless Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism.

Hanegraaff proposes to do “strict critical historiography” while ignorant of Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism. Guaranteed trainwreck. No hope of accurate historiography. Instead:

Do strict critical historiography while applying the crucial explanatory framework: gnosis of Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Strict critical historiography must inform Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism (gnosis), and Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism (gnosis) must inform strict critical historiography.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Correction:

For those who try to downplay and turn away from this the source of the mystic state, who assert that the source of the mystic state is something other than psychoactive drug chemicals, I am forcefully blocking that escape with maximum forcefulness, maximum emphasis.

Would you rather buy
the snake-oil that the Western fake religious authority is selling, or
the snake-oil that the Eastern fake religious authority is selling?

The only true religious authority is psilocybin.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Letcher Hatsis and other readers of the psychedelic gospels are not yet converting from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism; he is at first only converting from the Minimal psychedelic model of religion to the Maximal psychedelic model of religion.

At most, that’s 1/3 of my apocalypse.

Readers of the psychedelic gospels have only advanced from
Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism
to
Literalist Psychedelic Possibilism,
not yet converted all the way to my full revelation of gnosis,
Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Imagine if these 3 revolution parties got together to form an alliance:

Literalist –> Metaphorical [historicity of Jesus –> ahistoricity]

Ordinary-state –> Psychedelic [entheogen scholarship]

Possibilism –> Eternalism [hyper-hyper-Calvinism, PhilOTime, certain QM authors favorable to Einstein/Minkowski/Parmenides/rock spacetime]


That’s the Egodeath Theory revolutionary apocalypse: from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

A thoroughgoing conceptual revolution that integrates multiple ordinary-scale “revolutionary” theories.

The Egodeath theory is multi-revolutionary, mega-revolutionary.

Revealing Eucharist mixed wine as recognized as mushrooms, sets off the revelation signal network spread throughout the frozen spacetime block, producing the presence of world conflagration in particular regions of the spacetime rock.

In these regions of spacetimecommunication, of infospacetime, Michael ignites the beacon torches, which are all the instances of Eucharist and mixed wine, or all instances of recognizing Eucharist as mushrooms and all instances of recognizing mixed wine as mushrooms.

Greek + Bible contains this network of beacon torches embedded throughout our own culture.

How to take down the entire System of Establishment Delusion at once?

Michael Apollo ignites the beacon torches revealing Eucharist and mixed wine as mushrooms.

Dragon vanquished, nonbranching laurel branch crown, gate opens to those on the inside, into the mushroom redosing religious banquet party in the presence of God at the tree of life at the end of time experience distributed throughout the spacetime rock. Revelation is a matter of communication of information, communicating across space (Internet) and forward through time.

I write for others far away in space, or far away in both space and time but only the future, and only where my communication is preexistingly transmitted, my gospel transmission is a broadcast received by select few chosen to hear it.

Cybernetics is communication for control.

I transmit information revealing the basis of personal control-thinking.

I transmit (for communicating across space) and store information (for communicating to the future, across time but in one direction only) revealing the basis of personal control-thinking.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Power of Ideas: Esotericism, Historicism (Hanegraaff)

Article:
The Power of Ideas: Esotericism, Historicism, and the Limits of Discourse
Wouter Hanegraaff
April 2013
https://uva.academia.edu/WouterHanegraaff

Wouter Hanegraaff has asserted vehemently that we should avoid gnosis.

Hanegraaff has been inconsistent and hard to pin down, in his rants against dread Religionism.

The devil for Hanegraaff is Religionism.

(The devil for the Egodeath theory is meditation.

And defining ‘ego transcendence’ as nondual consciousness through nondrug meditation, per 1988 Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & early Ken Wilber.)

Hanegraaff is inconsistent as hell in defining his demon, ‘religionism’, and sometimes he equates Religionism with gnosis.

Wouter Hanegraaff writes on every page of his books and articles some variant of:

If you value gnosis, you are a Religionist.

Scholars of Western esotericism should be against gnosis.

Religionism is the worst impediment to strict critical historiography.


I and others have accused Wouter Hanegraaff of asserting that we should avoid gnosis. We accused Hanegraaff of being foolishly against the following:

Pages 267-268: paraphrased:

Hanegraaff defensively asserts that he *does* support the following:
________________________________

We should search for general or universal patterns in the study of religion.

We should do comparative research.

We should identify predicable, law-like mental processes in religious esoteric pursuits.

We should study ecstatic states of consciousness; we should apply neurobiology and cognitive studies to radical ecstatic trance *states* that are frequently reported in the search for gnosis.

________________________________

Hanegraaff continues on to clarify aspects of his position:

The Religionist school asserts that ‘Western esotericism’ is a candidate for what is universal in the study of religion. (Hanegraaff disagrees, but doesn’t here say what would be universal — such as Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.)

Strict critical historiography doesn’t lead to complete atomism.

Western esotericism comes from pagan Hellenism throughout Christian culture.

________________________________

/Hanegraaff paraphrase

Hanegraaff has done a poor, inconsistent job of defining the positions he’s critiquing.

In this two-way article exchange, he’s having to invent additional categories that he never defined before.

Hanegraaff is ineffective at defining a useful set of positions.

Hanegraaff has more work to do to define what the ideal position would be, that is capable of incorporating his call to study the entire evidence and not just pluck supporting cases from it and ignore the rest.

Hanegraaff must define the position that affirms universal gnosis *and* accurate historical details.

Not “strict critical historiography” *at the expense of *universal gnosis theory*, which is the Egodeath theory, which is, better than Campbell’s journey, description of transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Poor theorists (Letcher Hatsis) are poor and inconsistent at defining positions to critique.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Every one of the “world religions” — and the deviant “pseudo religions” — have an esoteric version; that is, it is possible to ignore all the worthless junk in religious history, and pluck out just the following (transformation to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism), crowning it, and dismissing the rest as folly that’s unworthy of scientific Egodeath theory research.

Hanegraaff, pass me that wastebasket you dumped out. But I will need an entire junkyard, to fit all the dross.

Yes, we should trace the detail development of every religion and pseudoreligion but when we do that, we should winnow and recognize the wheat and chaff.

Or skip the whole bothersome historical research and just pluck out timeless, culture-independent gnosis, which is, I reveal, Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

We can just abstract-out Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism and toss the rest of Western esotericism back into the wastebasket.

I’m a successful religionist, in this sense.

I have succeeded at that project Hanegraaff demonizes, in his ever-changing definition of ‘religionism’.

But I brought the succcessful identification of what gnosis is, from the Engineering department *into* the Western esotericism department, already productized.

I did not figure out what enlightenment is (Transcendent Knowledge; transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism) by extracting it from Western esotericism.

I used Western esotericism and religious mythology merely to *confirm* my finished Core theory essentially from the Engineering department.

I used the ‘eclectic’ approach Hanegraaff is against.

I also used strict critical historiography.

There’s lots of controversy around Hanegraaff. He’s unclear. An academic can be useful to shallow careerists by being vague, prevaricating.

Now we with no inspiration can set up shop cranking out rote formulaic articles “What does Hanegraaff really mean by strict critical historiography?”, “What does Hanegraaff really mean by Religionism?”

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Wouter Hanegraaff is a Katzian; a Contextualist, not an Essentialist, regarding purportedly universal mystic wisdom.

Hanegraaff, Katz, and other Contextualists don’t believe in universal zen satori found in Christianity and in the veiled sciences and in ancient gnosis/wisdom.

There is a fundamental disagreement here, even if Hanegraaff pretends to concede that we should look for universals in esotericism.

I believe in universal zen satori enlightenment gnosis wisdom Transcendent Knowledge — many people do — we are Essentialists, the Essentialist school.

Hanegraaff sides with Steven Katz, who asserts that there is no common universal mystic state. They are the Contextualist school.

Katz is behind the times, not hip to the dissolve and coagulate trip.

The Egodeath theory says there is a common universal mystic state and thing revealed by that state.

The mind innately begins with Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, then through multiple sessions of redosing mushrooms, the mind innately ends with Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

This universal cognitive shift is a matter of Loose Cognitive Science, not culture.

Katz is wrong; he overstates Contexualism and throws away Essentialism, but truth is balanced as:

unimportant Contextualism as the surface UI skin, wrapping…
the important payload of Essentialism.

So to speak, Essentialism is the payload, Contextualism is the exoteric packaging.

And that’s what — as Hanegraaff states — the esotericists and religionists assert, that the changing aspect is the surface aspect, and underneath is unchanging satori/revelation/uncovering/enlightenment/salvation/regeneration/gnosis/wisdom.

_____________________________________
Contextualism says “That’s culturally dismissive and not respecting diversity.”

Contextualism says there’s *not* a universal unchanging gnosis, there’s not a rigid trellis hidden underneath this jungle overgrowth.

There’s only the surface, which varies per culture, and mysticism A is truly different than mysticism B.

When we trace detailed accurate strict critical historiography, the changes we are studying ARE esotericism, they ARE the esoteric experiencing, which changes over time and across place.

_____________________________________
Essential Essentialism per the Egodeath theory:

I speak for all esotericists, religionists, gnostics, mystics, mushroom zennists, when the Egodeath theory declares:

The common aspect of the intense mystic altered state that is experienced by all shamans, all zennists, all Esotericists, all Christ’s inner circle, is:

Experiential transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, in the loose cognitive association state, which is induced by psilocybin mushrooms.

All brands of authentic religion are surface descriptions of this, and the aspects that don’t match across comparative High religion are the nonessential aspects, the dross — such as arbitrary differences in which analogy-set is used.

Religion A experiences Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism using analogy-set A.

Religion B experiences Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism using analogy-set B.

Therefore — in a way that makes relatively little difference, the experience of mystic A and B differ, in that they both experience Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, but
A experiences Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism via analogy-set A, while
B experiences Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism via analogy-set B.

There is a difference, in surface branding, as important as the difference between the songs No One at the Bridge, Red Barchetta, and Cygnus X-1.

Different surface domain, same referent domain.

The Egodeath theory not only shows what’s the same for all mystics, it also identifies what’s different — where the dividing line is, what is eso and exo.

The song Red Barchetta describes Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism using the encoding-domain of cars.

The song Cygnus X-1 describes Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism using the encoding-domain of black hole spacecraft.

The song No One at the Bridge describes Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism using the encoding-domain of steering a sailing ship.

How important is it to track the surface details contrasting between these 3 songs? Superficial, shallow, low, outer, exoteric.

Hanegraff admitted strict critical historiography ain’t gonna grasp the esoteric aspect of Western esotericism!

Wouter Hanegraff is advocating exoteric esotericism! Hanegraaff’s strict critical historiography = advocacy of exoteric esotericism.

That is “the Katz limitation” on the power and relevance of Hanegraaff’s approach; the folly and fatal limitation of Katz’s Contextualism position (vs. Essentialism).

