Idea Development page 10

Site Map

Contents:

Incoming Ideas

Egodeath Show (2021-02-02) Trajectory of 4 Announcement Articles 1997, 2002, 2003, 2006:
“Egodeath Show 2021-02-02.mp3” 1:09:50 (Episode 7)

  • Filename: “Egodeath Show 2021-02-02.mp3”
  • Download URL: https://we.tl/t-OwGfM4UugT
  • Length: 1:09:50
  • Mic: Lightning earbud (casual)
Selected Errata
  • I retract describing this as a “utility” recording; ignore that claim at the start.
  • Also what’s tracked in this analysis is the 4 sections of the 2006 main article:
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/
  • the Egodeath theory (2006)
    • the Mytheme theory (pre-announced 2002&3, ~includes: Ahis. & W Eso’m & Enth Hist):
      • Section 1 = Metaphor = quadrant 1 of puzzle diagram
    • the Cybernetic theory (1997) = quadrants 2, 3, 4
      • Section 2 = Dissociation
      • Section 3 = Determinism
      • Section 4 = Cybernetics

This episode has well-spoken Egodeath theory development realizations about my 4 announcement articles, (1997, 2002, 2003, 2006).

This milestone episode also has a good reading of M. Hoffman’s article, first couple pages straight-through, and I demonstrate my new “subsegment” approach, in which I shut up and just read-aloud, and separately, at end of page, I then stop reading and comment instead – repeating statements sometimes, for ideal vocalizing (almost no commenting this time, though). I am now ready to do a *good* reading-aloud of this article, later.
[2021-02-06: apply today’s Chastening ENUNCIATION REVELATION that I had been doing a terrible job and need to step it up by 2 orders of magnitude high awareness… DO hyper-enunciate (smooth naturalness will automatically happen). Pronounce every word, every syllable, every letter of M. Hoffman’s article.]

Tone King 🎙 🎶 👑

Completed the Quest for the Multi- Holy Grail

🍄 🏆 🍄 🏆

Photo: Cybermonk 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
  • throat health
  • good tone
    • zero overhead/ 2nd nature
  • incisive critique/analysis

Trademark vocal exercise: “It is impressive and admirable, the consistent dedication to falsehood which the Exoteric paradigm has.”

🎙 🙃 😄

Take 9 of this episode of the Egodeath Show – talking about Egodeath theory development.

I used the great professional voiceover “repeat statements” technique to fix the Tone of speaking.

New key words:

  • Utility
  • Segment
  • Tone
  • Repeat statement <- the universal solution to all vocalization problems

Changes to Format & Conventions for the Egodeath Show

What I thought was lo-fi / gear malfunction, is actual gravelly sound in my voice.

Pros & Cons, for overhead, of doing the following:

  • outline of content
  • description of content in filename.
  • saying date.
  • saying ep. number.
  • episode numbers
  • intro/outro script – I will say these informally/ off the cuff. No need for computer screen with text.

Pros & Cons of other options:

  • ZERO overhead.
  • I will only type here, the filename and download link. Nothing else is promised.
  • I might, optionally, state at start: “this is planned to be a [episode type] episode.”
  • During the recording, I will state the next segment type (eg the next half-hour plan):
    • Theory development
    • Read-aloud
      • sub-segments:
        • Reading 1 page (but not commenting) — includes re-reading selected sentences, for clarity. These writings have errors and confusing (& inconsistent, self-countering) wording – my reading aloud, will help.
        • Separate, “commenting” sub-segments. At end of page. Include re-stating sentences from text as needed, for context.
  • Vocalization practice
  • Vocalization theorizing
  • Utility eg discussing show format

A goal is to reduce typing.

Despite switching to voice rec’g, I still have to reduce writing show notes/contents.

Book: High Culture: Drugs, Mysticism, and the Pursuit of Transcendence in the Modern World (Partridge)

Book:
High Culture: Drugs, Mysticism, and the Pursuit of Transcendence in the Modern World
Christopher Partridge, 2018
http://amzn.com/0190459115 –

“History is littered with evidence of humanity’s fascination with drugs and the pursuit of altered states.

From early Romanticism to late-nineteenth-century occultism and from fin de siècle Paris to contemporary psychedelic shamanism, psychoactive substances have playedcatalyzing people.

Yet serious analysis of the religious dimensions of modern drug use is still lacking.

The use of drugs and the pursuit of transcendence from the nineteenth century to the present day.

Beginning with the Romantic fascination with opium, it chronicles the discovery of anesthetics, the psychiatric and religious interest in hashish, the bewitching power of mescaline and hallucinogenic fungi, the more recent uses of LSD, as well as the debates surrounding drugs and religious experience.

This fascinating and wide-ranging sociological and cultural history fills a major gap in the study of religion in the modern world and our understanding of the importance of countercultural thought, offering new and timely insights into the controversial relationship between drugs and mystical experience.”

Egodeath Show (2021-02-01) Episode 6:
“Ep6 Episodal Breakdown.mp3” 3:18:59

  • Filename: “Ep6 Episodal Breakdown.mp3”
  • Length: 3:18:59
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-xoughzNogA
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
  • Source file: 210201_2196.wav
  • Mic: TASCAM DR-05
Errata
  • I have de-committed to listing errata. You get what you get.
  • As promised, I made errors as well as solid, good points, when critiquing M. Hoffman’s article / writing, which I mis-called “Carl Ruck, tell me what you…”
Intro Script
  • This is episode 6 of the Egodeath show, February 1, 2021, with Cybermonk.
  • Topics may include:
    • Figuring out how to coordinate the Egodeath Show & the Egodeath Warmup Show, how to number episodes, what if longer than rec’g limit of 3:22?
    • Readings (chopped up into teeny tiny bits w/ overheated commentary) from articles by Hanegraaff, Ruck, M. Hoffman, Christopher Partridge.

Currently lacks Intro segment, b/c I was thinking of this rec’g as just continuation of Ep5. acreate created (quiet) Intro later, prefixed.

  • Currently reading-aloud Christopher Partridge chapter in same book as Hanegraaff’s article Entheogenic Esotericism: book: Contemporary Esotericism.
  • Spent ~15 minutes discussing/figuring out the “rules” for recording my show(s) and numbering the episodes.
  • The master rule: record episodes. That’s the only thing that matters; don’t let any thing (prohibitive standards) block this.
    • If it’s “High Production Standards vs. Generating Content”, go w/ content, don’t block on Perfectionism, or on conventional expectations.
    • fav recorder halts before 3:22:00. Add an Outro to the end.
    • The next recording = the next episode. Produce bulk produce multiple episodes — two recordings = two episodes. > 3 hours, = a new, different episode. (It’s possible to patch-on an Intro or Outro afterwards.)
    • Record (speak) during the day. Produce/upload/type at night.
    • *try* to separate the egodeath theory content into a different recording than off-topic content; an egodeath recording should be >90% on-topic.
      • Maybe separate creating the Intro/Outro as a separate production step.
      • Streamlined definition of “show” – this show is an idea-development working session for passive consumer couch potatoes (= future-me).
      • I’m not thrilled with my erratic jerky read/stop/comment/random/ … I wish there were longer contiguous reading periods, MORE STRUCTURE of my reading/commentary sessions.
      • Finding: I need to sometimes read sentences twice, to understand them.

Egodeath Show (2021-02-01) Episode 5:
“Ep5 The Wafflehouse Gang.mp3” 3:12:21

  • Filename: “Ep5 The Wafflehouse Gang.mp3”
  • Length: 3:12:21
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-pyVjmVOMi2
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
  • Mic: TASCAM DR-05
  • Source file: 210201_2195.wav
Intro Script
  • This is episode 5 of the Egodeath show, February 1, 2021, with Cybermonk.
  • Topics may include:
    • The Graves/Ruck Wafflehouse Gang, their default anti-plant paradigm, lack of the egodeath theory as base of operation is obvious.
    • New way of measuring self-countering , counter-signalling, and compromise w/ default paradigm/mindset/worldview.
    • Triple holy grail: smooth vocalization, voice apparatus later in day, incisive critique.
    • Mystics episode
    • H/H articles
Outro Script

no outro bc was thinking this would be mp3 1 of 2 for the episode (bad idea). DONE: copy the outro from ep6 wav 210201_2196.wav,
didn’t copy 210201_2193.wav (we have assumed control, seems gravelly – gear broken?)

  • This was the Egodeath show, with Cybermonk.

Egodeath Warmup Show (2021-02-01) Episode 2: Accidental Profundity

  • Filename: “Ep2 Egodeath Warmup Show.mp3”
  • Length: 2:52:21
  • Content: ~67?% Egodeath theory development (review of last night’s work), the middle 1/3 might be vocalization analysis, have to skip over it in big jumps. I should chop up the recording into Egodeath theory content vs. vocalization parts.
  • Download url for 1 week:
    • https://we.tl/t-sviZUF3Oje (Bitrate: 170-210 kbps; suspected slightly more swishy/unsteady 🤷‍♂️ inconclusive so far) Since the original .m4a file had Lossy Cmp turned on, doubt this re-export rate is high enough. 124.4 MB
    • https://we.tl/t-YlPTilRPqK (bitrate: 320 kbps export) 413.7 MB (3.33 times as much data)
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
  • Bitrate: Trying 170-210 kbps. The orig was w/ Lossy Cmp, so this could be swishy/excessive. Redo @ 320 kbps if so.
  • Mic: Lightning earbud mic dangling
  • Tracking file: renamed to “Ep2 Egodeath Warmup Show.m4a”
Critique
  • Hyper – eagerness to analyze yesterday’s work/theorizing, sounds like 1.5x speed playback. hurried – that’s a bad habit. S L O W I T D O W N – C H I L L , or, decide what I’m doing: fast-as-possible Transcendent Knowledge development?
  • Not enough actual vocalization practice / exercises
  • “too much” (relatively) spazzy theorizing about vocalizing
  • tons of the Egodeath theory development, hasty frenetic pacing – not helping voczn habits 🤨
  • 2:18:00 typing – instead, practice pausing – save tape! (& poor listeners’ sanity)
  • 2:18:00 sniffing – bad. 22245 finally paused & fixed.

“Content”

  • ~2:23:15 sing briefly 2112 by using bad vocal tics (um, that, slike, y’know)

Some extended portions have good Egodeath theory content (failed to be on-topic with Voczn, violated the rules and did Egodeath theory devmt; supposed to be an airhead ditzy morning show – FAIL) [Ackshually, it’s supposed to be vocal practice, not unfocused entertainment OR Transcendent Knowledge development ]

Quest for the Triple Holy Grail

🍄🏆🍄🏆🍄🏆

  • good vocalization while off-the-cuff speaking
  • voice apparatus in good state later in day
  • incisive critique/ critical thinking. “everything you said is wrong” (smoothly spoken)
Intro Script

[skipped/winged it]

  • This is episode 2 of the Egodeath Warmup show, February 1, 2021, with Cybermonk.
Outro Script
  • This was the Egodeath Warmup show, with Cybermonk.

morning show ep2 – double holy grail vocalizing yesterday, but too long recordings made semi low fidelity.

in this show I screwed up and did 45+ minutes (read: 2 hours) of Transcendent Knowledge development [correction: ego death theory devmt] reporting on yesterdays model i created, WAFFLEHOUSE GANG GRAVES/RUCK. — THEIR HALLMARK: THEIR WRITING INCLUDES COUNTER-MESSAGING (aka “self-contradiction”). also phrase “counter-signalling themselves”. which i don’t do! and i was shocked that they did it – whoa you guys , and I, are NOT COMING FROM THE SAME PLACE! PROBLY BC i’m coming from *having* the egodeath theory core circa 1997, I’m much more CONFIDENT in plants than they are. I’m coming from top-down vector/place, where Transcendent Knowledge & plants are a GIVEN REALITY; whereas they’re comgin from bottom-up vector/ base of operation, ie, doubt, uncertainty, tentativeness; the received, anti-plant, denial paradigm.

THE GRAVES/RUCK MODERATE PARADIGM = COUNTER-MESSAGING (in their messages), which I don’t do and therefore i noticed intensely <- my 2002 accusation, i have now pinpointed!

the Graves/Ruck Waffle Dance: sometimes they are strategically trying to soften their message. First pretend to agree with the dominant presumption-based Exotericism fallacies, to win the audience and get them to nod along with you, then once the audience is on board, counter and turn and bring them in the other direction. Body of article vs. footnotes — how to make self-contradiction (mixed message, counter-messaging oneself) not count.

Email to M. Hoffman

Has anyone written about this image?
Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/
proof of 70 psychoactive mushroom trees in the heart of Christian art

fyi —

Your article appears to be really good & entheogen-positive, good enough so I’m trying out some critical analytical tools on your article.
https://www.academia.edu/44235520/Entheogens_Psychedelic_Drugs_and_the_Ancient_Mystery_Religions_Mark_A_Hoffman

My “Hermeneutics of Suspicion” tools may need more calibration:  

“You wrote the word ‘The’. 🤨 What’s that supposed to mean?  Are you covertly insinuating & committing an anti-entheogen, entheogen-diminishment fallacy?”

I’m trying to inspect word-usage in nominally entheogen-positive writings, which actually contain self-countering, counter-messaging that is anti-entheogenic.  

I’m looking for some 11 distinct entheogen-diminishment fallacies that can cloud & compromise the thinking and manner of writing, in supposedly entheogen-positive writing.  

Entheogen Diminishment Fallacies
http://www.egodeath.com/#_Entheogen_Diminishment_Fallacies_1

My own view is 100% “playing to win”; extrme plant-positive, consistently.  

My position is hardline “religion = visionary plants, and that’s ubiquitous”.

Ever since I entered the field of entheogen scholarship around 1999, I’ve naturally been based in a top-down perspective (religion = visionary plants), against the culturally predominant tendency to start from the bottom; that is, start from the extreme plant-negative presumptions like Panofsky (“all mshrm trees in Christian art are Italian pines”) and then reluctantly bump-up from there, one’s estimate of the extent of visionary plants in religious history.

I consider my view (my paradigmatic assumption-framework) to be the purist, Esotericist view, against the anti-plants Exoteric paradigmatic assumption-framework.  

No compromise: I’ll change my opinion if… never.  

So many writers seem so eager to compromise and concede and soften their position until I can’t tell what their position is, or (sometimes it feels like) I can’t tell any difference between their view and the hardline entheogen-deniers like Panofsky.

Here’s a hypothetical example of thinking/writing that’s compromised by received-view prejudices from the Exoteric dominant paradigm: 

“the natural methods that mystics used, as opposed to visionary plants”.

The angels who wrote Ott’s book The Angels’ Dictionary disapprove of that biased, presumption-based usage of the word ‘natural’.

Hope I don’t spiral (further) into word-usage paranoia 😵

— M. Hoffman

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/
proof of 70 psychoactive mushroom trees in the heart of Christian art

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/defining-compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

Gallery of Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/13/images-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

Show Episodes Recorded Today So Far

(none produced/uploaded yet)

  • Morning show ep2 [episode 2 of the Morning show]
  • Egodeath show ep5 (I didn’t record outro)
  • Egodeath show ep6 (I didn’t record intro)

Egodeath Show (2021-01-31) Episode 4: Deny Waffle Assert (parts [a], b, &c)

Egodeath Show (2021-01-31) Parts 2 & 3 of 3 of 7-hour session the other day (part of Episode 4)

From long working session, the ~7-hour session the other day, where I created the extreme version of the “Minimal/Moderate/Maximal entheogen theory of religion”, where the recorder chopped the recording into 3 parts.

Working session to invent
the “Deny/ Waffle/ Assert” model of entheogen theories

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/15/idea-development-page-10/#Egodeath-Show-Episode-4c –
created the download link on Feb 3.
Recorded Jan 31 end of day.

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/15/idea-development-page-10/#Egodeath-Show-Episode-4b –
link created Feb 3 good for 1 week.
Recorded Jan 31 almost end of day.

Egodeath Show (2021-01-31) Episode 4c:
“Ep4c Deny Waffle Assert 3.mp3” 29:21

3. Short 3rd segment, voice quieter & quieter, Outro. 210131_2192.wav

  • Filename: “Ep4c Deny Waffle Assert 3.mp3”
  • Length: 29:21
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-ZQoR8UERWi (link created Feb 3)
    • recorded Jan 31
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
    • No intro.
    • Quiet speaking at night. Voice is nice and resonant – which means more bass, which means more leaking and need to be quieter.

part 3 of 3 of the ~7-hour session the other day when I made the more extreme version of the “Minimal/Moderate/Maximal entheogen theory of religion”, where the recorder chopped the recording into 3 parts.

Egodeath Show (2021-01-31) Episode 4b:
“Ep4b Deny Waffle Assert 2.mp3” 3:22:48

  • Filename: “Ep4b Deny Waffle Assert 2.mp3”
  • Length: 3:22:48
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-TTWugDTo0i (link created Feb 3)
    • recorded Jan 31, mid-late evening.
    • Nice voicing.
    • Sudden end at end due to excess length.
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.

good voicing, moderate tech flaw, developing the “Deny/Waffle/ Assert” model of Entheogen Theories

DONE: upload this before it gets lost in the shuffle. 3:22:00
has tons of typing? edit-out??
no intro or outro
(after that evening, i decided that episode number should in future, increment whenever i hit the 3:15:00 mark) An episode should not be multiple long mp3 files. 1 mp3 file = 1 episode, then increment the ep#, in the future.

undecided: upload recording 3? (jan 31 2021 end of day) started talking quiet, there. ~45:00. has the outro.

  • Not sure about Part 2 (intensive working session, probably with annoying typing) or Part 3 (super quiet voice)
  • 1. Recording auto-switched to new file after 3:30:00 210131_2190.wav
  • 2. Recording auto-switched to new file after 3:30:00 210131_2191.wav
  • 3. Short 3rd segment, voice quieter & quieter, Outro. 210131_2192.wav

Egodeath Show (2021-01-31) Episode 4: Deny Waffle Assert
“Ep4 Deny Waffle Assert.mp3”

  • Filename: “Ep4 Deny Waffle Assert.mp3”
  • Length: 3:22:48
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-W6WTZA0j7r
    • Nice voicing.
    • Sudden end at end due to excess length.
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
Content
  • Main, middle part (recording part 2, not uploaded) was a long, like 6-hour working session – even devolved to typing while recording! – revising and tightening
    the “Minimal/ Moderate/ Maximal” Entheogen theories of religion to form
    a new set of more descriptive, self-documenting terms to more clearly & explicitly separate the 3 positions – er, the middle is a “non-position position” marked by extreme prevarication & lack of firm commitment; ‘position’ is highly misrepresentative – so instead, “the 3 camps”.
    Renamed or re-characterized the 3 “positions” as the 3 “camps”:
    the “Deny/Waffle/Assert” Entheogen theories of religion
  • 1:41-1:48 quieter & reverby part – weird audio from 18″ away, during a break – this is why we don’t do this: weird room reverb.
  • 1:47:00 (the end portion of the break) trying to vocal-match “We have assumed control”, 2112.
  • Not included in the first 3.5-hr part: Very end (hour 7?) was M. Hoffman article about Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, & then Hanegraff’s article.
  • I offloaded the Vocalization-work segment, except:
    • I still do a “Vocalization Checkup/Lock-in/Re-securing” 5-minute segment every hour, to retain resonance and protect health and to be able to extend & guarantee continued good results.
    • Ep3 was a voice-health egodeath loss of control; lost it (but as I recall, some great content: strong vigorous principled forceful assertion of commitment to Asserting Plants, I think is in ep3(?)). I want to hear that passage again, wherever it is. “Go ahead and deny plants – We won’t take you in good faith; AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED, u r DECEIVRS IN A COVR-UP OPRATION, not to be taken seriously.”
    • Ep4 (1st half) a major success – holy grail achieved.
  • I read-aloud Cyberdisciple’s info about Graves, on-point. Whose side is Graves’ on, anyway? 50% assert + 50% deny.
  • I read/comment on Hanegraaff article “Entheogenic Esotericism”.
    • I read his later article titles in hour 7 of this episode: there’s no more recent article.
  • microcassettes, failed dream of vocal rec’g. vs. text idea development.
  • 4 fields:
    • myth (overlaps w/)
      • Western Esotericism
      • entheogen scholarship
      • ahistoricity
  • HOLY GRAIL for off-the-cuff vocalizing, even later in the day – Got.
    • Vary pitch
    • Bass pitch
    • Bass spectrum (resonance)
Recording log

This recording hit a limit at 3:22:00 and automatically terminated and started a fresh .wav file.

  • Not sure about Part 2 (intensive working session, probably with annoying typing) or Part 3 (super quiet voice)
  • 1. Recording auto-switched to new file after 3:30:00 210131_2190.wav
  • 2. Recording auto-switched to new file after 3:30:00 210131_2191.wav
  • 3. Short 3rd segment, voice quieter & quieter, Outro. 210131_2192.wav
Intro Script
  • This is episode 4 of the Egodeath show, January 31, 2021, with Cybermonk.
  • Keywords or possible topics: [30 seconds max, unique purely to differentiate episodes; plan to add more later on in the show] (worked great!)
    • new show, the “egodeath warmup show”
    • Cyberdisciple’s comments about Graves’ uses of ‘secret’
    • Hanegraaff’s full article “entheogenic esotericism”
    • 1995 use of microcassettes for voice idea development
  • The microphone is TASCAM DR-05.
Outro Script (Used in Hour 7)
  • This was the Egodeath show, with Cybermonk.

The “Deniers, Wafflers, Asserters” Model of Entheogen Theories, to Tighten-Up the “Minimal/ Moderate/ Maximal” Model of Entheogen Theories

Characterizing the MMM Buckets
  • Vague/Vague/Vague
  • Flexible/Flexible/Flexible
  • Broad/Broad/Broad
  • Blur/Blur/Blur
  • 3 largely overlapping sliders
  • Requires reading 11 webpages of definitions to make the model determinate; to disambiguate.
    • The concept-labels are not self-documenting, but are dependent on separate, external definition essays. Even then, highly subject to debate. Hard to place a writer on a point on a spectrum from 0 to 100.
Characterizing the DWA Buckets
  • Counting the ratio of “plants present” words & “plants absent” words makes it straightforward to place a writer on a point on a spectrum from 0 to 100.
    • Deniers skew hard toward 0.
    • Asserters skew hard toward 100.
    • Wafflers aren’t close to 0 or 100.
      • “Wouldn’t want to be extreme.”
      • “The truth is always in the middle.”
    • The Oreo model:
      • two “hard”, inflexible groups on the outside, with a “soft” “goo” or “mush” group that’s clearly separate from the cookies, in the middle.
      • IT’S REAL EASY TO TELL THE COOKIES FROM THE GUNK IN THE MIDDLE. NOT HARD AT ALL; it’s *super-obvious*.
      • THE COOKIE *EASILY* RECOGNIZES THAT THE GOO IS ALIEN, “THAT’S DEF NOT ME!”
      • Cybermonk 2002: “Whoa, I thought you were with me, but *clearly* you’re not! I never would have waffled & ceded ground like that! Whose side are you on??” 🤨
  • Hard/Soft/Hard
  • Endpoint/Squish/Endpoint
  • Ultra-Rigid/ Ultra-Flexible/ Ultra-Rigid
  • -/?/+
  • 0/?/100
  • 0/indeterminate/100
  • constant/variable/constant
  • fixed/variable/fixed
  • stationary/moving/stationary
  • stable/unstable/stable
  • no-compromise/compromised/no-compromise
  • playing to win/ playing to lose or draw/ playing to win
  • fully committed/ hedge your bets/ fully committed
  • Narrow/ Ultra-Flexible/ Narrow
  • Narrow/Broad/Narrow
  • Radio Button A/ Slider/ Radio Button B
  • Extreme/ Waffle/ Extreme
  • Hardline/ Indeterminate/ Hardline
  • Inflexible/ Ultra-flexible/ Inflexible
  • Invariable / Variable/ Invariable
  • The D/W/A model (the Fully Deny/ Waffle (Prevaricate)/ Fully Assert model) requires 0 pages of definitions; self-documenting concept-labels.
  • By defining the endpoints as ultra-simple extremes, the only hard part is characterizing the middle as the very opposite: extremely variable, indeterminate, waffling, indecisive, contradictory.
    • The middle non-position: MIX OF “PLANTS PRESENT” & “PLANTS ABSENT” WORDS/STATEMENTS/POSITIONS.
    • At the two extremes: no mixture. Simple assertion of total presence or total absence; in terms of words/quotes:
    • Purely “plants present” words, or
    • Purely “plants absent” words.
  • Scientific way to analyze any passage in any entheogen book/article:
    • Highlight all the “plants present” words one way, “absent” other. eg Cyberdisciple’s markup of Robert Graves’ statements.
  • Deniers: Panofsky’s writings:
    • ~100% “plants absent” statements/words.
    • SIMPLE FIRM COMMITMENT. STABLE.
    • Eager to press the point and make hardline statements that challenge people.
    • Character of prose: consistent hardline, pure & unmixed.
    • Motto: “Real religion lacks plants.”
    • “Evidence of presence” should be treated as-if evidence for absence.
  • Asserters: Cybermonk’s writings:
    • ~100% “plants present” statements/words.
    • SIMPLE FIRM COMMITMENT. STABLE.
    • Eager to press the point and make hardline statements that challenge people.
    • Character of prose: consistent hardline, pure & unmixed.
    • Motto: “Real religion is from plants, and is ubiquitous.”
    • “Absence of evidence” should be treated as-if evidence is still expected and is practically present and should be assumed to be present.
      • “Absence of evidence” = “virtual presence of evidence”, by extension or by argument-from-paradigm. Status = “expected, merely not-confirmed”. Impossible to disconfirm. All mystics *must* have used plants. Lack of evidence simply means we haven’t been able to prove, what we already know must be true. Fully willing to commit to (paradigm-premised) faith-based assumption that plants must have been used.
      • A paradigm-based positive stance that’s equivalent to as-if full evidence confirmed. Confidence not dependent on “hard direct evidence”; indirect evidnece fully suffices. Additional evidence of additional types is “nice to have, and appreciated”, but not, strictly speaking, required. The Theory stands confidently, data be damned. WE DON’T NEED MORE DATA; WE HAVE A PLETHORA OF DATA EVIDENCE ALREADY, TO REASONABLY & CONFIDENTLY & SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORT THE THEORY.
      • Confidence is supported by the productive demonstrations that this position has produced, of a solid & impressive track-record of making corroborative data perceptible. This paradigm-commitment has been effective/ productive in producing / leading to evidence.
  • Wafflers: The “Quantum Indeterminacy” Graves/Ruck non-position position.
    • ‘secret’: “plants present but absent” – “but ask me again tomorrow.”
    • COMMITMENT TO PREVARICATION. UNSTABLE.
      • Commitment issues.
    • “My position heavily overlaps with the Minimalists… and with the Maximalists.”
    • “Entheogens are ubiquitous in Western religious history, but No Mushrooms In Christianity.”
    • Commitment & strategy: mixed message, self-contradiction.
      • Always couch assertions in doubt and qualification and restrictions.
        • “X was present but…”
        • “In most cases, plants present.”
        • “Secret plants-present”.
    • Motto: “WITH ONE HAND THEY GIVE, WHILE WITH THE OTHER HAND, THEY TAKE AWAY“.

The “Deniers, Indeterminates [Self-contradictories/ Hesitators/ Wafflers], & Asserters”

The New Model to Transform[/Replace] the “Minimal/ Moderate/ Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion” Model: Key words – New Conceptual Vocabulary

A simpler, more extreme model that’s more determinate in ways, and draws a much more definite, striking, SHARP CONTRAST between the 3 camps, than the old, “MMM Model”, which used vague terms that required many pages of disambiguation and hwihc in practice, led to so much overlap, as to be meaningless. —

~Nov 2020, I started to express doubt in the utility/applicability of the MMM scheme, saying “If my dubious categories (M/M/M) are meaningful“.

(outcome of 4-hour working session)

Names of the New Model for the 3 Entheogen Camps

todo: add numerous times here, the words “presence” & “absence”.

  • the 3-camps model
  • the “ADI Model” (unlike the “MMM Model”, this set of terms is unambiguous/ self-defining)
  • the “asserters, deniers, & indeterminates” model
  • the “asserters, deniers, & self-contradictories” model (complementary term)
    • Question: “Which meaning of the word ‘indeterminate’?”
    • Answer: YES.
  • the “Indeterminate” entheogen scholarship school/position/camp
  • the “Indeterminate” entheogen scholars
  • the Indeterminate Entheogen Theory 😄
  • the Self-Contradictory Entheogen Theory
    • the Egodeath authorities have already discussed & are unanimously agreed upon the self-contradiction of Ruck (with impressive celerity!)
The Litmus-Test Question (So Telling!)

“Does scholar X assert visionary plants?”

  • In the case of Cybermonk: “TOTALLY! HE’S CRAZY, ASSERTING LEFT & RIGHT!! DAY & NIGHT!”
  • In the case of Ruck school: “well, … not sure what the question means…” -> they are INDETERMINATES, EXPOSED!!! 😄 hem , haw, i wouldn’t want to be inaccurate in my characterization of his nuanced positionality, … hm, its complicated 🤔 🤔 😵

The “number of words” test: How many words are required to define the scholar’s position?

  • the deniers: 2 words: plants absent.
    • PLAYING TO WIN (team Panofsky)
  • the asserters: 2 words: plants present.
    • PLAYING TO WIN (counter-Panofsky team)
  • the indeterminates: 200+ words. plants present but absent. (it’s never enough, need more words…)
    • PLAYING TO LOSE; THEY’D RATHER DIE ON THE HILL OF PRECISION; WAFFLING, PREVARICATION, COMPROMISE; NO ALLEGIANCE, SHIFTING, INDETERMINATE, SELF-CONTRADICTION (hm, sound familiar?), MIXED MESSAGE
The 3 Camps
  • the plant asserters (a camp that “replaces” problematic term “Maximal Theory”)
  • the indeterminates (a camp that “replaces” problematic term “Moderate Theory”)
    • aka “the self-contradictories“
    • aka WHAT THE HELL SIDE ARE YOU GUYS ON, ANYWAY?! (whose side)
  • the plant deniers (a camp that “replaces” problematic term “Minimal Theory”)
The Key Words that Manifest All at Once, the 11 Entheogen Diminishment Fallacies
  • “plant-assertion” words (example: see top of Mark Hoffman article, has only these)
  • “plant-denial” words (example: see Cyberdisciple’s emphasis-added Graves quotes)

Robert Graves’ Use of the ‘Secret’ Concept

Re: the secret field of entheogen scholarship, which is careful to have no impact whatsoever on the Exoteric Hegemony in public consciousness, despite adding 1 book per year onto the pile of entheogen scholarship books.

Cyberdisciple wrote:

Hi Cybermonk,

Listening to your voice recording “Ep 1 Secret Grid Game.mp3”:

It sounds like you are including Graves in your criticism of the “secret” school primarily because he censored himself. [ie stopped writing about entheogens]

I would assert more directly that Graves contributed to the “secret” school of entheogen scholarship by his content: he wrote directly that mushrooms were used at the origins, but then were made taboo and secret, and knowledge of them lost.

From my summary assessment in 2017:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/assessing-robert-graves-1950s-psychedelic-scholarship-on-greek-mythreligionart/
(sketchy, needs revision and quotations from Grave’; emphasis added):

“Graves is the true origin of the middling moderate entheogen theory of religion, as defined here:
http://egodeath.com/ViewsOnEntheogensInReligiousHistory.htm
psychedelics were used commonly in the origins of religion, but later became more and more restricted to select occasions or a select group, until finally they became so secretive that common knowledge of their role was lost; the role of the scholar is to unveil the presence of plants in religious myth and ritual.”

“In ‘Centaur’s Food, Graves claims:

  • The taboo on mushrooms in some cultures is a sign of their earlier use in sacred ceremonies
  • That Greek priests later banned the use of the mushroom and that Greek myth reflects this change by depicting the punishments of figures for serving ambrosia to mortals”

“‘The Poet’s Paradise’ claims:

  • Amanita was used in Europe, but reserved for the priesthood and taboos were used to deter others from having it; the taboo hung on long after rites were over; Amanita was initially used, but later the more common panaeolus and psiloybe used; Mushroom use was secretive and reserved only for those of a certain integrity; No Christian or Jew consumed mushrooms; despite Christian peyote churches, predicts that Catholics and Protestants cannot accept visionary plants and will lead Prohibition, in cahoots with tobacco and liquor industries”

[end of excerpts from Cyberdisciple’s 2017 post]

As an indication of how little the “secret school” has progressed, Graves writings in the mid-50s read like Carl Ruck’s latest books 🙃

– Cyberdisciple

New Marketing/Branding Plan: the Egodeath Theory = “a Panic-Stricken Psychotic Trip to Hell” 😱 🔥 🐉 💎 🏆 😄

[get exact quote Transcendent Knowledge podcast ep27 ~47:29]

Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, episode 27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmpbFAAJXI

The Mystic 👽 Episode – Issues that came up after the last podcast with Cyberdisciple and Jimmy. Topics:

  • The meaning of the word ‘mystic’
  • Precise definition of mystical transformation
  • Setting the bar for attaining mystichood
  • How special are mystics?
  • Idealisation of mystics
  • The relevance of mystics to the egodeath theory
  • Mystics tripping frequently
  • Comparable concepts such as gnostics, hierophants and prophets
  • Verbal communication compared to written communication
  • The relevance of Ramesh Balsekar’s thinking compared to other self-help gurus
  • Fusing the two states of consciousness; joining vs blending
  • Hesychasm as a natural means of accessing the altered state
  • The incompatibility between Jimmy’s book knowledge and his experiential knowledge
My commentary
  • AGGGHH ~46:20, uses ‘natural’ to mean non-drg. SEE JONATHAN OTT’S BOOK The Angels’ Dictionary. 🍄 <– Ott defines this as natural. Isn’t this usage, employed by Max, an entheogen diminishment fallacy?
    • ~33:50 “ancient mystics who trip by natural means” <– the word ‘natural’ is highly ambiguous, I don’t know what’s being said, by “NATURAL”. ??? 35:30 contradicts, he says “forest ancients who trip”. is max saying they (Kafei’s fantastical notion of ‘mystics’) are “natural”, or that they “trip”?
  • The word ‘gnostic’ is recently controverted. April D. DeConick defends its use, in her book The Gnostic New Age. Reclaiming and redefining it better.
  • Like Max said here, I too have a tepid idea about the usefulness of the term ‘mystics’, it’s kind of a joke, not a respected concept to me.
  • ~”none of them impress me that much. … What’s impressive [re: brands of mysticism] when you’ve got the Egodeath theory ? … Ramesh weak compared to.” 24:44 quotable
    24*60 + 44 = 1484s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmpbFAAJXI&t=1484s
  • “jimmy is a mega advanced mystic” ~29:00 “but i don’t like the concept of ‘mystic'”
  • he wants something more than, perhaps, a panic-stricken psychotic trip to Hell” ~47:29 todo: audio clip.
    47*60+29 = 2849s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmpbFAAJXI&t=2849s
    • That gives me an idea for a new marketing/branding plan:
      the Egodeath theory = a panic-stricken psychotic trip to Hell

Egodeath Warmup Show (2021-01-31) Episode 1:
“Ep1 Egodeath Warmup Show.mp3” 2:24:31

☕️ 🎙 🎶

  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-hPNk0E8h2q
  • Filename: “Ep1 Egodeath Warmup Show.mp3”
  • Title in player: “Ep1 Egodeath Warmup Show”
  • 2:24:31

I might discover and say the ultimate SECRET of the universe in this show, but Egodeath content is not the intention.

This show-series offloads Vocalization content from the main Egodeath show. Little Egodeath theory content – but, per my WordPress policy, “if you have an idea, say it right here wherever you are.” Therefore, *possible* Egodeath theory content; I do *not* have a policy in this show of “no Egodeath theory content is allowed.” That’s just not the *intention* of the focus/purpose of this show. If you hang w/ me, u *might* be subjected to Egodeath theory content.

Content
  • Designing the Morning Vocal Warmup show
  • Throat Coat tea (expensive, save for evening when needed). Traditional Medicinals brand http://traditionalmedicinals.com – hoping this works in evening. https://www.traditionalmedicinals.com/products/throat-coat-lemon-echinacea/ –
  • Super looking forward to playing w/ different microphones
  • Defining more accurate than “bass pitch”. Key words:
    • Vary pitch
    • Bass pitch
    • Bass spectrum <- newly specified; pushing pitch down is distinct from opening-up the bass spectrum, tho pushing pitch down is the main way to open up the bass spectrum
  • Editing-in my field-recorded, my recordings of choir warmup exercises in this show or in a vocal segment in the main Egodeath show (if I retain the Vocalization segment there).
  • CONCEPT/ metaphor/ visisualization: “Triangle goal”:
    reading script -> target voczn <- off-the-cuff
    Maybe rename as “convergence to the perfect middle/target“
  • Coffee brewing technique pourover / variable concentration

The first thing that appeared at the tea/lozenge site, is “community”:

Hanegraaff has exposed the New Age euphemism “power plants” as a euphemism for visionary plants. 🍄 <- a power plant

Offloading Vocalization Content from the Egodeath Show to the Morning Vocalization Warmup Show <– BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MYSTIC FOUNTAIN OF DUMB IDEAS

My vocal apparatus had a loss of control ego death last night; sounds hoarse and sick, it doesn’t even sound like me; sounds high and nasally. Someone recommended hydration – which brings up topic of:

  • Voice Recordings
    • “Technical/ Equipment” component
      • Voice Health
        • hoarse, hydration, warmups, warmup exercises to correct the vocal apparatus

aka “the Egodeath [Morning Vocal] Warmup Show”

Completely low (no) priority for the Egodeath [theory] community. (Almost) NO DIRECT RELEVANCE FOR THE EGODEATH THEORY.

Intro Script
  • This is episode n of the Egodeath Warmup show, January n, 2021, with Cybermonk.
Outro Script
  • This was the Egodeath Warmup show, with Cybermonk.

Egodeath Show, Episode 3 (2021-01-30):
“Ep3 Entheogenographical Breakthroughs.mp3” 2:45:39

  • Filename: “Ep3 Entheogenographical Breakthroughs.mp3”
  • Track name: “Ep3 Entheogenographical Breakthroughs”
  • Length: 2:45:39
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-Kjjb6f0Ine
    • No login or email needed. Magnifying glass = in-browser player.
  • Source file: Likely 210130_2187.wav, which has same path as previous show which is 210129_2186.wav (which see).
Content
  • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
    • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
      • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
        • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
          • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
            • Discussion of possible topics, starting with:
              • TIME’S UP
  • History of breakthroughs in entheogen scholarship. Just a biblio?
  • Impression of my being centered in field of entheogen scholarship. What about other topics balance?
  • I read 85% John King’s book.
  • For the vocalization segment: what diff smooth vs angry. Enuniciation – over-en can read as anger or potentiate” (multiply x degree actual anger * degree of enunciation)
  • Hanegraaff article — i did read. Talk through it more.
  • Doubts about critique of entheogen scholarship – how to concretely ground it, in 2002?
  • Found my Ruck myth book review 2002.
  • Rating my previous recordings as 10/10. What does that mean to me?
  • Egodeath Yahoo Group 10/10. What does that mean?
  • Art Authorities comedy piece in last show.
  • Emails with Mark Hoffman & Cyberdisciple
    • Cyberdisciple explained the basis of my comedy – Allegro & Eleusis serve as barriers, not entryway.
  • Philosophy of public posting of email content.
Intro Script
  • This is episode 3 of the Egodeath show, January 30, 2021, with Cybermonk.
Outro Script
  • This was the Egodeath show, with Cybermonk.

History of Breakthroughs in the Field of Entheogen Scholarship

How to list breakthroughs w/o simply being a chronological bibliography of the field?

  • Salvert ~1840 (minor)
  • Blavatsky (minor)
  • Manly Hall 1924 (minor)
  • Robert Graves – 1956 – Centaurs’ Food essay – major milestone. firm statement of printicple (todo: quote that clear, firm, boldest, most general assertion like “All ancient Greek & Hellenistic religious initiation & mythology was always from psychoactive mushrooms; mystery-religion initiation, mixed-wine banqueting, symposium drinking parties too.”)
  • Wasson – russia/soma, accomplished __. Identified __.
  • Allegro – ahistoricity + Amanita in primitive Christianity , firm statement of proposal.
  • Heinrich – 1995, Strange Fruit. Rev 10 & Ezekiel scrolls = Amanita.
  • Road to Eleusis 1979
  • ??
  • Samorini –
  • Plaincourault article
  • Entheos 2001 issue 1
  • John Rush lifted garment theme
  • ??
  • 2016 Brown – The Psychedelic Gospels
  • Ruck – ??
  • 2006/2020 – Cybermonk – identified 6 mushrooms in Dionysus Thiasus Victory Triumph – image provided by the Egodeath community in the Egodeath Yahoo Group ~2006 by __ (todo).
  • November 2020 – the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image decoded by Cybermonk

Vocalization Fine-Tuning

THIS ANGRY TONE OF VOICE HAS GOT TO STOP!!

😡

I think the root problem is overemphasizing the attack of each word, which “reads” as anger, like spitting each word. A form of over-enunciation. Cure: SMOOTH. Yeah I think it’s over-enunciation — there’s no way I’m as critical as it sounds like.

The problem is not only overly criticizing (as an emotional attitude); the problem is that, wrapped up together with distinct problem, of over-enunciation. The problem is several distinct component-errors that work together in one direction.

My precise thinking, is getting transformed into either anger, or a tone that reads as-if anger.

The really well-vocalized mp3 just before yesterday’s Episode 1 – “Old Secret Entheogen Paradigm.mp3” – now that I’m attuned and listening for it – has a lot of harsh, angry tone of voice – I’m quite surprised. I totally didn’t notice it before, several times when I listened.

  • It’s freaking me out that I have been speaking with that tone.
    • Also, along w/ that, or as part of that tone:
      • speaking too fast,
      • emphasizing too many of the words with a sharply criticizing tone.
  • It’s freaking me out that I didn’t hear that I spoke with that tone, even after repeated, supposedly “critical” listenings, until now.
  • I had my hands full correcting the many other flaws (eg word-choice, “So, Um, you know, “; cussing; etc.).
  • I am pleased & happy with my many repairs and improvements so far.
    • I have high confidence now in my ability to spot problems and then monitor for those problems and correct them.
      I have a cybernetic correction loop set up now:
      • Set goals.
      • Monitor more effectively while live/ performing.
        • Monitor the source of suggested thoughts.
        • Monitor the sound of words just-now spoken.
      • Evaluate more effectively during playback afterwards.
      • Set new goals.
    • Embarrassing: I backed out of appearing on Hatsis show partly bc his adversarial tone. While I have had the totally critical (seemingly non-stop) tone.
  • Too bright. Position mic more off-axis.

To get the right mindset for vocalization (voice recordings) i need signs:

ON AIR

Chill

  • On Air https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=on+air
  • Chill Dude / Smooth Calm Pacing (regardless of gaps)
  • YOU! DONT! HAVE! TO! EMPHASIZE! EVERY! SINGLE! WORD!
  • [… i was gonna say “step up the pace”… which is ironic ’cause often I’m saying “slow it down, spazzo!” ] — it seems that regulating speed is more of an issue than I realized. I’m often going too slow or too fast, or, long gap then a burst… gap, burst, gap, burst….
    • fallacy: to compensate for a gap when I’m looking for the next word, deliver a burst“. <– how about not! true solution: SMOOTH CALM PACING. I’m not saying “don’t have gaps”; I’m saying “Don’t deliver bursts as if that compensates for the unfort gaps.” rather, after a gap (when looking for next word/phrase), compensate by smooth pleasant delivery when resume talking.

Egodeath Show, Episode 2:
“Ep2 Ourgument from Authority.mp3” =
“2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority.mp3” 2:48:05 – Re-uploaded Feb. 20, 2021

If you wanted to download the file (because you didn’t get to download the original file
“Ep2 Ourgument from Authority.mp3”,
or if you want the new title-pattern to appear in your music player:
“2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority.mp3″
to be possibly more readable), there is/was an updated download link:

  • Version 2 of making same episode available as .mp3 file:
  • Download/preview link for 1 week after 2021-02-20:
    https://we.tl/t-fh3H2RvWS1
  • Length: 2:48:05
  • Filename: In the re-upload, I changed the filename from:
    “Ep2 Ourgument from Authority.mp3”
    to:
    “2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority.mp3”
  • changed display-title to:
    “2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority”
  • description:
    • Solid Egodeath content from start to end, including first 47 minutes satire.
    • See Content, below.
  • filesize: 403 MB 🐷 (385 MB just like the orig version, according to WeTransfer site), bitrate is genuinely straight-up, full-on 320 kbps, channels = Mono.
    • Idea:💡🤔 I could upload two different sizes/fidelities… you would get to pick… [March 6 note: that works ok, but I need to do some effective testing of bitrates for degree of swishiness.]

This episode has solid content, starting w/ a 47-minute piece (that switches between Art & Grid Game), which I might “clip” in some way.

One reason the first episodes were so down-to-business, was that I mounted the self-contained field recorder on a mic stand. “handheld recorder” approach, but stand-mounted.

I remember how very attached I was, to that approach; I was reluctant to switch to the SM57 microphone. I switched from all-in-one DR05 to the SM57 separates-approach, at start of Idea development page 11 Feb 2.

I discovered a slurring/lisp after I switched from omni (dr05) to cardioid mic (sm57).
The bright omni mic somewhat masked the slurring.
The dark cardioid mic revealed/accentuated the slurring.

My inconsistent voicing is due to:

  • slurring
  • changing mic
  • changing miking position
  • changing mic eq
  • time of day (voice condition + quiet speaking)
  • hyper-enunciation
Content

Comedy from the Art Authorities: todo: extract 0-0:47:00 as clip, to embed in a future show? what’s the .wav/.aup?

  • Start: “This is episode 2 of the Egodeath Show, January 29, 2021, with Cybermonk. The microphone is TASCAM DR-05. I plan to discuss: post-show ideas after the last episode…” See “Intro Script” to see the developing origination of the structured show format.
  • 0:00-47:00 Comedy from the Art Authorities (but need to dis-entangle the Art vs. Grid segments)

🍄 🙃 🎨 😄 🌳

  • Ideas I developed while listening to the last episode:
  • THE ESOTERIC ART AUTHORITIES ALL AGREE WITH EACH OTHER (WITH IMPRESSIVE CELERITY!) THAT REAL RELIGION ALWAYS INVOLVES PLANTS, UBIQUITOUSLY.
    • As supporting evidence, a list of names of esoteric authorities is available, and is bigger and more impressive than the Wasson/Panofsky list of authorities, thus proving that we are right.
    • *Our* argument from authority is superior to *their* argument from authority.
    • I would cite a little book from 46 115 years ago, to show our evidence … <– but I’ve replaced that embarrassingly WEAK and unpersuasive citation by ellipses, per the Wasson argument.
    • Against your bedtime cover-story, here is *our* story:
    • WHEN AN ARTIST DRAWS A MUSHROOM SHAPE, THE ARTIST MEANS PSYCHOACTIVE MUSHROOMS USED FOR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
    • BY FIAT AND THE ESOTERIC ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, THE PERENNIAL ESOTERIC COMMUNITY DECLARES:
  • THE ESOTERICISTS HAVE DECLARED THEIR WIN: THE SCORE TALLY IS +200, BECAUSE THE ESOTERIC AUTHORITIES SAY SO.
  • REAL RELIGION = VISIONARY PLANTS, WHICH ARE UBIQUITOUSLY USED. TAKE THAT, PANOFSKY & POPE WASSON’S “ALL THE TOP, EXOTERIC, APPROVED ART AUTHORITIES AGREE WITH EACH OTHER, WHO ALL SPEW THE UNANIMOUSLY AGREED-UPON COVER-STORY (WITH IMPRESSIVE CELERITY!)”
    • The anti-plant ppl try to assert by sheer force, a score of -200 by Fiat. Real religion never = plants. Hatsis: an unreasonable committed skeptic re: msh in Christianity. I’m similar: I am an “unreasonable”, committed believer in plants.
  • For Hatsis, no evidence ever could count. For me, no lack of evidence could ever count – the data be damned; the Egodeath theory’s Maximal Entheogen theory is correct.
  • Allegro is admirable in that he’s committed & totally explicit.
  • Hatsis (like Panofsky & the approved exoteric art historians) has announced that he cannot be reasoned with, that there is no possible way he could ever be persuaded except by text explicit statements. He has announced his watertight historical methods that in all cases, always explain away all (art) evidence. Cybermonk’s methods always explain-away the LACK of evidence.
  • Panofsky: Brinckmann’s little book shows that ALL mushroom trees are Italian Pine trees; all mushroom trees are explained away as “accidentally distorted templates, artists have no control of or responsibility for their mushroid product.
  • The Template Made Me Do It.“
  • Part 2
  • This is a night show episode, quieter voice, roll-up-the-sleeves working session, than a morning-drive radio DJ show. I miss the daytime construction noise.
  • Summary of the Grid Game. The grid of “evidence” for plants in all religions/ regions/ eras. Strategies used by the Minimal/ Moderate/ Maximal entheogen theory.
Converging 4 fields to Construct Esotericism: Western Esotericism, mytheme decoding, ahistoricity, entheogen scholarship
  • errata: re: When did I start mytheme decoding? In particular, for this question, I should mention Ruck’s book on Greek Myth, which I read ~May 2002. That answers that, pretty well – that’s as good a date as any.
    THE STORY IS BECOMING CLEAR:
    I STARTED PHASE 2 FOR REAL AROUND 1999, SEMI-MATURE BY OCT 2002.
    Ruck has a good way of formatting to call out [themes] in mid-sentence when discussing mythology:
    The World of Classical Myth: Gods and Goddesses, Heroines and Heroes
    Carl Ruck
    August 1, 2001 [just after I started the Egodeath Yahoo Group]
    http://amzn.com/0890895759
    On August 9, 2002, I wrote the first review of this book at Amazon, and for a long time (9 years), it was the only review:
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RHXKUHURUF5KW/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0890895759

Proof that the Egodeath Yahoo Group is magical: everything is magically connected.
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-16-2002-04-28/#message798
suggested that I read Ruck’s Mythology book by May 2, 2002. Mentions my decoding {limping king}, & {king} at that fairly early date, supporting my “big bang” theory that in 1999, I read some books and instantly (4 years later) had already formed my Phase 2, ahistoricity / mytheme decoding / entheogen scholarship / Western Esotericism theory (all of that under the umbrella of: the Mytheme theory).

  • ~1:10:00 book cover of A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth by John King, in the context of my reconstructing my intellectual autobiography re: the related 4 fields (entheogen scholarship, Western Esotericism, ahistoricity, mytheme decoding):

worship
a
magic
mushroom
yesterday

wow, not 1 pic of King’s book online – so here is mine!

Correction: I’ve read about 85% of the lines in this book, 1x, since I got it recently some years ago, maybe 2014. way better book review format than me or anyone:
Gist/focus of ch 1: __
Gist/focus of ch 2: __
etc

photo: Cybermonk, Jan 30 2021, Egodeath.com / https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com
cover art: Jefferson Godwin, 1970
  • 1:25:00 Listing the ways those 4 fields have tried to connect to each other to construct/constitute (high, bona fide) Esotericism.
    • These fields sometimes reach out to each other, and then get slapped back.
    • The forces of Exotericism that try to prevent that convergence/construction of Esotericism.
    • Richard Carrier’s book Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ
      vs.
    • Earl Doherty’s 2nd edition Jesus: Neither God Nor Man: The Case for a Mythical Jesus.
  • Analyze the relation between these 4 fields and get a feel for the forces holding them back from converging to High Esotericism.
  • Mocking and ridiculing and inverting and countering the Wasson/Panofsky Exotericism Hegemony.
  • My intellectual autobiography re: the 4 fields I’m analyzing to get them re-centered and re-directed to form Esotericism
  • Exercise: If I’m editing a book w/ 4 chapters:
    • Have Hanegraaff write the chapter on re-centering / redirecting the field of Western Esotericism.
    • Have Clark Heinrich write the chapter on re-centering / redirecting the field of entheogen scholarship.
    • Have Timothy Freke write the chapter on re-centering / redirecting the field of ahistoricity.
    • Have [Timothy Freke??] write the chapter on re-centering / redirecting the field of mythology/ mytheme decoding.
      • Why is this field so different? Who is the “mytheme decoding community”, or the “mythology community”?? 🤔 Who would I write this webpage for, calling for them to connect their Myth field to the other 3 fields (entheogen scholarship , ahistoricity, Western Esotericism)? odd-man-out question: why is the field of mytheme decoding so different?
  • THE INTERACTION BETWEEN 4 FIELDS: My intellectual autobiography re: (in historical order):
    • (0. Rock lyrics – ~1992 – precursor to mytheme decoding)
    • 1. Western Esotericism – 1995 Gnosis, 2000s?? mytheme decoding comes in.
    • 2. entheogen scholarship – mytheme decoding eg ‘entheogen’ coined by Ruck 1979
    • 3. ahistoricity – mytheme decoding comes in. found accidentally during entheogen scholarship 1999. met w/ f&g, whose ahistoricity book had entheogen scholarship . Acharya in ahistoricity field praised Allegro; Price crit her, i wrote entheogen scholarship article for him.
    • 4. Mytheme decoding – got myth books ~2003. also: Up From Eden 1988 had myth attempt.
  • Todo : create 4 webpages to converge high esoteric’m:
    • These 4 webpages are directed to the four “communities”, but who is the “mytheme decoding community”??
    • I’m pushing these 4 fields to converge to form High Esotericism, which goes against these fields and pressures them to push against THE EXOTERICISM HEGEMONY
  • Done: Re-read Hanegraaff’s article “Entheogenic Esotericism” re: cultural hegemony).
  • Appreciating the forces that dissuade entheogen scholarship from joining forces with the fields of ahistoricity , Western Esotericism , & mytheme decoding, which would form High Esotericism and conflict w/ the Exotericism Hegemony.
  • Compare how Pop Sike is “pro-Reform” yet they are reluctant to conflict with the Prohibition Hegemony; they try to LIMIT THEIR REFORM EFFORTS so as to NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PROHIBITION HEGEMONY.
  • Similarly, the Field of entheogen scholarship tries to LIMIT THEIR EXPOSURE OF THE PRESENCE OF PLANTS so as to NOT CONFLICT WITH THE ANTI-ENTHEOGEN HEGEMONY.
  • The field of ahistoricity disallows entheogen scholarship. Examples:
    • Freke’s publisher of book the Jesus Mysteries
    • Robt Price vs. Acharya praising Allegro) tends to block writing about entheogen scholarship.
    • German researcher’s website putting disclaimer re: entheogens when linking to my ahistoricity content.
Feb 20 Experiments / Notes re: bit rates for Lossy Compression
  • 403 MB, exported as nominally 320 kbps (computer music player info : File: says simply “320” (no “vbr”, no weird lower-than marketed bit rate – conclusion: selecting 320 kbps probably sounds much better than monkey business from selecting the nominally “sort of 260 or sort of 210 but not really” options. SORRY FOR GIANT FILE BUT THIS “INSANE” BIT RATE OF 320 KBPS ALREADY HAS ENOUGH AURAL ARTIFACTS, AND THE 260 & 210 OPTIONS ARE ACTUALLY FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE BIT-DELETING OPTIONS.
    • this new codec produces a bigger file than before: 403 MB, when 320 kbps. [I’m re-exporting @320 to see if it’s still 403 MB. b/c filesizes seem inconsistent… this episode is 10/10 quality and deserves 320 kbps like the orig version. yes still 403, too big. go w/ the 260.]
    • “220-260 kbps”: 185 MB (computer music player viewing the device says Info: File: bit rate = “146 kbps (VBR)”, channels = Mono)
    • 210 kbps: 140 MB –
      • see if computer music player still says the file on device is channels = Mono. Yes.
      • the 210 new file says bitrate = 111 kbps var, tho ui said “170-210”. what does the orig file say? ans: 320 (not “var”) 🤨
      • does 210 sound swishy?
  • length: 2:48:05 (same as orig)
  • created audio project file on 2021-02-20:
    “2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority.aup”
  • 2nd mp3 export & re-upload pass, on 2021-02-20:
  • done:
  • create new audio project
  • connect recorder drives
  • determine wav
  • import wav
  • nuke L ch
  • center bal
  • limiter
  • normalize
  • export mp3 (experiment w/ bit rates)
  • transfer mp3 to music player
  • upload mp3
  • copy dl link to this Download section
  • test the dl link/preview, make sure correct file
  • announce v2 of the mp3, available for 1 week, and that I might clip the 47 minutes in some way.
  • Orig download mp3 data on 2021-01-29:
  • Download url for 1 week after 2021-01-29: https://we.tl/t-o3N0SKQPNJ
  • Orig filename: “Ep2 Ourgument from Authority.mp3”
  • Orig display-title: “Ep2 Ourgument from Authority”
  • Orig bitrate: 320 kbps
  • Orig mp3 filesize: 384.8 MB.
    • channels: Mono (according to computer’s music player showing data for file on mobile device).
  • Length: 2:48:05
  • Night episode; volume constraint.
  • Outro: “This is the end of the show.” (Barely had Outro concept yet.)
  • Sleuthing on Feb 20, 2021:, b/c might clip the good first 47 minutes comedy piece, though the entire show seems solid from start to end. I’m retroactively creating an audio project file, using latest filename pattern:
    “2021-01-29 Egodeath Mystery Show – Ourgument from Authority.aup”
    .wav filename: 210129_2186.wav – found, on green SD card Kingston named “TK Audio”, path: “/Volumes/TK Audio/Music/TK/DR-05 TK Voice starting 2021-01-26”
    • 210129_2186.wav – contains: “This is episode 2 of the Egodeath show…” len: 2:48:05. this is the wav file.
    • 210130_2187.wav – then what is this file? it’s jan 30. it’s long. likely it’s the next day’s episode.
    • 210129_2188.wav – short
    • 210129_2189.wav – super short
    • previous episode: 210128_2185.wav
    • a next episode: 210131_2190.wav
Intro Script
  • This is episode 2 of the Egodeath show, January 29, 2021, with Cybermonk.
  • I plan to discuss: [outline items merged into “Content” section]
Outro Script

Don’t do end of show from memory – read this script, instead:

  • This was the Egodeath show, with Cybermonk.

Contest: Which Has Made Less Impact on Public Consciousness?

A. the Secret Field of Entheogen Scholarship, brought to you by Graves (“hey Bob, you better stop covering entheogen scholarship, or something bad might happen to your poetry book sales” – Pope Wasson) & Carl “Mr. Secret” Ruck

B. the Egodeath theory

Egodeath Show, Episode 1 (2021-01-28) Track Title: “Playing the Grid Game of Entheogen Scholarship”
“Ep1 Secret Grid Game.mp3” 2:09:56

  • Filename: “Ep1 Secret Grid Game.mp3”
  • Episode title: “Playing the Grid Game of Entheogen Scholarship”
  • Length: 2:09:56
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-EIG6ZMV2r8
  • Rating/recommendation: 10
  • Start: “This is the Egodeath Show, Episode 1, Cybermonk, about the show format, changing from the concept of a Header, to the concept of an Intro segment, topics, date, mic; topics can get verbose… That gets out of the way the Technical [portion of the Header].” “timing & sequence of the vocalization segment.”
Topics
  • Defining the Grid:
    • each grid cell is 1 religion in 1 era in 1 region.
    • each grid cell can have multiple layers, aka multiple attributes eg
      • 1. are the plants avail (yes, given)
      • 2. is Peren Phil avail (yes, given)
      • 3. do x number of ppl use those plants & phil? (yes, given)
      • 4. how many ppl? what evidence?
    • Value for each grid cell: has a starting value of + or – or maybe ?
    • A cell value can flip from – to +, or – to +(-) as the Graves/Ruck school of “self-diminishment” does as represented by the word ‘secret’, and by Graves’ total censorship of himself by stopping at 85 pages of coverage.
      • Per the extreme-Minimal strategy, score starts at -200, and stays there no matter what, b/c REAL RELIGION NEVER = PLANTS. Final score always = -200.
      • Per the typical-Minimal strategy, starting score is -200, final score = between -200 and 0, tending low.
      • Per the Moderate strategy: maximum success = score of 0. Least = -200. Score starts at -200, then when Ruck’s framework is all complete, the score reaches 0 in best-case; somewhere between -200 & 0.
      • Per the Maximal strategy for playing the game, cells start as + and can flip to +(-) <– we looked hard, cannot find any trace of evidence for plant use in that cell — worst case score = 0. best case = 200. Score starts at 200 (perhaps). After Cybermonk is all done with researching all religions/eras/regions, the score is somewhere between 200 & 0, tending high. My trajectory starts at +200, and grudgingly, barely ever trends downward.
      • BY FIAT AND THE ESOTERIC ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, THE PERENNIAL ESOTERIC COMMUNITY DECLARES:
        THE ESOTERICISTS HAVE DECLARED THEIR WIN: THE SCORE TALLY IS +200, BECAUSE THE ESOTERIC AUTHORITIES SAY SO.
        REAL RELIGION = VISIONARY PLANTS, WHICH ARE UBIQUITOUSLY USED.
        • TAKE THAT, PANOFSKY & POPE WASSON’S “ALL THE TOP, EXOTERIC, APPROVED ART AUTHORITIES AGREE WITH EACH OTHER, WHO ALL SPEW THE UNANIMOUSLY AGREED-UPON COVER-STORY (WITH IMPRESSIVE CELERITY!)“
      • Strategies for tallying the score; for “scoring” / tallying the number of +’s and -‘s.
        • The anti-plant ppl try to assert by sheer force, a score of -200 by Fiat. Real religion never = plants. Hatsis: an unreasonable committed skeptic re: msh in Christianity.
          • I’m similar: I am an “unreasonable”, committed believer in plants.
        • For Hatsis, no evidence ever could count.
          • For me, no lack of evidence could ever count – the data be damned; the Egodeath theory’s Maximal Entheogen theory is correct.
        • Allegro is admirable in that he’s committed & totally explicit.
        • Hatsis (like Panofsky & the approved exoteric art historians) has announced that he cannot be reasoned with, that there is no possible way he could ever be persuaded except by text explicit statements. He has announced his watertight historical methods that in all cases, always explain away all (art) evidence.
          • Cybermonk’s methods always explain-away the LACK of evidence.
        • Panofsky: Brinckmann’s little book shows that ALL mushroom trees are Italian Pine trees; all mushroom trees are explained away as “accidentally distorted templates, artists have no control of or responsibility for their mushroid product.
          The Template Made Me Do It.“
      • Size of grid: 20 col wide, 10 rows tall. 200 cells total.
    • Hanegraaff article : entheogenic esotericism
    • the two specific flaws – bracket-aside the abstract, paradigm perspective.
      • Error 1: The grid starts, loaded w/ -‘s vs +’s. or +(-) at best.
      • THE SECRET FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP (GEE, WHY HAS OUR SECRET FIELD OF SECRET ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP HAD ZERO IMPACT? WHAT A SURPRISE! HOW PUZZLING!) the grid (entheogen scholarship)
      • Error 2: Negative framing of findings. Graves/Ruck way of playing the Grid Game : flipping – to +(-). My way of playing the Grid Game to win, start with +’s, the very worst outcome possible is: +(-). ruck should be scoring 2 points by flipping – to + but instead he gains only 1 point, by flipping – to +(-) by framing secret proof of secret presence of secret visionary plants,
      • The extreme sub-position within the minimal entheogen theory of religion is:
        REAL RELIGION NEVER USES VISIONARY PLANTS.
      • My position:
        REAL RELIGION ALWAYS USES VISIONARY PLANTS, and real religion is ubiquitous.
      • Error 3: Failing to explicitly frame & articulate their list of paradigmatic commitments/axiomatic assumptions.
    • diminishment fallacies

Errata/Critique

Content: 10
Vocalization: 9
  • Work on ‘that’. Gentle ‘a’.
  • Not “thet”
  • Not hyper-vocalized “THAT”.
    • Hit it out of the park, due to the “radio show/ voice-actor/ script/ show” mentality/consciousness.
    • Always room for improvement, but I’m definitely above the threshold. Solidly radio-ready – or really close and heading fast in the correct direction.
    • Choppy spazzy near the end where I discuss copying postings to website & haven’t read website. Watch for / guard against choppy spazzy – do smooth, not fast/choppy.
  • Still has many overemphases running throughout my speech, all over the place. Smooth it out; relaxed.
Audio tech: 7
  • Hammered the mic w/ wind. 💨🎙💥
    • Re-position. Monitor clip light.
  • Need less mouth noise.
    • Move away to the side, in-between phrases.
  • Annoying typing.
    • No typing allowed. Must use pause every time.
Production Notes
  • Mic: TASCAM DR-05
    • Miking: 3.5″, no pop filter, right mic, desk stand/clamp, gain 55/90, Stereo mode.
    • Production: Load straight from device, split L/R, discard Left, Center the balance, export 320kbps mp3, transfer to mobile, upload to wetransfer.com.
  • orig .wav file name: 210128_2185.wav
Intro Script
  • This is episode 289 of the Egodeath show, June 14, 2023, with Cybermonk.
  • The microphone is Shure SM57 | TASCAM DR-05 | Apple earbud mic
  • I plan to discuss:
    • topic
    • topic
    • topic
Outro Script
  • This was the Egodeath show, with Cybermonk.

You Are Now Part of the Egodeath Community

yes it is meaningless. don’t be so literal

Actually, in 2006 I felt that the the Egodeath Yahoo Group helped me with the hardest task: compress my main article.

Several people in the Egodeath community, like 4 people, literally did help me with that extremely challenging and epic article.

Vocalizing: Work on Tone/ Mood/ Pace/ Over-Energy

also: Stuttering at start of statement like those crazy spazzy Germans I heard on YT.

  • todo: continue re-listening to my voice recordings, noting more flaws (poor energy/speed/hurried/shouting; stuttering).

JEEZ DUDE WHY DONT U HAVE LIKE 6 MORE CUPS OF COFFEE

☕️ ☕️ ☕️ ☕️ ☕️

dude i can’t even follow your point, you are so distractingly overintense and hyper and critical and angry toned. Your tone — and your general HYPERNESS — is detracting/ distracting from your message. MELLOW OUT!!!! You have fade back… make the vocalization fade back so that the message comes to the fore. The voczn should step back, to deliver the message.

What’s weird is that I didn’t notice this pretty extreme tone, usually, when I listened to this rec’g before. weird! i listened to this passage like 1-2 days ago and didn’t even notice how … uptight/intense it “reads”. Now that I’m attuned to the tone issue here, I can hardly believe it’s the same passage I heard the other day when I didn’t notice the tone. I only remember the content from the previous listening, not at all the tone.

over-articulating; hyper-articulation

todo: Vocalization monitoring concern: hyper & critical & weirdly intense & angry tone in jan 24 beginning of “Two Models of Control.mp3”. Think more about “tone”/mood. Pretty sure this is the rec’g I mentioned a couple days ago as “shouting”. How to become aware? easy: listen to start of “Two Models of Control.mp3”, as a negative example. Is it pleasant tone to listen to?

todo: listen to my large collection of my voice recordings, judge favorite tone/mood. maybe make a list here, with judgings.
more of a prelim todo is: outline the timestamps for all of my .mp3 files. (March 3, 2021)

Voice Recording 16 with Header (2021-01-28):
“Positive Bias Crucial.mp3” 1:37:00

  • Rating/recommendation: 8.5. really good, but u might not make it a top pri? but it’s solid content. See its text representation below, in any case; same thing.
    • Content: 9
    • Vocalization: 8 (speaking quieter)
    • Audio tech: 9
  • Audio tech
    • TASCAM DR-05 right mic, 55 of 90 gain
    • position: desk stand. 3.5″.
    • orig .wav file name: 210128_2182.wav
  • At the start: “This is a intellectual biography. I’ll skip the vocalization [in this phase, i’d summarize what aspects to focus on], the technical notes: I always need to know the microphone, I plan on using many different mics. … the end of recording would work to state which mic… this is the dr-05, only one mic, throwing away other channel. Bad result if mono, blah blah blah blah… cut one of the wires… blah blah blah hah hah hah, engineering with a hammer, and the date finally for the technical portion of this header. I found a couple interesting things: when hiatus, amnesia…” <– you can hear this becoming a structured “show” format instead of a “voice recording … with header… with prelim remarks: blah blah blah [bantering a la show-mode/ consciousness/ spirit]…”
Errata
  • ~32:00 i said Hanegraaff tries to attract students to the entheogen scholarship dept, i meant to the Western Esotericism dept.
  • It is debatable that the “neutral position” is supported by Reason. Is it reasonable to imagine that religious experiencing occurs without visionary plants? I don’t think so. I think the so-called “positive bias” is supported by Reason. Have to carefully define the so-called “neutral” position to make it actually defensible.
  • There’s asymmetry in the relation between the New Paradigm vs. the Old Paradigm. Also, differentiate the work of defining a paradigm vs. work done under… the work done by applying that paradigm.
    • The Old paradigm might do a *ton* of developmental work, then after that, standing on that, the New Paradigm merely needs to slightly adjust the Old Paradigm. You can’t compare the magnitude of accomplishment of specifying or creating the Old vs the New paradigm – they are two different kinds of accomplishments.
      • the work of specifying the old paradigm
      • the work accomplished by using the old paradigm
      • the work of specifying the new paradigm, including specific critiques of the old paradigm <– what I’ve done
      • the work accomplished by using the new paradigm
Content
  • How I was able to enter the the field of Western entheogen scholarship (/ ahistoricity/ mytheme decoding) in 1999 starting “from zero” (hardly!) and in less than 4 years, recognize that entheogen scholarship is negatively biased and needed to instead be positively biased.
  • THE RUCK SCHOOL *SHOULD HAVE* ANNOUNCED in 1979 “We’re going to strongly assume, to help us see visionary plants, against today’s negative bias in 1979, is by EXPECTING THE EVIDENCE AND POSITIVELY STRONGLY ASSUMING THE EVIDENCE IS THERE, SO WE CAN MANAGE TO SEE IT, AGAINST THE OBSCURING FORCE OF THE REIGNING NEGATIVE PARADIGM.
  • … and when we successfully prove the *expected* visionary plants in that grid-cell, we’re certainly *not* going to discount & diminish our winnings by framing them as “secret”! (non-real; side-show; heretical, deviant; ie proves the rule – our finding of visionary plants, framed as deviant and secret, reinforcing that our religion history lacks visionary plants)
  • book “Astrotheology & Shamanism” as Low Esotericism. James Arthur: “Mushrooms & Mankind”.
  • Interactions of fields: Western entheogen scholarship, Western Esotericism.
  • Why are New Age bookstores and Theosophy bookstores mostly blind to mystery-religion initiation, AND entheogens?
  • Intellectual autobiography — here’s the sense in which I “started from zero” in the field of entheogen scholarship in 1999:
    • (side note: hazy 2018-early 2020)
    • main point: need to reconstruct March 1997-June 2001-Oct 2002-March 2003 (todo). break into periods:
      • March 1997 – Jan 1999
      • Jan 1999-June 2001 (started the Egodeath Yahoo Group)
      • June 2001-Oct 2002, March 2003
    • rock lyrics decoding ~1992, CybTrans.com 1997~ shows that (check)
    • Gnosis magazine all issues ~1995. Then each new issue after.
    • late 1986: strong desire to know which entheogen in Revelation 10, did a little research then in the field of Western entheogen scholarship.
    • late 80s, early 1990s: read the issues of High Frontiers, Reality Hacker, Mondo 2000.
    • ~1988-1993: Leary books, Robert Anton Wilson
    • 1988: Journal of Consciousness Studies / similar journals
    • Jan 1988-Feb 1997 wrote intensively the cybernetic theory (modern high esotericism, w/ very little mytheme decoding/ analogies).
    • Christians didn’t use entheogens in 1950? Really? What do you really know about it? Just how informed are you, really? Are you sure you are as informed as you think you are? Are you negatively biased? Is there a chance you could be wrong?
    • What happens if, on firm paradigmatic principle, we commit to being positively biased, and then look?
    • What will you say if I hold that 25% of people in all congregations in history use visionary plants, and then, by my holding & investing in that INSANE UNSUSTAINABLE premise, my insane assumption-investment pays off MASSIVELY in the form of THE BIGGEST BREAKTHROUGH OF ALL TIME IN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP – EG CANTERBURY PROOF OF 70 MSH TREES in the heart of Christian art?
  • Interesting discussion of the negative bias and footnote trickery and Hanegraaff’s self-contradiction and inconsistency:
    • IN THE BODY OF chapter “ENTHEOGENIC ESOTERICISM”, HE CONFORMS TO THE SEVERELY NEGATIVE BIAS, RECEIVED VIEW (“VISIONARY PLANTS VS. THEURGY”), BUT/ and yet,
    • IN THE FOOTNOTE, HE TAKES SOMEWHAT PARTLY NEUTRAL VIEW “WE DON’T KNOW IF THEURGY = VISIONARY PLANTS”.
      How convenient: he gets to have it both ways; he gives himself an out — CHICKEN 🐓
    • post-show commentary: Cyberdisciple’s Revolution of the Footnotes
  • Discussed this commentary/analysis from the previous recording:
  • Paradigm 1 (Negative Bias): Hanegraaff and the Old, “Secret Entheogen” Paradigm holds: We should assume Theurgy doesn’t use visionary plants. Biased against visionary plants.
  • Neutral* paradigm: Neutral Reason dictates*: We should hold that we don’t know whether or not Theurgy uses visionary plants. However, in an unfair fight, taking this position will lead to the received view (anti-plants) winning automatically.
  • Paradigm 2 (Positive Bias): Cybermonk and the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm: We should vigorously commit, invest, expect, and assume Theurgy uses visionary plants. Biased in favor of visionary plants.
    • The Old Paradigm of entheogen scholarship didn’t adopt this strong contrarian position, so they were slaves of the received view; the Ruck school (“the Secretists”) were weak and were dominated by the received, anti-plant bias.
    • The Ruck school – the Old Paradigm – was stuck wavering somewhere between Neutral and anti-plant biased.
    • I feel that the word ‘secret’ indicates/connotes/ is a sign of, the negative bias.
  • the minimal entheogen theory of religion = negative bias
  • the moderate entheogen theory of religion ~= neutral bias (but moderate is strikingly negative biased!)
  • the maximal entheogen theory of religion = positive bias

*It is debatable that the so-called “Neutral paradigm” is supported by Reason. Is it reasonable to imagine that religious experiencing occurs without visionary plants? I don’t think so. I think the so-called “positive biased Paradigm 2” is supported by Reason. Have to carefully define the so-called “neutral” position to make it actually defensible.

How Reading-Aloud One’s Text Helps Discover and Fix Problems in the Text, Improving the Text

2018 feedback loop – reading aloud simplified summary statements of the egodeath theory –

  1. write / gather/ clean up statements.
  2. Read aloud the statements. possibly recording.
  3. discover that the statements sound poor, as exposed by reading them aloud.
  4. rewrite the script so it will sound better when read aloud.
  5. read aloud the revised script. possibly recording.

Voice Recording 15 with Header (2021-01-28):
“Old Secret Entheogen Paradigm.mp3” 2:34:51

  • Filename: “Old Secret Entheogen Paradigm.mp3”
  • Length: 2:34:51
  • Download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-3eXJP1q4Zs
  • Rating/recommendation: 10 out of 10
    • Content: 10
    • Lifetime voice actor fake script reading: 10
    • Audio tech: 10
  • Audio tech
    • TASCAM DR-05 right mic, 55 of 90 gain
    • position: desk stand. 3.5″.
    • orig .wav file name: 210128_2181.wav

type of recording: standalone voice recording, header to state the type of mic (dr-05). note: history of dev’ing the Egodeath Mystery Show: a main motivation for adding a “header”, was to state which microphone.