The most that you can achieve with strict critical historiography is exoteric esotericism — the history of the development of the nonessential, variable surface branding.

You take Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism and say:

“Let’s write a new song, this time mapping the surface domain of “girls” with the profound referent of Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, instead of mapping “spaceship black hole” onto that profound referent.”

What does Hanegraaff, the strictly exoteric esotericist, see on his radar? “The band changed from a song about spaceship black hole, to a song about girls.”

The real referent (gnosis = satori = revelation = salvation = enlightenment = Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism) slips through this radar, of “strict critical historiography”.

What an embarrassment, travesty. If this is scholarship, then commit it to the flames.

Hanegraaff gives us the accurate strict critical history of sawdust, of bubble wrap, with no payload.

How important is it to identify and recognize the common referent concern domain as Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism? Deep, profound, high, inner, esoteric.


Exoteric thinking (folly) says religions are different.

Esoteric thinking (wisdom) says, we perceive the profound way in which religions are the same: it’s Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, with merely different surface analogy-sets describing that.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Enlightenment = Permanent Psychosis

In the snake-guarded tree-orchard garden in paradise, upon reading the Egodeath theory,
1/4 of readers suffered ego death.
1/4 went psychotomimetic.
1/4 cut all the branches off the trees.
1/4 entered the Theory in peace and left in peace.

The Four Who Entered Paradise
http://www.alteredfluid.com/2015/09/18/36-days-of-judaic-myth-day-11-the-four-who-entered-paradise/

http://google.com/search?q=four+entered+pardes
http://google.com/search?q=four+entered+paradise
http://google.com/search?q=four+entered+garden
http://google.com/search?q=four+entered+orchard

— Professor Loosecog, head exorcist, University of Transcendent Knowledge

Hanegraaff’s _Academic Suicide_

Wouter Hanegraaff joins Robert Price in committing Academic Suicide by un-critically siding with agent Wasson against John Allegro’s assertion of mushrooms in Christianity.

What happened? How could Hanegraaff have made such a fatal misjudgment? How did he handle the fallout? What happened with Hanegraaff afterwards? The story ends with a rather painful account of intellectual and moral decline.

http://wouterjhanegraaff.blogspot.com/2012/09/missed-opportunities.html?m=1

Hanegraaff unimaginatively parrots the usual secondhand sub-scholarly rubbish against Allegro, and Irvin sets him straight, at length, catching Hanegraaff in an embarrassing total failure of elementary scholarship, just as I caught the supposedly “radical critical scholar” Robert Price writing in the original version of his review of Acharya’s Christ Conspiracy, where Price carelessly and un-critically dismissed Acharya’s favorable mention of the mushroom Christianity theory (with Price botching every aspect).

Allegro (mushrooms in Christianity) brings out the worst in scholars, including Price and Hanegraaff.

Thus saith Irvin to Hanegraaff:

“A debate will go very poorly for you regarding John Allegro.”

If you write against visionary plants — mushrooms in Christianity — without reading the scholarship, it will not go well; it will go very poorly for you.

Hanegraaff incoherently accuses Allegro of getting his ideas (asserting mushrooms in Christianity) from Wasson.

Wasson denied (covered-up), not asserted, mushrooms in Christianity.

I haven’t seen such as botched commentary by a shockingly *uncritical* advocate of critical historiography, since Price’s botched dismissal of Allegro, using Wasson.

Price: “I run the Journal of Higher Criticism.”

Hanegraaff: “I demonize religionism and advocate critical historiography.”

Establishment-compliant scholars’ “critical” scholarship stops precisely where mushrooms in Christianity begins, vanishing like egoic Possibilism, the phantom demon, the moment our own religion is joined to psychedelic mushrooms.


Irvin wrote:
“Wasson published almost nothing on mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity, and in fact attacked any and every scholar who attempted to investigate the matter, and set up a fallacious argument to prevent scholars from looking, which apparently you bought.”

“your reply only further emphasizes your poor research on the matter, and your willingness to bring up irrelevant data to defend it.
May I recommend you get yourself current with the research so that you understand what you’re getting yourself entangled in?
If you’re going to attempt to enter the field of ethnomycology, then it helps to be current on the subjects and researches and not repeat disproved lies, as it reveals a lack of competence and inability to check primary documentation.
A debate will go very poorly for you regarding John Allegro.
You may be the great Dr. Hanegraaff, but if you’re incapable of primary research and keeping current, it means absolutely nothing. I could provide you hundreds of facts and citations, but it seems clear that you’ve already made up your mind and are only here to defend what someone else told you to believe, rather than checking it yourself…”

— Irvin


Robert Price similarly brushed aside Allegro and Acharya, by invoking the magic name Wasson, while suspending the critical thinking that he has the audacity to lecture others on.

Strict critical historiography points straight to mushrooms as the Eucharist.

Want to see a major, tireless advocate of “critical” scholarship hypocritically instantly drop their “critical” mentality like a hot potato?

Point out the mushroom Eucharist.


Wouter Hanegraaff vehemently advocates strict hypocritical historiography.

Robert Price advocates Radical Higher Hypocritism.


Price’s review of Acharya was an embarrassment (regarding Allegro being supposedly disproved by Wasson), filled with grade-school errors, the exact opposite of elementary scholarship, never mind “radical critical” scholarship.

Then Price directed me in writing the Plaincourault article setting straight, at full length, the abortive non-debate between Allegro and Wasson.


The worst scholars strive to disassociate the Eucharist from mushrooms, asserting that no one ever understood the Eucharist as mushrooms, and that for thousands of years, across thousands of miles, no psilocybin mushrooms grew in Europe, and there are no mushrooms in Christianity.
E. Panofsky, agent Wasson, A. Letcher (aka T. Hatsis), T. McKenna.

C. Ruck hovers in-between in a blurry quantum indeterminate state:
Everyone universally knew that the Eucharist is mushrooms, but no one really knew about it.

The best scholars strive to associate the Eucharist with mushrooms, asserting that everyone on the inside always understood the Eucharist as mushrooms.
R. Graves, J. Allegro, J. Arthur, C. Heinrich, M. Hoffman, M. Hoffman.

At Hanegraaff’s academic suicide posting, a researcher posted anonymously

“Christianity cannot have stemmed from a mushroom cult. First, because no “Magic Mushrooms” worth the name grow in the parts where Christianity started, and that’s counting the Greek world, the Roman world, etc. Amanita Muscaria was only used in remote Siberia, but even then, it was not really traditional. “Intoxication by mushrooms also produces contacts with the spirits, but in a passive and crude way. This technique appears to be late and derivative. Intoxication is a mechanical and corrupt method of producing “ecstasy”, being “carried out of oneself”. It tries to imitate a model that is earlier and that belongs to another plane of reference.” (Mircea Eliade about the Siberians, Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, 1951)”

Eliade and Panofsky said it, I believe it, that settles it.

In 7th Grade, at age 12, I drew a color, poster-sized map of trade routes in Mediterranean antiquity.

This research was the basis for my breakthroughs of strict critical historiography and higher radical criticism in 2001 and 2013, recognizing world religious mythology as analogy describing psychedelics revealing Eternalism/noncontrol.

Which explanatory theory better explains the problems and evidence we face (or turn our face away from)?

Even if imperfectly, leaving questions without yet a satisfactory answer.

Problematic data to be explained, that doesn’t fit the Old Theory, that requires a New Theory: the psychedelic gospels written by andro-gyne Brown.

Is Brown a man, or woman; Hermes or Aphrodite? Both!

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

The large portion of readers who go insane reading the Egodeath theory always turns into a nuisance, just as advanced trippers who have reached the initial false peak, the nonduality delusion, turn into a nuisance for the new science studies of underdosing beginners so they have a flush of beginners’ unity delusion, but Mr. Hopkins kicks these children out when they start turning to look up and behind the mask to see the snake and panic climax desire for control power death demonstration and worldmodel conflagration.

We weren’t expecting to summon and invoke Religion and we really can’t deal with it.

We don’t have a magic protection circle, except the Eternalism rock with debranched tree king crowned with nonbranching vine.

So we in the Psychedelic RENAISSANCE of the occult sciences of ancient pagan Hellenism gnosis wisdom veiled sciences of analogy, we modern rational opposites of Western esotericism irrationalist hoodoo, we limit our research to fresh virgin minds, underdosed, to get the Foolish and Happy portion of the mushroom transformation.

And throw away the Wise and Transformative portion of the mushroom transformation, the chaff.

The last time a rabbi went into that inner chamber, he was no longer a psychedelic virgin, so we had to tie a long rope around his leg in case God killed him in there so we could safely pull him back out.

We only let beginners go in there to the inner chamber where the manna is covered, and even then we underdose them, in Professor Nutt’s Psychedelic Neurophrenology, which is the source of many new science studies in the Psychedelic Renaissance of the occult sciences of ancient psychedelic wisdom.

The fool begins the journey to psychotomimetic wisdom of adult climax control attractor capability, the Teacher of Climactic Righteousness would love to turn you sacred world coming in this region of the non-meta-changing cyberspacetime block.

A third of people who read my Egodeath theory go insane, permanent psychosis, and then when they post, it’s word salad, with poor, low, shallow, outer signal/noise ratio, and I have to do even more heavy lifting than when it’s just me alone writing my superior word salad with rich, high, deep, inner signal noise ratio.

A third of people who read my Egodeath theory go insane, permanent psychosis, exactly as the authors reported in the new science study/psychonauts’ guidebook, _Psilocybin as an Inducer of Ego Death_.

Psilocybin as an Inducer of Ego Death and Similar Experiences of Religious Provenance
Katarzyna Stebelska and Krzysztof Labuz
http://google.com/search?q=%22Psilocybin+as+an+Inducer+of+Ego+Death%22

If you are attempting to have religious self-control seizure climax, but you screwed up and the snake that God created for your life doesn’t include taking a sufficient dose, read this inventory of all the kinds of bad things that any researcher or study has ever mentioned could happen involving psilocybin in any way.

A ton of psilocybin could fall on you from a rooftop.

That’s the only potential harm that these counter-researchers overlooked, in their article designed to counter Jennifer Lyke.

I like, like Lyke.

It’s like, these science researchers in this new science study, like, don’t like Lyke, because Lyke likes psilocybin like Martin Ball likes 5meow.

I like how the liking of psilocybin by beginner researchers in the Cognitive Science lab leads to like maximum freakout in Phase 2 of the psilocybin initiation mental transformation process, when Johns Hopkins discards you for fresh Mind for him to use, back in the beginner nondual delusion phase of Campbell’s Psychedelic Hero Trip.

In Phase 2 of the series of mushroom-redosing sessions, the intellect discovers the attractive control-climax eros thanatos drive, the attractive horror of seeing and experiencing the Eternalism snake worldline embedded in Minkowski’s spacetime rock.

Evil Professor Tightcog to the rescue! QM proves freewill and open-future possibility branching.