Content
  • Purpose of this recording: Clarify / specify/ identify my criticism of entheogen scholarship in 2002 that gave rise to my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
  • Martin Luther’s gigantic railroad stake driven into the massive church door (all alone), with a sledgehammer, demolishing the entire entryway to the church.
  • Robert Graves’ 1956 essay Centaurs’ Food is probably a myth; no one has ever seen it, though that essay can be considered the start of the first-generation, Old, “Secret Entheogens” Paradigm, which I took up and transformed and repaired to form the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm.
  • The Old Theory, in the field of entheogen scholarship, has the 11 Entheogen Diminishment Fallacies baked-in; the game is defined from the start, as impossible to win.
  • My various claims to proof that my New Paradigm is superior, faster, has greater explanatory power, was in 2002 more likely to succeed, is more explicitly & properly defined, is more vigorous & can-do, and in the end, proved itself by the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image — both perceiving the Psalter as a problem to solve, and, solving that problem. My New Paradigm — together with my New Paradigm’s ability to incorporate Western Esotericism & the 1997 Egodeath(?0 theory (ie, the Phase 1, Cybernetic theory, plus my Phase 2, the mytheme theory, started 1998, writing in October 2002) — made the greatest breakthrough of all time, in the field of entheogen scholarship…
    • post-show question: can you say that my the mytheme theory yet existed in Oct 2002? well on its way]
    • HOW FAR DID I GET IN DEFINING MY PHASE 2 (THE MYTHEME THEORY) BY OCT 2002? Answer: PRETTY FAR, b/c I had a huge head start. I did *not* “start from zero” in 1999 — closer would be, roots, “started from ‘zero’ Feb 1997… yeah reight, but that had full decoding of Rock lyrics, and full the cybernetic theory … and my 1997 monocoursal labyrinth vision, = BIG MAJOR BEST-CASE RUNNING-START IN “1999”.
    • In 1999, I came onto the scene of entheogen scholarship / ahistoricity / mytheme decoding , LIKE A ROCKET AT FULL SPEED.
    • COMPARE: in tiny short period Oct 1985-Jan 1988, I started from zero, to creating the cybernetic theory.
    • Is it possible for someone to enter the field of ahistoricity/ entheogen scholarship / mytheme decoding in 1999, and then by Oct 2002, already have a superior theory / paradigm of entheogen scholarship better than the Ruck school? No – unless (highly unlikely), that person has decoded rock lyrics, and has published a theory-spec of the cybernetic theory, and a couple years earlier, had a vision of monocoursal labyrinth.
    • To answer/ judge that:
      • In Feb. 1997, possibly constituting the earliest start of Phase 2, I had the mature Cybernetic theory spec. (= the entire Egodeath theory except for history, myth, & ahistoricity). Included:
        • 1. rock lyrics (holding the place of Metaphor)
        • 2. loose cognition
        • 3. eternalism/ no-free-will/ block universe
        • 4. control cancellation / transformation
      • I had modest yet spot-on vision of monocoursal labyrinth in 1997 – a Phase 2 insight during a seeming null period of Transcendent Knowledge development
        • Todo: reconstruct history of the transitional period Feb 1997 – June 2001 – that period was the first part of my Phase 2 of Transcendent Knowledge development — forming the … my point: Feb 1997 = 5/8 of the egodeath theory.
        • Phase 2 only was 3/8 of the Egodeath theory devmt, not 1/2 of the egodeath theory devmt. Pretty significant realization now [8:37 p.m. January 28, 2021].
        • the egodeath theory
          • the cybernetic theory
            • loose cognition – 1987
            • block universe – 1988
              • no-free-will – 1987
            • control cancellation – 1988
          • the mytheme theory
            • rock lyrics – 1992
            • mytheme decoding – 1999+
            • ahistoricity – 1999+
            • entheogen scholarship – 1999+
  • I started Phase 2 = myth, ahistoricity , entheogen scholarship ~1999.
    • See the Egodeath Yahoo Group June 2001 – Oct 2002; probably largely evident by then; my paradigm skeleton formed by then, “fleshed-in” & “tested adequately” by 2006 (my main article).
  • After we have a needed, interesting discussion / debate of the concept of a “breakthrough in the field of Western entheogen scholarship“.
  • Meditation
    • watching thoughts,
    • writing as thought-capturing/ thought-watching,
    • watchdog/ guard gate on the vocalization-source, and
    • watchdog on words-just-now-spoken.
    • Non-drug meditation is good. Lying to steal credit from visionary plants is bad.
  • Created new page:
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/28/old-secret-entheogen-paradigm-vs-new-explicit-psychedelic-paradigm/
  • 2nd half: Hanegraaff’s chapter “Entheognic Esotericism”
  • my 2002 critique of the Old Paradigm
  • the Secret Entheogen Paradigm being / incorporating Entheogen Diminishment fallacies, self-defeating.
  • Critiquing the valuable & needed critiques of Pop Sike Cult from Letcher/ Hatsis/ Irvin/ Kent/ Ball.
  • Integrating fields and defining them sensibly:
    • Field of Western Esotericism
    • Field of the egodeath theory
    • Field of entheogen scholarship.
  • Martin Luther’s 99 Thesis that demolished the church door to smithereens w/ gigantic nail (Hollywood Epic version).
  • Brown’s book subtitle has the evil word “Secret”, a sign of the Old Paradigm (Secret Entheogen), bring him to the New Paradigm.
    tie-in my page:
    “Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism” to “Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism”
  • Philosophy & History of Science – my contributions to that field:
    • the Old Paradigm generally is poorly articulated, is only informal seat-of-the-pants:
      • Like the book The Road to Eleusis failed to make strong statements of paradigm commitment, and
      • Like Robert Graves failed to make a strong position-statement like Allegro’s compelling and solid book-flap text), and
      • Like the bull in the Tauroctony (monolithic autonomous control-agency, simplified informal model or “initial theory”);
      • Childhood-thinking as a poorly articulated Old Theory with vulnerabilities built-in.
      • Like egoic thinking, the egoic childhood-suited model of control agency (self-in-world) as {king steering in tree} and creating one’s own future.
  • Favorite idea of this recording:
    • egoic vs. transcendent mental worldmodel ::
      Old vs. New paradigm of entheogen scholarship
    • egoic-thinking : transcendent thinking ::
      the Old, “Secret Entheogen” Paradigm : the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm.
Post-Show Commentary
  • Are there written critiques of the field of entheogen scholarship? meta level.
  • I don’t know if Hanegraaff later writes the phrase “non-drug entheogens”, or discusses that concept in a later article. Maybe that’s my (justifiable) takeaway characterization of his view in this article.
  • Hanegraaff appears to equate ‘entheogens’ with only contemporary religion, therefore not entheogen ancient-history scholarship.
  • Hanagraaff commits an all-too-common fallacy: since we don’t have evidence that Theurgy is visionary plants, we must continue definitely assuming that Theurgy is not visionary plants. A fair conclusion, instead, would be neutral: we don’t know whether or not Theurgy uses visionary plants.
  • 3 positions a priori; 3 paradigms or possible position-commitments: Doing research involves committing to, or betting on, positions; you need to make a good investment-bet (per Feyerabend’s philosophy/theory/model of how science actually, realistically works):
    • Paradigm 1: Hanegraaff and the Old, “Secret Entheogen” Paradigm holds: We should assume Theurgy doesn’t use visionary plants. Biased against visionary plants.
    • Neutral paradigm: Neutral Reason dictates: We should hold that we don’t know whether or not Theurgy uses visionary plants. However, in an unfair fight, taking this position will lead to the received view (anti-plants) winning automatically.
    • Paradigm 2: Cybermonk and the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm: We should vigorously commit and assume Theurgy uses visionary plants. Biased in favor of visionary plants.
      • The Old Paradigm of entheogen scholarship didn’t adopt this strong contrarian position, so they were slaves of the received view; the Ruck school (“the Secretists”) were weak and were dominated by the received, anti-plant bias. The Ruck school stuck somewhere between Neutral and anti-plant biased.
  • Hanegraaff uses the words ‘entheogen in the narrow sense’, ‘magic’, and ‘manipulation’ as theory-couched terms for using visionary plants.
    • Maybe he’s not trying to hide visionary plants, but is trying to speak in terms of theories as contexts.
My Assessment of this Recording After Listening to It
  • Content: 10
  • Vocalization: 10
  • Audio Tech: 10
    • 10 10 10 or close to that, therefore I don’t need to any longer give such ratings and discuss these aspects explicitly, in the recordings.

🎙 📻 🎉

Holy Grail: got.
ie off-the-cuff speaking while remaining mindful of pitch varying.

Specifying the Exact Difference Between the Moderate vs. Maximal Paradigm of Entheogen Scholarship 🤨 🤔 (Found my claims / characterizations/ accusations – more examples needed, Quotes Needed)

http://www.egodeath.com/#_Entheogen_Diminishment_Fallacies_1

https://www.google.com/search?q=moderate+maximal&sitesearch=egodeath.com&btnG=Search

http://www.egodeath.com/weblog.htm#_Toc73583104 ”  The existing entheogen scholars are operating on the unjustified unconscious unstated assumption that entheogens were only used in spots, in religion.  They are mistaken.  Entheogens were the norm, not the exception … The minimalist theory is based on poor, unjustified assumptions.  That assumption prevents, in practice, even the entheogenists from seeing the obvious presence of entheogens: they blind themselves to the ever-entheogenic nature of the Eucharist, and they blind themselves to the presence of any plant species other than their pet species they become fixated on to the exclusion of all else. They think they can found their research career on the assumption that only one plant was important … [todo: find why brown database no-go]

“Posturing at being “conservative, slow-to-concede, safe and cautious” scholars translates in practice to wearing blinders and putting on the brakes and yelling 3 cheers for the currently predominant paradigm: the minimal entheogen paradigm.  I object to scholars so crippling themselves and supporting today’s bunk set of assumptions.  I’m putting the pedal to the metal to leap into a truly different way.  If you have any chance of finding evidence, you have to put on the mentality that it is there in abundance. 

“Avoid speculating?  Speculating well is the real strategy that has a chance for success.  Of course there is speculation involved, in spades.  It is pointless pretense to hide that.  Only being cowed by the currently predominant paradigm scares scholars into pretending that the evidence is hard to find and hard to interpret.

“There are too many benefits of the radical, maximal paradigm, that scholars are losing by adhering pointlessly to the merely liberal paradigm, which is the minimal entheogen theory of religion.”

Voice Recording 14 (2021-01-27): “Breakthrough Entheogen Scholarship.mp3” 1:04:06


.wav file name: 210127_2176.wav
mp3 filename: “Breakthrough Entheogen Scholarship.mp3”
Length: 1:04:06
download url for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-mXfzBzqX0O
TASCAM DR-05 right mic, 55 of 90 gain. handheld.

No header at start.
At the start: “This’ll be a quick handheld casual recording, talking through the question What’s the greatest breakthrough in the field of entheogen scholarship?” <– answer/retort Feb 20: Oh, you mean the field of Spot the Mushroom: since the field omits the higher level; omits Spot the Mushroom Effects

“Limitations in Entheogen Scholarship.mp3” – reserve that filename to after I research the topic to specify the limitations that I broke out of.

Contents
  • todo: look up my postings on Golden Book. What limitations of writing did I complain were self-defeating limitations in the the field of Western entheogen scholarship?
    • https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/?s=%22golden+book%22
      • oldest good hit: https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-124/ – “Bunk unexamined assumptions [that are huge needless self-defeating limitations baked into the field] a la Schultes’ Golden Book on Psychedelics: if a culture has writing, it doesn’t have entheogens; only if a culture lacks writing, it might have entheogens.”
      • https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-144/#message7436 – “Can’t you academics do anything other than posture and put out waffling self-contradictory doubletalk like Richard Evans Schultes’ Golden Book of Denial of Visionary Plants in Western Religion?” (quotes / citations needed)
      • next 2-3 hits: todo.
      • https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-161/#message8573
        “Richard Evans Schultes just-so story, his Golden Book of Hallucinogens, is also a propaganda spin-job, ready for deconstructing, that simultaneously points toward revealing that the Eucharist was understood as mushrooms while also simultaneously contradicting itself, steering all the reader’s thinking away from that idea. Per my posts in the early 2010s. / Savage subhumans in Central and South America equated the Catholic Eucharist with psychoactives, but genuine, European Christianity throughout our own history, OF COURSE (needless to say; there’s no need for critical discussion here, move along, these aren’t the mushroom trees you’re looking for) doesn’t draw any connection between mushrooms and Christian mushroom trees, and if we were to find any such connection being made in Western history — such as the Plaincourault frescoe of which a version appears in both Wasson and Allegro’s book — without comment but a footnote or minimalist, diminishing, fire-dousing caption at most — that would only prove the rule, that only one or two non-Christian, deviant outsiders, at rare deviant isolated points, ever connected our own, real Eucharist to psychoactives.” [quotes needed todo]
      • https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-163/#message8671 “Hanegraaff’s unbelievable spin and incoherence around the term ‘entheogen’ is like in Richard Evans Schultes’ _Golden Book of Just-So Stories About How Others’ Religions Use Hallucinogens, Unlike Us_.”
  • Graves wrote 2 pages about Allegro’s book: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/robert-graves-writings-about-mushrooms/#Jesus-as-Toadstool
  • what’s the greatest breakthrough in the field of Western entheogen scholarship?
    • why unanswerable? / unthinkable? until you add “book/article”?
    • What’s the greatest book / article in history of the field of Western entheogen scholarship ?
      • brown 2016 The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret– NOOOOO!!! 😱 😵
        • Asking entheogen scholarship to not write the word ‘secret’ (& thus shoot themselves in the foot, self-defeating) is like asking Kafei not to quote mystics – ain’t gonna happen. Constitutionally incapable of stopping being self-defeating. Why not just yell in the street, “ENTHEOGENS ARE NOTHING BUT A SIDE-SHOW! NOT REAL! RARE! DEVIANT! ABNORMAL! DOESN’T COUNT!“
      • Road to Eleusis – was that a breakthrough??
      • graves centaur food 1956
    • “Holy Grail”
      • Muraresku’s great breakthrough would be psil traces in near mystery-religion initiation site.
      • my “holy grail” was the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image .
Quality Assessment
  • Content: 9
  • Vocalization: 8.5 (casual off-the-cuff)
  • Technical: 8.5 – -1 for fan
  • if i keep up this level, there won’t be a reason to do these assessments any more.
Critique
  • Fan is pretty awful – just whitenoise , but highly audible BE SURE TO TURN OFF FANS.
  • I could’ve held mic more on-axis. Probably real good anyways, 45 degrees, closemic.
  • I skipped saying a formal Header (topics planned, voczn planned, technical eg date statement) but I did the most important: stated the topic, and actually stuck to it.

Voice Recording 13 with Header (2021-01-27) Reading of 2003 Announcement of the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion:
“Maximal Entheogen Theory.mp3” 3:08:37

210127_2175.wav – export as:
“Pre-Filled Entheocism Grid.mp3”
“Maximal Entheogen Theory.mp3”
3:08:37
https://we.tl/t-mQDhRnJdB1
1 week to download
no login, email, etc required.
magnifying glass icon = in-browser preview.

  • At the start: “Recording header: consists of 2 points about the content, 2 points about the vocalization (aiming for bass 3/10, vol 3/10), then technical. A straight-through reading of…”
Finished Read-Aloud 14-page Announcement of the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion -> “Maximal Entheogen Theory.mp3”
Content
  • 2:54:00 “I reckon that my decoding of the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image is the greatest breakthrough in the past & future history of entheogen scholarship.” What would be the contenders? 🤔
    • drawing a blank. An unfamiliar perspective. Has anyone asked this question before now?
    • What is the greatest breakthrough in the history of entheogen scholarship?
    • Can the field of Western entheogen scholarship talk in terms of its “breakthroughs”? 🤔 Not used to that framing.
    • Why does the question sound so odd? Is that a sign of the field’s failure, or disappointing type of success?
    • Intriguing question. todo: discuss. centuar food
  • content: 1:56:00 i recite a mouthful:
    • “I am announcing the paradigm of assuming the ubiquity of the entheogenic theory of religion” also at …
    • reciting is at: 2:33:00 like below:
    • 2003 essentially: “I am announcing the paradigm of assuming the ubiquity of the psychedelic esotericism perennial philosophy”
  • 2:00:00 Max: I grant you’re right, “obv” the 1950 church ppl didn’t use plants. But still, I’m right:
    • my photos prove there are mushrooms growing on that church property
      • Ratsch & entheogen scholarship proved that visionary plants (the plants themselves) are ubiquitous.
    • and I uploaded photos of the msh in that church’s stained glass windows.
    • I proved that entheogenic esotericism (= the perennial Philosophy) is available at that church at that time.
    • That merely leaves the detail question: how many people used the available msh and the available Phil at that church?
  • 2:42:23 Resume reading the rest of the 14-page posting. The final 1/3.
  • I wrote in 2003 “no one discusses freewill in religion.” ha ha that was just before the Reformed Theology resurgence/ rediscovery heyday around 2005, following behind me.
  • 1:12:00 (during the extended reading-break) voice-actor comedy mocking Muraresku “Jurassic Park meets Mystery Religion freakout”, dragon safely in cage. defanged mystery-religion initiation.
    • What happens when you commit to the New Theory paradigm that entheogen-use is constant, that ALL CHURCHES EG IN 1950 HAVE 25% OF THE CONGREGATION USING ENTHEOGENIC ESOTERICISM. What “evidence” do you become able to perceive? vs. self-defeatism of the Ruck school’s “secret, deviant, suppressed, heretical, cult, consprcy, NOT REAL” assumption-set.
    • The word ‘secret’ (= the establishment version of “the entheogen theory” paradigm = represents the entire defeatist, blind, BAD PARADIGM. They start with the 3-layer grid assumed to be all empty until evidence forces to concede “ok, that layer of the grid-cell is not entirely empty”.
      • It’s a bunk “entheogen theory” that’s biased against entheogens!
      • Compare the bad paradigm “secret msh cult theory / Allegro / Amanita cult”.
    • Did the Ruck school write anything about the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image? If not, why not? Answer: He’s using a bad paradigm.
    • 1:33:00 WHY DIDN’T RUCK WRITE ABOUT CANTERBURY IN 1979???
      [Dec. 31, 2024 note: Why didn’t 1998 Samo article cite Great Canterbury Psalter? Because the discoverer Paul Lindgren didn’t contribute the image until 2000 & 2001. James Arthur book Mushrooms & Mankind (2000), front matter credits Paul Lindgren. Wish I asked Arthur, in our conversations, about Lindgren: how did he find Great Canterbury Psalter mushroom imagery? 2001 article ConjEden credits Lindgren.]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Dec. 31, 20124: keep this 2020 capture as a historical record; has dark palette before library saw my galleries and brightened the palette by March 2021. On my mobile device, see date of first Great Canterbury Psalter capture done on mobile device, eg March 2021, which is how/when I discovered their updated psalter with brighter colors. Click image to go to improved source.
  • todo: have the grad-student slaves write Ruck to ask him. ask M. Hoffman.
    • You have to fact check me on this. (You’re behind on that.)
  • Middle of recording during break from reading the super long posting:
    • Large bragging rights – how my New Paradigm proved superior to the Old (“Ruck”) Paradigm
    • The “evidence” be damned – the Theory is correct!
      • btw, the evidence supports the theory.
      • also, the theory’s ability to perceive the puzzle, and, the theorys ability to solve that puzzle, both corrob the Theory. eg the ability to do these 3 things/accomplishments:
      • decode religious myth &
      • decode the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image &
      • PROVE 70 msh trees in heart of Christian art
    • … each corrob the Theory; the maximal entheogen theory of religion & the egodeath theory.
    • At start, I read the posting (I hit a tough spot at the 16 religious views, and I plow through that, mentioned below)
  • I read entire 14-page posting. It would be possible to edit this voice recording to extract a clean professional reading of the posting. (But it would be faster to just re-record – with no construction noise.)
  • Discussion of 16 (12 non-self-contradictory) different positions permuting the answer-combinations to these 4 yes/no questions:
    • Did Jesus exist?
    • Did Jesus use msh?
    • Did orig Christians use msh?
    • Did later Christians use msh?
    • Flaws: It took awhile to figure how to vocalize the binary 0110 as “No Yes Yes No -> jesus didn’t exist, Jesus used msh, orig followers used , later not.”
  • The construction of the postings is probably brilliant; I’d have to talk-through that: was my set of 4 questions and discussion (in the post) of paradigms brilliant? Assume yes.
  • My pair of postings is brilliant, and that is evidenced by my decoding of Montecassino and Canterbury. tho Canterbury gets into my distinct theory of Cybernetics; control-transformation. ie, my entheogen scholarship field breakthrough partly rests on my Cybernetic theory; overlap of topics/ areas of breakthroughs.

3-layer grid:

  • visionary plants available ubiq’ly ; all cells pre-filled
  • perennial entheogenic esotericism phil’y assumed ubiquitous (all places, times, relig’s) avail
  • the only ? remaining is: HOW MANY PPL *USED* THE AVAIL PLANTS & PEREN PHIL?
  • That church in 1950:
    • FACT: visionary plants were available.
      • So fill-in the entire grid, bottom layer.
    • FACT: the entheogenic esotericism perennial philosophy was available.
      • So fill-in the entire grid, middle layer.
    • UNKNOWN: how many people used the available plants & Philosophy?
      • Start filling-in the top layer of the grid. WE’RE IMMEDIATELY BLOWING-BY THE RUCK SCHOOL. eg when I read 2002 Entheos mag, and I saw Mandrake tree on right of Monte image, and no text in the mag mentioned that! BLIND! BY THEIR OWN BAD PARADIGM.
        • As always, you have to fact check me. Did they mention the tree on the right?

That paradigm, my 2002 paradigm, proved to be be diff’t & superior to the Ruck school paradigm which assumes grid cells empty aka key words exposing his paradigm: “secret / heretical / not real / suppressed/ conspir.” Proved by mandrake tree which their paradigm, the Ruck paradigm, proved to be blind to, & by the failure of the Ruck paradigm to look at Canter Psalter HIWHC WIC WHICH *I* PROVED 70 PSIL MSH TREES IN HEART OF Christian ART. THUS PROVING THAT MY PARADIGM IS DIFFERENT THAN RUCK SCHOOL AND PROVING THAT MY “MAXIMAL” PARADIGM IS THE SUPERIOR THEORY/ EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK.

P.S. I HAVE UNLIMITED LIFETIME BRAGGING RIGHTS ON MULTIPLE FRONTS/DOMAINS.

Estimated Predicted Quality
  • Content: 10 (if ignore 10% junk & re-takes)
  • Vocalization:
    • 68% through, real good miking & voczn. 9/10. a bit much mouth noise, but nicely dry (v close miked); slightest touch of room reverb. probably back off the mic slightly & state the mic distance more often.
    • close-miking picking up mouth noise — you can tell i didn’t monitor in headphones. picking up breath wind. -1. You can tell signs that I didn’t use formal equipment: popfilter + headphones. It’s casual, amateur, not professional quality.
    • When reading script: 9.5 (cut slack for lack of pre-practice)
    • When off-the-cuff speaking: 7.5 (don’t kid self; much room for improve)
  • Technical: 9 (construction noise, fan, else, good miking/mic-use).
  • Why does it sound like I’m holding a lozenge in the side of my mouth sometimes when i relax?? keep tongue centered when relaxed speaking.
Errata/Flaws/Critiques
  • The end of the 14-page posting has a classic mis-wording: it only says “origins”, and fails to say “ongoing wellspring” or “throughout its history”.
  • I said that Kafei and I agree on real mystics used plants. It’s an understatement that Kafei and I agree on (just) that. Kafei and I agree, on the whole. Like james arthur told me he agreed with my entire system of positions.
  • annoying talking typing segment: “just 2 sentences” – 15 minutes later… debatable. Does this suck?
    • make myself listen again to the annoying typing: SHOULD I HAVE PAUSED RECG WHILE TYPING?
    • the words I’m typing are Great Words, but…
  • Bad thing: some parts should be edited out. Good thing: there are tons of good parts; ie, you could edit out my discussion of vocal technique, and my false takes, 90% of the content is 10 out of 10 solid content. I’m handing the producer a GREAT tracking file, he just needs to delete some parts 10% and what’s left is pure gold.
  • I expect the technical reocrding is 10 except construction noise & fan. Hope little wind hitting mic.
  • The vocalization – while reading script and while off-the-cuff — is maybe 8 or 9.

Announcement Postings I’m Reading Aloud

2003 14-page posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-28/#message1391

2002 6-page posting: DONE
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162
My posting is a reply inspired by ppan’s good posting above it.

Errata/Critiques: Troughs in Voice Recordings, Slow Parts = Things I’m Still Working Out for “Show Production”

Overhead Junk That I’m Still Working-Out

It is clear that I’m not over/past the hump yet.

I’m still working-out:

  • how I’m going to read postings aloud.
    • written words i don’t want to say
    • skipping text
      • my job is to take junky writing, on-air live, convert it / how to present rough text as if polished.
    • critiquing wording of someone’s post – some of this is important.
    • what part of the posting header to read. answer: most.
  • The problem with bassy voczn (loud).
  • I had forgotten that reading text aloud ideally requires a pre-run practice run throwaway.
  • Think I’m done figuring out how to close mic w/o wind hitting mic. start 3″ on aixs, then move it off axis.

Yesterdays recordings are largely slow-paced – I could analyze what I mean htere.

I am I experience them as often too slow-paced. Need to pick up the pace; too chatty, try to tighten that up a little – maybe? Realistic?

In RevShift, at the end, I finally get to the damn point – I finally break through to “get it”, the spirit of 2002/2003 paradigm shift to the “default to filled-grid” not “empty grid” – assume that our RECOGNIZING entheogens has empty cells, but REALITY is entirely filled-cells.

But come on, I can’t do 10/10 cashout all the time. There are going to be troughs and peaks.

What are the troughs/ slow points in my rec’gs? Any meta-discussion of shows, voczn, technical, is “slow”. Discussing how to read people’s postings, what to skip, is “slow”.

Voice Recording 12 with Header (2021-01-26c) “Revolutionary Paradigm Shift.mp3” 3:16:22

  • Filename: “Revolutionary Paradigm Shift.mp3”
  • Length: 3:16:22
  • Download/preview: https://we.tl/t-TUQX5Dsffg
    • Download link for 1 week.
  • At start: “third effort, simple read-through of postings from 2002/3, this is the header, vocalization : the usual, I’m not going to do any commentary, unpracticed read-through, no repeating,.. dr-05, 4″ [interesting! same distance as I ended up doing w/ sm57 cardioid mic ~ Feb 18] to let in room reverb, dr-05 on desk mic mount, bright”

Production notes:

  • Tracking file: 210126_2173.wav

Good content.

  • 2:41:00 remembered the bad situation of entheogen scholarship in 2002. Ruck school was playing the game poorly as “start with empty grid” , “tend toward empty grid”; default to empty, SECRET, absence. I brought full theory, asserted all religions, all origins, all through history, assume ubiquitous, look through that lens, use that lens to perceive data later.
    Read 2002 announcement posting – Subject: “Entheogen use constant in religion”. Figured out what the 2003 Revolutionary Paradigm Shift was. Only *started* reading the 2003 announcement posting (of the maximal entheogen theory of religion), near the end.
  • See the section below: Content in “Revolutionary Paradigm Shift.mp3”

entheogens = Not Real Christianity

58:00 rialcnis post below 14-page announc, his reply that day, I read his full post. “those famous guys didn’t propose the idea directly like my 14page supposedly does.

2:41:00 +the good part. Itslike: Max’s discussion of the entheogens conference books display, the Grid, filling-in the grid. the entire set of religious is based on entheogens. – theory-driven. not the darn piecemeal approach, data driven. Substance.

The “Ruck” (et al) 2000 paradigm as a “default empty grid” approach, vs. the Egodeath theory is a “default filled grid” paradigm. Moderates vs the Maximals.

  • The Moderates are stuck in a “default empty grid” paradigm assumption framework.
  • The Maximals operate from a “default filled-in grid” assumption framework.

The Moderates: with one hand they give, while with the other hand, they take away.

There, I just saved you from having to listen to the 3:16:22 voice recording from hell.

Content in 3. “Revolutionary Paradigm Shift.mp3”
  • Read the 2002 Oct 6-page posting, Rialcnis’ reply (to 2003 posting?), ppan’s pre-posting.
  • Musical ice cubes. <– the highlight of the show ~2:18:00
  • 2:20:00
  • 2:33:45 Start reading 14-page posting. Allgro was 1970 not 1967, had to go check date in 40th anniv printing.
  • Quantum Kafei’s claim: “The Egodeath theory uses the word ‘heimarmene’ as a neologism. But it doesn’t.” Stably unstable position.
  • A couple other posts.
  • Read the 2016 post where I turned against the word ‘entheogen’.
  • Much of this “show” (easier to type than “voice recording”) is about word connotations of ‘psychedelic’ & ‘entheogen’. And subtle variants of wording around “the maximal entheogen theory of religion”.
  • wrmspirit’s context-less poem.
  • Part of my posting about defining what “on-topic” means.
  • Description of Ott’s book (Entheogenic Reformation; the Angels’ Dictionary).
  • I could easily create a 3-hour recording every week eg by reading postings or books, promising I won’t do commentary, and then doing commentary. Over the hump, for bringing togher Content, Voczn, & Technical.
  • Read part of 2003 announcement of the Maximal Entheogen Paradigm. Against the Moderate or “empty-grid” paradigm. Didn’t get far before I figured out the answer, the nature of my Revolutionary Paradigm Shift, the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
  • BUT THATS NOT ALL!!! Also the earlier pre- recording [2 of them!], about the weakness of the word ‘entheogen’.
  • These two shows are a nice blend of casual, formal, random, and thematic/ cohesive.
  • Quadrant levels: (1 = min, 10 = max)
    • Mythemes – 1
    • Loosecog – 2
    • Eternalism – 1
    • Control transformation – 1
    • cuts across quadrants:
      • Western Esotericism – 3
      • entheogen scholarship – 10

Voice Recording 11 with Header (2021-01-26b):
“Entheogen Diminishment Scholars.mp3” 25:14

  • Filename: “Entheogen Diminishment Scholars.mp3”
  • Length: 25:14
  • Download/preview: https://we.tl/t-Wimb6So3N8
    • download link for 1 week

At the start: “Header: The structure of the recording header is: 2 points about the content plan …; 2 points about vocalization, and 2 points about technical.” Done stating header info at 3:30.

Content
  • discusses ‘psychedelic’ vs. ‘entheogen’ connotations, pros/cons.
  • unsure what this is, it has some good content. what’s the diff between these 3 rec’gs? SKIP INTRO??
Production Notes
  • 210126_2172.wav – shorter
  • sub-par voczn?
    Slightly much room reverb?
  • Voice recording, defines the planned “recording header” format: “Header: The structure of the recording header is: 2 points about the content plan, which is always turns out wrong; 2 points about vocalization, and 2 points about technical.”
  • It takes until 3:10 to finally finish stating the particular header info; I failed here to consider, that the Header needs to be finished by 0:30.
  • Has a “content header” (precursor to becoming a “show”): starts liuterally: “Header: The structure of the recording header is: 2 points about the content plan, which is always turns out wrong; 2 points about vocalization, and 2 points about technical. [nonliteral:] the plan is much reduced amibition; i’tm blaha blah 2002 posting reading blah blah…”
  • At 2:18 I finally say: “Vocalization: my voice’s bass will be too loud and will leak, so aim for pitch 3 out of 10 (not 1 of 10), and at that point, my volume of voice needs to then be 3 out of 10. A bit of a wrinkle/catch/ limitation. Technical is it’s January 26, 2021, speaking into the TASCAM DR-05 Right mic in Stereo mode, discard Left channel then remember to Center the Balance….”
  • I finish that Header statement at 3:10, but that should have been finished at 0:30! That was the concept!
  • “I won’t say the planned length of the recording, or how much longer I’ll be recording, because that’s always wrong.”

Voice Recording 10 (2021-01-26): “Non-Drug Entheogens.mp3” 1:30:11

No “header”, but opens with a Description of content. “with Minimal repeating because I’ll have to go fast. I do want a vocal warmup practice. I’ll repeat-phrase during the off-the-cuff commentary.”

pretty sure this is good quality content.

Tracking file: 210126_2171.wav

THE PSYCHEDELIC THEORY OF RELIGION
1. “Non-Drug Entheogens.mp3”

[January 26, 2021] – very probably the below is assoc w/ the first of the 3 recordings for Jan 26 uploads. ended up as “Non-Drug Entheogens.mp3”, I think. Below is notes I typed just after recording it, I think.

  • I made a remarkable (and debatable) idea development voice recording just now, about why THE WORD ENTHEOGEN IS DOOMED TO FAILURE as we saw in 2000 that made me try to bandaid it with ‘maximal’. Or forget stupid recording, see text below.
  • episode 25, 54:30 Why did Strange Loop and Max Realize that the Only Possible Word Was ‘Psychedelic’ and that ‘Entheogen’ would fail, in preventing corruption of the 1-sentence def’n/summary of the egodeath theory. Transcendent Knowledge podcast, episode 25 – link to that recording I just made.
  • figuratively speaking, in 2002, I TOLD YOU SO! I WARNED THE FIELD, I TOLD YOU, HANEGRAAFF WOULD COME ALONG AND STEAL THE WORD ‘ENTHEOGEN’ AND DILUTE IT TO EMPTY IT OF ALL POTENCY. IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT THE WORD ENTHEOGEN WOULD BE TOOTHLESS AND WOULD BE COMPLETELY NEUTERED AND CO-OPTED, AS ALREADY HAPPENED BY 2000.
    • 1:09:00 Say “the state of consciousness that is exclusively elicited by Psychedelics” <– why not ‘entheogens’??? how bout some of Hanegraaff’s “non-drug entheogens”?
    • Max: “I see your point; by specifying only “the Psychedelic state of consciousness”, you lose this crucial point, which is that the psychedelic state of consciousness [ie authentic esoteric religion] can only be elicited by drugs.”
      • Why didn’t Max say ‘entheogens’? look at the feeble “entheogen” scholarship books of 2000 for a hint, a sign. Entheogen = WEAK Vulnerable word, easily diluted, diminishment. I don’t have a full transcription, but todo: LISTEN TO STRANGE LOOP PLUG THE GAP, Episode 25, NOT W/ ‘ENTHEOGENS’ BUT W/ ‘PSYCHEDELICS’:
        1:08:00 = 68*60 = 4080s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCqCGpOwDYA&t=4080s
        1:08:30 <– Strange Loop points out shutting out the Meditation argument. Listen to their conversation about 1-sentence summary, not sure of time stamp. 54:30 is the start of part of that conversation. It’s split into 2 parts?
        54:30 = 54*60 +30 = 3270s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCqCGpOwDYA&t=3270s
      • Do they even consider the word ‘entheogens’? 🤔 😄 😳 why not?
    • Word hit count at https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/25/commentary-on-transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episode-25/
      • entheogen – ~16 <– puny feeble vulnerable co-opted watered-down moderate secret abnormal alternative heretical;
        ENTHEOGEN = NOT REAL RELIGION; merely an alternative
      • psychedelic – ~76 <– ANY QUESTIONS?
        THE PSYCHEDELIC THEORY OF RELIGION
        NO “MAXIMAL” NEEDED. HEY HANEGRAAAFFF HOW BOUT THAT “NON-DRUG PSYCHEDELICS”, HM? DID U KNOW, HITTING YOUR THUMB W/ HAMMER “CAN” EMULATE THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHEDELICS.
  • WHERE ITS AT IS NOT THE LAME-AZZ “THE ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION” (THUMBDOWN EMOJI), IT WAS ALREADY WRECKED IN 2000, NOW HANEGRAAFF HAS DONE WHAT I PREDICTED, OR REPORTED, IN 2002. “NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS” = 100 TRADITIONAL METHODS, VS. PLANT ENTHEOGENS WHICH IS ONLY *1* METHOD – AN UPSTART – SO, ENTHEOGENS ARE SECRET, AS SECRET AS THE SUBTITLE OF BROWNS’ BOOK: THE PSYCHEDELIC[GOOD SO FAR, BUT….] GOSPELS: THE SECRET [AGHHH FAIL SKULL EMOJIS 💀 😵 FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL] HISTORY OF HALLUCINOGENS IN Christianity”. “MODERATE ENTHEGOEN ” IS REDUNDANT. MODERERATE, DIMINISHMENT, IS BAKED-INTO THE WORD ENTHOGEN. I TRIED TO SAVE THE WORD, BANDAID “MAXIMAL”, I WROTE “ENTHEOGENIC ESOTERICISM” THEN 8 YRS LATER HANEGRAAFF WROTE CHAP W/ THAT TITLE, THEN … “NON-DRUG ENTHOEGENS”. “MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN” FIALED. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, I TOLD U SO.
  • MAY HAVE TO SWITCH TO: “THE PSYCHEDELIC THEORY OF RELIGION“, FOR SAME REASON STRANGE LOOP AND MAX REACHED FOR ‘THROUGH PSYCHDELICS ONLY’, INSTEAD OF PATCHING THE OPENING W/ “THROUGH ENTHEOGENS ONLY”. SEE EP 25. 1-SENT SUMM OF THE EGODEATH THEORY . WHY THEY USE “PSYCHEDELIC” NOT “ENTHEOGEN”?? ‘PSYCHEDELIC’ HAS BAGGAGE – BUT the word ‘ENTHEOGEN’ HAS A MASSIVE OPENING, AS WE SEE W/ HANEGRAAFF EXPLOITING, DILUTING, “NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS”. I TOLD U SO IN 2002, THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. “THE MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION” MEANS: ENTHEOGENS ARE QUITE LIMITED, ABNORMAL, SECRET, RARE, MINIMAL. CHUTES & LATTERS, DEFLATION OF THE “MAXIMAL ENTHEGOEN” POSITION DOWN TO LEVEL OF “MODERNATE ENTHEOGENS ” DOWN TO LEVEL OF … the incredible shringking Entheogen Theory. The tire has a flat tire. the word ‘entheogen’ has a puncture. Pump it up w/ “maximal”? It’s flat again in 5 minutes. i told u so. tried to warn u. “Secret Entheogens” = No Entheogens.
  • What’s the maximal amount of entheogens in religion? Not Very Much. Subtle contradiction/ backfiring built-in. “Maximal” connotes “very limited”.
  • Let’s see Hanegraaff try the fallacious etymology-based argument on THIS word, the P word: Hi, my name is Hanegraaff, and I propose, “Non-Drug Psychedelics”, and I have a theory, called “the Psychedelic Theory of Religion”, in which, I assert that psychedelics were merely one of 200 traditional techniques, like smashing your head repeatedly against a brick wall “CAN” emulate the effects of psychedelics.

Warmup Recording, Halted by Chip Filling Up

Jan 26 2021

  • Memory chip filled up – can’t remember, what was I recording then? Do I have 4 recordings to upload? I don’t THINK I was working on an important recording.
  • Not uploaded or exported to mp3:
    older chip – what was I voice-recording when it filled up and stopped?
    Funny warmup, 14:xx , jumpped in, 210126_2170.wav.
  • Contents:
  • 0:00 Max shipped the mystics & their books to Mars. Probably a reading-aloud of the written joke below.
  • I rightly predicted the chip would fill up.
  • How to learn: listen multiple times, read multiple times. How to underline books. Wasson book photographs of my markup. Need to set up printer to properly read Hatsis’ (eg) articles – or my postings. Or my WordPress pages. Underlining / highlighting in Kindle, ebooks suk.
  • Funny ending: “This is probably going to be a throwaway recording, and in line with that, ” — right then, the tape runs out.

I’m Never Wrong, But When I Am, Go Big: Lower Ambitions for My Read-Through of Announcements of the Maximal Fail Theory of the Word ‘Entheogen’

  • My big error isn’t that “maximal entheogen” turns out to be hopeless futile bandaid for diminution of the presence of plants.
  • I merely mean: my expectations for this voice recording were way, way too high. I FORGOT THAT TO READ Cyberdisciple’S ARTICLES ALOUD, I DID A PRACTICE RUN-THROUGH READING. I’M NOT GOING TO READ MY POSTINGS TWICE. SO, I WON’T BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT I’M READING, AND I’M BARELY GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATE READ-ALOUD.
  • FORGET ABOUT ME COMPREHENDING WHAT I’M READING-ALOUD,
  • FORGET ABOUT ME DOING ANY COMMENTARY (OR VOCALZN PRACTICE OF THAT).
  • IT WILL BE A HUGE CHALLENGE TO DO A DECENT STRAIGHT-THROUGH READ-ALOUD RECORDING, SINCE NO PRACTICE READ-THROUGH. OOPS. FORGOT THAT DETAIL.

Next Voice Recording: Reading-Aloud My 14-page 2003 Announcement of the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion. Goal: Repeat Phrases During the Rare Moments of Commentary

  • Guiding questions to keep an eye out for:
    • How does the maximal entheogen theory of religion relate to other component-theories of the egodeath theory?
      • Western Esotericism scholarship
      • mytheme decoding
      • Ahistoricity
      • the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence
    • Why is this Theory 3-level? (min/mod/max)
    • Are my complaints more elevated than “Ruck should multiply his qty of entheogens spotted by 2x”?
      • What are the qualitative rather than quantitative complaints causing me to formulate this Theory?
    • Is this Theory specified in terms of “min mod max”?
    • Could this Theory have been 2-level?
    • How to relate this model to the 2-level models in the 2002 or 2021 version of the Egodeath theory?
  • Recording plan:
    • Read-aloud almost straight-through, my 14-page posting of my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
    • Occasionally re-reading sentences.
    • With a little off-the-cuff commentary.
      • The top priority: Repeating sentences of my commentary, demonstrating re-pitching.
    • Definition/criteria of success: There is only 1 goal, constituting success vs failure of this recording: Did I repeat phrases during my commentary?
      • Yes: Success.
      • No: FAIL.

2002 6-page posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162
My posting is a reply inspired by ppan’s good posting above it.

2003 14-page posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-28/#message1391

Confirmed: The 2002 & 2003 announcement postings are both copied to Egodeath.com, b/c they are before Valentines 2004.

My voice is poor at this time of day, and I have to be quiet, so, this might just be practice for: too late, ain’t happening til tomorrow.

  • a great redo in the late morning (more background noise, better voice, louder speaking allowed).
  • right now: no background noise, poor voice, near-whisper soon.

This 14-page posting looks dauntingly well written and well-considered (and I probably slammed it out in a single burst within an email application), but otoh, no subheadings or TOC (terrible; fail).

  • Next, right now, I plan to read (almost) straight through recording reading-aloud my 14-page announcement posting of my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion, with a *little* occasional re-reading of phrases, and a *little* off-the-cuff commentary that I will *definitely* — the top priority — repeat vocalizing my off-the-cuff commentary. Only a *little*, or else I’ll never complete the task.

Voice Recording 9 (2021-01-25):
“Demo of Repeating Phrases.mp3” 2:20:22

Filename: “Demo of Repeating Phrases.mp3”
Title in music player: “Demo of Repeating Phrases”
Length: 2:20:22 – CONTENT STARTS AT 5:10
Download link for 1 week: https://we.tl/t-6ocbApzfUE
Raw tracking file: 210125_2168.wav
Date: 2021-01-25
Mic: TASCAM DR-05, rec lvl 55 out of 90, stereo/ right-only / pan to center/ desk stand/arm/clamp

  • starts with a “content purpose” statement, not yet a “header”; not yet a “show”.
  • Supposedly not a real episode. Do you trust me on that? I don’t.
  • A Scratch Voice Recording – “Demo of Repeating Phrases.mp3” – Kafei Quotes, Ppan’s Post & My 2002 Reply Forming the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

“This show is purely throwaway. … It does contain some good solid content/ points/ analysis.”

A Scratch Voice Recording – “Demo of Repeating Phrases.mp3” – Kafei Quotes, Ppan’s Post & My 2002 Reply Forming the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

Content:
  • CONTENT STARTS AT 5:10 or 8:30 after “against room treatment” – Commenting on Pull Quotes. I comment in depth on and on, about like 4 sentences from Kafei, in terms of ambiguous terms, 3- vs 2-level models, how I would re-write his pull-quotes to make them proper and clear.
    • 28:15 At this point, he doesn’t differentiate causal-chain determinism vs. block-universe determinism. Which is really important, since Kafei is making misleading statements, assertions, and insinuations about which position the Egodeath theory takes.
    • 33:33 summary of 3-level model on right vs 2-lvl model on right.
      “I see determinism within eternalism.”
    • 35:00 analysis of “The mind becomes one with the block universe.”
    • 38:00 step outside the block universe. If “all” means block univ, we’re going “outside the all”. block universe = prison; need release (apolytrosis); we need to leave the block universe – in 150 A.D., lots of Transcendence Salesmen will gladly sell you their brand of religion promising to pull you outside of the iron block universe prison.
    • 45: 50 “It’s a direct experience of the block universe”. -> The mystic state is…
    • The mind becomes “the All”, … the mind becomes the block universe … Wording improvements.
    • 49:15 Asking me to stop saying “logical connector” utterances, is hopeless. It’s like trying to get Kafei to form a thought without quoting some damn mystic or other – not gonna happen; constitutionally incapable. Max tried shipping all the Great Mystics off to Mars 👽 🛸, with all their books, but to no available; he still quoted them, even when people merely asked if he had the time of day. And so, therefore, now, I keep saying logical connectory-sounding utterances before every, single, statement.
    • 57:00 discussion of popping mic, plosives per minute. Level drops, b/c I move mic away.
      • 1:01:10 tech discussion: how to achieve the impossible: ultra close mic w/o pop filter.
      • #1: mouth popping.
      • #2: nose wind aka nostril wind
      • #3: clogged-nose sound due to aiming at mouth not nostrils when close-miking. Conflicts w/ #2, when ultra-close miking.
  • 1:07:30 I spot-read part of the really solid and concise 2002 posting from ppan1031 that inspired me to write my 6-page, apparently good posting announcing the maximal entheogen theory of religion in Oct 16, 2002.
    • 1:11:45 ppan says egodeath block-universe determinism = UNFOLDING, but i fail to comment on that.
    • 1:13:00 the audio industry is idiots w/ their damned 6″ plastic garbage-design pop filters.
    • 1:15:00 Course in Miracles – ppan wonders if L25 inspiration. Did Hanegraaff expose that? maybe in his article Entheogenic Esotericism.
    • ppan had a successful Amanita session where he wondered that.
    • 1:16:00 real solid post from ppan: if enth, why church? out of biz. … If, then why join a church?
  • My 2002 6-page posting
    • ~1:23:00 – I literally read aloud a sentence 3x from an announcement posting, then I comment (wisely, about the benefit of reading a sentence aloud 3x) 3x. so, the purpose of this practice recording is fulfilled; a success.
    • 1:26:00 My previous writing is intimidatingly good. Daunting. I’m smart now, and of course I was dumb back then. <- previous me: “Yeah u wish, you burned-out oldster.”
    • Found my 2002 announcement posting (of the maximal entheogen theory of religion) at Egodeath.com, weird page title, “‘Outmoded’ Fallacy – Diminishment by Portraying only Ancients & Primitives as Using” – straight out of Transcendent Knowledge Podcast episode on James Kent.
      The whole webpage = the 6-page 2002 announcement:
      http://www.egodeath.com/OutmodednessFallacy.htm
    • Fix my Egodeath.com “Home” link going to wrong site. todo
  • I comment on my 2003 posting.
    • It’s clear these postings will be good to read & read-aloud.
    • 1:34:00 A cpl tiny spot-comments about 2003 post.
    • Conflict of goals: Speak bassy. vs. Don’t be loud.
    • 1:50:00 – 2003 posting: really impressive FAILURE of an “article”, no one knows what’s in it, b/c lacks headings/TOC.
      • So it is indeed a really good idea / rewarding to now do a nice reading / recording/ commentary of this loose set of postings.
    • Reading a sentence 3 times is totally justifiable, to comprehend them.
    • 1:59:00 Hatsis totally conflates Amanita with the word ‘mushroom’, just like John King in 1970. He’s confused about what his position is. Just like Letcher. Hatsis and Letcher are feeling confused. They show signs of dizziness, they are hazy and confused about what exactly their positions are. What exactly are they asserting? They don’t know.
    • 2:03:00 too wild, I post 4 questions, permutations I characterize:
      • Did Jesus exist?
      • Did Jesus use msh?
      • Did primitive Christians use msh?
      • Did later Christians use msh?
    • 2:04:00 In rec’g, I discuss 4 degrees of Swoon Theory, which I’ve id’d. I dont think anyone else permuted these.
      https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/?s=swoon
    • Planning reading of the 14-page posting. Will have to go fast or will never complete the reading.
    • 2:13:00 ice cubes. after drink, higher pitch ice cubes.
Concerns:

A mix of TOXIC GARBAGE & Gold… Is there as much pitch practice as intended? The goal was “toxic”, not “gold”; the goal was purely voczn practice.

The entire & only goal of this rec’g I made, is to practice reading aloud (technique: 3 takes of each sentence), and to practice off-the-cuff commentary that repeats each phrase eachtime. I almost never literally do that, in this recording.

  • Expect mic popping.
    • Confirmed: Super close miking like 3″ eliminates room reverb, a remarkable achievement in untreated room. Almost too dry.
  • Nose wind — very high chance that nose wind completely ruins this whole recording. b/c I’m super close miking nearly on-axis with no pop filter.

Next Voice Recording: Reading-Aloud My 14-page 2003 Announcement of the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion. Goal: Repeat Phrases During the Rare Moments of Commentary

Since it’s too late at night to read aloud, I’ll probably instead upload my scratch practice 2-hour recording I just finished, further below. To see how bad the close-miking attempt turned out. It has the *potential* to have some content worth hearing — in-between technical troubleshooting. But, I don’t plan to provide timestamps; YMMV.

  • Guiding questions to keep an eye out for:
    • How does this the maximal entheogen theory of religion relate to other component-theories of the egodeath theory?
      • Western Esotericism scholarship
      • mytheme decoding
      • Ahistoricity
      • the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence
    • Why is this Theory 3-level? (min/mod/max)
    • Are my complaints more elevated than “Ruck should multiply his qty of entheogens spotted by 2x”?
      • What are the qualitative rather than quantitative complaints causing me to formulate this Theory?
    • Is this Theory specified in terms of “min mod max”?
    • Could this Theory have been 2-level?
    • How to relate this model to the 2-level models in the 2002 or 2021 version of the Egodeath theory?
  • Recording plan:
    • Read-aloud almost straight-through, my 14-page posting of my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
    • Occasionally re-reading sentences.
    • With a little off-the-cuff commentary.
      • The top priority: Repeating sentences of my commentary, demonstrating re-pitching.
    • Definition/criteria of success: There is only 1 goal, constituting success vs failure of this recording: Did I repeat phrases during my commentary?
      • Yes: Success.
      • No: FAIL.

2002 6-page posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162
My posting is a reply inspired by ppan’s good posting above it.

2003 14-page posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-28/#message1391

Confirmed: The 2002 & 2003 announcement postings are both copied to Egodeath.com, b/c they are before Valentines 2004.

My voice is poor at this time of day, and I have to be quiet, so, this might just be practice for: too late, ain’t happening til tomorrow.

  • a great redo in the late morning (more background noise, better voice, louder speaking allowed).
  • right now: no background noise, poor voice, near-whisper soon.

This 14-page posting looks dauntingly well written and well-considered (and I probably slammed it out in a single burst within an email application), but otoh, no subheadings or TOC (terrible; fail).

  • Next, right now, I plan to read (almost) straight through recording reading-aloud my 14-page announcement posting of my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion, with a *little* occasional re-reading of phrases, and a *little* off-the-cuff commentary that I will *definitely* — the top priority — repeat vocalizing my off-the-cuff commentary. Only a *little*, or else I’ll never complete the task.

Quotes of Great Mystics – You Have to Fact Check Everything I Say

I created a pull quote of the following, at:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/quotes-from-the-great-mystics-of-egodeath/#You-have-to-fact-check-me

“The book “The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time” is claiming that William James made a death-bed retraction and that he approved the block universe on his death bed, something along those lines.

Like all of my bogus voice recordings, you’ll have to fact-check everything I say. The feeling I have is correct, even if my statements are completely false.” – Cybermonk 59:50, “Two Models of Control.mp3”

Podcast Ideas – Models of Time: Wm James & Iron Block Universe

I added the following search link to “Podcast Ideas” page, “models of time” section:

Looks like relevant results:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22william+james%22+%22iron+block+universe%22

16 Thinkers on 16 Models of Time, Causality, and Determinism

added the below section to https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/14/ideas-for-podcast-topics/#Philosophy-of-Time –

Research tasks for grad student slaves:
What did Hermann Minkowski, William James, Ramesh Balsekar, & Sam Harris say about:

  • block universe
  • iron block universe
  • eternalism
  • block-universe eternalism
  • block-universe determinism
  • possibilism
  • branching-universe possibilism
  • worldlines
  • worm theory
  • timelessness
  • no-free-will
  • pre-existence of future control-thoughts

  • parmenides
  • einstein
  • popper

Translation of the Move “The Egodeath theory isn’t about mystics”

It’s pretty clear that Max didn’t exactly mean it when he strategically claimed “the Egodeath theory isn’t for/about mystics👽.” It was not a good strategy; it was confusing – b/c it was not direct argumentation; it was indirect; a proxy. Seeming to argue about X, when you’re really arguing about Y instead.

That was a proxy (substitute) for saying “For the 20th time, shut up about quoting mystics, we don’t care, they’re ‘not relevant’ so to speak; you’re abusing quoting mystics, as a way of avoiding the subject – talk about core concepts of the Egodeath theory!”

Consistently Inconsistent

I suppose if I use 1 word to characterize Kafei, he comes across as INCONSISTENT. quantum inconsistency.

At this moment, the concept of timeless (or whatever) is the same thing as the particular label “the Absolute”. Then I re-probe his position 30 seconds later; now, his position is: the phrase “the ground of being” is synonymous w/ the phrase “the Abs”.

??? wtf, be consistent dude. Your position keeps shifting and changing and contradicting itself every 2 seconds.

Max in episode 26, says like “You keep changing your characterization of the Egodeath theory: flipping between …”: machine quote:

Max: “right so i think that the uh a point of confusion that happened in our last conversation is that when you were reflecting your understanding of the ego death theory sometimes you seemed to be um attributing causal chain determinism to michael hoffman’s view michael hoffman’s theory, but other times you seem to say that michael hoffman is expressing uh the other kind of determinism determinism block universe eternalist model of time” <- NOTICE MAX SAID “OF TIME” NOT “OF CAUSALITY”. HERE max is inconsistent – he didn’t say “block-universe determinism”, said “block-universe eternalism”.

STANF ARTI TITLE IS “METAPHYSICS OF TIME: POSSIBILISM VS. (BLOCK UNIV) ETERNALISM”

CONCLU: we need to differentiate / discuss block-universe determinism vs block-universe eternalism .

next thing that happens: Kafei directly contradicts himself (seems to) -AGAIN.

Max: “well i mean okay do you agree or

Kaf: “i i well there is something that you said you mentioned because you said that um you mentioned that ramesh and michael hoffman are are concluding the same exact* point so i kind of you know uh figured that maybe you know michael was referring to a [“uh uh”, not “a”] causal determinism in some way through the block universe that you know that we yes <- he says neither “block-universe determinism” nor “block-universe eternalism”!

[*probably not exact same – does Ramesh agree w/ the Egodeath theory’s pre-existing timeless block-universe eternalism, that the future exists? including future control-thoughts pre-exist. -cm]

everything’s uh determined we have you know um in the in the p experience itself you don’t uh you know the mystic no longer identifies with the material body [??? what u mean?? huh? what logical arg structure?? why bring in this point? what does material body ahve to do w/ detm??] because they see themselves as all events occurring uh you know all time past and future collapse into the moment and so you know they have no identity

Max: “so which which model of determinism would that be then that what you’ve just uh explained?”

he doesn’t answer

he doesn’t answer

start of pullquote source

Kafei: i i consider it like the way i was sort of thinking about it and is like a direct experience of the block universe or or the mind fuses with the block universe like it becomes all it becomes the block and you know so there is no time you know to unfold because you know everything is occurring at once simultaneously um

but that’s the vision inside the experience

but when you come and you return to the baseline of consciousness you return to space and time and egoic the egoic illusion you know uh but nevertheless you still have in your memory banks the vision of where your that ego death happened where you know there was no longer an ego but there is still awareness there uh and it’s and it’s that awareness that you know you could recall from your from your memory banks

Pull-quote of the above:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/quotes-from-the-great-mystics-of-egodeath/#Experiencing-the-Block-Universe

BEAUT. BUT – LITTLE MINOR DETAIL: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Max: “so which which model of determinism would that be then that what you’ve just uh explained”

💎🏆 I’m Golden – Just Remember the Idea “Repeat Phrase”, to Deliver “Professional Voiceover Artist”-Quality Voice Recordings

The key to professional vocalization is repeating phrases.

You don’t need to actually repeat phrases, so much as, remember the idea/mindset, of repeating phrases.

change of policy: if i cuss, or say “So, “, or use high pitch, don’t comment on that. Repeat phrase.

Takeaway, prize, treasure: 🔥🐉💎🏆

Repeat phrase.

Repeat phrase.

I’m So Close, to this Gold, Mining this Audio Gold, to Produce & Explore Wonderfully Musical Vocalizations

  • GOLD idea: Repeat phrases multiple times, exploring different pitch musicality variations. (The standard professional voiceover recording technique.)
    • GOLD idea: Repeat written phrases multiple times, exploring different, varied pitching, then repeat off-the-cuff commentary phrases multiple times, exploring varied pitching.

Big embarrasing announcmnet to light the fire under myself to push mysefl to get over the hump, to FINALLY bring the pieces togheter, to explore musically the full range of pitch. Upload next: idea-dev rec’g with range of pitch- ie REPEAT PHRASES MULTIPLE TIMES, pushing down, varying. Leverage success at reading script/text: read aloud ….

Musically (= pitch varying) read aloud a sentence 3 times (the std professional Voiceover Artist technique), from the maximal entheogen theory of religion posting, then freeform comment on it maybe re-saying the commentary 3 times WHILE EXPLORING THE VARYING OF PITCH, variations.

Fantastic idea-developmt ideas about recordings

There are TWO watchdog points/places:

  • Watch the source of thoughts (subtle: including proposed pitch’ing)
    • Watch and critique the “source of [PITCH-]thoughts“.
  • Listen to (critcailly) the words (& pitch/voczn) I just-now spoke.
    • Watch and critique the PITCH OF the newly spoken words.

rapidly alterenate betw reading aloud and speaking.

Start Every Voice Recording with a Structured Header

don’t explicitly TALK about the headder; just only say the key words of it.

every voice rec’g start w a HEADER:

2 POINTS ABOUT INTENDED POSSIBLE CONTENT THEMES

2 POINTS ABOUT INTENDED VOC’ZN PRACTICE EMPHASIS:

  • #1: REPEAT PHRASES. <– THATS THE KEY! ALl of my sucessfull techniques since 2007 are due to the key thing, which is: REPEATING (PHRASES).
  • PUSH PITCH DOWNWD
    • experiment: electronically pitch my voice lower it down, hear what that sounds like.
  • VARY PITCH MUSICALLY

2 POINTS ABOUT TECHNICAL:

  • DATE
  • MIC

Voice Recording 8 (2021-01-24) “What I Learned About Eleusis.mp3” 5:30

No header at start.

  • Filename: “What I Learned About Eleusis.mp3”
  • Length: 5:30
  • Download/preview: https://we.tl/t-TsmO3f9Pb0
    • Download link for 1 week only
  • Master tape: 210124_2165.wav – a copy is in:
    • Found “What I Learned About Eleusis from Muraresku.aup” at Kingston 64 GB SD card “TK Audio”: “/Volumes/TK Audio/Music/TK/Egodeath Mystery Show/What I Learned About Eleusis from Muraresku”

Context: Cyberdisciple is tired of the overemphasis on Eleusis, as if nowhere else had sacred meals.  Cyberdisciple says Ruck is correctly broad-focused in Road to Eleusis. I haven’t read Muraresku’s book (PR campaign) myself, so I don’t know just how badly he commits that fallacy.

Topics
  • Plan: ridiculing and hard rejecting the scholar-clowns’ B.S. coverup of mushrooms in Christian art.
  • Christianity + Greek religion considered together. I was just starting to say, entheogen scholarship should consider Christianity as a brand of Hellenistic Mystery Religion, and then cover mushrooms in Hellenistic Mystery Religion – not mushrooms (code-word exclusively meaning Amanita) in “Christianity”.
  • Sidetracked, magically switched to topic of:
    What I Learned About Eleusis from Muraresku
Points I Meant to Cover in this voice rec’g
  • We don’t care what your stupid f’ing official bedtime cover story is. Last time, it was “the mushrooms are all Italian pines”, now they’re all “Parasols of Victory”.
    • You proved one thing: that you are morons, fools, deceivers, and are insulting our intelligence & that of artists.
  • The authorities agree with each other – telling the latest cover-up story “with impressive celerity!” Wasson’s textbook case of argument from authority, by citing Panofsky’s 1952 letter — while censoring Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book, replacing that by ellipses. Repeatedly.
  • Per Pope Wasson, don’t look at this sole, “little” (Panofsky’s word) book on which we rest our entire case against any mushrooms in Christian art: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/
  • Yeah, the art historian scholars met to debate – to debate in what way they’d cover-up their Big Problem.
    • But, their big problem wasn’t mushrooms.
    • Their Big Problem was that Esoteric Christianity was evident, the competitor religion, evidenced by the too-many-mushrooms that were signalled by Esoteric Christianity. The mushrooms you see aren’t mushrooms, especially not the self-blading of branching psalter viewer leg hanging balancing in the mushroom tree. No, those are definitely NOT mushrooms. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/
    • The exoteric art authorities agree with each other – with impressive celerity! – they debated about and agree upon the latest cover-up story to hide esoteric religion. The newest cover-up story: they’re all Parasols of Victory. Apparently our previous cover-up story to explain away (as Hatsis brags) the signs of esoteric Christianity, has been revised.
  • We firmly reject the bedtime cover-story the scholars are trying to foist, we don’t care about your stupid position & arguments, we see right through the – not just mushroom – but the Esoteric vs. Exoteric tension … broader than just mushroom “Conspir@cy” per title of Hatsis’ 2022 book. If we’re going to use the C word, if we must frame situation as a C, who then would be the parties? The C is “Exotericism vs. Esotericism”. That’s closer to the accurate reading of the positions. 3-level model? There are 3, not 2, battling groups:
  • Lowest level: exoterics
  • Highest level: esoterics <- few make it this far in late modernity
  • Stuck-in-the-middle level: exoteric esotericists <- pile of rebels stuck just accumulating piling-up in middle bucket/level, they’ve hit a dragon-guarded gate fire wall 🔥🗡👼 {the shadow} 🔥🐉 💎🍄🐍🌳🍎🏆

    A top-10 common mytheme: {professor deny mushroom}

u complained 3 1/2 hours is 2 long?! forget u! here’s 5min

Email to M. Hoffman

Hi M. Hoffman,

I’m looping-in Cyberdisciple because he’s become a pretty heavyweight critical scholar, with a background in ancient literature and high esotericism phenomenology (a la Benny Shanon).  He has written a series of intensive analysis and critique weblog articles about Muraresku’s book and about Allegro’s impact.  (Allegro the magically charged proxy token, or Allegro the actual person & book??)
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=muraresku
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=allegro

I think Cyberdisciple has listened to my tendency-exaggeration piece “What I Learned About Eleusis.mp3”, so maybe Cyberdisciple can answer your question, on a more moderate scale:
“Who argues various points you mention?”
“You mention Samorini as one who argues that the likely Eleusinian ergot strain is ‘extinct’?”
“Who pushes the idea that entheogens were only used at Eleusis, among the Mysteries?” -mh

I recently saw some writing by Samorini that is pretty compelling in favor of the ergot hypothesis.  I don’t recall whether Samorini actually made claims that the Eleusis strain is extinct; he probably didn’t, but I can imagine certain parties wishing for such a story, to restrict-to-death and bury the whole matter of entheogens in “our own”, Western history.

I’m characterizing that as a tendency, a kind of wish, that I imagine, on the part of the “minimal entheogen theory of religion” Establishment. 

As Cyberdisciple has written, it seems as if there’s a project to corral all attention onto Eleusis in order to remove attention from entheogens everywhere else, in order to stay in denial of entheogens in Western history, on the whole.  

Cyberdisciple reports that tendency, in Muraresku’s book The Infinity Key – a book which seems more like a PR project than scholarship, trying to use Mystery Religions to achieve an end, rather than to learn about them.

“My experience is that this field is mostly ignored – and much less theorized about – than in the manner you seem to suggest. I do agree that Eleusis is romanticized in various ways that aren’t helpful. I think it’s focused upon because it provides the most evidence via the ancient sources.” – mh

Cyberdisciple read Road to Eleusis more recently than I did, and probably more closely.  

My mp3 voice recording was comedic exaggeration of the situation as Cyberdisciple has subjectively described the situation.  My recording was based on my own feelings as well, from reading Road to Eleusis maybe around 1999, of “What the heck relevance is this weird ergot hypothesis? Can’t we find anything of broader relevance in the whole of Mystery Religion?”

I hold the extreme position; the maximal entheogen theory of religion: 
mixed-wine = Psil. wine, all throughout Western history.  
That’s my single-plant fallacy (“doesn’t count – it’s multiple Psil species!”).  
If you’re gonna commit the single-plant fallacy, pick the best one, thankyou very much.

Entheogen Books from Ruck/Hoffman et al

Thanks for the book recommendations.
https://entheomedia.net/books.htm
Conceived in Drunkenness is on my wish list.
Great Gods of Samothrace
Dionysus in Thrace – largely about the Mysteries <- this looks of top interest to me, w/ my anti- (Amanita/ Allegro/ Christianity) push.

My anti-(Amanita/ Allegro/ Christianity) push is because those are a false center of emphasis of the field, as evidenced by Letcher (Shroom) and then Hatsis trailing along in the exact same vein, using the weakness of that false center, to try to dismantle the field of Christian mushroom scholarship, in the Popular view.

I see Hatsis’ book Psych. Mystery Traditions as using a “divide and conquer” approach by separating the Greek chapter from the Christian chapter, split far apart in separate sections of the book.  I’ve had success after success by cross-decoding Greek + Christian side-by-side at the same time.  

Hatsis’ view on Psil in Greek religious history is just a fog, a few “maybe’s” – indeterminate; he has no real position there, it seems.  And his caption for a snake-basket is so far off… just forget it; he’s not a serious, qualified writer on this subject. I’ve encouraged him to put his historian skills to constructive use – pls engage skilz.

I only have his darn e-book, not a real copy of his book, and my interest has become very narrow and specific, so I’ve only spot-read his book.  Cyberdisciple has Hatsis’ Witches Ointment book; I’ve not seen that.

I consider ebooks only good for Find, not for reading.  Whenever I get an ebook that I like, I just feel I want the print version, the real version, so I can actually read the book for real.

– M. Hoffman

Book:
Dionysus in Thrace
Carl Ruck, Editor
2017
https://entheomedia.net/books.htm
1587902834

“This book concerns the role of psychoactive mushrooms [Psilocybe? or the red & white kiddie mushrooms? 🍄] in ancient Greek religion.

It brings together an extraordinary team of experts to present key archaeological discoveries and to attempt to place them in their historical, religious, and mythological context.

Yes, there were mushroom cults in antiquity, and they were involved with some of the most memorable achievements of the Classical tradition, not only in works for the Theater of Dionysus, but also in the visionary experiences of some of the greatest philosophers and mathematical theorists. In the form of Orphism, a warrior initiation of the ancient Thracians was strengthened in the seventh century by contact with similar rites of the Persians and reinterpreted and given a mystical dimension that assimilated even Judaism and Christianity.”

Voice Recording 7 with Header (2021-01-24):
“Two Models of Control.mp3” 3:11:46

Filename: “Two Models of Control.mp3”
Length: 3:11:46
Download link for 1 week only: https://we.tl/t-0IFsT13fI1

At the start:
Content: “I’m reading, mostly as practice, vocalization and recording technique, especially vocalization practice, reading the maximal entheogen theory of religion announcement of October 16, 2002.”
ID/Date: “Cybermonk. Today’s date is January 24, 2021.”
Miking: “Notes for myself: this DR-05 TASCAM field recorder right mic, 4.5″ away, mic stand mount desk mount. No provision for popping; expect heavy popping, I’m not monitoring in headphones.”
Vocalization: “Mental notes for myself: the theme of this vocalization practice is to push the pitch downward, including when emphasizing. This is reading aloud, which is much easier to do a good job vocalizing.”

Created January 24, 2021.

  • Predicted content rating: 10/10 – confirmed.
  • Predicted voc’zn rating: 8/10 – confirmed.
  • Predicted technical rating: 8/10 (expect plosives, a little drifting off-axis)
    • Actual technical rating: 9/10. Plosives, surprisingly, are barely audible.
    • Gold takeaway: angling mouth slightly past the mic reduces plosives below the threshold.

Mic: TASCAM DR-05 stereo mode, discarded left channel. on axis, no popfilter, 4-5″. No fan; quiet background.

Topics in this good, 3-hour Voice Recording
  • Commentary on book The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’ Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment, about William James against the iron block universe. Portions were published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, & Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. Book & chapter drafts were reviewed by Ramesh Balsekar & Benny Shanon.
  • 3-LEVEL VS. 2-LEVEL models. IN FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP VS. (LEVELS OF) RELIGION. LEVEL 2 IN ANY 3-LEVEL SYSTEM ALWAYS = PEAK SELF-CONTRADICTION MISHMASH. HALF-BAKED PSEDUO-ESOTERICISM.
    • But, the world is very much structured this way w/ the masses stuck in the middle bucket, so any model of Transcendent Knowledge *must* account for the “failure to pass through the gated wall” to reach the “higher of the (alleged) ‘two’ positions.”
    • Ken Wilber kind of wins: fact is, ppl have ended up stuck at an evident undeniable level 2 out of 3 – in multiple topics that are related to Transcendent Knowledge/ the Egodeath theory.
  • ~1:27:00 – put away Wm James book, start: Concisely Naming the Two Opposed Models of Control; Explicitly Breaking out Control from “Possibilism vs. Eternalism”. See resulting phrases below.
  • 1:38:00 ice cubes in glass.
  • ~1:46:00 i spend 10 minutes repeating in 15 ways, “i don’t know when i first coined the term “esoteric exotericism“. 60 seconds search answered it. https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-45/#message2254 – yikes, looks real good, as if i had time to read. if i need some junk to practice reading aloud.
    Sep. 8, 2003. soon after 14-page announce the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
  • 2:00:00 interesting discussion of why everyone piles up in front of the gated wall, far on right side of the Eternalism zone (moving left to right) just short of dragon gate wall, and why so few … it’s like a rain shadow, rain accum on one side of moutntain range, dry desert on other side – the Control Transformation gate, to the right is Esoterictericism, the Dependent Control zone, few make it into this garden. Many make it to myth & loosecog. Fewer make it into beginners spacetime nonduality (spatial & temporal nonduality). even fewer
  • ~2:28:00 Hatsis separates Greek vs Christian chapters. No thought at all, on treating them together.
  • THINK OF Christianity AS JUST ANOTHER BRAND of Hellenistic Mystery Religion, then treat the entire range of Hellenistic Mystery Religions including Christianity (the Hellenistic Jewish styled brand of Mystery Religion).
    • Isis, Osiris – The Egypt-themed brand of Hellenistic Mystery Religion.
    • Demeter, Dionysus – The Greek-themed brand of Hellenistic Mystery Religion.
    • Christianity, Jesus – The Jewish-themed brand of Hellenistic Mystery Religion.
    • Mithraism, Mithras – The Persian-themed brand of Hellenistic Mystery Religion.
  • I think i was on the verge of making the above point in my next, Comedy recording, but took a turn to Eleusis.
  • 2:33 Exoteric Esotericism (see earlier too) https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-45/#message2254 – 2003, posted that phrase.
    ETERNALISM-nonduality IS FOR BEGINNERS, CYBERtransformation nonduality IS FOR ADVANCED.
    3 levels: [duality; spacetime block universe eternalism nonduality (pop) HIT THE BRAKES HERE!😱🔥🐉🗡️👼🧱💎🏆; Cyber transformation nonduality (unpop)]
Errata/Critiques
  • Tone – My criticism Jan 28 after doing great voice work: 0:00-30:00 or so, or 45:00 – Very poor tone & pacing! hyper, angry, shouting tone. Fast, hyper – MELLOW OUT!! 😫 TONE DUDE TONE. too fast, abrasive, criticizing, yelling tone. Sounds angry. jeez hope it gets better later. By 45:00 I think it mellows out to normal.
    • Don’t sound as if overstimulated, scary, shouting, & angry. tone/mood! 😡
  • At the start, I claim:
    I’m going to read announcement postings of the maximal entheogen theory of religion. <– FALSE (as always)
  • PLOSIVEnventory 💨🎙💥
    • ~47:17 – I say “pop the mic” and good example here.
    • ~1:30:30
    • ~1:33:45 at H of “Hermes”
    • 2 33 43 whateVer
    • 2:33:51 no *f*ree will
      • there, mannly hall book The Secret Teachigns of All
  • Note for lecturing professors:
    near 1:35:00
    where I say “… horn of mixed-wine mushroom wine“,
    be sure to say: “… horn of mixed-wine. It is NOT mushroom wine.“
  • As I formally state in the rec’g: MY VOICE RECORDINGS HAVE ERRORS OF FACT, it’s not viable to correct the recordings. EVERYTHING I SAY IS FALSE.
  • By design, I expect [<– you were WRONG yet again] popping the mic with plosives: I did on-axis, no pop filter, for maximum brightness. I want to see how bad the plosives are.
    • Finding/result: like…. NONE (almost) 🤯 🎉 💨🎙💥
      There’s enough of them to list them 🤨 (must be amateur newbie, ignorant beginners mistake) bleh i want a better mic filter, the sight of that one i have is unpleasant plastic blocks my whole dam field of view, bad industry conventions, their product design ideas are cr@p. frakly:
      • I’d rather pop the mic than
        the torment of using today’s awful horrible pop filter design – hard reject,
        brought to u bubbled up the Fountain of Dumb Thoughts,
        the next thing bubbling out is a
        {dragon that roasts itself with its own flame and is cancelled out}
    • OMG SO MUCH BRIGHTER (CLEARER) NOT MUDDY LIKE THE FAIL LAST TIME. 🎉
  • “Journal of Consciousness Studies is a euphemism for visionary plants” – that’s an oversimplifying statement.
  • Typing: good. Paused during the major typing. Brief spot-fixes only, in rec’g.
  • Cuss count: low.
    • doesn’t count: “Hanegraaff’s evil idea from hell, 👹 of ‘non-drg entheogens’ 😈 ” 1:52:30
    • 1:49:45 “damn”, angry tone of voice noted/caught (previous time had trouble nav’ing to Hanegraafff’s acad pg.
    • ~1:51:30 – junk transition word / fountain-fishing word “Now, ” – “strike that/ retract that “Now, “.”
  • Pitch climbing? No. Watchdog caught.
  • Not *great* voc’zn, but, did keep high mindfulness; didn’t fall into “good idea dev, totally lost control of voc’zn”.
  • There’s a bit more room reverb than I like. If I move mic closer, to get rid of room reverb, plosives will become a problem, and high variation of treble will occur (hypersensitivity to moving my head slightly). Solution: would be, absorp material aka “room treatment” — it’s a miracle there’s not more room reverb’n — lots of hard surfaces. At 1:18:15 I mention I’m bringing the mic closer. The mic got pushed away when I was reading book. It sounded good again (dry) when returned mic to the close position.
  • Can do a lot better – I’m seeing quite a bit higher potential; there’s high success further ahead in this direction… I would love to listen to “best of 3 takes”, per-sentence re-reading of this material. bottom line: give me any sentence here, I could vocalize a much better take of any sentence — it’s exploration of each senetnce, what are the possible elocutions , voiceover takes. GIVE ME 10 DIFFERENT ASSORTED VOICEOVER TAKES TO PICK FROM, I COULD PICK AN interesting set to listen to. idea: I WANT TO
  • Todo: Read the theory-announcement articles aloud, THE MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION, NOW THAT I’VE RAISED QUESTIONS about those announcements: why couldn’t I have modeled entheogen scholarship as 2-level, why was i forced to divide the field of entheogen scholarship into 2 levels, in order to demote today’s half-baked entheogen scholarship into a new, lower level of esoteric truth.
    “ESOTERIC WISDOM”, KIDDIE-MUSHR🍄🍄MS STYLE.
    GET THE 💎
    don’t look at that 🔥🐉 DRAGON
Notes that I used to Guide the 2nd Half of the Recording

Discuss: make 4th contrasting terms:

  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism controlfooism [autonomy]-mous ctrl
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism controlfooism [dependence]-ent ctrl
The Fruit of the 2nd Part of the Recording (Naming the Two Opposed Models of Control; Explicitly Breaking out Control from “Possibilism vs. Eternalism”)

Solution: Breaking Out Control on the Advanced, Right Side of the Control Vortex Dragon Wall Separated from the Unwashed Pop Sike Masses Who Form and Force a 3-level model w/ control-transformation on the advanced, right side of the wall, leaving half baked “transformed from Possibilism to Eternalism BUT w/o being transformed from Autonomy to the Dependence model of control”

3-level model of the egodeath theory Core Theory (the cybernetic theory ):

3. Cybernetics – the egodeath theory resides at this advnaced level on the right, far side of the dragon gate fire wall
2. Eternalism/Determinism/No-free-will/ Block Univ < Pop Sike masses & uninspired Esotericism scholars; Ruck; Hanegraff b4 his Entheogens articles
1. Loosecog <- super beginners

that’s truly, objectively a 3-level system.