Snake = Eternalism = Einstein, Relativity, Minkowski, Parmenides, the fewer (because a subset, of developmentally advanced)

Tree = Possibilism = Bohr, QM, Official Doctrine, the multiverse, string theory, the mass of noninitiates.

Everyone starts out as a Possibilism-thinker, and many flee in terror when enlightenment about CyberSpaceTime is revealed, as William James tried to run away from the vision of the Iron Block Universe.

I have the power to melt iron and resolidify it. I can do a spacetime walk outside of the spacetime block to do repairs on it from outside, make alterations of pieces of the spacetime block, like at the corners of the rock.

Four rabbis entered a mushroom snake tree apple garden gate in paradise.


Four rabbis entered the garden in paradise.
One rabbi died.
One rabbi went insane.
One rabbi became a heretic.
Only one rabbi became enlightened.
— Evil Rabbi Tightcog

But that’s not what the scriptures that are being commented on say; that’s what the evil clueless exoteric Peter Tightcog commentators say in their pseudo-summary.

The Mary John Loosecog esoteric commentators point at the text of the original story, the signal, ignoring the noise, which is the fake mock commentary, layers of Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism (foolish exoteric) rabbis commenting on layers of Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism (wise esoteric) rabbis’ commentary.

— Rabbi Loosecog

It’s unclear what to make of Irvin’s still-early findings that Pop Sike Cult is a CIA invention to disempower people in some way.

Good Theory about psychedelics in religion should not contradict Irvin’s data/research findings.

I never bought into Pop Sike Cult but built my own separate foundation.

I didn’t read any Pop Sike books, wasn’t aware of them, until 1988 after my Core theory development in January 1988.

Then my project of widespread reading of all the poor writings on related subjects has an attitude of learning poor thinking in order to communicate my good insights to poor thinkers such as Pop Sike authors.

Heinrich I believed; not off-base (around 2000), but the usual authors, Leary, I thought way off-base. My mission was to replace R.A.W. as far as identifying what psychedelic gnosis is about.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

One thing that I have never seen anyone comment on this is the red flag that for me made me disbelieve everything I read about psychedelics history around 1960s the tall tale of Leary’s prison escape

you don’t just escape from prison and write books about it how is it that Leary escaped from prison and then wrote books about it

this is completely unbelievable and therefore everything about this everything about the published books the histories of the 1960s is completely unbelievable, exactly as unbelievable as Leary escaping from prison and then writing books bragging about it

that doesn’t make any sense at all

you can’t just do that

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

McKenna Leary Huxley why didn’t they reveal Eucharist is mushrooms?

McKenna was forcefully dismissive of mushrooms in Christianity.

Effectively McKenna might as well of been part of some conspiracy to deny and suppress mushrooms in Christianity.

Why did the CIA assert the set of fallacies they chose to assert in inventing pop psych cult but not other ideas?

To what extent was there a conspiracy to suppress mushrooms in Christianity in the 60s?

if no academics were able to put together the totally obvious realization that Eucharist is mushrooms why was the CIA somehow aware of that — did agent Wasson’s Vatican tell them?

Does this explain the extreme fatal assumption, the unbelievably self-defeating assumption spread by all of the 1960s psychedelic authors?

The assumption firmly reinforced by all of these authors that LSD is new (as a type), that adding psychedelics to religion is new, especially adding psychedelics to our own religion is wildly new and of course our own religion lacks psychedelics.

Why didn’t the CIA’s invented Pop Sike Cult reveal mushrooms in Christianity?

Did they suppress knowledge of mushrooms in Christianity?

Why did the CIA invent the particular version of false psychedelics history that they created, not some other version?

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Against Hanegraaff’s extreme dissing of Eranos, I credit my car repair shop’s sharing library for the Eranos book article by Kerenyi on Mask and babies dying seeing snake through the mask.

That is analogy describing transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism by Psilocybin as is the ancient wisdom on a lace doily on a silver platter decoding of ‘gnosis’ brought to you by Eta Kappa Nu 1988.

kicks these children out when they start turning to look up and behind the mask to see the snake and panic climax desire for control power death demonstration and worldmodel conflagration

Hanegraaff is in error dissing Eranos and (inconsistently defined) “Religionism”.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

What position precisely is McKenna asserting? (Implicitly and explicitly.)

Did McKenna assert the following? Did he assert these explicitly or implicitly?

o No one (or, insufficient numbers) in Christian culture ever understood the Eucharist as mushrooms. [need to define what this means/doesn’t mean]

o For thousands of years, across thousands of miles, no psilocybin mushrooms (or, insufficient numbers) grew in Europe.

o There are no mushrooms (or, insufficient numbers) in Christianity. [need to define what this means/doesn’t mean]


It is amazing how widespread is the poor, vague, inconsistent statement of what a researcher’s position is, and what position a researcher is refuting.

This is a huge issue in Wasson’s writings, in Letcher’s (Hatsis’) writings, and the more I read Hanegraaff the more inconsistent and ill-formed his accursed Religionism demon is.

Since Hanegraaff is wrong or hazy I must be Religionism.

Religionism is when you because of reading about psilocybin recognize religious myth as analogy describing psilocybin causing experiencing switching from Possibilism to Eternalism-thinking.

Religionism is profound and fits with strict critical historiography.

The one authentic religious experience is transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism on Psilocybin.

Religionism is Psilocybin mental mode switching in loosecog from Eternalism to Possibilism thinking.

There are 7.3 different types of religionism — isn’t Hanegraaff magically reifying to demonize stuff, “Religionism, I summon thee in all forms, to curse thee!”

No doubt, Hanegraaff has taken the wastebasket he dumped out and using the wastebasket now labelled as Religionism, to randomly toss away and curse anything he doesn’t like.

This is how the term ‘religionism’ *functions* in his *narrative* of good wise blessed exoteric strict critical historiography [EXCEPT FOR MUSHROOMS IN CHRISTIANITY] vs. evil foolish dread and accursed RELIGIONISM!! Run away!

“*my* wastebasket, now”, taken over from Protestant Rationalism, throw {the interest in decoding ancient wisdom gnosis salvation} into my repurposed wastebasket.

All that gnosis elixir hoodoo ceremony prayer stuff is preventing accurate strict critical historiography in its exoteric-only Real Scholars glory.

What a defeatist. Religionism is imperfect, so BAN IT! Throw Religionism in the wastebasket!

And then all forms of all stuff you dislike, redefine your magic reified term ‘Religionism’ to include that.


No one speaks for me: I have never stated my experience.

You don’t know sh*t about my amount or absence of experience so stfu about my alleged experience.

Peep can talk all they want about casually my experience — means they are not objective. They don’t know sh*t about it.

Got to get to bt keyboard.


In honor of Campbell I’m buying nice 3rd e. Hero Faces.

My foundation core peak breakthrough was 1/88 but 11/2013 tree snake peak breakthrough I was all like OMFG!! OMFG!! OMFG!! for like a week, def. 4 days at least.

THE POWER OF MYTH is the book — along with cover of kylix art of Jason and the serpent guard at the {laurel branch near-nonbranching 1-stem subtree} with golden ram fleece hung over where the branching point would be, Athena wearing snakes aegis in Paradise garden of the Hesperides in Eden.

Golden fleece of Abraham’s sacrificed ram when Jason looked up and looked behind his mask at the power ram caught helpless in Minkowski cyberspacetime the king’s son flees and is torn to pieces by the mind demonstrating desire for control steering power judging alarming compelling (side or foot) vulnerability to ready disproof of the power of the king in tree trunk frozen in Rock.

Campbell’s power of myth was there when I saw tree snake Possibilism Eternalism.

Only half the painting actually. Grayscale not color.
The only inspiration I got so far from that book THE POWER OF MYTH was a single, quarter of a painting, Eve smile holding apple looking at smiling snake in tree of knowledge in garden near God naked (Oden) not clothed w egoic thinking mask.

Joined to Jason tree fleece serpent Athena aegis, mushroom mythology of tree vs. snake as transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism BLEW MY F-CKING MIND, man!!

I saw, I understood.


People who reject something like “mushrooms in Christianity” never specify their position clearly, or the position they are against.

Letcher constantly wavers on what his position is, and on what position he’s against.

People who assert something like “mushrooms in Christianity” specify their position clearly, and clearly specify the position they are against.

My theory of ahistoricity of Jesus is superior because it is better defined, excellently and well-formedly specified.

I define what specifically it should mean to assert that Jesus didn’t exist.

It is meaningless if you just say Jesus didn’t exist.

A binary is too simplistic (Jesus existed vs. Jesus didn’t exist). What *counts* as “the historical Jesus”?

Jesus is the sun, the sun exists, therefore Jesus exists.

Joe Shmoe in antiquity was developed into the Jesus figure. Mr. Shmoe existed. Therefore, Jesus *existed*, as a specific historical identifiable individual, without whom Christianity couldn’t have started.

John Smythe also existed, and was another source for the mythical Jesus figure, therefore, Jesus historically exists as an individual TIMES TWO.

You can have zero Historical Jesuses (HJs) or a thousand HJs; what the data forbids you from having is a single HJ, “the” HJ, a single time-machine identifiable individual without whom Christianity wouldn’t’ve started.

With such useful precision of definition, specify what McKenna asserted, specifically — or what Wasson/McKenna/Letcher/Hatsis asserted specifically — and what he refuted, specifically.

What are the untenable implied assertions within what McKenna asserts and refutes regarding the Eucharist (agape meal, Communion, Lord’s Supper) recognized/understood/ingested as psilocybin and/or Amanita mushrooms?

Childish, immature, undeveloped thinking is *vague*, filled with an unconscious, implicit assumption-set, that doesn’t hold up and is self-contradictory, when dragged into the light and deconstructed.

Unthinking non-thinking, unthinking thinking; thoughtless thinking.

Kettle logic; incoherent biases and prejudice and unconscious illogical assumptions, like Hanegraaff accusing Allegro of getting his ideas (about the mushroom basis of Christianity) from Wasson — which makes little sense, given that Wasson asserted that there were mushrooms in proto-Jewish Ancient Near East religion *only* prior to the writing of Genesis, *not* during Jewish or Christian history.

Wouter Hanegraaff is sheerly confused, in Hanegraaff’s beat-on-Allegro academic suicide blog post.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

There goes Hanegraaff, any time he writes anything about Allegro

http://google.com/search?q=roller+derby+wipeout&tbm=isch

WHAT’S MISSING FROM EVERY MYTH THEORY IS *PSILOCYBIN*.

*** _PSILOCYBIN!!!_ ***

Mushrooms stand tall above all myth scholarship and are *the* key to fully decoding religious mythology.

Religionism is not bad so far as it goes, but it omits psilocybin.

Campbell’s dream psychology explanation of myth is not bad so far as it goes, but it omits psilocybin.

Hanegraaff’s exoteric esotericism is not bad so far as it goes, but it omits psilocybin.


Hanegraaff, students will be interested in PSILOCYBIN History. Non-psychedelic history is boring and reductionist and not what the psilocybin mind is looking for.

There’s Dionysus mania frenzy ecstasis in High History — or, to prevent your dark word-magic, I say *Psilocybin* History, not your wrecked term ‘Entheogen’ History which permits evil meditation to masquerade as “an entheogen”.

The history of nondrug “meditation” is the history of error and avoidance of the ancient psilocybin gnosis wisdom.

If meditation “can” cause the intense mystic altered state, I’m going to block a nostril and trigger seizure. Doesn’t happen.

Meditation is anti-en-theo-gen.

Keep that meditation bullsh-t *well* away from sacred psilocybin, the only entheogen.

Nondrug meditation is a fraudulent, psilocybin-avoidance tactic.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

MEDITATION IS BULLSHIT.

Meditation is ANTI-en-theo-gen.

The *only* entheogen is psilocybin.

Meditation is fraudulent, an imposter that exists purely for the purpose of avoiding gnosis wisdom, which comes only through a series of PSILOCYBIN redosing sessions.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

How to tell which “contemporary esotericism” counts as esotericism, warranting studying? Easy and clear, for the Egodeath theory:

True Essentialism: Real Esotericism is Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism; Real Esotericism is that which describes transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Is Esotericism found in modern comix? Yes to the extent that comix describe transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psilocybin Eternalism.

Roundtable discussion on contemporary esotericism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjI_pxQXVi4
1:23:30

Against Hanegraaff, all authentic esotericism, Real Esotericism, provably, can be reduced to one thing:

Esotericism is analogy describing psychedelics transforming experiencing and thinking from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

How a scholar should practice Esotericism:

All the way: the scholar ingests Psilocybin in a series of redosing sessions, while reading the Egodeath theory about transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Sufficient: scholar reads about ingesting Psilocybin in a series of redosing sessions, while reading the Egodeath theory about transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

[1:40:25]
Audience:
Schematically excluding the possibility that there might be a cross-culturally valid universal psychological factors in the Western esotericism.

Hanegraaff:
I’m definitely not excluding that at all. That would be a question of comparative research. That would be a conclusion of research. So first you do the research, and there you find out that there are commonalities I’m open to that possibility. The problem of Religionism is that it works the other way around, it *starts* with the assumption, and no matter what you find in your research, you still hold to that assumption. That’s something completely different. But no, I would be not against, on the contrary, I’m not at all against looking for trying to find commonalities and that I find it very important and exciting to do, absolutely.”


Hanegraaff’s implicit model of how you form hypothesis and test them is incoherent and unrealistic. The distinction he’s trying to make, between looking for universal, vs. discovering it “first”, is nothing — there is no difference.

Hanegraaff is a confused gatekeeper trying to make a hard distinction between the order of salvation; to discover a universal pattern, you have to be trying to perceive a universal pattern.

I formed the Eternalism/Cybernetics model of Transcendent Knowledge/ego transcendence, with no focus on religious mythology, and then I brought that model to myth, expecting corroboration, and I confirmed the expected observational result: my model (Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism) is found in myth as its central concern.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

The Holy Gospel of Psilocybin Salvation

I am the way and the truth and the life; none shall come to the Father but through me, psychoactive mushrooms, the redemptive Psilocybin flesh and blood of Christ.

The intense mythic altered state comes *only* through sacred, blessed Psilocybin, *not* through the Antichrist’s accursed, counterfeit religions of nondrug “contemplation”, dreaming, nostril-blocking, hyperventilating, affected babbling, or anything else other than Psilocybin.

When children want to avoid seeing the snake through the mask, to avoid dying and being sacrificed, they use meditation and disparage Psilocybin.

The false, low, exoteric, pseudo-esoteric religion is meditation.

Meditation is a fake, placebo imitation of Psilocybin.

Satan meditates. Satan thinks mushrooms are an imitation of meditation.

Exoteric thinkers believe that Mushrooms imitate Meditation (with claimed success, but without actual success).

Esoteric thinkers know that Meditation imitates Mushrooms (with claimed success, but without actual success).

Salvation, enlightenment, satori, wisdom, gnosis, regeneration, redemption, comes only one way: through Psilocybin; through ingesting psychedelic drug chemicals.

Most classically and ergonomically fine-tuned to go most readily into the intense mythic altered state, is a series of Psilocybin redosing sessions, per the long, ancient mixed-wine banqueting tradition.

Freedom of religion means specifically, above all, the freedom to ingest Psilocybin as the Eucharist.

Freedom of Religion requires specifically, above all, the full repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition, back to the 1776-1913 nonexistence of laws against psychoactive drugs.

There is *no* freedom of religion without Psilocybin.

There is no freedom of religion — there is no actual religion or salvation at all — without Psilocybin.

I am the way, the truth, and the life; none shall come to the Father but through me, the salvific Psilocybin flesh of Christ, the mixed-wine mushroom blood of salvation and eternal nondying life.

— Michael, the original, definitive, authoritative dogmatic Psychedelic Fundamentalist

When I write ‘Psilocybin’ or ‘Mushrooms’, I mean amanita, muscimol, psilocybic acid, psychedelic mushrooms, psychedelics, but definitely not Meditation. Meditation exists to avoid enlightenment.

When I write ‘Meditation’, I mean nondrug meditation in denial of its mushroom basis, and John Pilchian nostril-blocking, and the infinite list of placebo pseudo-mystic practices, which exist for the purpose of avoiding Psilocybin and thus of avoiding enlightenment, gnosis, ancient wisdom, salvation, satori, and blessing.

Thus when I preach about the evils of Meditation, which leads to eternal damnation, and glories of Psilocybin, by which the soul is saved, I am contrasting these lists, these sets of false and true ways.

I advocate extreme maximum Religionism.

I just need to get clear on Hanegraaff’s 27 different definitions. Glad to see he’s catching a lot of flak about basics of his hardcore fervent proselytizing for strict critical historiography and condemning and cursing Religionism.

The Egodeath theory’s all the way about maximum extreme Religionism.

The entire problem with religion is, not enough Religionism.

Maximum extreme Religionism is the Egodeath theory, involvement in the cultic occult hidden activity of reading about redosing psilocybin sessions to transform from Possibilism-cognition to Eternalism-cognition.

cognition = mental construct processing = thinking + experiencing

This is a reason to use ‘cognitive’ instead of ‘mental’. The words ‘thinking’ and ‘experiencing’ are overspecific. The other terms are able to cover thinking and experiencing.

In the garden near God at the snake-guarded mushroom tree is hyper-hyper-Calvinism and Eternalism-cognition.

“Western” esotericism is catching flak — we psychologists are looking for universal global gnosis — I to corrob. my indep. theory that was formed uncontaminated by myth.

When I brought my Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence to myth from the Engineering department in November 2001, I discovered myth is clever analogy describing Eternalism/noncontrol.

I eventually drew the extreme conclusion that all authentic religious myth is based on Psilocybin (against nondrug dreams, nondrug meditation, nondrug drumming, nondrug speaking in tongues, etc., etc.)

The Holy Spirit is Psilocybin and nothing else.

The Holy Spirit is none other than Psilocybin.

The only way for Buddhists to be saved is by eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking the blood of Christ, Psilocybin.

In a series of redosing sessions with Praying Hands per ergonomic Traditionalism.

Else, their mind will burn in purifying Psilocybin flames for eternity, a never-ending bad trip until they are turned to faith by the order of salvation:

Did you discover gnosis the righteous way, purely by strict critical historiography, mind chaste and free of any sinful thoughts of psychological commonality underlying religious mythology?

Or did you — God forbid! — exert sinful human effort to deliberately *look for* the psychological universal commonality of ancient gnosis wisdom, and that’s the real motivation for your bad pseudo-historical pseudo-scholarship?

We must strike the correct pose and give the correct impression, so that the other departments can see that we don’t mean business when it comes to figuring sh-t out like gnosis and wisdom.

We must leave that embarrassing rubbish to the amateurs!

Steven Katz has put out a warning to all departments: beware of pseudo-scholars who stoop to trying to figure out and decode universal ancient gnosis and wisdom.

Rest assured, Other Departments, the new field of Western esotericism strictly enforces correctly following the rules of Strict Critical Historiography, and constantly, vigilantly guards against unprofessionalism.

Particularly, we fully demonize any attempt to decode universal religious mythology and Western esotericism, in terms of universal psychological dynamics of the loose cognitive association binding state induced by Psilocybin.

Scholarly Western esotericism is PURE and has NOTHING to do with trying to identify a preexisting theory (Analogical Psilocybin Eternalism) in the core of world religious mythology, by rummaging willy-nilly through fanciful fictional histories (such as the existence of Eusebius, Paul, Jesus, Adam, Moses, Balaam, Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham).

😦 The ahistoricity of Old Testament figures *used to be* controversial, way back in 1995; now it’s like “duh, obviously; why would anyone think otherwise?”

Psilocybin is the only savior, Psilocybin interpreted as the flesh of Mr. Historical Jesus. Jesus lives! Hallelu Jah!

Vow Ter Hanegraaff never *imagined* such a thing as a successful authoritative decoding of world religious mythology, a successful solution, experientially readily immediately freely reproducible and observable by all, reliably, the source of authority.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

The article misses an opportunity to say something — anything — about the ahistoricity of Jesus, which Allegro asserted in SMC.

Hatsis indicated that he is devoted to ridiculing ahistoricity. Hatsis blames the ahistoricity view as a major reason why academics reject knowledge of visionary plants in religious history.

Allegro is correct: Jesus didn’t exist, and Christianity is based on mushrooms; Christians recognized the Eucharist as mushrooms.

McKenna is incorrect on this. Did McKenna write about Jesus’ ahistoricity?

Western esotericism restricted to the early modern period, and now permitting-in the current era (2016), is a handy shelter from the controversy over NO HISTORICAL JESUS. Or Paul, Eusebius, Church Fathers, Peter, or existence of recognizable Christianity before 325.

Chrest saves! Especially if you are hellenistic ruling class in Egypt. (John Bartram)

I’ve never seen Hanegraaff mention ahistoricity, or reject Allegro because Allegro is doubly taboo (analogical/ahistorical Jesus, Mushrooms).

The Thrice Taboo Egodeath theory: Analogical/ahistoricity Psychedelic/mushroom Eternalism/noncontrol.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

exoteric religionism vs. esoteric religionism

High Religionism, esoteric, inner, deep, profound, authentic, authoritative, core, valid Religionism — it’s like, Analogical Psilocybin Eternalism. Conforms to the requirements of the Egodeath theory.

low, pseudo-“Religionism”, exoteric, outer, shallow/superficial, trite, aping, fake, imitation, counterfeit — based in Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, which is the immature developmental stage, because it lacks Psilocybin.

Decoded: The universal psychology that drives world myth:
The mind is innately designed to eat a series of redosed psilocybin doses in order to mature from innate Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism-cognition to innate Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism-cognition.