Solution: 🎉 The two contrasting models of control are: “Autonomous Control vs. Dependent Control”, aka for short, “Autonomy vs. Dependence”

Subject to change but this is the idea good enough implementation suitable.

Solution: 🎉 The two contrasting models of control are: “Autonomous Control vs. Dependent Control”, aka for short, “Autonomy vs. Dependence” – forming these 4-term equivalents of “analogical psychedelic eternalism”, breaking out Cybernetics from Eternalism, as a Separate, later, higher stage after passing through the dragon fire sword gate wall

Short Form
  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism autonomy
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism dependence
Long Form
  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism autonomous control
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism dependent control
The Gated Wall Separating the Space-time Nonduality Eternalism Masses from the Control-Nonduality, Control-Transformed Elect
  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism autonomous control
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism 🗡🔥🐉 dependent control

Side note: “control transformation” remains a useful idea/phrase.

Postings Announcing the maximal entheogen theory of religion

6-page precursor posting:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162

“Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism” = LEVEL 2 OF 3.
“Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism”

14-page main posting: https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-28/#message1391

Cleaning Up Podcast Pages

I’ve started cleaning up podcast pages.

  • Delete or move to Drafts hidden area, most of the critiques verbiage.

Testing Page to Test Your Knowledge of the Egodeath Theory

The Exam page is a huge success, build-out that approach more. Tutorial modules w/ integrated testing.

Page title:
Remedial Pre-School Prep Version of the Egodeath Theory
Subsection: Screening Exam
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/remedial-pre-school-prep-version-of-the-egodeath-theory/#Screening-Exam

Needs more a mix of 3-level models & 2-level models. eg

  • the maximal entheogen theory of religion was defined as 3-level, since its start in 2002.
    • I had to adjust the 2-level model of religion per Pagels/F&G “exoteric vs esoteric”, b/c of the 3-level entheogen scholarship model, especially b/c of: “move from “Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism” to “Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism”
      • esotericism is not in the field of entheogens, but religion – but, I had to change the model of religion from 2- to 3-level, to repair the field of entheogen scholarship.
      • Middle level = mixed mismash peak self-contradiction
        • causal-chain determinism ; domino-chain determinism ; unfolding-in-time determinism. Neither fits w/ possibilism nor eternalism, as 2 opposed models of time.

Solution Outline for Vocal Technique

  • Content (#3 problem area)
    • Topics
      • Prepare two written lists of topics to talk about (eg).
      • Maybe analyze & improve this area later.
      • Read a myth aloud from a webpage straight through, then go back and comment on it.
    • Words/utterances
      • Watchdog the root cause of saying fake connector words (“So, “)
        • watchdog = mindfulness watching of thoughts bubbling up from the Fountain of Dumb Thoughts.
      • Watchdog cussing.
        • upstream: watchdog the mindset behind cussing.
    • Typing: Pause
      • For now, no typing while recording; Pause. b/c talking then is too slow.
      • Maybe later, try to work on talking fast & smooth while typing.
        • Part of problem is that typing includes a ton of revising-while-writing – which is choppy.
  • Vocalization (#1 problem area)
    • Pitch (#1 pri)
      • easy exercise: read written text aloud, focusing on pushing pitch down.
      • hard exercise: idea development, focusing on pushing pitch down.
    • Speed (#2 pri)
      • watchdog dropped syllables and too-fast talking.
    • Volume (#3 pri)
      • don’t sound as if overstimulated, scary, shouting & angry. tone/mood! 😡
      • don’t sound as if mumbling & tired.
    • emotional tone: neutral to happy; not angry.
    • prepare icewater, when Chris Bennett school of meditation.
  • Technical [= usage of recording technology] (#2 problem area)
    • Aim for “on-axis” (loosely).
      • Not “aim for corner of mouth” (that idea extremely failed).
      • Later, fix the resultant popping (easy to reduce).
    • Watch the recording light & screen (by slightly off-axis).
    • Pause (or mute) every few minutes to dry nose.

Vocal Technique – Rapid Progress to Fixes & Excellence

Huge Improvement in Brightness / Major Correction in Mic Position

Huge improvement in mic position for much brighter sound. I was delusional about correct mic position with this difficult-to-hold recorder.

How I figured out the problem: look in mirror, see where I had been trying to aim mic:

I was holding the (active) mic of this awkward (stereo) recorder UNDER MY CHIN pointed at adams apple – “gee why does it sound muddy?”

Coming Up Next: Pop Fest

I’m going to do POP FEST — hold mic literally on-axis , I’ll be popping the hell out of it – which is extremely easy to fix.

The 3 Attributes of a Voice Recording

Iimprovements of recordings by leaps and bounds — by outlining the attributes of a voice recording, and the do’s and don’ts of each attribute:

  1. content
  2. vocalization
  3. rec’g technology
My Worst Problem Areas of the 3 Attributes of Voice Recording

my flaws (re: major attributes of a rec’g), in order:

  1. bad voc’zn < worst of my probs
  2. bad technical [tech’y] < mud-fest
  3. bad content <- least of my probs
The 3 Attributes of Vocalization

The attributes of vocationization, in pri order:

  1. pitch
  2. speed
  3. volume

Voice Recording 6 (2021-01-23):
“Books Voice Practice.mp3” 2:08:29

Content
  • What Is the Promised State that’s Reached by Passing Through the Gateway of Control Cancellation?
    • What are the benefits of Transcendent Knowledge for daily life?
    • What are the benefits of Transcendent Knowledge for higher life? EG FOR GOD, FOR CHRIST, FOR THE TRANSPERSONAL LEVEL OF ONESELF?
    • What were the benefits of Transcendent Knowledge for Mystery-Religion Initiates? & THEIR GODS
      • Gave higher meaning? NOTE that’s the lower, personal (not transpersonal) POV.
    • benefits of knowing about the gateway of control cancellation
    • benefits of passing through the gateway of control cancellation
    • How does the god (or transpers lvl of oneself) benefit by bringing the initiate through the control transformation gateway?
    • What are the benefits of Esoteric religion?
      • to god? to one’s higher self? to the gods?
      • Compared to the benefits of Exoteric religion?
      • Compared to having no religion?
  • 0:00 – Why is Transcendent Knowledge valuable -> why is anything valuable?
  • Why does God value bringing you to Transcendent Knowledge?
  • What benefits does God get by giving you Transcendent Knowledge?

I didn’t nuke the typing (of the below text) at the end of this 2-hour voice recording. I have to make my decision on whether typing is forbidden or can work, while recording.

[8:04 p.m. January 23, 2021] I just finished a 2-hour recording that’s 90% content, 10% practice. producing… 2:08:29. 7 minutes just to export to mp3? ANY DAY NOW

🕰

Content con’t

Which areas in the egodeath theory are 3-level?
eg entheogen scholarship min/mod/max — or, say Ruck is a poor version of Esoteric religion. or of Maximal, vs Minimal theories. (that’s looking at entheogen scholarship from 2 -level pov.)

Because of Ruck, I had to mess up the 2-level “exoteric/esoteric”model: exoteric, low esoteric, high esoteric . THX ALOT RUCK

SIMILARLY, APRIL DECONICK (The Gnostic New Age) IS EITHER CATEGORIZABLE AS
“SUCCESSFULLY, FIRMLY LOW ESOTERICISM” (PER A 3-level model) OR
“A LOUSY, DISAPPOINTING INSTANCE OF ESOTERICISM” (per a 2-level model). = “exoteric esotericism” <– a way to turn a 2-level model into a 3-level model.

The new, “2-level + 3-level” model of the Egodeath theory:

  • HIGH: ESOTERIC IE. “esotericism in theory” aka FANTASY <- how ppl are supposed to be
  • mid: DISAPPOINTMENT W/ REALITY FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THE 2-LEVEL MODEL. aka “esotericism in reality” the poor crop of the best of the failures
  • LOW: REALITY OF where ppl are at

Conclusion: REALITY COULDN’T LIVE UP TO MY IDEALISTIC 2-LEVEL MODEL, SO I HAD TO INVENT A 3-LEVEL MODEL & DEMOTE THE WOULD-BE, HALF-BAKED ESOTERICISTS DOWN INTO THE MIDDLE LEVEL.

🤷‍♂️

CAUSAL-CHAIN DETERMINISM implies a kind of 3-level model. compare “moderate entheogen theory”, or “exoteric esotericism”

Level 2 of 3 is for the half-completed initiate; the pregnant woman harassed by serpent. PURGATORY. PURIFICATION PENDING… 🔥 🕰

“half baked mishmash”; “referring to domino-chain determinism, in some way, through the block-universe”

Errata/Critiques
  • Failed to do pitch-varying practice. Work harder on make actually do pitch-varying exercises.
  • Conclusion: Pause recording while typing. Unpleasant, not the desired audio content, pacing, etc. This passage is interesting tho, u hear me typing the below – commentary while typing; commentary on the text that I type below.
  • Technology: the mic sounds off-axis, muddy.
    • [finding: mic was under the chin, aimed at adams apple; the fix is easy: aim for roughly “on axis” and damn the popping, then reduce the popping later (easy)]
    • Sounds like proximity effect, regardless of whether it’s omni polar pattern or cardioid. Especially when going through books. Try more on-axis. <- THATS IT! Production: Make sure throw away left, center the right mic. When reading books, make extra sure to keep mic in position – close to on-axis. Also rig a mic stand for field rec’r.
  • Fail: battery died and I didn’t catch when it happened. Check recorder screen more often. <- on-axis will fix that.
Successes
  • Surprised how good I gotten at catching almost all my junk vocalizations.

Battery ran out so not quite sure what got dropped, but I re-said some good points, made progress.

2nd Practice Recording of the Day: Idea Development Vocalization (Content: Minkowski’s Theory Branding)

Not available for download.

I just finished the 2nd voice recording practice of the day, 1:54:02, long segment on Minkowski’s poor PR branding of his “Minkowski’s Theory of Eternalism” or block universe or block time, such that Minkowski ended up reduced to a mere explanatory element within household famous hot new theory name “Einstein’s theory of relativity*”.
*incorp’g Minkowskian block time

Does Minkowski use this lexicon? –

  • block universe
  • eternalism
  • pre-existence of future control thoughts
  • iron block universe (wm james)
  • possibilism
  • rock, snake
  • worldlines
  • todo: Review Minkowski’s lexicon, just like yesterday doing word hit-count on Stanford article “The Metaphysics of Time”
  • my driving question: is the name of Min’s theory “Minkowski’s theory of block time”? WHAT IS THE NAME OF MINKOWSKI’S THEORY?! like “Einstein’s theory of relativity”.

*the* challenge for me for decades is, to reliably do vocal recorded idea development, (hard in itself), while also, controlled vocalization (hard in itself).

The ultimate challenge:

  • consistently combine:
  • vocal recorded idea development
  • controlled good vocalization

in short: idea development vocalization; <– very hard, an aspiration for decades, to do that consistently.

My next recording, after produced, could be filename:
“Idea Development Vocalization.mp3”
commenting on myths.

What Is the Promised State that’s Reached by Passing Through the Gateway of Control Cancellation?

todo: voice recording about this set of topics.

also connects w/ “Does ALTERED STATE give benefits when return to THE ORDINARY STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?

what happens AFTER control failure? connect that to: WHAT ARE BENEFITS OF Transcendent Knowledge? WHAT IS THE GOAL AND BENEFIT OF CONTROL CONTROL AGENCY CONTROL CANCELLATION ? WHAT IS THE DESTINATION? THE PROMISED LAND THROUGH GATEWAY OF CONTROL CANCELLATION ?

1st Practice Voice Recording of the Day

Not available for download.

I just finished my first vocalization practice recording of the day, [January 23, 2021] , 55:20, rec’g #6 – more of “specifying exactly what to practice”, than actually practicing. travelling upstream to police not only… 4 levels:

  1. police the saying of a particular junk conjoiner word (so)
  2. police the saying of any junk conjoiner word (so, like, now, well, )
  3. police the thinking of a particular junk conjoiner word (so)
  4. police the thinking of any junk conjoiner word (so, like, now, well, ) – advanced level, furthest upstream toward the Fountain of Dumb Thoughts (‘dumb’ connoting words or utterances that are not-yet-spoken, but are being recommended by the mind to be spoken)

Updated Pages and Voice Recordings, About Mystics, Determinism, 2- and 3-Level Models of Mystic Transcendent Knowledge

  1. “2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3” 53:00
  2. “3-Level Egodeath Model.mp3” 41:00
  3. “The Great Mystics of Egodeath.mp3” 51:00
  4. “Books on Mystics in Main Article.mp3” 2:00:00
    ~ 5 hours of audio content

No News Is Bad News

I’ve read that women can’t deal w/ being challenged and dispute; guys know how to work things about, dispute, testing, challenging… yes I remember it was re: PhD thesis challenge.

Guys claimed that women were wrecking the process of challenging the candidate. “How could you so put that poor woman PdD candidate under such forceful scrutiny? Why can’t we all just give everyone the benefit of the doubt?” So, quality standards plummetted (the claim was).

When things went smoothly, Max Freakout produced excellent, ideal podcasts with Cyberdisciple and then stopped. There were 2 years (1 year, 10 months) of no podcasts due to too much concurrence, because there was too much agreement between Max & Cyberdisciple.  

2019 05 12
– 2017 07 19
=
2018 17 12
– 2017 07 19
=
2018 16 42
– 2017 07 19
=
1 yr, 9 mo, JESUS XHRIST THE WORLDS MOST FKKING RECALCITRANT CALCULATION WTFF
23 days
1 year, 9 months, 23 days ~= 1 year 10 months. Check:

2017 07 19
+ 1 9 23
= f it, just do a rough check:
2017 07
+ 1 10
= 2018 17
= 2019 5 CORRECT.

The excessive agreement between Max & Cyb was a case of “No news, is bad news”.  

Then Max tried doing episodes that had more of a contrast between him & guest (Kafei).  

Max has judgment as a broadcaster, audio content producer, podcaster.  

Max is wondering if he should have first educated Kafei on the basics, Core Concepts of the Egodeath theory, (in episode 12 & 13) rather than focusing those entire first two episodes w/ Kafei on Ahistoricity, leaving Kafei ignorant of some of the most-basic concepts, putting newbie Kafei in a situation of… “having to” guess based on:

“Max said that Ramesh & the Egodeath theory reached the exact same view on no-free-will” – probably a half-truth – “so I guess maybe the Egodeath theory is therefore referring to Ramesh’s temporal causal-chain determinism in some way, through concepts of the block universe.” (paraphrase)

Updated page:
Remedial Pre-School Prep Version of the Egodeath Theory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/remedial-pre-school-prep-version-of-the-egodeath-theory/#bud-vs-bue
Simplified 1st-Grade Reading Level

  • Question 8 (essay question): What’s the difference between block-universe determinism vs. block-universe eternalism?
  • Question 9: Which model of time does David Bohm’s “non-local hidden variables” interpretation of Quantum Mechanics fit?
  • Question 10: How many levels or positions are typically contrasted in the Egodeath theory? (Such as models of Myth; State of consciousness; Time; & Control)
  • Question 11: Which level of religion are most books about entheogen scholarship focused on?

Heading

Kafei said he wants more coverage of mystics. I provided more coverage of the topic of mystics.

My latest adjustments to WordPress pages, and my latest voice recordings, have a successful Resolution / resolving trajectory.

productive tension

Clearly the productive output of developments is a jump forward, looking at how incoming, alien 3-level models interact w/ the Egodeath theory’s simpler, 2-level model(s).

Max a couple days ago provided the text transcription of episode 26, so we are able to get a good accurate look at the huge quantity of content in that episode.  There’s more quantity of substantive content there, than I can process.  

There are some additional sweet passages in there that I want to extract – we only just the other day got ahold of the machine transcription — my HANDS are at risk of overuse, typing too much.

Such as now our new ability to do a Find of “not mystic” revealing that Max 5 times declared “we are not mystics” (or close variants) — and then said (in effect) “I’m not going to comment on whether (we) are mystics.”  😄 😄   
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/quotes-from-the-great-mystics-of-egodeath/#Totally-Not-Mystics

You Are Not a Mystic

Max said about Kafei, “we three are not mystics” and Kafei replied “I consider myself an (aspiring) mystic.”  

Which raises interesting questions about Max’s framing of the whole subject of ‘mystics’.  

Max went to a mystic – Kafei – and told that mystic, “You are not a mystic.”  The mystic replied “Yes I am.”  

💥 😱 😳 🤨 🤔

Clearly something went off-track, TO BE CONTINUED…

🚫 😴

Kafei said he wants more coverage of mystics. I provided more coverage of the topic of mystics.

You’re Still Stuck at the Beginner Level of Decoding the Analogies in those Basic Mythemes? What’s Wrong w u, Slow?

My Model of the Process of Decoding Needs Correction to Match the Data Observation of How the Decoding/ Connection Process Actually Works… Punctuated Equilibrium over *years*, while *also* “overnight breakthrough(s)”

interweaving mythemes & direct tech theory is good, effective, really can describe things that are observed and experienced in the altered state well by freely combining fluent analogy expression + direct scientific modern clear explanatory model.

todo : voice rec for practice vocalization: comment realtime on myth online pages. (the priority beeing vocalization, not myth decoding contnet)

several mythes i want to memorize and comment on. every time i look at a myth desc, it explodes in payout, falling over a log easy to make connections. it’s really more about increating … SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG IN MY MENTAL MODEL OF PROGRESS & BREAKTHOUGH AND DEVMT OF A NEW THEROY …. DECODING MYTH IS MORE A MATTER OF DEGREE OF % OF IMPORTANT MAJOR ANLAOGIES. OR ACTS LIKE IT IS. HAVE TO REFRESH, STRENGTHEN, MODIFIY MYTHEME CONNATION CONNECTION MAPPINGS, ITS MORE COMPLEX , NEURAL NETS , NOT USUALLY 1-TO-1 SIMPLE AS IF YOU CAN SAY “SNAKE = WORLDLINE” AND SAY “DONE! SNAKE IS DECODED!”, ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS ARE INVIOLVED, PERSPECTIVES, SHINE THE TORCH LIGHT THROUGH THE THE DIAMOND HAMMER OF INTERPRETATION AS YOU TURN THE GEM, CATCHING NEW MAJOR ANALOGIES THAT YOU “HAVE” TO KNOW ABOUT OR U POSER

CADUCESU 2 SNAKES, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANALOGY? 2ND MOST? 3RD MOST IMPORTANT ANALOGI OF ‘Y’ SNAKE PAIR. WHAT 5 MYTHEMES DOES THIS SNAKE MAP TO? THAT WORK WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN MY 2011, 2012 ….

I BELIEVE:

I MADE HUGE PROGRESS OF DEGREE OF MAPPINGS / CONNECTIONS / DECODING TREE VS SNAKE ETC IN NOV 2011, & IN NOV 2012, & IN NOV 2013…

I CANNOT SAY THAT DECODING A MYTHEMES OR A SET OF MYTHEMES HAPPENS AT A SINGLE POINT IN TIME. HAVE NEW grad student slave report what connections I developed nov 2011 vs nov 2012 vs nov 2013. what’s the diff?

feel like I’m trying to graduate, i’m still re-figuring out elementary analogies I should have realized in 2006. MAYBE THERE’S MORE TO THIS MYTHEME DECODING BUSINNESS…

AIN’T SO EASY TO BE FLUENT IN MYTHEMESE OVERNIGHT

I’M CONSTANTLY EMBARRASSED BY NOT SEEING MAJOR ANALOGIES IMMEDIATELY, maybe i just don’t have aptititude in Mythemese. I’m slow. In the myths, ppl get instant enligthenment about all things mystic. <- i think i meant to type mythic.

They all know all the major analogies between all their myths and things that are observed and experienced in the altered state.

What I have accomplished is

  • proving 70 mushroom trees in Cant Psal. proving that Esotericism has always Rocked the church. proving 70x Esoteric Christianity, mixed-wine banqueting ,
  • fully explaining the Mystery Religions
  • fully explaining mystical enlightenment,
  • fully explaining how myth works, what deocdoing a mythem entails (more complex a language than you thought, takes time to absorb). Wrote dictionary of decoding all major mythemes. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/mytheme-list/

Maybe I am … I AM SLOWER THAN THEY WERE BC I HAD TO CRACK THE *WHOLE THING* IN clueless late modern. and fit in my fluency w/ Mythemes into a modern explanatory framework – anncients didn’t . you cannot compare how long its taking me to decode basic analogies (decades, in some cases) , to how long it took mystics in antiquity.

The evidence indicates i’m not advanced, i feel insulted. The fact that I only figured out some connections recncetly, some basic connections, calls into quietion my exper… advanced level fluency at Mythemese.

it’s frustrating: dammit what’s wrong w me that i didn’t see that major analogy until now. but i been raking busy in the jackpots everywhere.

Where every direction I turn, to see another myth, it taunts me by showing me super obvious things that I should have already finished connections mapping. these successes have a tone of less than, what didn’t why didn’t u see that b4 whats wrong r u slow

Greek Myths Book by Robert Graves

maybe buy a good looking copy of Robt Graves Greek Myths book, it is standard.

http://amzn.com/B00E86921K

But I have unread myth books. Like right hear, Brick Greek Myths paid off so far, 1 reading session gave 2 decodigns.

Voice Recording 5 (2021-01-23):
“Vocalization Troubleshooting.mp3” 2:31:51

Content

quite a bit of solid content toward the end. if you want some addl on-topic Egodeath theory audio content, you could listen to this, skipping by using the timestamps below. the voice-technique content is pretty separated from the the egodeath theory content. eg the burp terminates the high content toward the end.

  • 5% ego death, 95% developing corrective techniques/exercises for vocal recordings of idea development.

The kind of voice recordings that I’m talking about creating, are not instructive modules lectures, but live idea devmt, eg commentary on my website pages,

1:45:00 how to beat on the Fountain of Dumb Thoughts to force it to knock it off with spitting-out “So, ” at every possible opportunity.

There’s no problem in the world that the “So, ” isn’t the perfect fix for. Every time any thought comes forth, the “So, ” virus is patched on the start, before the thought comes forth to be spoken. The thought is packaged within a “So, ” framework, every time.

like the perma url suggestion autocomplete on the dragon emojipedia website page. “Welcome back, we know you want dragon, bc ew we forced it upon you 83 times now, so we know u really really love that one — we’ll be sure to recommended it as hard as we can all the time, ur welcome”

1:50:00 Hatsis, amanita false center of field.

I’m based in [Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism]; I am not based in [Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism].

I’m only visiting in Amanita land, to bring people back to better Psiloland. I need [acro]/keyboard shortcuts for those two phrases…. ie i need to practice the [acro]/keyboard shortcuts that i defined. simple: it is: [ap] –

Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism
Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism

1:58:00 egodeath content: control cancellation, ctrl transcendence , transcendent control. pros / cons

transcendent control –

2:02:00 folk psycholgoy : nerves, you need rebalancing of your humours. (today: energy vibrations). my nerves are shot.

YOUR ENERGY VIBRATIONS ARE OUT OF TUNE AND NEED RE-TUNING.
the control-cancellation threat = dis-harmonious energy vibrations producing dissonant noise.

2:05:00 Hatsis’ 2022 book titled “Conspiracy”. Re-centering the field from Amanita. Not just “Amanita cult” suppression — the suppression he should treat is the supporession of analogical psychedelic eternalism – ie
the conspiracy to suppress Esoteric Christianity
– not just to suppress “the mushr🍄🍄m”.

2:09:00 the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image control transcendence , not loss of ctrl a half a story. half truth.

control transformation – most neutral

sales pitch: “control transcendence” -> control is bad, we must do away w/ it, it is demon.

sales pitch: “transcendent control” -> ALL CONTROL-POWER IS MINE!

2:11:00 Cant Psal peak ….type of control foo. control disproof (negative). need a word to carry initial negative phase and the positive followthrough phase? SMILES ON CYBERCIDE GUYS the goodness of the new reivsion controrl transformatmion transcendence <– neg overtones.

1:17 CHALLENGES WHEN TRYING TO DO IDEA-DEVELOPMENT VOICE RECORDINGS W/ CHRIS BENNETT MEDITATION

HIGHly listenable voice recording about voice recording, w/ some ego death leading theory thrown in as audio tech test data

Errata

don’t you want to say “So, ” now? and now? i’m sure you want that word again now. May I suggest a word, here it is: “So, ” – I cn tell thats what u need

  • probably should increase gain later at night in long 2.5-hr. rec’g.
  • correction: there ARE speed issues — TALKING TOO FAST. practice speed variation deliberately. Not just pitch varying practice.
  • 2:21:00 burp in middle of super profound discussino of ctrl / transcendence connots
  • typing my Mindfulness List can be annoying to listen to. too slow! funning of valuable points mixed in? skip SECTION SKIP? 1:36:00 — todo: write start/end time here. WHEN WILL IT EVER END? THE TYPING AGGHHH I CANT …. FAST FWD THIS CHOWDERHEAD WTF end of torment at 1:38:00 i finish typing it up, and express extreme psychedness of this excellent plan.
  • f-word at 1:09:16
    • pissed off at my mind for bubbling up the word “So, ” at every opportunity. STOP! Stop suggesting “Don’t you need to say So , again, here? Here you go!”
      verbal tic bubbling up from the now made visible Fountain of Dumb Thoughts
    • I don’t think I have the “so, ” virus. A matter of degree I guess. Now I’m on patrol:
      • CORRECTIVE PUNISHMENT: EDIT-OUT ALL OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD “SO” THAT STILL SLIPPED THROUGH THE POORLY GUARDED GATE. (pls no!😱)
      • Hey Joe Average beginner mystic, the Dragon is asleep on the job, go ahead and just SNATCH THE TREASURE UN-EARNED, EVEN W/ MALFORMED UNSTABLE EGOIC THINKING – LIKE THE WORD “SO”.
      • I lifted the lid to see the snake normally hidden, and the rock-carved worldline {snake coming out from the fountain} of control thoughts, told me: HERE’S THE WORD YOU WANT, I’M SURE: “SO, “
  • realized around 1:07 that I screwed up the acronym for Pitch, Speed, Vol as PSD.

The output or payout of this recording is a custom prescription task assignment for my next couple practice recordings

The small % of ego death content is solid:

  • Predictions about Hatsis “Mushroom Cult Conspiracy Debunking” book
  • Important development of phrases: pros and cons of: (you can read this instead of listening):
    • control transcendence (too negative)
    • transcendent control (too positive)
    • control transformation <– top candidate, canterbury fits.
    • control cancellation (too negative: it’s the doorway, yes. to what?)
    • control seizure – negative, dangling, incomplete story.
    • control vortex – “

Recording #5: Voice Technique: “Skip” Recording – Not Recommended, But Good for What It Is. Voice Recording Technique.

Some 5-10% on-topic egodeath discussion, 90% off-topic (93% of this rec’g is about vocalization technique, not how to do live on-topic content, not how to equipment technique, not much actual ego death content <- 6%)

Audio technique =

  • vocalization technique + <- tons of discussion about this.
  • equipment technique + <- some discussion of this
  • on-topic content. <- very little… want more, but wasn’t a goal for this recording.

The output or payout of this recording , 2:31:51, is a custom prescription task assignment for my next couple practice recordings:

The Next Practice Voice Recordings to Create (#6)

The next couple voice recordings need to be entirely focused on:

MINDFULNESS TASK ASSIGNMENT: Make a few recordings next, with this focus:

  • keep the mic in optimal position.
  • continuously be practicing all the time, varying the pitch.

Background focus, drawn along by the above:

  • Every recording, prep water.
  • Every recording, check level, stereo mode.
  • Frequently practice Pause/Resume (w/o saying so).
  • Vary the speed. Area to improve: Limit the speed. No hyperspeed for effect; no dropped syllables. Foreign lang spkrs are listening!
  • Vary the volume. [any room for improvement here?]
  • Drop connector words (um, you know, well, so, now, let’s see). Showcase silence.
  • No cuss.
Voice Recording Practice Focus –
TASK ASSIGNMENT
  • Make practice recordings with primary focus on these exercises:
  • PRIMARY MINDFULNESS TASK: Continuously practice varying pitch. lock mic in optimal posn.
    • Use that primary task to drag along the secondary tasks, which are:
    • prep water,
    • check lvl, stereo mode.
      • practice pausing the recording, silently.
    • vary speed
    • vary volume
    • no connector words, (so, you know, now, um, let’s see, just)
      • silence is highly desirable.
    • no cuss

Completely Different Emojis in Edit vs Rendered Mode

What the emojis look like in Edit mode:

What the emojis look like in Rendered mode:

👹 🌪️ 🐉🐍⚡️💥😱

Technique to Get Big Emojis

Look how hi-res & detailed emojis are on various platforms
https://emojipedia.org/dragon/

how many platforms have the dragon holding treasure? only 2
how many platforms have the dragon w/ flames? only 1-3

https://emojipedia.org/tornado/

Screen cap, paste as image:

Heading

todo: put 2 cybercide crop images from the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image next to 2 tree-sitting crops: imagine tree-guys smiling.

Voice Recording 4 (2021-01-22):
“Books on Mystics in Main Article.mp3” 1:58:26

  • Filename: “Books on Mystics in Main Article.mp3”
  • Length: 1:58:26
  • Download URL: https://we.tl/t-Rg6xTP1BAp
    • No login, signup, or account of any kind is needed, to download this, from WeTransfer site.
Screen Capture of the Download Screen, with Preview

To preview (listen) directly in the browser at the WeTransfer website without downloading, click the magnifying glass.

I do this transfer process:

  1. Download the file to the desktop file system.
  2. Transfer file from file system to desktop music player, into my Egodeath playlist.
  3. On mobile device, wake mobile device. Desktop & mobile device are connected to same wi-fi network.
  4. In desktop music player, transfer file to mobile device’s Egodeath playlist – either from the desktop file system or from the desktop music player’s Egodeath playlist.
Topics Include
  • 0:00-16:30 – topic: Elocution. either SKIP, or, listen to the world’s best discussion of a few topics (listened 2x, not too off-topic).
    • The start sounds tinny b/c miked a previous phone recording.
    • Listen to the vocalization stumble a little, at the start:
      “You… burn…. in … hell…”
    • Elocution: its historically largely visual aspect, but I’m interested in only the spoken elocution of sentences.
    • Against the visual aspect of Rock
    • At the end (near 15:00): Kafei’s effective elocution of the key contradictory sentence.
    • Complicated sentences impossible to read-aloud with meaning.
    • Against music videos, against KISS/Alice Cooper/Hair Metal’s visual theatrics, in favor of pure audio music
    • Exception: foldout 12″ vinyl art is good.
    • Elocution was for cultivated visual stage-act presentation, but also, in my purely audio, voice-recording context:
    • Elocution to deliver a sentence meaningfully re: varying the speed, pitch, & volume to best convey the meaning of the sentence.
  • 16:30-~29:00 – 5 book titles cited in main article, about mystic.
    • Fumbling to find the list, which – ERRATA: I should have loaded before recording.
    • I should have rattled off quickly reading all 5 titles.
    • I slowly go through the 5 book titles, w/ many on-topic diversions along with way.
    • 23:00 I count the number of times the phrase “ego death” appears in 1997 article & 2006 article.
    • errata: cuss count: sh*t 1x, damn 1x
    • errata: turning head away from mic when looking at John King book on bkcase.
  • Naming of theory-specifiers. Considerations. Standard word-usage (possibilism, eternalism, block universe).
  • Architecture of 1-sentence formulation of summary of the egodeath theory.
    • Need the word ‘control’, not just analogical psychedelic eternalism. control cancellation. the control vortex. control transcendence. THROUGH control vortex TO destination state which is CONTROL TRANSFORMATION or state of having TRANSFORMED CONTROL. The gate != the destination. Don’t just market the gate; market the destination: Loose Cognitive Science.
    • A peak point: 31:50 & 36:00. “I caught a glimpse of interesting threat, must get closer look, looks serious, important to probe the vulnerability, I better test this closer, I better threaten…” the control testing probving vortex. The King’s Paranoia. the vulnerability attractor vortex

👹 🌪️ 🐉🐍⚡️💥😱

  • The 5 book titles with “mystic” in the title, from Bibliography of 2006 main article.
    • This is only a “deep” discussion of the titles of the books, not of the content of the books.
  • In the context of episode podcast 26, Max was sound, in saying
    “causal-chain determinism vs block-universe determinism”
    instead of switching the latter word to ‘eternalism’.
    A good system of phrases for distinct contrasts:
    • Opposed models of time, possibility, & (implicitly, but clear enough for Wm James to object:) control agency:
      • branching-universe possibilism vs. block-universe eternalism
    • Opposed models of causality:
      • domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe determinism
        (There’s also freewill; Caution: be cognizant that this forms a kind of 3-level model)
  • I have to be more cognizant, aware, and careful about
    “block-universe eternalism” vs.
    “block-universe determinism“.
    And use the correct variant strategically for best communication in the current context.
  • Is nonlocal hidden variables a kind of domino-chain determinism, or a kind of block-universe determinism?
    • i’m thinking nonlocal hidden variables = block-universe determinism, and rejects domino-chain determinism.

I felt I could’ve used longer recordings to listen to, more like the 2-hour length of Transcendent Knowledge podcasts. So I let this rec’g go to near 2 hours; it felt complete, tho didn’t delve into the books.

Errata or Commentary on Listening to the Recording
  • 1:25:00, & mentioend in 1:27:00 to followup – as follows. – I lost my thread – I was talking about “the scholarly coverup of mshrms is broader than just mshrooms; it’s of analogical psychedelic eternalism.” I was going to make a point looking for Hatsis’ new book title “Conspiracy”, he’s going to focus on a mushroom coverup op, but the op was broader: to coverup Esotericism (analogical psychedelic eternalism), of which psilocybin mushrooms is only one component, to push literalist ordinary-state possibilism (by the Exoteric, salvation salesmen & meditation hucksters)
  • 1:45:00 i argue that from mytheme POV, the two models of time in phil-o-metaphysics, should be called “tree vs. rock/snake“, not “tree vs block”. I should note: when I say “block”, it is shorthand for- corroborating my recording — block universe AND WORLDLINE. What the Snodfart’s Jr. Academy article calls “block”, they should instead call “block and worldline“. “Tree, vs. block/worldline“. block/worldline = rock/snake.
    {king in tree; wine; snake in rock}
  • 1:50:00 ? what about it
  • SLOPPY WORDS! BAD! Relaxed tone is good but not at the expense of chopping words! goal for next rec: enuciate every word. no cuss. keep mic in position.
  • the sniffing problem- – focus: PRACTICE: pause to dry nose.
  • PRACTICE: continuouls #1 practice focus
  • errata: burping while talking. what to do?

Heading

The Block-Universe Type of Determinism, not the Causal-Chain Type of determinism, which is only a minor transformation of mental model from possibilism-thinking.

The mental worldmodel changing from egoic naive freewill thinking to egoic causal-chain determinism is one step toward Transcendent Knowledge.

possibilism-thinking vs eternalism-thinking are two different mental worldmodels of {time, self, possibility, and control}.