— Michael Hoffman, the authority on High Religionism

My grandfather was a primitive Christian fundamentalist, pillar of exoteric Western religion.

My father was a Human Potential fundamentalist, pillar of exoteric Eastern religion.

I am a Psychedelic fundamentalist, pillar of esoteric World religion.

— Michael

The entire community of esoteric scholars recoiled from Hanegraaff anti-religionism, asking him to be clearer in his cursing of Religionism.

Hanegraaff almost destroyed the viable Esotericism department.

Hanegraaff had to give lip service to the opposite of his view, ContextualISM from Steven Katz, forced to affirm Essentialism research (trying to find Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism in Universal Psychology Esotericism).

Hanegraaff had to assert opposite of his Katzian view.

Hanegraaff must be recognized as a Katzian Contextualist, anti-Essentialist.

The Egodeath theory is successful Essentialism. There *is* a universal psychology basis of Esotericism: transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism on Psilocybin. That’s what Esotericism describes.

How can Hanegraaff the Contextualist *active explicit denier* of universal psychology-based universal religious myth, assert that he advocates *looking for* universal psychology-based universal religious myth?

He continues cursing Religionism while he now is forced to claim that he definitely *supports* a fundamental form of Religionism: looking for universal psychology-based universal religious myth.

Hanegraaff has deconstructed Hanegraaff.

Hanegraaff is unclear, irrational, contradictory like egoic Possibilism.

It is unbelievable when Hanegraaff asserts Katz’ thoroughgoing Contextualism and then turns around and claims, assuages, the rebelling troops of sage wisdom gnosis scholars, that in addition to being a dogmatic a priori Katzian Contextualist, nevertheless Hanegraaff also then claims he supports Essentialism.

SO RETRACT YOUR ASSERTION OF CONTEXTUALISM, or else you are self contradiction.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

And there was war in the Esotericism department, Hanegraaff and Katz’ Contextualist demons prevailed not, Michael and the Essentialist angels left standing stably based on the reconciled psilocybin fire breathing dragon snake preexisting worldline threat.

— Michael

Hanegraaff’s “strict critical historiography vs. Religionism” is a proxy for Contextualism (Steven Katz) vs. Essentialism.

Contextualism vs. Essentialism is what Hanegraaff covertly has in mind when he talks in terms of “strict critical historiography vs. Religionism”.

Contextualism vs. Essentialism must be debated as such.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

esotericism ~= “religionism” ~= Essentialism

exotericism ~= “strict critical historiography” ~= Contextualism

Red herring, poor wording: “pure consciousness event (PCE)”, Robert Forman; he ought to say loose cognitive binding.

It’s not important or relevant whether mythic experiencers have a PCE; nor “nonrational”; nor irrelevant social-domain crap that’s the usual referent reductionism domain scholars always assume.

What actually matters is loosecog vs. tightcog. Against Katz & Forman both.

The intense mythic altered state is correctly reduced and explained and decoded and mapped to *Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism*, not to:
pure consciousness event
nonrationality
social domain
mundane moral domain
agency recognition circuit
primitive unevolved psychology

The latter are all false reduction theories of the intense mythic altered state (loose cognitive binding, the source of which is Psilocybin).

Per the Egodeath theory, Analogical Psilocybin Preexistence is the true reduction (referent domain) of the intense mythic altered state.

Book:
Zen and the Unspeakable God: Comparative Interpretations of Mystical Experience
Jason Blum
http://amazon.com/dp/027107079X
Hardcover September 2015
Paperback planned October 2016
Critique of Katz and Contextualism, generally supports Essentialism.

Essentialism asserts there is a universal psychological dynamic underlying all intense mythic altered-state experiencing.

The Egodeath theory has successfully identified the universal psychological dynamic underlying all intense mythic altered-state experiencing.

The universal essence of mythic-state experiencing is analogy describing psychedelics causing a cognitive shift from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.


Contextualism says that there is not a universal psychological dynamic underlying all intense mythic altered-state experiencing, but that the varying expressions of mysticism/gnosticism/esotericism are fundamental (rock bottom) to the mythic altered state.

Per Contextualism, there is only one layer, which is varying. Mythic-state experiencing can completely vary. No aspect constitutes a universal unchanging component.

Aligns with Exoteric religion. Hanegraaff claims that scholarly work is inherently exoteric.

Aligns with Hanegraaff’s “strict critical historiography”.

Hanegraaff makes a hard distinction between scholars and experiential mystics.

I object that scholars can integrate both:
1) mythic-trip and read about mythic tripping
2) interview mythic trippers,

These two modes (respectable scholarship vs. mythic tripping) are actually near to each other, not far as Hanegraaff asserts.


Essentialism says there is a universal psychological dynamic underlying all mystical experiencing, and the surface expression varies.

There are two layers: one unvarying, one varying.

Aligns with Esoteric religion.

Aligns with Hanegraaff’s rejected “Religionism”.

Scholars must do Religionism right: Essentialism per the Egodeath theory (Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism).

The problem is not Religionism; the problem is Religionism that picks the wrong referent, the wrong hypothesis of what universal gnosis wisdom is.

Other university departments reject bad Religionism, which misidentifies the universal referent of gnosis.

Other university departments respect good Religionism, which correctly identifies the universal referent of gnosis per the Egodeath theory and enables accurate tracing of change and development of the outer UI skin layer.


I am a {Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism} Essentialist.

I am an {Analogical Psychotomimetic Preexistence/noncontrol} Essentialist.

I am an Essentialist, and my particular theory — per my DIAMOND HAMMER OF INTERPRETATION, which Hephaestos forged for me — is Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism; Analogical Psychotomimetic Preexistence/noncontrol.

There is a universal psychological dynamic underlying all mythic-state experiencing: the Psilocybin-induced cognitive/experiential switch from
{Literalist
Ordinary-state/antidrug/nondrug
Possibilism/multipossibility branching/steering}
to
{Metaphorical/Analogical
Psychotomimetic/Psilocybin/Psychedelic/Mushroom
Eternalism/preexistence/noncontrol}.


Proper scholarship should identify the unchanging aspect of the mythic altered state as Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, and should identify the varying surface.

As I have done, map the non-metaphorical core referent of myth, to the various metaphors of religious mythology and Esotericism.

Decode myth and Esotericism into non-metaphorical core theory.

Core theory: myth and esotericism is analogy describing {mushrooms switching cognition from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism}.

The core, unchanging referent of myth is {mushrooms switching cognition from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism}.

Proper scholarship maps myth and esotericism to {mushrooms switching cognition from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism}.

Proper scholarship, that appropriately impresses other departments as truly scholarly, is the tracing of change and development of the metaphorical surface expression, expression of the underlying non-changing perennial wisdom gnosis.

The Egodeath theory precisely identifies and differentiates the core unchanging part and the surface, changing expression part.

The ancient perennial wisdom gnosis is mushrooms switching cognition from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, including how to move trust and dependency, from relying on (standing on) egoic Possibilism-thinking, to relying on (standing on) transcendent Eternalism-thinking.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

WH:
not an oppositional situation which does not mean that as a scholar you have to become a practitioner of course there’s a very different– obvious difference between being a practitioner and being a scholar of some esoteric movement.

WH:
but when I’m rejecting Religionism, it does not mean in any way a negative attitude towards close contact and learning from practitioners; on the contrary, these are two different things.

Aud:
… degenerating into Religionism in a certain way
_________

Is the Egodeath scholarly theory an esoteric movement?

Is the Egodeath theory “scholarship”, or is it “a movement”?

Am I a “practioner” of theorizing the intense mythic altered state?

Those Wouter words are magically reified scholarly Psilocybin initiation baskets, Apollo Michael hierophant uncovers the seductive terrifying worldline snake, and egoic Possibilism-cognition is embraced and trapped by the net back into the Rock omphalos navel of Earth.

Apollo Michael marries the fire breathing serpent winged mushroom seizing guard dragon, and abandons the oppositional stance toward Parmeinkowski’s spacetime Iron Metal Rock Block prison of frozen preexisting control cognition at each point along the steersman’s worldline in the next four minutes in Rock that is unstoppably unavoidably approaching climax satisfying demonstration of the High Science of Eternalism Cybernetics.

The most extreme maximum Pop Psycho Cult Religionism practitioners’ esoteric movement, the majick poseurs go running for apotropaic protection in light of the mushroid Authority of the Theory which causes permanent psychosis and ancient perennial contemporary gnosis wisdom.

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theory

Decoded:
one foot on land, one foot on water or lifted

This is the more profound decoding of {1-foot} than Carl Ruck’s relatively mundane literalist mapping to a mushroom.

Which leg does a mushroom rely on? Transcendent thinking, not egoic thinking.

The ancient perennial wisdom gnosis is mushrooms switching cognition from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, including how to move trust and dependency,
from relying on (standing on) egoic Possibilism-thinking,
to relying on (standing on) transcendent Eternalism-thinking.

A turning point, at which I inverted my interpretation of “lifted foot”, was when I interpreted the bestiary Roasting Salamander illustration from Chris Bennett and Jan Irvin, criticized and dismissed by Andy Letcher (aka Tom Hatsis).

I realized then that the raised leg/foot is inferior, not superior.

The lifted foot doesn’t mean “transcendent thinking floats on magic transrationality”.

The lifted foot means “I’m not relying on egoic Possibilism-thinking for rescue, for stability of self-control.

I stop basing my personal control power on Possibilism-thinking. Now I instead *repudiate* (lift foot) Possibilism-thinking.

Now I rest and stand stably on Eternalism-thinking — the threatening snake-shaped worldline dragon, now I rely and depend on and trust the serpent the Creator created, my life and future thoughts frozen in rock preexisting.

I had been working on decoding raised foot Christ Pantocrator for years without satisfactory decoding.

John Rush’s book covers the {raised-foot} mytheme.

Only when I examined as a whole category the Bible and Greek instances of the foot/leg affliction mytheme, I solved it, as a category — not decoding an instance isolated.

Lifted foot means *not* based on.

Foot on ground means based on, reliable, solid foundation.

One foot I am not based on, one foot I am based on.

I am not based on (reliant on) egoic thinking (Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism; egoic Possibilism-steering power.

I am based on (reliant on) transcendent thinking (Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism); pre-existing, fixed-rail steering control.

Hephaestos limps; he relies and stands on and trusts in his transcendent thinking leg (Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism), not in his egoic thinking leg (Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism).

http://google.com/search?q=Jacob+wrestle+angel&tbm=isch

Jacob wrestles the angel God-thinking all night, gets the blessing, then limps.

Before wresting with God-thinking, Jacob had only one leg/basis: egoic thinking (Possibilism steering power).

The night of wrestling with God-thinking, Jacob adds Transcendent Knowledge as a new leg/basis, and is no longer based on egoic thinking (Possibilism steering power).