The possibilism vs. eternalism mental worldmodels of:

  • time
  • self
  • possibility
    • left limb = the “possibilism” mental worldmodel, leveraged visually
  • control
    • self-blading
      • red init touching gods sword blade w/ left hand while touching the main cut debranch w/ right hand and he’s avoiding using his left leg to support himself, “I must not rely on branching possibiliteies thinking, that is unstable.

Branching-possibilities thinking is unstable.
The egoic personal control model is premised on branching-possibilities thinking, which is unstable and transient, lasting only until loose cognition sessions immersions fire roasting the king’s child every night holding by heel to make the king’s son immortal.
The salamander has been made immortal, immune to fire, by avoiding the known-to-be-unstable, possibility-branching premised thinking.
The initiate has been made immortal, immune to fire, by avoiding the known-to-be-unstable, possibility-branching premised thinking.

The mind is roasted in fire to of altered state to make the mental model transform dissolve coagulate transform, then the transformed mind is placed in serpent form, roasted serpent next to Y mshrm tree that I identify as a 3-family hybrid mushroom.

Late 2020 I wrote that the salamander tree is combines 3 mshrm fams:

Folio 027v (Bodleian Library, Medieval Bestiary)
Analysis: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/#tftssa

how easy to depict visually the above advanced Transcendent Knowledge elements? easiest to depict branching, possibility-branching, limbs, arms legs feet hands trees. cut off branching on right limb, your’ well grounded/foundation is good, the not the egoic foundation of sand that gets it virginity taken by the giants lusting after the virgin maiden daughters of men who are overpowered and taken and impregnated by the giants immortals
“mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image

What Version of
Determinism
Fits with
block-universe eternalism

block-universe determinism

the block-universe type of determinism

causal-chain determinism
block-universe determinism

The type of determinism that is compatible with
block-universe eternalism
is
block-universe determinism.

the block-universe type of determinism
the causal-chain type of determinism

Copied to new page Quotes from the Great Mystics of Egodeath

I just found this in ep26:

Kafei Seeing Determinism within the Model of Eternalism

Kafei: i kind of see uh determinism uh in in within the model of eternalism uh

I kind of see determinism within the model of eternalism.

Kafei

That’s remarkably similar to what I said in today’s recording, wondering what kind of determinism could fit w/ eternalism. todo: identify what kind of determinism or QM could fit w/ eternalism.

… compare what he said later:

maybe you know michael was referring to a causal determinism in some way through the block universe

Content to Cover in a Next Recording
  1. whirlpool – a rapidly rotating mass of water in a river or sea into which objects may be drawn, typically caused by the meeting of conflicting currents.synonyms:eddy · vortex · maelstrom · swirl · whirl · suckhole · Charybdis
    • a turbulent situation from which it is hard to escape.”he was drawing her down into an emotional whirlpool”

Cry out supplication
For the maelstrom is near

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/16/rock-lyrics-corroborate-egodeath-theory-entheogen-mytheme-theory/#No-One-at-the-Bridge-Rush

Voice Recording 3 (2021-01-21):
“The Great Mystics of Egodeath.mp3” 51:47

  • Filename: “The Great Mystics of Egodeath.mp3”
  • Length: 51:47
  • Download URL: https://we.tl/t-BAzTd4g9rA
    • Good for 1 week. Uploaded on January 21, 2021.
    • There’s a nice preview/pre-listen interface in that webpage. Click the magnifying class to the right of the filename, in the popup dialog box in that webpage.
Content
  • Is domino-chain determinism *necessarily* mutually exclusive with block-universe eternalism? They disagree re: whether future already exists.
    • *IF* I have to pick a brand of QM, I’d pick and root for and work for — as I’ve done in the past — a determinism solution to QM. eg nonlocal hidden variables, David Bohm, James T. Cushing; anti-Copenhagenism.
    • What version of QM is most compatible with Minkowski’s block-universe eternalism? Non-local hidden variables?
    • What is the relation between domino-chain determinism & non-local hidden variables (per Bohm/Cushing)? Perhaps:
      • domino-chain determinism is mutually exclusive w/ block-universe eternalism
      • Is non-local hidden variables compatible w/ block-universe eternalism??
      • is domino-chain determinism mutually exclusive with non-local hidden variables (per Bohm/Cushing)?

🤷‍♂️

I Don’t Know
Daisley/Ozzy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNm6bucMPmY

Content con’t
  • Recently noticed (& very recently added to Proof article) the Exam-Passing Student’s lifted garment in the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image.
  • We Are the Robots (or: Mystics)

🤖 🤖 🤖 🤖

Errata
  • I forgot to read the 5 book titles with “mystic” in the title, from Bibliography of 2006 main article.
  • In the context of episode podcast 26, Max was sound, in saying
    “causal-chain determinism vs block-universe determinism”
    instead of switching the latter word to ‘eternalism’.
    In such context, my recent contrast
    “domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe eternalism” isn’t so good.
    A good system of phrases for distinct contrasts:
    • Opposed models of possibility & control agency:
      • branching-universe possibilism vs. block-universe eternalism
    • Opposed models of causality:
      • domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe determinism
        (There’s also freewill; so Caution: be cognizant that this forms a kind of 3-level model)
  • I have to be more cognizant, aware, and careful about
    “block-universe eternalism” vs.
    “block-universe determinism“.
    And use the correct variant strategically for best communication in the current context.
  • Is nonlocal hidden variables a kind of domino-chain determinism, or a kind of block-universe determinism?
    • i’m thinking nonlocal hidden variables = block-universe determinism, and rejects domino-chain determinism.
    • So, I may have mis-spoken when I said “I hold the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of QM, so therefore in the field/context of QM, I hold domino-chain determinism.”
  • Stop saying “maybe I’ll end the recording soon”.
    • Unnecessary, misleading, confusing, probably false statements. Halfway through the party, announcing “the party is over” = party foul. It just screws up and falsifies and confuses the flow.

For listening -options and downloading, today’s download is simpler than the previous pair of mp3 files, being a single mp3 file – no .zip file involved. WeTransfer.com, no login or email address needed, to download this voice recording.
No distortion this time!

When I (as a test) download that file, the filename that gets downloaded is:
“The Great Mystics of Egodeath.mp3”
Nice – no .zip file involved, so this mp3 file should be very easy to work w/ & listen to, in several ways, even from a mobile device.

I accidentally, for the first time, copied the mp3 straight from desktop file system to mobile device’ music app (within the desktop music app).
Usually I first transfer the .mp3 file from the desktop file system to the desktop music app’s local-drive Playlist eg “Egodeath” playlist, and then do a transfer within the desktop music app, copying the mp3 file from the desktop’s “Egodeath” playlist to the “Egodeath” playlist that’s on the mobile device.

ToDon’t

note about todo’s: it is good to log todo items in pages and in the Todo page, but there is no implication I will ever do these things, or the pri lvl. it’s always “possible todo item”, not an announcement of my commitment.

logging a todo item does not imply commitment.

Errata for 2-Lv & 3-Lv audio recordings

I’ve Been Conflating “domino-chain determinism” (possibly part of a 3-level scheme) with “possibilism-thinking” (part of a 2-level scheme) b/c both are contrasted w/ “block-universe eternalism” –
instead, domino-chain determinism & possibilism-thinking must be contrasted w/ eternalism in 2 different ways
  • In criticism of Kafei’s “maybe” statement, I wrote that block-universe eternalism is mutually exclusive w/ domino-chain determinism, but I was instead thinking of the stark contrast mutually excl betw eternalism vs. possibilism.
    • block-universe eternalism is different than domino-chain determinism — I wouldn’t quite call them “mutually exclusive”.
  • Sometimes I say “domino-chain determinism” [= level 2 of a 3-lev model] where maybe I should instead say “possibilism; possibility-branching” [= level 1 of a 2-lev model].
    • I conflate domino-chain determinism w/ possibilism-thinking. b/c both of those are not block-universe eternalism. This conflation on my part demonstrates the danger of conflating & mixing 2- and 3-level models.
    • contrast domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe eternalism
    • contrast possibilism vs. eternalism
    • Those are two different contrasts! todo: assess: does max make same mistake in ep26? No, it seems. Does Max say “domino-chain determinism” (causal-chain determinism ) when he could or should instead say “possibilism-thinking”? doubt?
    • My criticism of domino-chain determinism is that it is overspecific about the mechanism how the fixed future comes about, and that domino-chain determinism is heavily colored with egoic possibilism-thinking.
    • The idea of domino-chain determinism is the egoic replacement/ substitute for the proper idea, of block-universe eternalism. the person who is half transformed, may assert domino-chain determinism. Domino-chain determinism is one kind of half-baked view – partway between Possibilism & Eternalism. Domino-chain determinism expressed by beginner mystics like Sam Harris, is a middle level in one type of 3-level model.
  • A “2-level vs. 3-level scheme” conflation error I may have made in my ep 26 critique of Kafei saying “maybe the egodeath theory is referring to domino-chain determinism through block-universe eternalism”:
    • the opposite of eternalism is possibilism, not domino-chain determinism.
    • roughly, we can think of 3-level
      • possibilism , freewill thinking
      • domino-chain determinism, still possibilism-colored. ie a conversation about domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe eternalism is inherently a 3-level model
      • eternalism, no-free-will thinking
  • I should have attributed Kafei’s mis-statement partly to ignorance of the main concepts of the egodeath theory, not only to over-analysis (ie, importing a 3-level model into the 2-level model).
    • “b/c u said the egodeath theory = ramesh, I guess the egodeath theory asserts domino-chain determinism through the language of block-universe eternalism.”
Minor
  • I said “mystics aren’t parroting their intensity level” , I probably meant “parading” their level.
  • 40:00 2Lv.mp3 – SKIP SCENE – delete coffee scene (but that would throw off timestamps). “pause to blow nose” — don’t say such things. headache discussion was needed, don’t add more non-content junk than that. Pausing is totally invisible, undetectable – don’t vocalize why need to Pause recording.
Defining Terms When?
  • I seem to put people in a can’t-win situation; my seeming self-contradiction: At start of 3-lv.mp3, I criticize having to define basic terms. In episode podcast 26, I criticize the Grea🍄 Mys🍄ics of Egodea🍄h for failing to stop and define a coherent set of basic terms (‘mystics’, ‘ordinary ppl’, ‘everyone’).
    • You could say I’m criticizing ppl for “Why are we stopping to define a coherent system of basic terms after the episode 26, instead of properly stopping to define a coherent system of basic terms at the start or middle of the episode ?”

todo: minimal timestamp outline would be nice – but not needed. various solid content.

👽

16:45 Lv3.mp3 – the covertly added 3rd level of people, “mystics”, = Aliens

well richard carriers new book does state that Jesus is from Outer Space

30:00 in 3-lv.mp3: Wasson’s argument from authority, Plaincourault as proxy for all big prob of mushrooms, coverup, bedtime cover-story by Panofsky of skewed templates. wasson censor brinckmann.

35:00 2-lv: the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image requires 0 words, but high decoding/transcription work, i’m still look how recent i perceived the lifted garment of student passing exam.

mid nov mid jan 2 months by me an expert decoder/transcriber to play out this image.

How image depicts highest religious experiencing intelligently w/ high coherence, an image packed w/ highest info effectively communicated but the high requirement to receive the message; the message has to be sent in a way that the sender knows for a fact is decodable to his nearby newcomers.

Image was designed eg pink key tree to give breadcrumb clues path network to confirm decoding, eg why show 2 cybercides not 1? More is higher confirmation. Is the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image an example of simplicity of communication?

PICK THE CORRECT LIMB: LEFT BRANCHING, OR RIGHT NONBRANCHING? THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS ONLY. SIMPLE BINARY MODEL OF Transcendent Knowledge, EXPRESSED THROUGH IMAGERY.

THE EGODEATH THEORY IS NOT half-baked, but, it is simple 2-level model, it is a 1st-order rough simplistic model. high relevance, not the highest preceision. It is possible to justify a 2nd-order approximation model: ie, a well-formed 3-level model, maybe a provision for chaos mixture in the middle level, the Ramesh/Harris half-transfor…

ha ha the Muraresku half-baked graduate, half-completed initiate, given “a” profound experience. A 3-level model, w/ Muraresku in the middle mixed-up level.

Successful high-quality pair of rec’gs. I could do more, I need to do more – I could learn good technique from these this pair of recordings. Solid content.

i almost want to post commentary on the two mp3s.

  • Berating ppl for overcomplicated models of Transcendent Knowledge.
  • Pleading w/ ppl to be less precise and more relevant.

18:45 2lv.mp3 – quoteable “they left a broken smouldering ruin”

Ppl are stumbling over their 3-level schemes mixed in w/ simple 2-lvl Egodeath theory. Toward a well-formed 3-level version of the Egodeath theory to shut out bad.

quoteable at 15:00 in 2-level recording. “there are malformed theories, but the egodeath theory is not one of them”

Beginners’, Spatial Nonduality vs. Advanced, Control-Nonduality

At OSC, Kafei typically brings-in the phrases “skin encapsulated ego” and “identifying with the material body“.

Those are not constructs that I’ve incorp’d into, or explicitly mapped to, the Egodeath theory.

Those are spatial, beginners’ nonduality concepts; the Egodeath theory moves past beginners’ spatial nonduality, to advanced, cybernetic nonduality.

Voice Recording 2 (2021-01-20):
“3-Level Egodeath Model.mp3” 41:22

  • Filename: “3-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
  • Length: 41:22
  • Download/preview link, for 1 week from Jan. 20, 2021:
    https://we.tl/t-E8IKyYdwK4
    • “2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
    • “3-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
  • Production notes:
    • Source file: “210120_2147.wav”
    • Mic: TASCAM DR-05, Right

WeTransfer site. No account creation or signup of any kind is needed, no giving email. I’ve never seen any signup required, as far as download.
Probably having an updated browser helps.

I uploaded as two separate .mp3 files – I think the benefit is you have nice Preview listening at the wetransfer site. I did test download: instead of individual files, I got the auto-named zip file “wetransfer-8acda0.zip”.

Content
  • end: Hatsis, Wasson, Brinckmann, scholars’ cover-up of mshrooms in Christian art. 70 mshrooms proved in the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image.

Audio File Podcast Prep Ranting and Raving – How Can Everyone Completely, 180-Degrees F Up the Most Easy, Basic, Simple, Elementary, Essential Nature of What the Egodeath Theory Is and Asserts – a theory of refrigerators?

hello is anyone in the class listening? IS THIS THING ON?

  • Successful solid, top-quality content in the 2, Level.mp3 recordings. The recordings are a success. Interesting and compelling analysis.
  • music player on desktop only used to xfer to mobile, by music app sync, playing fine on wireless JVC good buds. Distortion’s not too bad.
  • Useful solid analysis of the 2-level simple primary standard default Egodeath theory trainwrecked by covert, uncontrolled mixing-in of some mismanaged 3-level model.
  • todo: define a well-formed, distinctly defined 3-level model of the Egodeath theory that:
  • 1) doesn’t suck and
  • 2) doesn’t conflate with the 2-level primary simple model,
  • Define a proper 3-level model of the Egodeath theory, purely to shut out bad 3-level versions of the Egodeath theory that produce bad output, at least when conflated w/ or snuck into the simple 2-level version of the Egodeath theory, producing:

🦁🐉

{monster offspring}

Production Notes

excited daytime voice, gain level 65 of 90 (pretty high), so – DISTORTED⚡️a little.

TASCAM DR-05 field recorder, small dia cond mics (right). Stereo. use Right ch only. Not too bad for casual.

AT AT LEAST I DIDN’T DO WHAT I ALWAYS DO WHICH IS TALK ABOUT AUDIO RECORDING TECHNIQUE INSTEAD OF CONTENT.

i’ll take distorted + solid content, any day,
over hi-fi w/ poor content eg discussion of audio technique.

Voice Recording 1 (2021-01-20):
“2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3” 53:44

  • Filename: “2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
  • Length: 53:44
  • Download or preview (magnif. glass): https://we.tl/t-E8IKyYdwK4
  • Production notes:
    • Source file: “210120_2146.wav”
    • Mic: TASCAM DR-05, Right

Idea-development, so the ideas or critiques aren’t as well-expressed at the beginning. I’m more on-point as time goes on.

I start by talking in terms of the egodeath theory being a 2-level model; I develop the idea – by the end of the rec’g – pointing out the possibility of adding a well-formed 3-level model of the Egodeath theory. By the end of the rec’g, I develop a clear idea of:

Don’t conflate a valid 2-level model of the egodeath theory w/ a valid 3-level model of the egodeath theory (or, conflate an invalid 3-level model, even worse).

The distortion sucks, but it’s a minor nuisance. Bigger problem is the early points are sometimes weak; by the time I figured out things at the end; … this is an idea *development* recording.

My arguments at the start of the recording are less correct than at the end. Ah well some recordings have off-base statements, that’s life. All books have flaws, bugs.

By the end of this first rec’g, I dev’d idea of that:

  • covertly bringing-in a (bad version of) a 3-level model into the default 2-level model of the Egodeath theory, was a common source of garbage results, garbage output.

The Egodeath Theory Is a Simplest-Possible, Binary, First-Order Model – Not a Complicated, 3-Level Model

  • The 2-level model of the egodeath theory
  • The 3-level model of the egodeath theory

Conflating the 2- and 3-Level Models of the Egodeath Theory Produces Garbage Output

  • DO NOT CROSS THE STREAMS; do not conflate and jumble the 2- and 3-level models.

Normally, the egodeath theory is expressed as the 2-level model.

When people covertly, silently brought-in a 3-level model into the primary, default, 2-level model of the Egodeath theory, garbage output (opposite-of-truth) was produced:

🗑

  • “The Egodeath theory is irrelevant for mystics.”
  • “The Egodeath theory is not based in experiencing block-universe eternalism.”
  • “The Egodeath theory asserts domino-chain determinism.”
  • “Always try to increase the d0se. Last time, I feared for my life; I thought I was gonna die.”

🗑

Defining a 3-Level Version of the Egodeath Theory

It is possible to define a 3-level version of the Egodeath theory:

  • The Egodeath Theory Expressed as a 3-Level Scheme
    • Do Not Conflate 2-Level & 3-Level Models
    • 3 levels of binding intensity (OSC, low dose, high dose)
      • Refined explanatory power of the egodeath theory when cast as 3-level scheme:
      • Egoic thinking does develop in shaman cultures, b/c children are only given low-dose
      • That real-world detail doesn’t fit the conditions-of-applicability of the simple, first-order, 2-Level Egodeath theory model
      • King of Hubris Muraresku’s CYA move: “we provide a profound experience safely”: his deceptive compromise: he attempts to invent a halfway version of Mystery Religion, premised on “we’ll half enlighten you” <– 😄 😄
        “It’ll be a quick trip, That never ends” – Journey to Tyme
        https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-16-2002-04-28/#message773
  • 3 models of time and control (possibilism, impurity, eternalism)
  • 3 levels of initiate (child, partway, completed)
  • 3 levels of freewill: naive freewill; no-free-will; transcending no-free-will

Informally Merging a 3-Level Scheme into the 2-Level Egodeath Model Produces Confusion

The Egodeath Theory Is a Simplest-Possible, First-Order Model; a Simple Binary Model – Stop Sneaking-in a Complicated, 3-Level Model Before Getting Clear on the Basic, Simple, Binary 2-Level Model

The Egodeath theory is a simplest-possible, 1st-order approximation model; it is the simplest, roughest model. And is sufficient and elegant and clear.

Only 2 Levels of Cognitive Binding: Tightcog vs. Loosecog; not “High Dose” (a Covert, Confusing, 3-level model)

In the normal, primary, 2-level model of the Egodeath theory, there are only 2 states: OSC vs. ASC.

  • ASC = experiencing block-universe eternalism.
  • OSC = experiencing causal-chain, unfolding-in-time, temporal causality.

In the normal, 2-level model, there’s only 2 states – not 3, not 1, not 12.

  • No “really, really, really, really high” like Max strains at;
  • not “high d0se” like Kafei obsesses on as he flies into the flame and bursts w/ a puff;
  • not the “intense” mystic altered state like I’ve written — wrecking, confusing, and complicating the elegant theory.
  • In the normal, primary, 2-level model, there’s no need for a complicated model of “intense” mystic altered state; it’s simply, the mystic altered state.

I DELETED MY [ACRO]/KEYBOARD SHORTCUT FOR “THE INTENSE MYSTIC ALTERED STATE” – PPL ARE USING THE WORD ‘INTENSE’ TO CONFUSE THEMSELVES (PRODUCING TRAINWRECK “GARBAGE” OUTPUT), TRYING TO USE A CONFUSING, MANY-LEVEL MODEL BEFORE THEY ARE CLEAR ON THE BASIC SIMPLE 2-LEVEL MODEL.

There’s nothing wrong w/ the 3-level model of the Egodeath theory.

What’s disastrous is conflating the 2- and 3-level models of the Egodeath theory.

Reminds me of Wilber’s intensive cautions about the pre-trans fallacy. In a 3-stage scheme, it’s easy to confuse stages 1 & 3. In my normal, 2-stage scheme, there is no way to confuse stages.

Only 2 Models of Time & Control: Possibilism vs. Eternalism; not “Referring to Causal Chain through Block Universe” Half-Baked Mishmash (a Covert, Confusing, 3-Level Model)

Only 2 Models of Time & Control: Possibilism vs. Eternalism (domino-chain determinism vs. block-universe eternalism); not “referring to causal chain through block universe” half-baked mishmash (covert 3-level model)

Only 2 Sets of People: Non-Initiates & Initiates; not “3rd Group of Ultra-Special, 1-State People” (a Covert, Confusing, 3-Level Model)

Caveat: see my page section about myth sometimes depicts mental worldmodel transformation as instantaneous, sometimes as gradual.

Theory of Mythemes page.

{god revealed his power and the mortal woman instantly died}

{woman during pregnancy was harassed by serpent, child killed serpent}

Remedial Pre-School Prep for Egodeath 101 Day 1 Lecture 1 Elementary Basics

&%$@#%$??!!

Remedial Pre-School Prep Version of the Egodeath Theory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/remedial-pre-school-prep-version-of-the-egodeath-theory/

Me: “I Am Worlds Best Communicator. My Followers Are Super-Geniuses who Read My Spectacularly Clear and Simple Words.”

Max: “According to my logic, the Egodeath theory has nothing to do with mysticism. Or ego death.”
Kafei: “Interesting. According to my logic, the Egodeath theory asserts domino-chain determinism, expressed as block-universe eternalism. Thats because its based only in the OSC.”

🤯 😱 😵 🔫

Ozzy: “Never heard a thing I said (dead, dead dead)”

Flying High Again
3:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXonmlNCQ3o&t=210s

🤯 😵 HOW CAN ANYONE POSSIBLY SAY THE EGODEATH THEORY DOESN’T APPLY TO ‘MYSTICS’, IS NOT ABOUT ‘MYSTICS’, DOESNT EXPLAIN ‘MYSTICS’, IS NOT FOR ‘MYSTICS’ 🤯 😵

  • My 1997 core theory-spec, in the title of the entire Annotation, equates ego death with the word ‘mystic’:
    Self-control cybernetics, dissociative cognition, & mystic ego death
    http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/PHILOSI.0.html –
    • “Schizophrenia and mystic rapture both present the sense of being remotely monitored and controlled”
    • “Acid-rock mysticism vividly alludes to and resonates with ego death and the dissociative cognition that leads up to it.”
  • The 2006 main article discusses mysticism:
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/
    • “The essence and origin of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose binding of cognitive associations.”
    • “Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation.”
    • “Leading mystics throughout the history of various religions have used visionary-plant sessions on-demand, with mystic-state experiencing that was largely rationality-oriented (Merkur 2001).”
    • “Early Christianity involved mystical, religious, visionary experiencing, including the experience of the transformative, transcendent power of the Holy Spirit at Eucharistic agape meals (Johnson 1998).”
    • “The figure of Paul the Apostle is portrayed as a shamanistic mystic (Ashton 2000), and the apostles are portrayed as adepts in altered-state mystic experiencing (Pilch 2004).”
    • “Solving the riddle of the original mystic-metaphorical meaning of Christianity requires also understanding the surrounding metaphorical altered-state initiation systems throughout Christian history. These altered-state initiation systems that were related to Christianity, include Roman religion, Neoplatonism, Western Esotericism, and astral ascent mysticism.”
    • “The New Testament editors utilized the era’s standard mastery of mystic-state metaphor and the altered-state experience of communal unity to direct the Jewish mystic-metaphor system into the figure of Jesus. This combination of Jewish themes, mystic-state metaphor, and the communal altered-state unity experience enabled…”
    • “Mystic revelation about the nullity of self-will was routine in antiquity. Roman imperial theology utilized this routinized mystic-state revelation to legitimate the Roman sociopolitical arrangement. Christianity became popular as a polemical counter-narrative about how the entheogen-accessed mystic revelation should be used for sociopolitical concerns. The figure of the ‘king on the cross’ in the New Testament is a depiction of the mystic-state insight of non-autonomous control, in service of a rebuttal and alternative to Roman imperial theology.”
    • “… a long-term standoff between mystically neutered religious literalism versus exclusively ordinary-state-based Science. “
    • “The ability to mystically climax is inbuilt, as is the mental model that is revealed, although the useful metaphors and systematic explanation that are necessary to retain the revealed mental structure must be a product of human effort.”
    • “Mystic metaphor both endorses and disparages the realization of determinism, because determinism is only an intermediate destination on the path to salvific regeneration. “
    • “Fatedness and Control in Astral Ascent Mysticism – Heimarmene or universal fatedness was centrally important in ancient astrological cosmology (Barton 1994), and was a major theme in Hellenistic-Roman astral ascent mysticism and religion (Cumont 1960).”
    • “Astral ascent mysticism centers around the dangerous gateway or “fatal” boundary crossing – the sphere of the fixed stars – representing the apprehension of Heimarmene and its control of one’s thoughts.”
    • “The defeat of egoic autonomy and power in the mystic ecstatic state was similar to the defeat of rebellious nations.”
    • “In mystic metaphor, misunderstanding moral agency is considered the fundamental sin and immorality; God was most angry about the king’s rebellious worship of idols…”
    • “Mystic-state ‘compassion’ and ‘rescue that narrowly averts divine wrath’ means that that which ultimately gives you your thoughts is intimately united with you and is good or benevolent toward you,…”
    • “… is found in the Roman Saturnalia and in the mystic allegory of Jesus’ trial; …”
    • Arbel, V. Beholders of Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature. Albany: SUNY, 2003.
    • Fishbane, M. The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism. Seattle: University of Washington, 1994.
    • Freke, T.; and P. Gandy. The Complete Guide to World Mysticism. London: Piatkus, 1997.
    • Merkur, D. Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions. Albany: SUNY, 1993.
    • Merkur, D. The Psychedelic Sacrament: Manna, Meditation, and Mystical Experience. Rochester: Park Street, 2001.
  • Every one of the 183 digest files of the Egodeath Yahoo Group postings contains the word “mystic”.
  • et cetera

Conclusion – You Skipped the Philosophy Step, Which Is: Define Your Terms

Who Asserts that “Mystics Are the People who Fuse the ASC with the OSC”?

Kafei seems to assert a more moderate position than Max attributes to him.

I’m wondering if Max is responding to writings of Kafei that I haven’t seen, that assert “mystics are the people who fuse asc w/ osc”.  

I’m not hearing Kafei assert that extreme position, or definition of ‘mystics’, in the podcasts.

Kafei’s position expressed in the podcasts is not so extreme as Max makes it seem.  

In the podcasts, Kafei asserts the 2-state model, not the 1-state model.  

Not sure who in the world is asserting the 1-state model.

From whom is Max getting such a strong impression that the word ‘mystics’ is commonly defined as “the people who fuse asc w/ osc”?

I guess I can see that notion a little bit, in the pop field.  

The pop field is more like, hazy on this matter, rather than taking a definitive stand.

Draft Email for Max

Where does Kafei assert a 1-state model of ‘mystics’; that ‘mystics’ fuse asc w/ osc?  

I’m not seeing where Kafei much asserts that.  Maybe some text exchange, outside the podcasts?

I’m puzzled why in ep26 you’re fighting so hard, expending so much energy, to promote the 2-state model, when Kafei is *also* asserting (90% of the time) the 2-state model.  

Who are you fighting against?

Who defines ‘mystics’ as 1-state, such that you ended up saying like “the Egodeath theory doesn’t explain mystics and isn’t written for mystics’??

Maybe I need to read the writings of the Great Mystics, to find where it’s asserted that “mystics are the ppl who fuse ASC w/ OSC”.

— Mystified

Machine Transcription of Entire Podcast Episode 26

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Machine-Transcription – For my commentary, find “cm”. The full machine transcription is currently the 2nd half of the webpage.

Bending Time in Semi-Representational Art

It’s sort of essentially the same guy, Pink initiate, in the top row of the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image , in the same pic at same time, representing 3 diff times.

  1. passing the exam <- not allowed to banquet yet, so how come he already has a lifted garment, which indicates the altered state?
  2. finished 2 bowls at banquet
  3. in asc, sitting balancing in the tree

So we have established the principle that a figure can appear twice in one image, meaning, different points in time. It’s not a snapshot of a point in time; it’s a storyline within an image; it’s like panels in a comic page.

“There are 6 supermans on this page!” “no, it’s 1 superman, at 6 points in time, each frame is a snapshot at a different point in time.”

Similarly, an allowance can explain this contradiction:

  • The image depicts a strict requirement of “candidates for initiation are required to pass an exam, before allowed to banquet”.
  • the Passing student on left end, currently being examined, already has a lifted garment, indicating the altered state
  • the altered state can only happen through banqueting; “mystic contemplation to induce the altered state” is untrue.

Pink has passed the exam at that point, but hasn’t gone on yet to sit at right side of top row and finish ingesting 2 bowls.

Solution

I interpret Pink’s lifted garment, on left end of the row as meaning, “destined for the altered state”; I do not read him as being in the altered state at the time of the exam.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

Email to John Rush

http://www.clinicalanthropology.com

Hi John,

Lifted Garment & Mushroom Folds in Christian & Greek Art, Indicating the Ecstatic Holy Spirit Altered State
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/13/lifted-garment-mushroom-folds-in-christian-greek-art-indicating-the-ecstatic-holy-spirit-altered-state/

I haven’t got around to my page: Greek billowing cloth gallery yet, doesn’t seem very challenging; too easy.  

This ‘ecstatic state’ indicator theme is a bit hard to spot in Christian art (lifted garment); while the equivalent in Greek art is falling-over-a-log commonplace, explicit.

The {wind} = asc theme is almost hard to notice in Hellenistic art, b/c it’s so commonplace: billowing cloth, revealing the invisible wind/spirit, indicating ecstatic state/ mania/ frenzy/ possession by the spirit.

That’s how ubiquitous the mystic state is in Hellenistic art: you can’t see it, because it’s everywhere, completely normalized into invisibility like mixed-wine.

— Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death 

The Word ‘Eternalism’ Doesn’t Spotlight Control-Foo

It’s almost greedy to seek an even better theory-specifier phrase; it’s amazing that such a complex theory has already been so simplified in naming & presentation.

Context: needing a compact specifier of which theory this is; for example in a 1-sentence definition of the Theory:

The Egodeath theory is the theory that “analogical psych’c eternalism” describes mystics’ enlightenment and all equivalents.

The problem w/ that 3-term phrase: ‘eternalism’ doesn’t say Control-Foo, even though the most important part of the theory/experience/phen’y is Control-Foo.  

An ideal specifier-phrase, for the Theory, ought to cover 4 things, and the most important thing is Control-Foo.

  • Metaphor/ analogy
  • o  Loose cognition / alt-state / dissoocation
  • o  Eternalism / heimarmene/ block universe w/ worldlines
  • o  Control-Foo   <– the most important of the 4 parts/ theory-specifiers.   (control vortex, non-control, control cancellation, control transformation, control seizure)

I don’t have an elegant 3-word solution like analogical psych’c eternalismthat explicitly says Control.

Given that Control is the ultimate topic, experience, and transformation, that means, ‘Control’ (or Cyberfoo) must, or should, be one of the main words for the name of the Theory.  

No matter how the word ‘Eternalism’ or ‘Heimarmene’ was or is defined, the primary meaning of Eternalism isn’t Control – that’s a problem, to solve if possible.

The best I have at the moment is 4-term identifier-phrase for the Theory:
the “analogical psych’c eternalism controlfoo” theory solves x y z.

equiv:the “mytheme alt-state pre-existence controlfoo” theory solves x y z

eg

the “myth altered-state pre-existence of control-thoughts” theory explains mystics’ enlightenment and all equivalents.

“analogical psych’c eternalism” is very strong, packing a lot into 3 words, that are — for the complex theory — relatively commonplace.

Pretty ideal search results, on my machine:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=eternalism

so: minor problem: ‘eternalism’ is tech jargon (but no more than is ‘determinism’)

problem: ‘eternalism’ doesn’t highlight its main phenomenological referent (experiencing block universe & worldlines)

Problem: ‘eternalism’ doesn’t spotlight/foreground the very most important thing, Controlfoo (control vortex, non-control, control cancellation, control transformation, control seizure).

For the 3rd term of a 4-term phrase, ‘Eternalism’ is a good single-word label.
But the word ‘Eternalism’ can’t “cover” for Control-Foo; nothing really could, given that Control-Foo is the most important of the 4 parts of the Theory.

Re: term #1: ‘Metaphorical’ is a common word, that is grammatical here; while ‘Analogical’ is not a common word.

Metaphorical Psych’c Eternalism
Metaphorical Psych’c Pre-existence

Strange Loop’s Characterization of the Import of the Egodeath Theory

now apply this to the topic “Why Transcendent Knowledge Is of Highest Value”

Strange Loop wrote:

“You are not comprehending/appreciating the GRAVITY of the Egodeath Theory. 

This isn’t another book that you read or new philosophy or scientific discovery… This is a complete PARADIGM shift. 

It is the AXIOM by which EVERYTHING else is measured.

I hope that you can see the treasure you have in your hand.

The theory boils down to the recognition (in ASC) of the ego, being based on a logical paradox.

This understanding of higher logic culminates in what is often described as death/dying(egodeath) – and is then reconciled by a deeper understanding of what the ego essentially is ie, a logical paradox and the ramifications of this knowledge ie. the shift from Possibilism-thinking to Eternalism-awareness. 

This is the branch of the Theory known as the Cybernetic Theory of Ego of Transcendence.

[ = the Egodeath theory minus Myth/history/lyrics; ie:
Loose Cognition, Block Universe, Control Transformation; but not Analogy. -cm]

Michael Hoffman, the genius that he is, has made clear the previously murky waters.

With his sword of logic he has cut through the thicket and has created a clear and defined path for us.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f12.item.zoom

And if that wasn’t enough… He has given us the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion!!!!

An unparalleled exposé of what Religion is ALL ABOUT.

It’s RADICAL… It turns the modern interpretation of Religion ON ITS HEAD, with no apologies!

With this knowledge in hand, we are now intrepid explorers in the previously unrecognizable Myths of the ancient worlds.

I do hope you can learn to recognize this…

Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene will be mere footnotes in the history books, forget them, forget Balsakar, forget Zen, forget McKenna, forget Many Worlds theory, String theory and whatever else theory you hold dear.

YOU HAVE THE ONLY THEORY YOU NEED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.”

– Loop

Quantum Ineffability

def’n of ‘mystics’

Theme of Balance in Dionysus Triumph Mosaic

the god of balance you shall be

balanced leopard dish

need better photo

Photo by Michael Hoffman (ego death),
10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010

The Egodeath theory holds that
analogies of altered-state, block-universe, control-transformation
explains:
spiritual regeneration; mystic enlightenment; satori; gnosis; initiation; esotericism; and equivalents.

Myth, ASC, Block Universe, Control Agency
control agency [ca] control agency

The Egodeath theory is that myth describes altered-state, block-universe, control-agency transformation; which explains mystic enlightenment.

Have the 4 areas (Myth, ASC, Block Universe, Control Transformation) 4 theory home pages?

Home Page for Each Quadrant of the Egodeath Theory: Myth, Altered State, Pre-Existence, Control Vortex

writings on Entheogen History (summary)
could Entheogen History include cog-phen, psil, grk+Christian , High Esoteric’m?
vs.
writings on Entheogen Scholarship (method). answer: aim in-between Entheogen History & Entheogen Scholarship. neither reductionist timeline, nor meta-methodology commentary written specifically for entheoboffin historical research-scholars

entheogen history – i do scholarship, but the topic, from aud’c pov, is history. some audience want entheogen scholarship (more meta- eg critique of where the field is centered and what frwk, whether cog-phen or reductionist pseudo-esoteric; fallacies of the field to avoid, tyupical mistakes of the field.

  • Announcement: The Mytheme Theory; the “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” Theory of Religious Mythology
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/announcement-the-mytheme-theory-analogical-psychedelic-eternalism-religious-myth/
    • the mytheme decoding methodology (narrow) < component-theory home
    • applications of the mytheme decoding methodology
      • religious mythology
      • entheogen history
        hot: Psilocybe; Greek + Christian; Cognitive Effects; High Esotericism
        not: Amanita; Christianity in Isolation; Surface Forms; Low Esotericism
      • some audience want entheogen history – the findings, not the techniques commentary.
      • ahistoricity
      • popular culture

My Book Reading Technique w/ Gordon “Citation Needed” Wasson Book Photos

“ALL US AUTHORITYES UNINIMASOULY AGREE YOUR MUSRHOOM TREE IS ANYTHING BOUT BUT MUSROOOM, ITS A ITALIAN PINE TRUSST US CASE CLOSED B/C ALL THE AUTHORITIES AGREE ITS SETTLED”

BRAZEN ARG FROM AUTHORITY!