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Why did I recognize Revelation’s angel with 1 foot on land 1 foot on water today, not earlier?

Recently I’ve been continuing to think about Apollo crown of Laurel navel-rock with net trap next to female psychonaut on tripod in rock fissure cave temple with guard dragon Python, and recently that myth’s isomorphic equivalents in Revelation.

http://google.com/search?q=Apollo+Python+Michael+dragon+Revelation+parallels

I was recently quickened and heartened by a psychedelic webpage about that isomorphism, that I deliberately searched for.

I independently noticed the Apollo Python Michael dragon parallels; I figured it out and *then* for the first time read about it.

In contrast, when I looked for Balaam/Paul parallels scholarship around 2000, I came up with nothing, certainly nothing insightful.

http://google.com/search?q=Balaam+donkey+Paul+road+parallels
Fewer hits on Balaam/Paul than Apollo/Michael.

Protestant Rationalist Theology is lame and incompetent and blind to the language of religious myth, which is Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Protestant Rationalist Theology serves to mislead and occlude, more than reveal and uncover.

Protestant Rationalist Theology *veils* Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism, rather than unveiling it.

— the Theory

Decoding yet more myth is becoming redundant like finding yet more mushrooms in Christianity is becoming redundant.

Psychedelic scholars must continue the work of gathering evidence for mushrooms in Christianity.

After some point, additional evidence is relatively redundant, and merely helps assess the *extent* of authentic psychedelic esoteric High Christianity.

To what extent was the Eucharist recognized as mushrooms?

The more evidence we log, the better we can narrow-in toward the “quantified” answer. None? Some? Always?

Some. How big is “some”? Quantify “lots” and “esoteric tradition”.

In the spacetime block, exoteric incomprehension is dreary grey blobs, and esoteric comprehension of Eucharist as mushrooms is exciting orange blobs, all sciencey-like, like Professor Nutt’s Psychedelic Mood Ring brain-aura photography.

How much of the spacetime block has exoteric religion, with grey, the color of dull incomprehension of the mushroid Eucharist?

How much of the spacetime block has esoteric religion, with Lots Of Orange, the color of brightly illuminated comprehension of the mushroid Eucharist?

— the Theory

My agenda is for the Egodeath theory to degenerate into Religionism with a narrowing Religionist agenda of theorizing about Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

It is a story of intellectual and moral decline not seen since Allegro, Graves, Irvin, Arthur, Heinrich, Rush, M. Hoffman, Brown, and Brown.

Why didn’t Hanegraaff’s academic suicide posting mention Allegro’s assertion of Jesus’ ahistoricity?

The prisoners of Academia cannot assert Jesus existed, because they will look foolish, and they cannot assert that Jesus didn’t exist, because that is forbidden by the Establishment.

Academics aren’t permitted to touch that forbidden subject of instant academic suicide.

It is a tale of intellectual and moral decline not seen since agent Wasson, Letcher (Hatsis), and McKenna, in their determination to suppress mushrooms in Christianity.

Studying or in any way acknowledging the Egodeath theory is instant academic suicide.

No Jesus or Eusebius, all our religions are based on psychedelic drugs, and there’s no-free-will; we are puppets trapped frozen in rock, our kingly steering power a childish delusion until the snake sent by the Creator brings mushrooms into the mind’s vine-shaped stream of pre-existing mental constructs.

The main theme of the Egodeath theory is that it undermines everything produced by Academia and renders null the need for religion and classics and humanities and Esotericism departments.

Only an Engineering department is needed, to do further research in loose cognitive binding dynamics, plotting out stability regions per Control Systems engineering.

It will be not an academic’s suicide, but the entire disciplines’ ego death and rebirth — the University’s death and rebirth.

The Egodeath theory will be the death of the University as we know it, the end of the University’s childhood of lower higher education.

— the Egodeath theory

Keynote speaker panelists call for study of psychedelic drug induced altered states in contemporary esotericism occulture

Christopher Partridge
1:07:30-1:08:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjI_pxQXVi4

Hanegraaff tells scholars to learn multiple languages, but Hanegraaff knows one language: Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism.

I know two languages: Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, and Analogical Psilocybin Preexistence/noncontrol.

The Egodeath theory is the Rosetta Stone to decipher mythic altered state analogy into explicit Theory, mapping between the Egodeath theory and Analogical Psilocybin Preexistence/noncontrol.

Gnosis is Analogical Psilocybin Preexistence/noncontrol; transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Gnosis is transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism cognition.

— the Egodeath theory

Decoded: The Forbidden Fruit

Breakthrough: I decoded satisfactorily and adequately at last the mytheme {the Forbidden Fruit}, after years of original research in High Hermeneutics.

Here is how to fully read the Forbidden Fruit analogy in the intense mythic altered state.

This explanation accounts successfully for both the negative and positive valuation of the mushroom gnosis brought by the created snake, negative and positive valuation of being kicked out of the garden, negative and positive aspects of being inside the gated garden in the presence of God.

Why does God forbid himself gnosis/mushrooms?

Why does God suppress mushrooms and thus suppress gnosis/God-cognition?

What incentive does God have for often withholding gnosis/mushrooms from his puppet-creatures?

Why functionally, God forbade mushrooms, as the forbidden fruit, yet sent the snake he created, to bring to the psyche *sometimes*:

to push God’s creatures away from God-thinking into pseudo-separate life as King Steersman.

To create egoic-form life, the Creator must withhold, suppress, and demonize as taboo, Psilocybin, and the gnosis which comes from Psilocybin that is brought forcefully into the stream of cognition that is the rigid worldline snake created by God.

Insofar as the creator/Architect made the worldline snake *bring* the psyche Psilocybin, the creator brought the psyche into the gated guarded forbidden-fruit (mushroom gnosis) walled garden, to be consciously in the company of God, to have God-cognition.

Insofar as the creator/Architect made the worldline snake *not* bring the psyche Psilocybin, the creator cast the psyche out of the gated guarded forbidden-fruit (mushroom gnosis) walled garden, to not be consciously in the company of God, to not have God-cognition, but only creature-cognition, life under the delusion of separation, particularly, the delusion of egoic Possibilism steering power.

God put clothing on Adam and Eve.

Clothing per Robert Oden: _The Bible Without Theology_, which proffers off-base, ordinary-state based social-based “scientific” theory of myth.

Oden failed to recognize myth as analogies for the transformation of cognition to Psilocybin Eternalism.

The top half of the Eden tree snake is Eve (you) naked, not wearing egoic Possibilism-cognition.

God had the preexisting rigid worldline snake bring the psyche clothing and leave the garden: clothing = egoic mask possibility-cognition, moral culpability delusion.

Naked = in conscious presence of God = inside the gated guarded garden with the forbidden fruit, God forbids himself mushrooms in order to create the separate steersman delusion, in some regions throughout the preexisting cyberspacetime Rock Creation.

In the frozen spacetime block, what is the function of lacking-mushrooms?

Why did the programmer of the spacetime block put too few mushrooms into our worldline snakes?

Why does God so rarely make people’s frozen rigid worldline snakes bring mushrooms to the psyche?

What is the functionality accomplished by forbidding and underdosing the world-programmer’s snake creatures so that they usually cannot see that they are snake-shaped worldline kings locked frozen embedded powerless into the Minkowski Stone without any meta-steering power and without possibility-branching, locked into the monopossibility rail.


The tree snake Eve tells you:

Maiden take my hand
I’ll lead you to the promised land
Take my hand
I’ll give you immortality
Eternal youth
I’ll take you to the other side
To see the truth:
The path for you is decided


Egoic separation functionally requires suppression and avoidance of Psilocybin.

The dance of illusion, the stage drama of masks, of separate selves, agents steering themselves through the possibility branching tree — I have another pic of a king in a tree to add to the {king/tree} mytheme.

Joseph Campbell
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
3rd Edition
Page 105
King in a tree:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/photos/albums/89630474

Foolish *ss-eared King Mark is in a tree looking at two women.

The donkey pseudo-king in a tree. The evil king is you, is an aspect of the mind.

The evil king (you) sends a hero (you) to battle the dragon (you) to get gnosis treasure.

Those who overcome, names in book of life, are permitted to pass in and out in peace in the gated garden with snake bringing mushroom-gnosis of Eternalism-cognition.

Those who the creator makes overcome, are made by the creator to pass in and out to the mushroom gnosis tree.

We’re on a mission from God:

FULLY REPEAL drug Prohibition, particularly the proven-traditional Eucharist, Psilocybin.

Eliminate the schedules, in the name of God — against God’s demonic forbidding of himself mushrooms as part of creating egoic delusion-mode life.

— Michael, reporting on-location from inside the gated forbidden-fruit garden in the presence of God not wearing any egoic Possibilism-cognition clothing, not hiding from God

Gnosis communicable, Psychedelics technique discipline

Psychedelics require technique and discipline and perseverance, and then gnosis is adequately and profoundly describable in regular, domain-specific language.

Video of a presentation/lecture:
The Role of Gnosis in Western Esotericism
Wouter Hanegraaff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwQ4G-CoToU
Recommended video lecture about the only-now-recognized centrality of ‘gnosis’.
Just watch the main lecture portion, in English.

Related article:
Reason, Faith, and Gnosis: Potential and Problematics of a Typological Construct
https://uva.academia.edu/WouterHanegraaff
2008

Hanegraaff asserts that we must push aside the over-focus on “what is gnosticism”, stop asking “what is gnosticism”, and start asking “what is gnosis” (frenzy, mania, ecstasis).

Mania and frenzy actually refer to the altered state (loose cognitive binding induced by psilocybin), not to the content of what is thereby revealed (gnosis).

gnosis = Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism; the content revealed by the psilocybin-induced altered state of frenzy/mania. Gnosis = transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

mania/frenzy = loose cognitive binding (induced by psilocybin)

Hanegraaff makes the striking point that there are tons of studies of “gnosticism” and there are *no* studies of “gnosis”.

“gnosis” is treated — like Hanegraaff *zooms* past “Heimarmene” as if merely a little element among others — as a mere element among others.

He asserts that a conceptual revolution is required where gnosis is placed as the central sun, or peak, around which Esotericism must be re-arranged.

Gnosis is not a minor planet orbiting; it is the central takeaway, boon, blessing, gift, outcome, and central point of esotericism practice (the activity of using SKILLED DISCIPLINED MUSHROOM TECHNIQUE.

The unfair biased problem that mushroom usage has suffered, is that biased scholars contrast supposed highly refined, silently assumed as nondrug, mystic techniques, against unrefined, naive, single-dose use of mushrooms, with zero technique.

Mushrooms can be ingested without technique, or with technique.

The ancient mixed-wine mushroom banqueting tradition was a technique, *not* an inept beginner’s 1-time technique-free ingesting of mushrooms.

Psychedelics are the source of gnosis when psychedelics are used with *technique*.