WHERE’S YOUR CITATIONS, BLOWHARD, POPE WASSON

NICE ELLIPSES YOU GOT THERE, WHATCH GOT BEHIND HTOSE … TO UPPER LEFT OF BOURY’S PLAINC FAX PAINTING? Why don’t you give any citations? Why did you twice censor the one citation that you have? Why are you able to name authorities, but not state their arguments to support their findings, and their corrsepondence, in criticial discucssion of the matter. BALD ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. UNLESS U COUNT PANOFSKY’S BEDTIME JUST-SO STORY, THAT IT’S AN ACCIDENTAL COINCIDENCE THAT ARTISTS ARE INCOMPETENT IDIOTS WORLKING FROM SLOPPILY RECOPIED ETEMP TEMPLATES MY AZZ TEMPLATES THAT *JUST HAPPEN BY COINCIDENCE FOR NO REASON TO LOOK MUSHROOMS* BUT THE ARTIST WOULD BE SHOCKED – SHOCKED!! – IF U ID’D THEM AS PSY MUSHROOMS.

CASE CLOSED.

WE HAVE A BEDTIME COVER-STORY BY PANOFSKY SO THAT PROVES THAT ALL THE AUTHORITIES ARE RIGHT … <– DON’T LOOK AT THIS BRINCKMANN LITTLE BOOK FROM LONG AGO PLS, ITS JUST SOME DOTS

*CITATIONS NEEDED*
– NOT “REPLACE BRINCKMANN CITATION BY ELLIPSES”

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

WOW, THAT’S THE *ONLY* CITATION YOU HAVE, AND YOU CENSORED IT EVERY TIME?

WEAK ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

my reading technique I developed. No technique in 1989. It’s been ongoing technique devmt. A curve hill.

That’s a research and book-inspection question.

Could be 1992, my approach is discernable, to book markup – I already uploaded Wasson photos, where? Egodeath.com images of markup SOMA book.
Instantly found by search site for soma -> http://www.egodeath.com/wassonsomaannotatedpages.htm

Book: Gnostic New Age

You Only Read that Book, Every Line, Cover-to-Cover, a Single Time? Poser

i read it just the other day like 2016 (hardcover), re-reading it looks good but like I don’t really remember the passages; iow I could benefit from reread. Refresh; 7th time to … wo the Way of Zen by Alan Watts covered like 5 times in 1987, but I am way better at reading-thoroughness techniques, did I write notes in it? or underline anywhere? I had not developed my

structured content, but no TOC, the headings short & vague

The Gnostic New Age: How a Countercultural Spirituality Revolutionized Religion from Antiquity to Today
April DeConick, 2016
http://amzn.com/0231170777

Vague TOC; Do I need to manually extract the outline, maybe to level 2?

GOOD: THERE ARE MANY SECTION HEADINGS, SO IT WOULD BE READY TO EXTRACT THE OUTLINE.

I read this book cover to cover probably new, one time, no review, no detailed toc. 2016 hardcover. DO A QUICK UNDERLYIN LINING OF H2 HEADINGS. I’T IT it

The headings design structure is a flat sectioning eg:
10 equal headings in every chapter.

Like the toc ch titles, USELESS ultra-short headings.

Terrible wording of ch’s & headings — too short, too meaningless.

Sections are broken up (good), poorly labeled.

The sections are organized but very poorly vaguely labelled. So, extracting outline and adding hint-words is needed and would have certain value to guide 2nd reading of this book.

ANNOYING USELESS TOC ONLY HAS VAGUE CH TITLES, THANKS A LOT LOW IQ PUBLISHER WTF COLUMBIA WHAT A *USELESS* TOC!

Chaff

chaff thresh winnow straw wheat husk hull fruit

Plainest 1-4 Outline of the Egodeath Theory

  • the Egodeath theory
    • Myth
    • Altered State
    • Block Universe
    • Control Vortex 🍄🐍💎🔥🐉🤯 DRAGON FIRE EGODEATH GATEWAY

One thing that was throwing off my Site Map outline design balance, is that two topics are heavily, disproportionately covered at this WordPress site:

  • mytheme decoding
  • entheogen scholarship

Specialty at each Egodeath Site

  • CybTrans.com 1997 = the cybernetic theory (with rock lyrics analogies) (v1 of the Egodeath.com content, carried fwd forming superset)
  • Egodeath.com = the mytheme theory
    • recently mature, integrated with the cybernetic theory.
    • A full snapshot of 2007 content, it’s only missing the the Egodeath Yahoo Group postings Feb 14 2004 – 2007. Has June 10, 2001-Feb. 14, 2004.
    • Topics:
      • Mytheme decoding
      • Religious mythology
      • Ahistoricity
      • Entheogen history
      • Rock lyrics
  • EgodeathTheory WordPress site – mytheme decoding, entheogen scholarship
    includes EgodeathYahooGroup WordPress site with ~full set of postings June 10, 2001 – Dec. 15, 2020.
    • Myth
      • mytheme decoding
      • entheogen scholarship < i am entheogen scholarship

Those two topics fall within the Myth quadrant of the egodeath theory. Other topics within Myth are not covered much at this WordPress site:

  • ahistoricity
  • rock lyrics

A corollary or side-effect of that recent focus on mytheme decoding & entheogen scholarship, is that I’m not in the mindset to break out the other 3 areas (only Myth):

  • Altered State
  • Block Universe
  • Control Vortex

1-4 Outline of the Egodeath Theory for Site Map

Now Try Reworking Site Map for 2006 main article’s 1-4 instead of 1-2-8 outline

  • the egodeath theory
    • analogy – ie the Mytheme theory
    • loose cognition – 1/3 of the Cybernetic theory
    • eternalism – “
    • cybernetics – “

reading downward u get the Theory Sepcification:

analogical psychedelic eternalism cyberneticism

the egodeath theory is the theory that
analogical psychedelic eternalism controllership
explains all of the following:

  • religious mythology
  • esoteric Christianity initiation
  • mystery-religion initiation
  • mysticism
  • gnosis
  • satori
  • mystical sacred marriage
  • mystical revelation
  • spiritual transformation
  • the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate
  • enlightenment
  • immortal life
  • completed initiate
  • mixed-wine banqueting
  • agape meals
  • ancient banqueting tradition
  • high rock lyrics
  • ahistoricity
  • esoteric esotericism
  • high esotericism
  • dragon mode mysticism
  • cybernetic mysticism
  • analogy, dissociation, block universe, control cancellation

New Outline of the Egodeath Theory

THREE WORDS are INSUFFICIENT.

CONTROL MUST BE FOREGROUNDED TOO, NOT JUST ANALOGY, LOOSE COGNITION, & ETERNALISM.

The word ‘Eternalism‘ cannot sufficiently give attention to the MOST IMPORTANT SUBJECT, CYBERNETICS.

It Is Not Necessary to Display Applications of Mytheme theory in 1-4 outline, it is necessary to show Cybernetics at top level 1-4 outline, cannot just show Eternalism/ Heimarmene.

Cybernetics is the most important subject:

Importance of subjects: 4 main areas:

cybernetics – 10

block universe – 8

loose cognition – 6

metaphor – 1

The official sequence is the reverse:

  1. Learn the language of mythemes.
  2. Engage the ASC.
  3. Experience the block universe.
  4. Experience the control vortex.
  • the egodeath theory
    • myth
    • altered state
    • block universe
    • control vortex

the altered state (loose cognitive binding) [aslcb]

Metaphor’s out – 1 – (HUGE CHORUS: METAPHOR IS SOOPER IMPORTANT!!) ME: didn’t need it 1988. METAPHOR PROVED TO BE OPTIONAL. WHEN I WAS SAVED BY PSIRITUAL CHRIST VISION, ~1995, I WAS STILL A HISTORICIST when baptised. 1999, read King’s response to Allegro, STORY: I WENT TO MR. JESUS TO BLESS THE EGODEATH THEORY. MR. HISTORICAL JESUS CHOSE TO GET HIMSELF CRUC’D, WHY???

HE’S THE WORLD’S MOST RATIONAL MAN.

HOW CAN I GET JESUS TO CONFIRM AND BLESS THE EGODEATH THEORY?

FINDING: NO MR. HISTORICAL JESUS.

SPIRITUAL CHRIST IS WHERE ITS AT.

GET MR. CHRIST TO CONFIRM THE EGODEATH THEORY

How does ahistorical Jesus confirm and support the Egodeath theory?

The Egodeath theory received confirmation in the esotericism dimension.

In 1998, start of Phase 2, 1999, I didn’t know how I’d use Mr. Historical Jesus’ scriptures to prove support, corroborate the Egodeath theory.

Scripture when give a key, ahistoricity, meaning-flipping, Mythemese fluency, supports the Egodeath theory. When leverage psilocybin mushrooms in Greek & Christian religion; when span & conjoin a pair of centers of focus: Greek + Christian,

center the focus on the pairing:
{Greek + Christian}

Thx Mr. Christ for blessing the Egodeath theory.

poitn is, Cybernetics is #1 import so WHY FOLD IT INTO ANOTHER AREA

REMINDER FOR STUPID PEOPLE: ‘CYBERNETICS’ IS the most important area of all – so why think can slip it into demote Cybernetics and just hide it fold it into eternalism / block universe / determinism , Heimarmene cannot HIGHLIGHT Cybernetics. Eternalism cannot HIGHLIGHT Cybernetics.

analogical psychedelic eternalism cyberneticism

agh i might as well wrok generate a fresh here we go from scratch:

first, list out the certainly distinct 4 main areas, the natural division of the theory for correct balance: and sequence – rather than which word (it’s sets of wrods, in 4 items) A 4-item list of sets of terms or subgtopics/applications.

Label of this Outline Draft: 1-4, sequence, the mytheme theory is collapsed into one quadrant; no-free-will is collapsed into block universe (eternalism; determinism, fatedness, heimarmene, worldline of the control-thought inserter & receiver intertwined, carved in rock relief)

  • the egodeath theory – keep
    • the Mytheme theory –
      • collapse ‘mytheme decoding’, promote it, merge it into the parent node, which is “the Mytheme theory”; but,
      • suppress the application nodes. while
      • religious mythology – added this new sub-theory node,
        as an application of the mytheme theory, an application like
      • ahistoricity and
      • rock lyrics and
      • entheogen history, which are other applications of the Mytheme theory. don’t list applications in this 1-4 outline; keep all focus on the 4 topic-areas: analogy, loose cognition , eternalism , cybernetics (in that order)
    • loose cognition
    • block universe <– demote over-discussed “no-free-will”, fold it into distinctive
    • control cancellation

ok i’m adding it to the list, no-free-will is now officially over-used, over-focused, like Amanita, in Christianity , Eleusis, Kykeon, ….

by putting all attention on a limited set of topics, it makes the field blind to other entheogen history.

SPREADING ATTENTION RIGHTLY, IS KEY.

Attention spread between 4 areas,

  • Fold the cybernetic theory a little,
    • no-free-will folds into one of those main areas (block universe)
  • fold metaphor a lot
    • don’t show ahistoricity, entheogen history, or rock lyrics, in the 1-4 outline; fold those in as applications of Metaphor. Only when you zoom/open that main-area node, then show those applications/topics.
    • explicitly add a 4th application within the mytheme theory: religious mythology (like entheogen history, rock lyrics , ahistoricity)
  • There are now multiple outlines in series, shown in Site Map.
  • Make a 1-4-4 outline:

Pattern:

  • the egodeath theory
    • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x

correct seq of main areas:

  • the egodeath theory
    • Analogy
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • Dissociation
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • Block Universe
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • Control Agency
      • x
      • x
      • x
      • x

Next, fill-in the leaf nodes, called them component-theories, but some are applications of a theory: applied to:

how the Mytheme theory is applied to:

  • trading cards
  • comics
  • rock lyrics
  • religious mythology
  • movies
  • literature
  • ahistoricity
  • entheogen history

Fill-in 4 leaf nodes in each of 4 main areas:

  • the egodeath theory
    • Analogy
      • religious mythology
      • entheogen history
      • ahistoricity
      • popcult
    • Dissociation
      • x = todo: check outline of main article
      • x
      • x
      • x
    • Block Universe
      • no-free-will
      • worldlines
      • fatedness, heimarmene
      • x
    • Control Agency
      • control cancellation attractor destructor vortex climax potential reaching Civilized status, Attaining the Reference Caduceus Message of Eternalism Not Possibilism .
      • x
      • x

analogical psychedelic eternalism cyberneticism <– check it out, appending explicitly “cybernetics” to the phrase “analogical psychedelic eternalism”, results in the same ideal order sequence as in the main sections sequence of the main article.

Which Bad Outline of the Egodeath Theory Is Correct?

From ~Jan 16, 2021 Site Map page:

semi-unhelpful finding: all leaf-nodes in both outlines are praised. List of 4 + 4, + 4 leaf nodes/ component-theories:

1-(4+4+(4)) OUTLINE, flat version, orig order:

  • THE EGODEATH THEORY
    • LOOSE COGNITION
    • BLOCK UNIVERSE
    • NO-FREE-WILL
    • NON-CONTROL
    • MYTHEME DECODING
    • ENTHEOGEN HISTORY
    • AHISTORICITY
    • ROCK LYRICS
    • DISSOCIATION
    • ETERNALISM
    • CONTROLLERSHIP
    • ANALOGY

Next, sort/group all items:

  • ALTERED STATE; DISSOCIATION; LOOSE COGNITION
  • ETERNALISM; BLOCK UNIVERSE
    • NO-FREE-WILL – not required primary pull-point
  • CONTROLLERSHIP, NON-CONTROL; CONTROL CANCELLATION
  • ANALOGY; MYTHEME DECODING; METAPHOR;
    • ENTHEOGEN HISTORY – math tells me this is not a required pull-point. ie NOT A PRIMARY THEORY-AREA FOR THEORY …” THIS ISN’T A WEIGHT-CARRYING BEAM”; IE IT’S A GOOD SUBTOPIC OR COMPONENT-THEORY WITHIN THE ANALOGY THEORY COMPONENT-THEORY.
    • ROCK LYRICS
    • AHISTORICITY
v3 of combined outline: cleaned up
  • The Egodeath Theory
    • ALTERED STATE; DISSOCIATION; LOOSE COGNITION
    • ETERNALISM; BLOCK UNIVERSE
    • CONTROLLERSHIP, NON-CONTROL; CONTROL CANCELLATION
    • ANALOGY; MYTHEME DECODING; METAPHOR
  • The Egodeath Theory
    • Altered State
    • Block Universe
    • Controllership
    • Analogy

Aside from word-choice, are those the 4 main idea-areas?

CURIOUS, in the article titled The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death, the puzzle quadrants are:

Cybernetics

Dissociation < 25% of entheogen history

Metaphor < 75% of entheogen history

Determinism

Nowhere is listed Entheogen History .

In “entheogen history”, what does History mean?

What’s my Meta-Theory of How to Do ENTHEOGEN HISTORY, entheogen scholarship

a component-theory of the egodeath theory: Meta-Theory of How to Do Entheogen History Scholarship – what does the subject of “entheogen history” consist of?

entheogen history < NOT Christian Ratsch universalism.

Why the Egodeath Yahoo Group Postings Are High Average Quality

Posting-Centric Modular Composition

Having this messy staging area can contribute to cleaner pages separated-out.

So All the Content Works Modularly Together Everything Plugs Right Together

b/c — as hinted in url “/postings/” nav page URL at CybTrans.com wayback 1997 site, (= v1 of Egodeath.com), I’VE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME COMPOSING POSTINGS WITH A PLAN TO COPY THEM AS-IS TO CONSTRUCT A GOOD WEBSITE.

Unlike the chaose in these idea development pages, here which are not carefully restrcited… iow,

IT WAS HARD WRITING MY POSTINGS, WHERE I HAD TO RESTRICT MYSELF TO WRITING REUSABLE POSTINGS AS COMPONENTS TO CONSTRUCT A WEBSITE FROM LATER W/O MODIFICATION/CLEANUP REQ’D.

That produced the very high average quality level of content you see at the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

That content, at 1997 CybTrans.com & v2 = Egodeath.com, was composed as postings, with the constraint of being reusable modules of content for a website webpages. At WordPress here, I have… A RANGE OF SLOP.

From fairly neat flagship articles, (short of print-publication ready) — but breakthrough content – to these idea development pages, somewhat freeform especially at top of page.

I’ve been doing this mode of writing-thinking since

See the source image

when the muse inspired me to take up the pen.

SURPRISING FINDING: 🤯
THE GREAT MYSTICS OF EGODEATH
HAVE HEAVY PSYCHOLOGICAL HANGUPS AROUND THEIR MAGICALLY-CHARGED WORD ‘MYSTICS‘, and so Are Unable to Coherently Converse About this Mythical Alleged Group

SURPRISING FINDING: 🤯
THE GREAT MYSTICS OF EGODEATH
HAVE HEAVY PSYCHOLOGICAL HANGUPS AROUND
THEIR MAGICALLY-CHARGED, EVER-UNDER-DEFINED WORD ‘MYSTICS‘ 🪄, AND SO ARE UNABLE TO COHERENTLY CONVERSE ABOUT THIS MYTHICAL EPIC ALLEGED GROUP TO WHICH THEY MAY OR MAY NOT SECRETLY ASPIRE TO PUT ON A MORE OR LESS HIGH PEDESTAL AND THEN CONJOIN THEMSELVES WITH, AFFIX THEMSELVES TO

These adherents to the word ‘mystics’, these who style themselves
the Grea🍄 Mys🍄ics of Egodea🍄h
mistakenly think that they desire
to develop the Perennial Entheogen Philosophy,
but that pursuit is just a substitute wish fulfillment project;
their actual wish is to __ on fire, per Freud, who people should stop laughing at
🛋🪑😢 <- 😄

State Your Positions on the Distinct Questions (Everyone, Consistently) –

You Have to Accurately, Explicitly and Clearly State Your Own Position, and Accurately State the Opponent’s Position which they Actually Hold (that applies to Max, Kafei, Letcher, and Hatsis) – don’t just imply, don’t just insinuate.

Confirm , listen, actually check (not just w/ leading questions to steer the other person away from their actual position).

“Am I accurately describing your position, or am I mis-framing your position?”

Do you agree *or disagree* with this particular premise: are there non-ordinary mystics, or not?

*IF* so, in what sense do you hold that special mystics are non-ord?

Are all mystics these special mystics?

Is there a separate group of extra-special mysics?

What is the difference between a lower mystics and a higher mystic?

ARE SOME MYSTICS MORE SPECIAL THAN OTHERS?

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MYSTICS HAVE PERMA-ASC, OR, AREN’T SUBJECT TO THE REUTRN OF THE ORDINARY STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND EGOIC EXPEIREICNG?

WHICH MYSTICS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RETURN OF EGOIC-MODE EXPEIRENCING?

My answer: my definition of the difference bwteen naive possibilism-thinking vs. qualified possibilism-thinking. Look up the technical difference between … let’s see how well my sh*tty Glossary works.

‘Naive Possibilism-Thinking’ vs.
‘Qualified Possibilism-Thinking’

wtf is “naive possibilism-thinking”?? speak english, your theory is way too complicated

wtf is “qualified possibilism-thinking”?? i know, SIMPLY LOOK IT UP in the Egodeath Concepts Collection(TM)!

Core Concepts
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/glossary-for-the-egodeath-theory/ –

Core Concepts

Podcast Episode 26 Commentary

Definition of ‘Everyone’, ‘Ordinary People’, and ‘Mystics’ [copied to episode 26 Commentary page]

  • everyone is the universal set.
    • ordinary people have less than some level of theoretical knowledge + mystic experience.
    • mystics have greater than that level of theoretical knowledge + mystic experience.

The Egodeath theory explains everyone and applies to everyone, including ordinary people and mystics.

Set of definitions by Cybermonk.

Definition of “Everyone”, “Ordinary People”, and “Mystics”

Do not conflate the universal set ‘everyone’ with the subset ‘ordinary people’

Here’s an artificial simplified model, for conversation purposes.

Here’s the artificially simplified model that I’m willing to converse using.

The set ‘everyone’ consists of two mutually exclusive subsets: ‘ordinary people’ and ‘mystics’.

If you say “everyone, not mystics”, that is meaningless; you are violating the term-definitions and are contradicting yourself.

The phrase “ordinary people; not mystics” makes sense; it’s a valid group-label.

Do not misuse the word ‘everyone’ to mean a subset of the universal set.

The word ‘everyone’ means not a subset, but rather the universal set.

To refer to a subset of the universal set, use either the term ‘ordinary people’ or the term ‘mystics’.

The Egodeath theory applies to and explains everyone; which is to say, the Egodeath theory applies to and explains ordinary people, and the Egodeath theory applies to and explains mystics.

  • everyone
    • ordinary people
    • mystics
What the Egodeath theory asserts about the set of who it applies to and explains
  • everyone <- the egodeath theory explains and applies to
    • ordinary people <- the egodeath theory explains and applies to
    • mystics <- the egodeath theory explains and applies to
What it seems like Max is asserting about the set of who the egodeath theory applies to and explains
  • everyone <- Egodeath theory explains & applies to a subset of
    • ordinary people <- Egodeath theory explains and applies to
    • mystics <- Egodeath theory doesn’t explain and apply to

Definition of ‘Everyone’, ‘Ordinary People’, and ‘Mystics’
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Definition-of-Everyone

We don’t need a formal-styled set of definitions; we merely need an explicit set of definitions of the 3 terms together. done:

Definition of ‘Everyone’, ‘Ordinary People’, and ‘Mystics’
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Definition-of-Everyone

Ignore schizophrenics, who have perma-ASC, or uncontrolled entry into loose cognition.

A person is either an ordinary person, or a mystic; ‘ordinary people’ is mutually exclusive with ‘mystics’.

‘Ordinary people’ …. Everyone is divided into two mutually exclusive subsets: ordinary people, and mystics.

The difference between ordinary people vs. mystics is, the intensity and frequency of loosecog.

The problem:

  • Max more or less consistently uses one set of definitions of the terms ‘everyone’, ‘ordinary people’, and ‘mystics’.
  • Kafei more or less consistently uses one set of definitions of the terms ‘everyone’, ‘ordinary people’, and ‘mystics’.
  • Cybernetics more or less consistently uses one set of definitions of the terms ‘everyone’, ‘ordinary people’, and ‘mystics’.
  • Prescription: everyone needs to discuss as a set, definitions of the terms ‘everyone’, ‘ordinary people’, and ‘mystics’, along with stating their own position on defining this set of terms. CAN WE OR CAN WE NOT AGREE ON THIS SET OF TERM DEFINITIONS?
  • everyone
    • ordinary people – 99%
    • mystics – 1%

Suppose ‘everyone’ is 100 people.

  • 99 people are ‘ordinary people’.
  • 1 person is a ‘mystic’

A person is either an ordinary person, or a mystic.

Stable Reference Definition of ‘Everyone’

The universal set. There is no person outside the set ‘everyone’. There is no set ‘mystics’ that’s outside the set ‘everyone.’.

Stable Reference Definition of ‘Ordinary People’

A subset of ‘everyone’. Let us suppose that there are in some sense, to be defined, two

Stable Reference Definition of ‘Mystics’

‘Everyone’ is the Universal Set, Which Therefore Includes the Subset ‘Ordinary People’, and which Therefore Includes the Subset ‘Mystics’

Every person, whether in the set of ‘ordinary people’ or ‘mystics’, is included in the set ‘everyone’.

Never conflate the term ‘everyone’ with the term ‘ordinary people’.

‘Ordinary people’ is a subset of ‘everyone’.

‘Everyone’ = the universal set. No one exists who stands out side the set ‘everyone’.

‘everyone’ means the universal set.

No matter how we define ‘ordinary people’ and ‘mystics’, the word ‘everyone’ includes all ordinary people and includes all mystics.

There is no group that is outside of the set ‘everyone’.

The word ‘everyone’ is not exclusive; it is the universal set, not a subset.

There is no set of people of which ‘everyone’ is merely a subset.

Do not use the word ‘everyone’ to conflate it with only the subset ‘ordinary people’.

Max Asks: Do You Hold that Mystics Have Perma-ASC? Kafei answers No; Transient. Only More Frequent than Ordinary People [copied to episode 26 Commentary page]

Do You Hold that the non-ordinariness of mystics is that they have perma-ASC? Kafei *clearly* said “NO, MYSTICS’ ASC IS A FEW HOURS ONLY, THEN OSC RETURNS. THEY JUST ASC MORE frequently.

(Kafei also makes an additional, different argument, based on bugs.)

PRESCRIPTION: EVERYONE, STATE YOUR CURRENT POSITION EFFECTIVELY. MAKE SURE THE OTHER PERSON ACCURATELY UNDERSTANDS YOUR CURRENT POSITION. CONSISTENTLY.

THE LETCHER ERROR: FAILURE TO EXPLICITLY SPECIFY VARIOUS POSITIONS AND ARGUE IN AN EXPLICIT, PLANNED, STRUCTURED WAY IN REFERENCE TO THOSE POSITIONS ON DISTINCT TOPICS/QUESTIONS.

[1:05:00] +1 for Kafei – Who Is Constructing-by-Definition a Group of Perma-ASC Non-Ordinary Mystics? [copied to episode 26 Commentary page]

At 1:05:00 ep 26, Kafei does well – Max has been striving to match-up Kafei with an extreme position Max asks with openly leading questions, Max is striving to try to lead Kafei into an extreme position, and Kafei rejects that extreme position.

1:07:22 Max emphasizes the Egodeath theory as 2-state model. Which means Max is agreeing with the position which Kafei just asserted (naturally in the form of a citation of a Non-Ordinary, Mystic Person – the Great Mystic Wm James, who said…
The ASC for mystics is ephemeral.

The ASC for mystics is ephemeral. <– Kafei’s explicitly asserted position, which he supports by citing William James.
Kafei directly and straightforwardly answers Max’s question, in the Negative.

My Prescription:

First, look up definitions of ‘mystics’. Reality-check with Webster: you need to discuss proper definition of “mystics” and how you think of mystics as being “non-ordinary” in some sense that you hold.

TELL US: WHAT DO
IN WHAT SENSE DO YOU THINK MYSTICS ARE NON-ORDINARY. PERMA-ASC?
Kafei: “No.” <– ok, so what we
Max: “No.” <– have is agreement.

THEREFORE NO ONE IS ASSERTING AND DEFENDING THE POSITION THAT
“WHAT MAKES MYSTICS NON-ORDINARY IS PERMA-ASC.”

Who Is Asserting that Such a Group Could Exist, in a Definable Way?

What Does “Mystics” Mean?

Are There Such “Mystics”, Defined that Way?

Who Is Taking that Position?

Who Is Defining and Who Is Asserting that Position?

What Does Max think Kafei’s position is, on the the question “Is there a special group called mystics? if so..”

If so, in what way are “mystics” special; non-ordinary?

Is there a non-ordinary set of people called mystics?

What’s Max’s position on that question?

What’s Kafei’s position on that question?

What position does Max think Kafei holds, on the question of whether there exists a group non-ordinary called mystics?

What position does Kafei think Max holds, on the question of whether there exists a group non-ordinary called mystics?

What position does Max think Kafei holds, on the question of:
In what way are “mystics” “non-ordinary”?

What position does Kafei think Max holds, on the question of
In what way are “mystics” “non-ordinary”?

1:07:22 Is Max Pressuring Kafei to Assert “Mystics Have Perma-ASC”? [copied to episode 26 Commentary]

Is Max Asserting that Mystics Have Perma-ASC?

Kafei: Mystics are only different from ordinary ppl in frequency. The ASC is transient for mystics; mystics soon return to OSC, per Wm James citation (so, a defensible position).

Max: “the Egodeath theory doesn’t apply to mystics who have perma-ASC. the egodeath theory only applies to ordinary people; that is, everyone – except your proposed group of perma-ASC non-ordinary, mystics.

Kafei: “wut? I just said, per citation, the altered state is transient for mystics; that mystics do NOT have perma-ASC.”

Max: “The Egodeath theory doesn’t apply to special mystics, who have perma-ASC.”

Who is asserting that position: that perma-ASC mystics exist? Kafei is not asserting that mystics have perma-ASC.

Is Max asserting that mystics have perma-ASC?

Is Max asserting that the Egodeath theory doesn’t apply to mystics, and that there is a group of people called mystics, who have perma-ASC?

So we have the conversation:

Max: “So you think mystics have perma-ASC, right?”

Kafei: “No, like Wm James, I believe mystics, like ordinary ppl, have ASC only for a few hours and then return to OSC.” 1:07:22 ep 26.

Max: “I shall now deliver a lecture asserting that the Egodeath theory only applies exclusively to ordinary people who have ASC only for a few hours and then return to OSC. (Unlike mystics – defined a certain way, “having perma-ASC” – that I’ve assigned to you.)

“And,

“my main point is simply that
the egodeath theory applies to everyone, not to some special, different, non-ordinary group, that I’m assigning to you.”

Kafei: “Truly your logic is dizzying.”

Is Max there using the word ‘everyone’ to mean ‘not everyone’? The word ‘everyone’ always means the universal set. If you mean to refer to a subset of the universal set, either say “ordinary people”, or “mystics”.

Do not use the word ‘everyone’ to mean ‘ordinary people’. ‘Ordinary people’ is a subset of ‘everyone’.

The conversation ought to be focused on why the heavy reliance on the magic word “mystics”. What are Max’ and Kafei’s HEAVY PSYCHOLOGICAL HANGUPS around the magic-charged word ‘mystics’?

Discuss why Kafei thinks these dudes are worth reading.

What does Webster say about it?

IN WHAT WAY DOES KAFEI CONSTRUCT THE CATEGORY, “MYSTICS”? FORGETTING WEBSTER, WHAT DO THESE “MYSTICS” MEAN TO HIM?

IN WHAT WAY DOES FREAKOUT CONSTRUCT THE CATEGORY, “MYSTICS”? FORGETTING WEBSTER, WHAT DO THESE “MYSTICS” MEAN TO FREAKOUT?

they are CROSS-TALKING ACROSS EACH OTHER B/C MAX IS TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A DEFINITION OF “MYSTICS”, WEBSTER HAS DEFINED “MYSTICS” DIFFERENTLY ALREADY

KAFEI SAYS MYSTICS ARE NOT SPECIAL, AND YET HE TREATS THEM AS IF A SPECIAL GROUP – BUT NOT TO THE EXTREME DEGREE THAT MAX REPEATEDLY TRIES TO ATTRIBUTE TO KAFEI, AGAINST KAFEI’S REPEATED REJECTIONS

WHY DOES KAFEI SO VALUE “MYSTICS”?

IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAY ARE MYSTICS NON-ORDINARY?

I’d like to see more, in ep 16&26, prescription: STATE YOUR POSITION ON.

1:17:30 Freewill Protective Fog of Quantum Multiworlds Magic Steering Power to Create the Experienced Future While Moving Through Time in to the Experientially Open Non-Existent Multi-Quantum Future – Quantum Egoic Thinking, Steering with Power in the Multipossibilities Tree [copied to episode 26 Commentary]

Is Kafei merely defining, or Asserting Possibilism Here?

Kafei said here he had previously an idea like branching worlds worldlines:
1:16:54 the impression of causal determinism
(todo: transcribe)

1:17:30 ep 26 Everything’s fixed in time

Is this freewill thinking sneaking back in through the multiworlds worldmodel?

I am King Steersman Among the Multiworlds!

I Control the Future Worldlines Timelines Master of Reality Future

/ end of sections to copy to 26

Letcher-Hatsis Not Stating Their Position on Distinct Questions

This goes for letcher-hatsis too, but Hatsis a different scope.

Letcher = Amanita. Hatsis = entheogens w/ mushrooms covered-over, removed, suppressed.

Letcher’s book = Amanita scope – Definitive of Pop Field Scope , while Hatsis is broader scope. It is asymmetrical to say “Letcher-Hatsis”.

Letcher = Amanita.

Letcher’s book’s scope is specific, limited to:

  • Allegro-Amanita Pop Spir’y
  • anti mushrooms in Christian religion history
  • pro contemp mushrooms.
  • Doesn’t cover entheogen scholarship broadly. Limited to Amanita, limited to Pop Cult/ Low Esotericism/ surface form, no cognitive phen’y oops detail

Hatsis’ scope:

  • anti mushrooms in Greek & Christian religion history
  • the maximal-minus entheogen theory of religion, A WEIRDLY UNBALANCED VERSION OF THE MODERATE ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION:
    • “SELLING” SCOPOL,
    • DENYING WHAT I JUST SOLIDLY PROVED, AND 70-FOLD (Psilocybe mushrooms used for religionus exp’g positively identified as such). What type of art-evidence do u want, see my GALLERIES OF TYPES OF ART EVIDENCE FOR psilocybin mushrooms in Greek & Christian ART.
      MUSHROOMS IN GREEK PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS PMGCA. PMGCA psilocybin mushrooms in psilocybin mushrooms in Greek and Christian history
  • He’s little-read on Greek incl entheogen history entheogen scholarship;
    He’s a real newbie to this field of mushrooms in Greek history, he comes stumbling up the entryway to grade school, on this topic.

Transcribe

todo: transcribe all Transcendent Knowledge podcast episosds, coffeetable book companion to printouts

I want full transcription of all Transcendent Knowledge podcast episodes. Like the Egodeath Yahoo Group, solid gold.

Try to find junk passages in Transcendent Knowledge podcast episodes:

The staple must be perfectly vertical. ppl assume it was machine-stapled.

List of Junk Passages in Transcendent Knowledge Podcast:

Talk about Hypatia’s Ideas, Everyone; Leave So-Predictable Low, Reductionist, Materialist Esotericism, Switch to High Esotericism, Cog Phen’y

  • HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF LOW ESOTERICISM, SURFACE FORM, LOSING SIGHT OF HIGHER MEANING – actually a substantive Cringe Moment, it truly is a bad thing to do: everyone does this, but Kafei wins the laurel wreath crown of victory, outdoing them all.

Everyone, please: stop reducing Hypatia to the physical tale.

Just like everyone else, so predictably, Kafei goes on and ON about nothing but the physical.

His treatment – or ignoring of her ideas – it’s as predictable as 1998-2009 books by the Allegro-Acharya-Arthur-Ruck — sterling med’y.

There’s Nothing Wrong with Pop Sike Scholarship Except Oops Left Out all the the Cognitive Phenomenology, pidin pidgen pigin Mythemese a stundted grunting-based, physically reductionist telling of what esotericism is about:

STAND BACK EVERYONE I’M GOING TO REVEAL THE FEARSOME AWESOME TREMBLING REVELATION:

🤯AMANI🍄A⛈MU⚡️HR🍄🍄M⚡️😱😵😴

The problem with Pop Sike Amanita Santa esotericism is not that this pop scholarship is factually incorrect about history; more importantly, the problem is that this approach is physicalistic, reductionist.

The lack of cognitive phenomenology description is a fatal gap in the pop sike scholarship approach and the pop rebuttals at that same vulgar level of the non-initiates, misses the target, remains in sin, childhood-mode thinking.

The first order of business of low esotericism.

The first order of business of high esotericism.

AMANITA PSEUDO-ESOTERICISM PRESERVES EGOIC THINKING

NOT THAT THEY ARE WRONG; I could GAF about whether Santa is Amanita <shrug>

Go Santa Amanita!

I’m on Team Traditional Secret Amanita Shaman Cult of Santa Worship.

THE ALLEGRO-AMANITA-LOWESO’M-SURFACEFORM TEAM ALLEGRO INCLUDING EVERYONE WHO CENTERS THEIR THINKING ON THE PHYSICAL NON-COGNITIVE REALM.

IT’S ESOTERICTERICISM MINUS THE COGNTIVIE PHYEN. BUY $20 BOOKS OF STERLING MEDIOCRITY BRILLANT SHALLOWNESS FLATLAND DOES MYTHEMELAND; MYTHEMELAND REDUCED TO THE PHYSICAL NON-COGNITIVE REALM, LIKE TRPPING BUT W/O THE COGNITIVE PHEN’Y ASPECTS OF LOOSE COGNITION.

the loose cognitive state

What are Hypatia’s allegedly good ideas?

So predictably, just like everyone else, the only thing Kafei has to say about her is death.

Definitely SKIP THAT SECTION of this Transcendent Knowledge podcast.

Are there any other podcast episode sections you should skip? No. It’s just so predicable that on any show, when Hypatia is mentioned, it’s always

skip Good Friday (not serious) – every damn book pads a chapter with yet another recounting of good friday experiment, add it to the OVER-COVERED LIST:

Over-Covering X in Entheogen Scholarship Means Under-Covering X’, or Covering-Over X’

Good Friday Experiment 😴 😴 god here we go again, padding, filler, fluff, SKIP

SKIP ALL AMANITA ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP (except for my own breakthroughs, needless to say, in this “centrally” important topic)
Must move the center — *not* widen the center of focus, *move* the center of focus, FROM amanita, TO psilocybe.

ANY COVERAGE OF AMANITA MUST BE FRAMED AS “CIRCUS SIDE-SHOW” not as the central supporting beam of “the sacred mushroom theory” <– what an obnoxious label the anti-amanita Christian history crowd attach to the position. Where do they pick up this weird phrase? Didn’t they invent it themselves?

Letcher: “We couldn’t find a weak enough theory for us to be able to critique, so we had to concoct and patch together the worst, particular instance we could synthesize & artificially fabricate, and promote, and then heroically shoot it down. It was hard work. d/k why the prize is made of straw”

Over-Covered Topics in Entheogen Scholarship
  • Eleusis
  • Plaincourault <– officially OVERCOVERED to cover-over
  • Amanita
  • in Christianity
  • Surface Form – mushroom’s shape = constellation, 8th grade science lab depiction of esotericism
  • Low Esotericism, 3rd grade level, sterling brilliant scholarship of the first order, presenting Mythemese – at a 3rd-grade level. And I’m not talking the advanced prep-level of 3rd-grade class. Not naming names; I’ll just call him Mr. Secret.