Mushrooms *with technique and discipline* is a series of measured-dosage mushroom-redosing sessions.

False dichotomy: nondrug meditation has technique and discipline.

Using psychedelics replaces any need for technique and discipline. The false dichotomy goes:

Meditation = sitting, with technique and discipline

Psychedelics = ingesting drugs, without technique and discipline

Consider the cross-combinations that none of the biased commentators on “Meditation vs. Psychedelics” thinks of:

Meditation = sitting, without technique and discipline

Psychedelics = ingesting drugs, with technique and discipline

People obsess on set and setting purely for the purpose of avoiding the shadow.

Psychedelics users should focus on technique and discipline, not set and setting.

The problem with the Acid Test parties is not “poor set and setting”, but rather, the lack of technique and discipline.

Technique: medium-duration psychedelics (psilocybin), redosed, every week, for an entire semester, while studying the Egodeath theory.

Using psychedelics with effective *technique* reliably produces gnosis and effectively engages with the desired demonstration of psychotomimetic revelation of noncontrol with respect to time.

Using psychedelics with effective *technique* reliably produces transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism-cognition to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism/noncontrol-cognition.

The shadow is the psyche’s innate desire for demonstrating noncontrol.


Hanegraaff proposes “strict critical historiography” at the same time that he dismisses comprehending a universal underlying psychology-based content of gnosis.

My approach, a form of Hanegraaff 27 different definitions of Religionism, is to begin by accidentally discovering *the content of gnosis* first, and then walking from the Engineering department to the Classics department and confirming that what Classics is struggling to find is that gnosis content which I discovered outside the Classics department:

Hanegraaff incorrectly pronounces can’t even pronounce gnosis.

Hanegraaff pronounces ‘gnosis’ incorrectly; he pronounces it “guh no sis”. Actually the ‘g’ is silent.

My challenge in 1988 in writing up my block-universe noncontrol breakthrough, was not due to the alleged “inability” of language to express and communicate and clearly describe revelation and gnosis.

Supposedly, language works fine to discuss the experiences in human life, except for gnosis.

Rather, suitable usage of language — domain-appropriate skill — is required.

This is yet one more way in which I am the extreme radical deviant: everyone agrees gnosis can’t be communicate in words — but everyone is wrong.

Gnosis can be readily communicated in text postings as I have done.

This requires adequate specialized language skills.

Gnosis cannot be described by egoic noninitiates’ use of words.

Gnosis can be described by transcendent-thinking initiates’ skilled use of words.

In 5th grade, I tested as 11th grade reading level.

I am expert communication.

Gnosis can be fully described, just like everything else in experience, using words.

Gnosis is analogy/metaphor describing psilocybin/psychedelics-induced Eternalism/heimarmene/noncontrol-cognition.

More broadly, gnosis is not just the end-state, but is the full trajectory, of transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Gnosis is based in the Eternalism state of consciousness; the mythic altered state, the analogy altered state.

Gnosis is based in Eternalism cognition.

The magazine title is correct: _Gnosis_ (not _Gnosticism_).

That right title is copied by the new journal, titled _Gnosis_.

Hanegraaff is wrong in asserting that gnosis cannot be rationally comprehended or explained in language by one person to another.

I rationally explained gnosis and I readily communicate gnosis in text.

Here we must reject the ancients.

Western exotericism religious authorities are full of baloney.

Eastern exotericism religious authorities are full of baloney.

Antiquity’s exotericism religious authorities are full of baloney: they say gnosis is nonrational and incommunicable in language. Both are false.

Gnosis is rational and readily communicable in language.

That is how Modernity (my approach) is superior to Antiquity.

We must *check* with antiquity, like a Religionist, but we must be ready to dismiss antiquity, like an Enlightenment Rationalist.

Antiquity was right: there is gnosis upon drinking mushroom mixed wine.

Antiquity is wrong that that gnosis is ineffable and incommunicable (as if climax is communicable, and playing baseball is communicable in language, and feeling an itch or physical pain is communicable in language, but gnosis is not communicable in language.

A poll asking people if they experienced the *supposed* 7 traits of “mystic experiencing” (in their weak sensation of nondrug “mystic experiencing”) was able to confirm all the supposed traits, *except* for ineffability.

The poll failed to find people saying that their mystic experience is “ineffable”.

I don’t like the list of 7 supposed traits of “mystic experiencing” — they are not the traits that I would list.

#1 trait of “mystic experiencing”: Eternalism cognition. Timelessness/noncontrol/preexistence/non-meta-steering.

‘ineffable’ is meaningless and vague.

When you ask me if I experience timelessness, it is clear what is meant.

When you ask me if I experience “ineffability”, it is unclear what is meant.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

2/3 of the readers of the Egodeath theory are enlightened.

1/3 of the readers of the Egodeath theory are *insanely* enlightened.


The Egodeath theory is insanely great. So clear, it’s crazy.

— Professor Loosecog

Hanegraaff vs. Hanegraaff, continued.

Hanegraaff is losing the debate against Hanegraaff.

Hanegraaff argues, against Hanegraaff:

The scholar cannot and should not utilize the altered state, as from LSD.

Scholars have no way of accessing the frenzy mania state, and if they did, they’d be wrong — they would be Religionists, from which no scholarly good can come.

We must study gnosis frenzy mania psychotomimetics and entheogenic drug chemicals and psychedelics.

But we must at all costs avoid Satan, who is Religionism.

The Establishment alliance of Academia with Establishment drug Prohibition makes Hanegraaff dance the Prohibition Twist.

The Platonic Frenzies in Marsilio Ficino
Wouter Hanegraaff
https://uva.academia.edu/WouterHanegraaff
2009
Hanegraaff’s phrases:

ecstatic or trance-like states, experiences, and techniques

mania … a means of ecstatic access to superior knowledge
______
That follows my causal sequence:
1. Ingest the cognitive loosener (in a series of psilocybin redosing sessions).
2. Experience loose cognitive binding.
3. Transcendent Knowledge is revealed.

mushroom = Transcendent Knowledge, through loosecog.

mushrooms –> loosecog –> Transcendent Knowledge
______

frenzies, furies, madnesses

knowledge superior to that of ‘sane’ reason is given … in a state of divine inspiration

the priority of ‘frenzied’ insight over merely profane, rational argumentation

[for ‘rational’, read ‘OSC-based’; “thinking that’s limited to being informed only by the tight cognitive association binding state”]

altered states of consciousness (ASCs). …

Hanegraaff footnote 7 points out Tart’s ASCs included “it is important to realize that Tart’s volume also included non-drug experiences such as hypnagogic states, dream consciousness, meditation, and hypnosis. The same is true of … Baruss _Alterations of Consciousness: An Empirical Analysis for Social Scientists) [AMA 2003], which has chapters for Wakefulness, Sleep, Dreams, Hypnosis, Trance, Psychedelics, Transcendence, and Death.”

Of all these alleged techniques for inducing the true philosophers’ inspired psychotomania frenzy, only 1 technique is sufficiently effective: a series of psychedelic drug sessions done with sustained discipline and technique and study and prayer for stable dependence on the root source snake of preexistent control-cognitions laid out in frozen spacetime.

The other, nondrug methods (an infinite list) are insufficiently effective; they are bullsh-t fraudulent ersatz substitution/ replacement/ displacement/ suppression, psilocybin-avoidance techniques first and foremost.

Psilocybin helps meditation by a factor of 1000, proving that the driving factor or technique is not nondrug meditation, but rather, psychedelic drug chemicals.

Non-drug meditation doesn’t work. Meditation on psychedelics works.

Therefore it’s the psychedelics (used with discipline and technique), not the meditation, that causes Transcendent Knowledge, gnosis, transformation from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Footnote 8 cites the book Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD. The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond.

Hanegraaff phrases:
psychotomimetic [LSD]
“the madness of insanity and the madness of divine inspiration [=] an ‘esoteric’ understanding reserved for the elite.”

— Michael Hoffman, the insanely great Religionist

Here is unassailable proof that Hanegraaff contradicts himself when it comes to frenzy.

“we might need to steer a course that avoids both the Scylla of frenzy and the Charybdis of soberness if we want to do justice, as scholars, to what Ficino would like us to discover.” Page 567, _Platonic Frenzies_.

So Hanegraaff tells scholars “avoid frenzy” (he here equates religionism with frenzy), in order to understand what Ficino meant by frenzy.

To understand frenzy, avoid frenzy.

That’s how to be a scholar of frenzy: by avoiding frenzy.

Hanegraaff demonizes and prohibits that which he glorifes and advocates.

Hanegraff asserts kettle logic:
Religionism is bad.
Frenzy/mania/ecstasis is good.
Religionism is frenzy/mania/ecstasis.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Hanegraaff incoherently demonizes Religionism

Wouter Hanegraaff *must* write an article defining the 27 types of ‘religionism’ that send him into panic seizure, he is white with terror having seen a ghost, the shadowy spectre of dread Religionism, an apparition from Hanegraaff’s unconscious.

Hanegraaff *must* do this, given that his entire advocated model of esotericism scholarship is entirely defined as the negative of “the” Religionism approach.

Just as Protestant and Enlightenment rationalism defined themselves negatively, in relation to discarded knowledge (pagan gnosis, the occult sciences), so does Hanegraaff define his entire theory negatively, in terms of anti-Religionism — but ironically, and tellingly, this purported Religionism which Hanegraaff lives to demonize, is strikingly ill-defined by him.

If Religionism is so very important that good scholarship entirely depends on rejecting Religionism, Hanegraaff needs to do a hundred times better in defining what is and what is not religionism, in his various 27 different varieties of his definitions of what Religionism is.

The psychotomimetic psychosis results, where Hanegraaff’s theory of religious scholarship is incoherent, because he rejects “religionism” but his ‘religionism’ is ill-defined.

Hanegraaff’s own shadow and demon-haunted motivation driving his work, is his ill-digested conception of ‘religionism’.

Hanegraaff’s scholarship is exactly as incoherent as his conception of his own shadow-construction, “Religionism”.

Hanegraaff advocates a technique for esotericism scholarship, which we would rightly identify as “Anti-Religionism” — where “religionism” is a concept invented to Hanegraaff; his own personal demon of his own invention.

Hanegraaff builds his Golem, names it Religionism, and then runs away after seeing a blurry outline of his Religionism Golem.

The only one in the world who knows what blurry demon is meant by ‘religionism’ is Hanegraaff.

Protestantism demonized pagan gnosis.

Hanegraaff demonizes Religionism, defined in a different, contradictory way, each time he explains what Religionism is.

The Egodeath theory demonizes nondrug enlightenment techniques.

The Egodeath theory may rightly be called The Anti-Meditation Theory of Enlightenment — both in 1988 (composing the the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence article as a rebuttal to JTP to publish in JTP) and 2016.

Ken Wilber and the 1988 Journal of Transpersonal Psychology asserted that ego transcendence is nondual consciousness by nondrug meditation.

The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence 1988 asserted that (on the contrary,) ego transcendence is psychedelics producing loose cognitive binding producing Eternalism-cognition (including noncontrol).

Hanegraaff fails to clearly define the accursed “Religionism” by which he negatively defines his entire theory of esotericism and esotericism scholarship.

In contrast, I clearly define the accursed “Meditation” by which I negatively define the Egodeath theory: the false “Meditation” position which I destroy and demonize and condemn is:

“Enlightenment is nondual oneness unity consciousness through nondrug meditation.

Psychedelics imitate meditation, ineffectively.

Enlightenment comes from meditation.

Meditation is the authority, psychedelics are derivative.”


The Egodeath theory asserts, to the contrary:

Enlightenment/gnosis is psychedelics inducing loose cognitive binding (frenzy, mania, the furies), revealing Eternalism/noncontrol.

Meditation imitates Psychedelics, ineffectively, serving the purpose of avoiding psilocybin and avoiding enlightenment/gnosis.

Enlightenment/gnosis comes from psychedelics.

Psilocybin is the authority, meditation is derivative.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

I don’t reify “religionism”; instead, I always identify it as Hanegraaff’s invention, his own personal shadow projection: it is “Hanegraaff’s reified ‘Religionism’ construction”.

Not “religionism”, but rather, “Hanegraaff’s construction, ‘religionism'”.

Hanegraaff’s religionism

One reading of Hanegraaff’s confused and inconsistent demonizing of his ‘religionism’ construct that he invented, is that this distortion and anguished contradiction within Hanegraaff’s theorizing is a manifestation of dancing the Prohibition Twist, under the distorting conditions of drug Prohibition:

Hanegraaff seems to be saying, under the watchful censors’ eye of the Roman Catholic index of forbidden books:
________

I firmly instruct scholars DON’T DO PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS (only religionist *losers* do psychedelic drugs); rather, *study about* tripping balls.

I make a great show of demonizing and condemning psychedelic drug users, as religionists (that’s bad, religionism).

However, I exempt Benny Shanon; that’s not religionism.

— Hanegraaff
________

Where the f-ck does Hanegraaff draw the line between tripping balls appropriately for scholarly strict *critical historiography*, vs. tripping balls that is profane, anti-scholarly, departmental-reputation-wrecking *religionism*?

Hanegraaff tends to assert:

We must absolutely differentiate between:
o Tripping on psilocybin, and an agenda of psychedelics advocacy.
o Scholarly strict critical historiography reading about and writing about the history of tripping on psilocybin.

So many inconsistencies I found in Wasson, in Richard Evans Schultes’ _Little Golden Book of Hallucinogens_, in Hanegraaff, and in general, self-contradictions asserted by scholars, *Under The Distorting Conditions of Drug Prohibition*.

Deconstruct Hanegraaff, deconstruct all scholarship about gnosis, which comes from psychedelic drug chemicals.

All scholarship about gnosis (which comes from psychedelics, throughout history) is filled with deep self-contradictions, due to scholarship and censorship under the distorting Conditions of Prohibition.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com (it’s on the Index of Banned Theories)

Hanegraaff is a closeted Religionist.

First, Hanegraaff’s world was naive and simple:
o strict critical historiography (good)
o religionism (bad)

But then Hanegraaff discovered that the actual basis of New Age — LSD — was completely missed by his New Age book.

After Hanegraaff’s religious conversion, he wrote the article _Psychedelic Esotericism_.

Now Hanegraaff’s story is patched with epicyclic corrections, as:
o Strict critical historiography (good) (limited to exoteric)
o Religionism (bad) (not to be confused with the below)
o Psychedelic esotericism (good)

This psychedelicized Hanegraaff theory is patched together with the same brand of bubblegum Ken Wilber used to attach “also: altered states” to his Integral Theory diagram.

Hanegraaff’s revised and moderately psychedelicized “theory” is held together with the same Scotch-brand tape that Martin Ball’s “theory” of psychedelic enlightenment uses to discuss how to avoid “the shadow”.

There’s something fishy going on around “religionism” in Hanegraaff’s changing thinking.

“Religionism” is a concept Hanegraaff constantly champions, and yet, he never defines it at any length, though he constantly tries to apply it as a firm, most-important demarcation line.

Hanegraaff’s advocated methodology is {strict critical historiography}/{Anti-Religionism}ism.

What does ‘religionism’ *really* mean, secretly, in Hanegraaff’s mind?

Reading about psychedelics blew Hanegraaff’s mind, and he is struggling to revise what he asserted before, prattling ignorantly about “religionism”.

Religionism is the threatening, repressed, unconscious, shadow side of Hanegraaff — the seductive dragon snake worldline monster lurking in his wellspring in his rock cave of cognitive transformation, demanding that the king sacrifice his maiden.

At night, after work at the University of Exoteric Esotericism, Wouter sneaks off to the Religionism speakeasy.

Hanegraaff fulmigates against Religionism like a preacher castigates sexual sin, vaguely, indiscriminately, wildly, uncontrollably.

Hanegraaff acts like “Religionism” is important enough to constantly bring up continuously when defining your advocated position of strict critical historiography , but “Religionism” is not important enough to write an article clearly defining.

“Religionism” is the Forbidden Fruit (viewed negatively) for Hanegraaff.

Cuckoo Stuck Rad, one of the keynote speakers on Western esotericism, one of the exoteric esotericism advocates…said something I object to about esotericism and exotericism.

There’s too much I could comment on as distorted, throughout these exoteric esotericism mis-information from Hanegraaff and Cuckoo.

Everything they say is pregnant with potential, but misfires.

Wouter wrote proudly, “Scholarship is inherently exoteric.” Was that before or after his extreme religionist conversion article, _Psychedelic Esotericism_?

What’s the difference between:
o Strict critical historiographical scholars studying psychedelic history
o Religionism
o Strict critical historiographical scholars tripping on psychedelics

Wouter tells us to study psychedelic esotericism, but beware: he condemns and curses Religionism as an approach to critical historiography.

If you study psychedelic esotericism, are you a Religionist, or a strict critical historiographer?

Hanegraaff praises Shanon. It is completely unpredictable who Hanegraaff will slag as a Religionist.

Is “Religionism” a crypto-word for tripping on psychedelics?

Is “Religionism” a product of drug Prohibitionist discourse?

Given how poorly and inconsistently Hanegraaff has defined ‘religionism’, his construct ‘religionism’ is useless — especially since Hanegraff’s article about his religious conversion, _Psychedelic Esotericism_ — that potentially forced him to deeply revise everything he had previously vehemently asserted.

Theology mis-guiding my thinking, I went to curse Balaam, but to pass through the death gate revealed on the vine path, I looked in the rear-view krater and I saw my personal mask in the transpersonal block universe and I died.

So then I blessed Balaam.

Evil demonic seer, pagan heretic:

Balaam, after the death angel gate, I bless you.


I only type the words that God puts in my fingers.

The best people are those who I (the Creator) fully bring to myself by having my VR world generator create their worldline snakes with lots of mushrooms.

The best people are the most God-cognition people, who are the most mushroid cognition people.

The angels are peaking on psilocybin continually, along with those in the Eden Garden of the Hesperides with Eve dragon guarding the mushroom tree of gnosis about moral agency.

Through the wound in his side was the psyche’s overpowered thought-receiver born.

She took mushrooms with technique and discipline and perseverance and the worldline brought the psyche steering-power death, gnosis, and nondying.


Why doesn’t the Creator generate a world with more worldline snakes that include a full series of high-quality psilocybin redosing sessions that achieve the ideal level of loosecog: rapidly rise to ideal level surfing the event horizon of loss-of-control, stay there as many hours as you want or have time for, and then rapidly descend to baseline.

This is the “steady ideal level” technique.

The ideal loosecog intensity curve: __—-__

The psychedelics method of gnosis uses *TECHNIQUE* and *DISCIPLINE* over an *EXTENDED PERIOD* (f-ck you, Satan Meditatin’!)

The psychedelics method of gnosis (per the Egodeath theory) produces better moral character than meditation — such as not asserting bullsh-t about meditation being “like” psilocybic acid, and bluffing that meditation “CAN” cause tripping/loosecog, when in fact meditation doesn’t come close in ergonomic efficacy.


Yet more Pop Sike Bullsh-t:
“When you get the message, hang up the phone.”

People only can sufficiently get the message — full modern scientific comprehension of gnosis, as a solved problem, in terms of Analogy, Psychedelics, and Eternalism — now, with the Egodeath theory. Not in the 60s.

Since 1997, 2006, and 2013, the world-wide internet has had available the Egodeath theory.

The Egodeath theory provides full modern scientific comprehension of gnosis, as a solved problem, solved simply and elegantly in terms of Analogy, Psychedelics, and Eternalism.

Gnosis is now a solved problem, in terms of Analogy, Psychedelics, Cognitive Phenomenology, and Eternalism/noncontrol.


MEDITATION PRODUCES INFERIOR MORAL CHARACTER compared to the psilocybin technique of enlightenment.

The usual claim is empty, a fart of gas: “Unlike the accursed psychedelic drugs, Meditation produces blessed moral character.” An empty, baseless claim, and the opposite of the truth.

Every monk is a fraud, morally corrupt, a scoundrel and liar, a posturing hypocrite, and an attempted thief of the Holy Spirit, who denies that meditation *came from* psilocybin.

Some “character” meditation produces.

Alan Watts said the purpose of meditation monasteries was to get misbehaving youths off the streets and out of trouble.

Meditators have inferior character.

People who use expert redosed psilocybin sessions to transform cognition from Possibilism to Eternalism have superior character.

Woe to the accursed “strict critical historiographers”!

Their temple will be torn down, with not one stone left standing on another!

I forgot I was speaking in God’s voice and I resumed typing in my own voice telling my own opinions.

At some point above, what I wrote is the Truth from God given to the Hebrews, and at some point my above writing becomes just mortal opinion, error, passing folly headed for wipeout.

— Michael the Prophet of Extreme Maximum Religionism

The psychedelic method of gnosis uses *TECHNIQUE* and *DISCIPLINE* over an *EXTENDED PERIOD* (f-ck you, Satan Meditatin’!)

The psychedelic method of gnosis (per the Egodeath theory) produces better moral character than (nondrug) meditation — such as not asserting bullsh-t about meditation being “like” psilocybic acid, and bluffing that meditation “CAN” cause tripping/loosecog, when in fact meditation doesn’t come close to psilocybin in ergonomic efficacy, and in practice, meditation serves the purpose of avoiding psilocybin and avoiding gnosis.

— Cybermonk

When you say “religionism”, are you talking about the pre-LSD Hanegraaff, or the post-LSD Hanegraff?


I’m not interested in publically speculating on any particular person’s experience.

I’m joking about theoretical, theory-related questions that are raised in Hanegraaff’s stumbling progress and revision of thinking.

— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com