I need [acro]/keyboard shortcuts for the two positions: pop sike shallow amanita, high esoteric/ actual esoteric – psilocybin mushrooms, in Greek and Christian history

article title:

Move from “Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism” to “Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism”

Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism
Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism

Main Article Sections Sequence: Metaphor; Dissociation; Determinism; Cybernetics

Now I See How Main Article 4 Sections are: Metaphor; Dissociation; Block universe; Cybernetics

Non-obviously, the first of the 4 sections, titled “The Entheogen Theory of Religion” in fact covers Metaphor. Evidence: that section:

  • Introduces metaphor
  • Asserts Ahistoricity.
  • Notes Rock lyrics as analogical psychedelic eternalism.
  • Covers entheogen history.

Sections 2-4 are explicitly titled:

The Four Top-level Section Headings Mapped to the Puzzle Piece Labels

  1. Not obvious: the first section could be titled “Metaphor” – it’s labelled “the maximal entheogen theory of religion” — implying that the title of entire article, matches to puzzle piece label “Metaphor“. I titled the article specifically for an entheogen magazine.
  2. Obvious: the 2nd section is literally titled “Dissociative” like the puzzle piece “Dissociation“.
  3. Not obvious: the 3rd section is titled “block universe”, but the puzzle piece label is instead, “Determinism“.
  4. Not obvious: the 4th section is titled “self control”, but the puzzle piece label is instead, “Cybernetics“.

Why the Sequence Metaphor; Dissociation; Determinism; Cybernetics Makes Sense

“Metaphor” area of the theory is like a wrapper, API, the Communication layer of Cybernetics. There is strong logic to the above sequence.

  1. Metaphor – Teach the reader the language of Mythemese.
  2. Dissociation – How loosecog works.
  3. Determinism (Eternalism) – Initially, experience beginners’ nonduality: experience oneness with the banquet bench in Hades’ underworld kingdom, tied to the rock bench by serpents.
  4. Cybernetics – Discover the Attractor-Destructor-Transformer vortex climax potential; the Cybernetic revelation. Experience & realize non-duality specifically of the personal control system with the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

Article title:
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death
1st section title:
The Entheogen Theory of Religion (covers: theory of religious mythology; assertion/definition of Ahistoricity; assertion of Rock lyrics; entheogen history).
Therefore, the big section labelled The Entheogen Theory of Religion in fact, matches the Metaphor/Analogy puzzle-quadrant, and presents the 4 application-subtopics/instances of Metaphor: religious mythology (theory of; not examples of), ahistoricity, rock lyrics, entheogen history.

Curious, main article starts w/ Metaphor section/quadrant. Then Loose cognition , then block universe, then cybernetics. Article is for an entheogen magazine.

Article (1st quarter) doesn’t start w/ theory of Loose cognition; starts w/ explanation of religious myth (that religious mythology describes ENTHEOGENS (which lead to EXPERIENCES of block universe & control cancellation ), and simultaneously asserts applications: religious mythology, entheogen history, ahistoricity, rock lyrics (comics, movies, trading cards, novels, pulp Science Fiction, horror).

the egodeath theory as a 1-4 outline, #1-3 being the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence / core theory

  • the egodeath theory
    • dissociation (part of core theory/ Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; my Phase 1 work)
    • block universe ( ” )
    • control cancellation ( ” )
    • metaphor (aka, the big-scale “the Mytheme theory”; my Phase 2 work)

the egodeath theory as a 1-2-7 outline:

  • the cybernetic theory
    • dissociation
    • block universe (incl. no-free-will)
    • control cancellation
  • the mytheme theory. applications/subtopics:
    • religious mythology
    • ahistoricity
    • rock lyrics
    • entheogen history

Improved 4-Component Outline of the Egodeath Theory

  • the egodeath theory
    • dissociation; altered state; loose cognition
    • block-universe eternalism; pre-existence; timeless determinism; no-free-will; heimarmene; fatedness
    • controllership; control agency; control cancellation; non-control; cybernetics
    • analogy, metaphor, mytheme decoding (instances/applications: religious mythology, entheogen history, ahistoricity, Rock lyrics)

That is the structure from the 2006 main article, clarified by adding synonyms and adding subtopic lists.

This simple 4-area structure has [ “the mytheme theory has a subtopic/ application, religious mythology” ]

that 4-area structure avoids too-subtle “parent-vs.-main-child” distinction like “the big-scoped Mytheme theory includes the smaller-scoped Mytheme Decoding theory as the most important subtopic”; instead, the “most important subtopic” – mytheme decoding – *is* the mytheme theory, and then there are 3 explicit applications + 1 implicit applications: rock lyrics, entheogen history, ahistoricity; and of course religious mythology above all.

Don’t collapse-up the outline so far that “block universe” and “cybernetics” get lumped together into vague overburdened term/concept “eternalism”. It’s crucial to keep Cybernetics highlighted, spotlighted.

The stage has 4 spotlights. What characters to place in those 4 spotlights? allocate one of the 4 spotlights to Ahistoricity? not quite.

Allocate one of the 4 spotlights, or display cases, for rock lyrics?

Here’s a showroom for the egodeath theory, and there are only 4 display cases. How to label the 4 display cases … and how to group all topics within 4 top-level groups? Would 1 of those groups be “ahistoricity”? no, thats a scope/elve level error.

If you take all 100 topics of the egodeath theory and divide them into 4 groups,

  • loose cognition (dissociation, asc)
  • block-universe (no-free-will, timeless determinism, eternalism, pre-existence)
  • cybernetics, control cancellation
  • metaphor <- the mytheme theory, & 4 application topics (religious mythology, ahistoricity, entheogen history, rock lyrics)

dont’ try to merge cybernetics & block universe eg into vague overstretched bucket “Heimarmene, don’t forget Cybernetics” or “eternalism, defined to include control cancellation”. Stretches concept of ‘eternalism’ too far. Cybernetics, control cancellation, the self-control seizure, self-control climax, must be tr… RQUIRE REQUIRES SPECIAL, MAJOR TREATMENT/PRESSENTATION. Cannot fold Cybernetics into Eternalism or into Heimarmene. THE AREA OF CYBERNETICS MUST BE EXPLICITLY PUT TO THE FOREGROUND. SAME W/ DISSOCIATION/ SAME W/ BLOCK UNIVERSE, SAME W/ METAPH.

compared to 1-2-8 outline:

no confusing “big scope the mytheme theory ” and also “small scoped mytheme decoding theory” contained within the big-scoped “the mytheme theory”. bad: “the mytheme theory contains 4 topics, the most important topic being the mytheme decoding theory. <– AWK dup’n confusing.

Instead, make the “broad” and “small” scoped the mytheme theory the same identical thing, but have / allows 4 subtopics/applications: rock lyrics, ahistoricity, religious mythology, entheogen history). under a top-level umbrella of “the Metaphor/ Mytheme theory”.

no mid-level the cybernetic theory or the mytheme theory ,

the cybernetic theory is items 1-3. the mytheme theory is item 4. the cybernetic theory = analogical psychedelic eternalism . <– tries to make “eternalism” cover both Heimarmene & Cybernetics.

in the 4-area outline, areas 1-3 = the cybernetic theory = dissociation + eternalism -> eternalism = block universe + control cancellation.

It would be more sure-footed to break out the 3 aspects of the cybernetic theory clearly, not lump two of them togethe into OVERBURDENED TERM ‘ETERNALISM’ trying to cover block universe & controllership.

Poor:

eternalism (covers block universe & controllerhip) — need to pull forward “block universe” & controllership.

Good:

the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence = dissociation, block universe, & cybernetics

the egodeath theory = the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence + the mytheme theory

= (dissociation, block universe, & cybernetics) + the mytheme theory

Heading

Section below this one, leaves question, is entheogen history a major area of the egodeath theory? no. entheogen history — like ahisty an ahistoricity and rock lyrics, are lower level than Metaphor.

1-2-8 is:

  • the egodeath theory < keep
    • the cybernetic theory < decrease use of. = analogical psychedelic eternalism
      • loose cognition < promote
      • block universe < promote
      • no-free-will < merge into block universe
      • control cancellation < promote
    • the mytheme theory
      • mytheme decoding < promote/merge w/ parent
      • entheogen history < keep demoted
      • ahistoricity < keep demoted
      • rock lyrics < keep demoted

Structurally Demoting No-Free-Will, Ahistoricity, & Rock Lyrics 

I was about to demote no-free-will, rock lyrics, and ahistoricity, then I noticed podcasts praised those topics.  but Max said he shouldn’t have started with Kaf w/ topic of ahistoricity, but should’ve covered core topics instead.

When Max praises the egodeath theory for covering “no-free-will”, that implies no-free-will is a major area.  But if already is a major area labelled as “determinism”, can fold no-free-will into determinism. 

Now suppose instad of Determinism, label the area as “Eternalism” – 
Does No-Free-Will fit within a big, primary topic that’s labelled as Eternalism, as well as no-free-will fits into big topic called “Determinism”?

As important as no-free-will is, it’s even more important to elevate above everything, CONTROL, Cybernetics.  

As far as primary main structure goes (ignoring word-choice), 2006 article got it right: you can reduce the egodeath theory into 4 distinct areas: none of the 4 primary, major structural areas of the egodeath theory are scoped to “ahistoricity” or “rock lyrics”.  

A different case to consider is topic No-free-will: 3 is too many, in (block universe, no-free-will, control cancellation). 

Main article doesn’t use “no-free-will”, or ‘eternalism’; main article instead uses “determinism”, and that is covered in the block universe section. 

So in effect, no-free-will in the main article is in section Block Universe.  not in Cybernetics section much.  

Therefore: no-free-will (too controverted to be a good primary structure) can fold into block-universe eternalism, better than into control cancellation / controllership/ cybernetics.  

Questionable whether want to frame 25% of the egodeath theory as “no-free-will” – in contrast, it’s certain want to frame 25% of the egodeath theory as block-universe eternalism, and 25% as control cancellation / cybernetics.  

Given that no-free-will is folded into block-universe eternalism, we then have a 1-4 outline:

Four level-1 primary theme-areas:

  • the egodeath theory
    • dissociation; altered state; loose cognition
    • block-universe eternalism; pre-existence; timeless determinism; no-free-will; heimarmene; fatedness
    • controllership; control agency; control cancellation; non-control; cybernetics
    • analogy, metaphor, mytheme decoding (instances/applications: religious mythology, entheogen history, ahistoricity, Rock lyrics)

Interestingly, that back-implies that the Core Theory of Ego Transcendence (the cybernetic theory; core theory, the 1988 or 1997 cybernetic theory of ego transcendence) has 3 main areas/themes: , master themes/areas of concern:

  • loose cognition
  • block universe
  • cybernetics

Then the article planned 1988 because became the very compact theory-spec of 1997, and

the highly dense 2006 article, packed with as many gems as possible, adds the 4th master theme / area of concern: Metaphor.

The primary master-area Metaphor has applications/subtopics: religious mythology, ahistoricity, entheogen history, rock lyrics.

topic of Ahistoricity adds little, topic of rock lyrics adds little (as far as primary strcuture of the theory),

Entheogen History: strictly speaking (define what “entheogen history” should mean), there’s not much “entheogen history” in the 2006 main article, except that ironically, entheogens are so ubiquitous in religious history, that the presence of religion is the presence of entheogens; to explain religion is to explain stuff that happened throughout Christian history.

So, no distinct “field” of “entheogen history” is visible, in my “Entheogen Theory” article main part (parts 2, 3, & 4 of 4).

entheogen history – strictly speaking – is only in 1st quarter of main article.

  • No-Free-Will -> fold into Block Universe (Eternalism; Determinism)
  • Rock Lyrics -> fold into Metaphor (Analogy; Mythemes); Rock Lyrics is an instance or application of Analogy, not a primary subject on the level of Metaphor that’s different than Metaphor.
  • Ahistoricity -> fold into Metaphor (Analogy; Mythemes); Ahistoricity is an instance or application of Analogy, not a primary subject on the level of Metaphor that’s different than Metaphor.  not a top-4 major component-area of the Egodeath theory.

From the top level of the Theory breakout, I was about to jettison, hide, demote, footnotize, these 3 theory-domains, component-theories:
These are not weight-bearing structures; these are topical leaf-nodes. 

As important as they might be, they are not the primary superstructure.

Too many weight-bearing structures, redundant:

  • block universe
  • no-free-will 
  • noncontrol

That set of 3, should be 2.  I don’t see 3 distinct idea-areas in those 3 items.

Those 3 items are a spectrum, with no-free-will is glue in the middle that connects block universe to noncontrol:

block universe <–> no-free-will <–> non-control

what about putting non-control in middle?:

block universe <–> non-control <–> no-free-will

2006 puzzle diagram

  • Dissociation
  • Determinism – article only has ‘free will’ here, 2x. article has ‘determinism’ 22x.
  • Cybernetics 
  • Metaphor

Determinism  (no-free-will ; eternalism ) < observe how naturally determinism, no-free-will, & eternalism group together, semi-interchangably: determinism is directly swappable w/ eternalism, determinism is directly equiv to no-free-will, block-universe eternalism entails no-free-will.  

Such a powerful phrase as block-universe eternalism can cover/incorp subject of no-free-will, given that there’s an entire quadrant dedicated allocated to covering Controllership/ Cybernetics / Noncontrol/ the personal control system / control cancellation .  Agency.  Control Agency.  

ARGUMENT:

Block Universe is mandatory, major/main idea

Non-Control is mandatory.  major/main idea. controllership; cybernetics, self-ctrl seizure.  

 No-Free-Will — this does more to inherent a ton of debate, than shed light. 

no-free-will is too complicated and controverted and elaborated in endless fractal debates. 

Concept “no-free-will” reads more like a debate, than a structural backbone for a Theory.

NO-FREE-WILL can’t live up to the level-1 front-and-center placement as much as its 2 closest competitors: BLOCK UNIVERSE & NON-CONTROL. 

Suppose 3 is too many, and one should be absorbed into another. 

Possible absorptions:

  • no-free-will -> block universe – best fit
  • block universe > no-free-will  – no, must keep block universe at lev1
  • no-free-will > noncontrol – no, keep ctrl firmly the center of attention
  • block universe > no-free-will  – no, must keep block universe at lev1
  • non-control > block universe – no, must keep non-control at lev1
  • non-control > no-free-will  – no, must keep non-control at lev1

Soundtrack: Fresh MacArthur Sermon: The Day of the Lord

  • the great day of his wrath
  • cataclysmic judgment by God on sinners
  • the culmination of God’s fury & wrath; it is climactic.
  • the kind of things that catapult people into eternity
  • the great day of God almighty
  • the day of visitation
  • the fury of God released on those who reject his son
  • always, always, something to fear

Re-Centering the Field of Western Entheogen Scholarship

WHERE IS THE CENTER?

THE CENTER IS COMBINED: GREEK COMBINED WITH Christian, is the center. argue about scope all day.

The important battle is the battle to set the center of the field.

Team Allegro strives to establish Amanita Low Esotericism, Physical Form, at the center.

Team Egodeath strives to establish
Psilocybe,
High Esotericism,
Experiencing Loosecog Phenomy,

Team Amanita

anyone who strives to establish the following as the center of the field

Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism

Team Psilocybe

strives to establish the following as the center of the field

Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism


psilocybin mushrooms in Western religion
Western entheogen history

podcasts praised importantce of no-free-will. I was wanting to nuke it, as a weak link.

podcastts reported questioning of importantce of ahistoricity. I was wanting to nuke (fold-in, footnote-to-oblivion) Ahistoricity, from the 1-2-8 outline.

For historical dicsusion, I like Phase 1 vs Phase 2, where PHase 2 = metaphor.

But for the top-level structure/areas of the Egodeath theory — Metaphor is a single thing, not a container of 4 things; I like 2006 breakout: Metaphor is 1 topic, that enfolds Ahistoricity & Rock Lyrics, and the interpretive aspects of Entheogen History/ Entheogen Scholarship).

Cognitive Effects of Entheogen history go under “Dissociation”.

These areas so overlap and blur together in the Main Article, tho color highlighers could possibly separate the interwoven threads.

the Grea🍄 Mys🍄ics of Egodea🍄h

My Vocalizations as Reactions to Podcasts

Discuss analogical psychedelic eternalism.

Answer his question. Are you evading his question? Did you forget his question, or are you avoiding answering it because you don’t know what you’re asserting:

referring to something, in some way, through its mutually exclusive opposite

wut, explain what would that even mean. What are you asserting. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU’RE ASSERTING?? thought not. maybe in some way up is down. maybe anything. maybe OATMEAL definitely

OATMEAL IT SEEMS

I have an idea that’s socially inept, likely to fail, overzealous, overconfident, and inconsiderate.

Record my spoken critical commentary while I listen to Transcendent Knowledge podcast episode 16, 26; also 14, 25, chop-up my reaction vocalizations recordings, affix clips to episode commentary page.

Contradicted yourself.

You’re not answering his question.

Not following structured conversation.

Using that common word wrong.

Using that tech term wrong – you’re mixing up ‘timeline’ and ‘worldline’.

You’re misusing ‘worldline’; that’s the wrong word, you mean ‘timeline’.

State the difference between ‘worldline’ and ‘timeline’.

You’re reaching again to tie the conversation to high dose.

Connect the conversation to the Egodeath theory’s terminology and concepts.

Connect the conversation to the Egodeath theory.

Don’t center conversation around high d0se. Assume two states only: tightcog, and loosecog.

Center the conversation on the Egodeath theory core concepts.

Learn to define the Egodeath theory’s core concepts consistently and correctly.

You contradicted yourself.

You didn’t resolve your pseudo-criticisim, your strawman misrepresentation of the egodeath theory freely conflating the egodeath theory with Ramesh.

todo 4 u: State the difference between Ramesh and the Egodeath theory. Kafei would be well-situated to do this accurately.

Max is trying to this in audio conversation format. How much text-based discusscion did Max & Kafei have, on these topics?

I mean: I’m workingi in the text format here. Audio conveo diff stds. We have here, via my Commentary page format, we hae a certain combination of text and audio convo.

Two of the Grea🍄 Mys🍄ics of Egodea🍄h interacting over years in various forums, and in text and broadcast streams and audio recorded convo.

wut (I Always Contradict Myself)

todo: find Kafei’s original statement (definitions of the 2 opposed positions) that Max is summarizing. They mention Kafei at start of this ep 26, that he was on another show, Kafei was talking about block universe. I haven’t heard that show.

Kafei’s Statement 1 (11:15)

Commentary on Episode 26 (2020-12-06) Kafei (appearance 4), Max Freakout, Cyberdisciple

Max: “I won’t use the term ‘hard determinism’; I will stick to the terms:

“causal-chain determinism” vs

“block-universe determinism, aka eternalism“.”

“A good distinction between them was contained in what you just said, I’ll extract it:

  • “In causal-chain determinism, you have a process of causation occurring in time, you used ‘unfolding’, that’s causal-chain determinism.”
  • “Contrast that with block-universe determinism/ eternalism: in that model of determinism, there’s no causation in time occurring, because all of the causation has already happened, everything has already unfolded, so you’ve got the full chain from the beginning to the end of time, or you could look at it as [length of your life] all existing at once, all in one go. So there’s no unfolding, there’s only something that has already eternally unfolded.”

Kafei: “Yeah, that [pair of contrasting position-definitions] definitely pretty much echoes what I said.”

Max’s Transitional Statement: Sometimes You Say A, Sometimes A’ (13:07)

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#13-07 –

Max : “A point of confusion that happened in our last conversation is that when you were reflecting your understanding of the Egodeath theory, sometimes you seemed to be attributing causal-chain determinism to mh’s view/ mh’s theory, but other times you seemed to say that mh is expressing the other kind of determinism; block-universe eternalist model of time.”

Kafei proceeds to do exactly that waffling and self-contradiction, next, but at the same time, together in a single phrase, without making any attempt to resolve or clarify his frank, outright, point blank self-contradiction.

Kafei makes a nice attempt at eloquently defining (again) the block-universe eternalism position; but he makes no effort to explain what he means by “maybe MH was referring to causal determinism in some way, through the block universe“.

What could that mean? Describing experiencing the block universe (for the 2nd time) is not a clarification of what this seemingly nonsensical phrase could possibly mean, “referring to causal determinism in some way, through the block universe“.

Kafei’s Statement 2 (13:47)

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Peak-Confusion –

YouTube timestamp-URL:
13:47 = 13*60 + 47 = 827
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ-xfMkHyuQ&t=827s

Kafei: “I well the reason that you said, you mentioned, ’cause you said that uh, you mentioned that Ramesh and Michael Hoffman are concluding the same exact point, so I kind of, you know, figured that maybe, you know, Michael was referring to, uh uh, causal determinism in some way, through the block universe, but you know that yes, everything’s determined, we have, you know, in the psychedelic experience itself, you don’t, you know, the mystic no longer identifies with the material body, because they see themselves as all events, occurring, you know, all time past and future collapsed into the moment, and so, you know, they have no identific…”

Max: “So which, which model of determinism would that be then, that, what you’ve just explained?”

He never answers Max’s question. How can Kafei agree that Kafei defined two opposed positions, and then go on to say, without any clarification, that “maybe” the Egodeath theory holds one of his positions, “in some way, through” holding the opposite one of his positions?

HOW DOES THAT WORK AT 13:47, GIVEN THAT HE AGREED at 11:15 THAT THEY ARE TWO OPPOSED, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE POSITIONS?

DOES HE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ON THIS, EXCEPT TO AVOID ANSWERING THE QUESTION, AND INSTEAD GO ON TO MERELY REPEAT DESCRIBING EXPERIENCING THE BLOCK-UNIVERSE POSITION, WHICH WAS ALREADY DESCRIBED AND DEFINED AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AT 11:15, TWO MINUTES EARLIER?

After Max’s question, here’s Kafei’s non-answer, which is merely a description of the block-universe eternalism position, with no explanation of how the Egodeath theory could “in some way refer to” domino-chain determinism “through” block-universe eternalism:

14:33 Kafei: “I consider it, like the way I was sort of thinking about it is like a direct experience of the block universe, or the mind fuses with the block universe, like it becomes all, it becomes the block, and so there is no time to unfold because you know, everything is occurring at once, simultaneously, but that’s the vision inside the experience, but when you come- when you return to the baseline of consciousness, you return to space and time, the egoic illusion, but nevertheless you still have in your memory banks the vision of where, where that ego death happened, where you know, there was no longer an ego, but there was still awareness there, and it’s that awareness that you could recall from your memory banks, …”

As eloquent as the above is, in terms of logical conversational or argumentation structure, the above “response” to Max’s question is nothing but repeating the position definition Max said at 11:15, which Kafei agreed with, to define the position of “block universe determinism”:

To repeat: Two minutes earlier, at 11:15, Max said:
“Contrast that with block-universe determinism/ eternalism: in that model of determinism, there’s no causation in time occurring, because all of the causation has already happened, everything has already unfolded, so you’ve got the full chain from the beginning to the end of time, or you could look at it as [length of your life] all existing at once, all in one go. So there’s no unfolding, there’s only something that has already eternally unfolded.”
Kafei: “Yeah, that [pair of definitions] definitely pretty much echoes what I said.”

Kafei LEAVES US WITH NOTHING BUT A SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT, OR MUDDLED INSINUATION ABOUT THE EGODEATH THEORY’S SUPPOSED POSITION.
Kafei: “I kind of figured that maybe Michael was referring to causal determinism in some way, through the block universe”.
Max: “So which position did you just define?”
Kafei: “I think of experiencing the block universe as follows….”

Kafei didn’t answer the question.

Which of his two positions does he think the Egodeath theory holds?

He agreed that the two defined positions are mutually exclusive. Therefore it should be a simple, A vs. B question: Which position does Kafei think the Egodeath theory holds?

A. domino-chain determinism (causal-chain determinism ; unfolding-in-time determinism)

B. block-universe eternalism

Which position does the Egodeath theory hold: A, or B?

IT’S NOT A HARD QUESTION, unless Kafei is asserting that the Egodeath theory has a half-baked, hybrid, tangled view like maybe Ramesh’s OSC-based conception of no-free-will:

C. referring to domino-chain determinism “in some way, through” block-universe eternalism.

Ok, but how could that Position C work? What position can that be? He agreed that domino-chain determinism and block-universe eternalism are opposite positions.

Kafei never said at 11:15 that there’s a 3rd option that combines the two mutually exclusive positions he defined. Is he now stating that there’s a third, hybrid position, which therefore demands some kind of description/definition?

Is he going to formally introduce such a third position (C), or just allude to such a position but wax eloquent re-describing position B instead? He does the latter.

Why the evasiveness? Is he unable to answer a basic question?

Has he no idea what the Egodeath theory asserts, so he invents, on the spot, some UNDEFINED combination of the two, defined, positions?

“in some way” <– what the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds like meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish to me, until he defines what he could possibly mean by “in some way”. In what way?

A circle is, in some way, a square.
Up is, in some way, down.
A is, in some way, A’.
Ok, now he has to articulate, define, what he’s asserting.

“in some way” = WAVE ARMS VIGOROUSLY

Is Kafei asserting that Ramesh refers to domino-chain determinism through block-universe eternalism? That Ramesh is half-baked in that way?

Term ‘Causal Chain Determinism‘ BTFO’d

The phrease “causal chain” is hopelessly ambigious: do you mean “horizontal” (domino-=chain) causal chain, or do you mean a “vertical”, possibly holistic timeless vertical causal chain like this image?

Book Wilber criticized, The Great Chain of Being (I have it, don’t feel I read it.) The “great chain of being” is a master-concept for a school / version of Esotericism. https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22great+chain+of+being%22 – wiki –

“Adaptations and similar concepts – The American philosopher Ken Wilber described a “Great Nest of Being” which he claims to belong to a culture-independent “perennial philosophy” traceable across 3000 years of mystical and esoteric writings.

“Wilber’s system corresponds with other concepts of transpersonal psychology.[23]

“In his 1977 book A Guide for the Perplexed, the economist E. F. Schumacher described a hierarchy of beings, with humans at the top able mindfully to perceive the “eternal now“.[24]”

from 2006 main article, which purports to be
a theory of religion
an entheogen theory of religion
an entheogen theory of ego death
not a theory of religious mythology
not a theory of mytheme decoding

Limbo is the experience of how personal control-power is impotent in the face of cosmic determinism and fatedness.

The hidden transcendent thought-source has been depicted as a hand behind a cloud controlling the world-soul, whose spirit transcends material Necessity. The world-soul, in turn, wields a chain that controls creatures, who are subject to Fate.

It was left to me to somehow do what the Great Mystics were never able to accomplish: comprehensibly articulate Transcendent Knowledge.

Glad to see wrmspirit write:

>  not separating the mystics from the Egodeath Theory

>  that would be placing mystics into the same superior category and position that Kafei places them.

Let’s set up a higher, superior elite exclusive club, letting us (alone), stand in judgment in superiority over every other school: the Great Mystics of Egodeath are greater than the Great Mystics, an elite group which Kafei strives to raise up over everyone, and then, himself jump up into that group he’s constructed (jump up through his superior approach, which he assumes & imagines (with no evidence, among all his libraries of quotations, desperately searched) that they share with him his “high-d0se, high-ego” approach, aka The Absolute Overdose 😵 ).

(I somewhere essentially define ‘high-ego’ as used here; I battle against that bad Pop Theory, but the combined phrase is too good an epithet to pass by, here.)

The Egodeath theory is all about articulately explaining what mystics vaguely write about.

A low blow was Kafei placing Maria Sabina’s writings above mine (which he can hardly be bothered to read).

A Special Class of Mystics, Who Blend the Two States into One? Or Just, Anyone who so Tries?
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/14/ideas-for-podcast-topics/#Special-Class-of-Mystics

The writings of mystics aren’t much worth engaging with directly.  

The entire Egodeath theory is a rebuttal to mystics and a correction and clarification of what mystics are ineffectually writing about.  

Maybe 2000, I wrote about the perfect example of bad, UNHELPFUL writing of mystics – Bernadette Roberts.

The Path to No-Self: Life at the Center
by Bernadette Roberts  | Oct 18, 1991I have & read this.  Not worth commenting on.  Did I post a negative review?

The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey, Revised Edition
by Bernadette Roberts  | Mar 26, 1993
I have & read this.

What Is Self?: A Study of the Spiritual Journey in Terms of Consciousness
by Bernadette Roberts  | Jan 31, 2014
Supposedly new (ie, 7 yrs ago), I guess I haven’t read, tho sounds very familiar – maybe I did note her new book in 2014, if I can straighten out my sense of time-periods.  Found it! in < 60 seconds!  I posted a link to her new book on Jan. 11, 2015:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-131/#message6738
– brief but pointed, relevant commentary

Kafei wants the Egodeath theory to directly comment on mystics’ writings.

My critiques of Watts and Wilber should sufficiently cover mystics’ writings by extension, by replying to the superset that is Wilber’s Integral Theory.

That was my father’s professional recommendation to me: to learn the entire broad field (psychology, Human Potential, Transpersonal Psychology, self-transcendence), only requires engaging Wilber’s books + The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

If you want me to directly comment on mystics’ writings, look for my comments about Wilber & Watts, effectively a superset of mystics’ writings.

THE EGODEATH THEORY STANDS OVER THE WRITINGS OF THE GREAT MYSTICS – NOT VICE VERSA.  
THE EGODEATH THEORY EXPLAINS MYSTICS, NOT VICE-VERSA.
THE EGODEATH THEORY SUCCEEDS, WHERE THE GREAT MYSTICS FAILED.

That’s the whole motivation for bothering to create the Theory of Ego Transcendence in the first place — that in 1985-1988, no one was delivering the helpful, relevant explanation that is needed by everyone.  Not Wilber, not Watts, not anyone, not the Great Mystics.

If the Great Mystics had written adequately, I wouldn’t have had to figure out the effective explanation, myself, by correcting Wilber & Watts.

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#Already-Achieved-What-Mystery-Religions-Couldnt

It was left to me to somehow do what the Great Mystics were never able to accomplish: comprehensibly articulate Transcendent Knowledge.

— Cybermonk

Why Switched from CybTrans to Egodeath Domain & Site Title Heading, thus Theory-Name

Cybtrans.com (1997)

CybTrans.com, Feb. 14, 1997:
Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics
https://web.archive.org/web/19970214094018/http://www.cybtrans.com/philosph/postings.htm
This Nav Page is a mini version of the 2007 Egodeath.com site.

At wayback machine, see ~1997 Cybtrans.com for end-of-Phase 1 snapshot (including rock lyrics), before the Egodeath.com site was “contaminated” by Phase 2 content: ahistoricity, entheogen history, & mytheme decoding (religious mythology).

Where the “Egodeath” Branding Came from ie Why Chosen

1:44:00 episode 4 Transcendent Knowledge podcast

My domain name around 1997 was cybtrans.com, the theory name was:

“the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence”

1988: “the theory of ego transcendence”

“cybtrans” was poor domain name. Needed punchy domain name. Realized — against others’ advice — that “egodeath” as domain name and theory name, is extreme punchy. I’m all about staking claim to the most extreme endpoint.

False Rarity of Variants of Entheogens

Transcendent Knowledge podcast episode 4, 1:29:30 — Ball uses strategy of glorifying 5MEO-, diminishing NN-.

I note: same thing was done with L25:

Some old-timers loved to scorched-earth discredit everyone, all users after them, by saying the original L25 is the only actual, legit batch.

All later batches were flawed, corrupted, lesser, not real, and not actual L25.

They take it to the absolute extreme:

“The batch we used was actual. Later, doesn’t count at all, and was completely not real. Later people have not experienced L25. They completely lack L25 experience. What they have is completely false, unreal, and doesn’t count at all.”

When Announced the Broad Mytheme Theory and Its 4 Component-Theories Especially Mytheme Decoding

What if I had titled the 2006 main article:

The Entheogen Theory of Religious Mythology and Ego Death
or
The Entheogen Theory of Religious Mythemes and Ego Death
instead of
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death

That would’ve better delivered my [theory of mytheme decoding] as such.

The article strongly emphasizes “Metaphor”.

This theory of religion/ego death, is that religion & ego death are expressed as Metaphor that describes Dissociation, Determinism, & Cybernetics.

The article’s “entheogen theory of religion” and the article’s “theory of ego death” do emphaize this “new quadrant” – “Metaphor”, new compared to the 1997 core Cybernetic theory article, which only covered the other 3 quadrants, “Determinism, Dissociation, Cybernetics”.

The “new puzzle quadrant” that this article adds, this “entheogen / religion” article, is called “Metaphor”.

That puzzle piece represents my announcement of my theory of mytheme decoding.

Different ways of looking at “announcement of a theory” (or a theory-set, or a component-theory).

in effect, amounts to announcing my whole entire systemic demonstration of my new theory, of mytheme decoding. which is the main part of my broad Phase 2 theory, the Mytheme theory (incl: mytheme decoding, entheogen history, ahistoricity, rock lyrics).

Note: “entheogen history” or “entheogen scholarship” has distinct aspects, overlapping w/ loose cognition portion of the cybernetic theory:

  • entheogens functioning (= loose cognition), vs.
  • entheogen history (spot-the-mushroom game), vs.
  • entheogens connected to the other 3 parts of the core, Cybernetic theory: [
    • the block universe,
    • no-free-will,
    • control cancellation].

1. (1992, 1997) Timeline & Forms of Announcing My Theory of Rock Lyrics

Did the work around 1992.

Probably appears at 1997 v1 of egodeath.com before that domain name.

The Egodeath Yahoo Group posts about indiv songs —

Did I “announce my theory of how to decode lyrics” — YES, at Egodeath.com pages about lyrics, not about particular songs: look at my section title, “THEORY OF” — Good title:

Theory of Mystic-State Allusions in Rock Lyrics

some of this content, which I’m seeing as “announcement of my theory of decoding rock lyrics in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism“) is likely to be postings that were copied from the Egodeath Yahoo Group, June 10, 2001-Feb 14 2004

Loftiness of Rock: The Authentic Popular Mystery-Religion of the Late 20th Century

Why Heavy Rock

Mystic Allusions

Encoding/Decoding of Mystic-State Themes in Rock Lyrics

Lyrical Techniques Conveying Mystic-State Phenomena

Books about rock lyrics

2. (2000, 2006) Timeline & Forms of Announcing My Theory of Ahistoricity

JesusMysteries Yahoo Group 1999-2000

GnosticSomething ” for the egodeath theory discussion prior to creating the Egodeath Yahoo Group. eg no-free-will debates re: gnosticism.

egodeath.com site through 2007, lots of ahistoricity r&d leading-edge research, then led to Chron Revision. I collaborated with JesusMysteries group contributors, these pages serve as “announcement of my theory of ahistoricity in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism“, might include Egodeath Yahoo Group postings June 10 2001-Feb 14 2004.

3. (2002, 2003) Timeline & Forms of Announcing My Theory of Entheogen History

6-page 2002 then 14-page 2003 posting announcing the maximal entheogen theory of religion, the Egodeath Yahoo Group. Relatively clear-cut example of announcing a component-theory portion of the Mytheme theory portion of the Egodeath theory. = “announcement of my theory of entheogen history in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism“.

4. (2003, 2006) Timeline & Forms of Announcing My Theory of Mytheme Decoding

This is my main question, of the four (of when I announced the 4 component-theories of the broad Mytheme theory: rock lyrics, ahistoricity, entheogen history, mytheme decoding).

What’s the story of my “announcement of my theory of mytheme decoding in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism“?

Short answer: the 2006 main article = that. The 2006 main article amounts to announcemnt of the entire Egodeath theory now including expanded, true desired version of my 1997 aritilce, BUT, plus (not envisioned in 1988 or 1997 when struggling to write good article), the entire broad Mytheme theory including its 4 component-theories : ahistoricity a little, rock lyrics a little, entheogen history a moderate amount, and mytheme decoding a lot. Very intersessting perspective.

Takeaway: Although the 2006 main article is advertised as mainly adding entheogen history or entheogen theory of technical operation, to the 1997 core Cybernetic theory (= loose cognition, the block universe, no-free-will, control cancellation), in actuality, the 2006 main article even more than adding entheogens to the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence, above all else, adds mytheme decoding to the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence. If 1997 is delivery vehicle for the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence, 2006 article is, above all, a delivery vehicle for my theory of mytheme decoding, even more than to deliver the maximal entheogen theory of religion. (debatable; 2006 leverages the mature the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence to deliver my theory of mytheme decoding, and also to deliver my the maximal entheogen theory of religion). I’ts all so integrated, can hardly separate them out:

  • the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence (loose cognition, the block universe, no-free-will, control cancellation) – announced 1997 (Cybernetics site)
  • the maximal entheogen theory of religion – announced 2002 & 2003 (6- & 14-page postings)
  • the theory of mytheme decoding – fully announced & demonstrated via 2006 main article (aside from piecemeal top-10 decoding of individual mythemes <– as far as I presently can tell). As a visible whole theory, of mytheme decoding, I doubt — not sure – that there’s a posting in the Egodeath Yahoo Group , that serves to announce a whole systemtic approach to reading mythemes. Only piecemeal. Certainly, the 2006 main article, you can clearly see, perceive, and extract, a theory of mytheme decoding — even if the phrase “theory of mytheme decoding” doesn’t appear.
    • I especially feel the word “theory” of mytheme decoding is warranted since my recent late 2020 analysis of multi-way multi-mapping of a mytheme, to “fully” decode it – to the point of wondering lately, “can a mytheme ever be “fully” decoded?” 🤔
    • Famous last words, “I’ve fully decoded/ analogy-mapped, {caduceus}. Next statement will be: “Doh! I overlooked this totally obvious analogy-point!”

“My success at decoding this mytheme further, proves beyond any doubt that I’m a total idiot, for not immediately seeing the screamingly obvious analogy.”

2006 main article: how much did it cover the 1-2-8 outline’s component-theories?

1-2-8 outline of the egodeath theory: and how much (10 = lots) the 2006 main article announces each component-theory of the egodeath theory:

My 2006 main article is *NOT* presented as a general announcement of a 1-2-8 set of theories as such; the article is a popular article for a Salvia magazine.

The title of the article reads as an announcement of literally an “entheogen theory of religion”, not of a mytheme decoding theory.

Nor is the 2006 article framed as an announcement or expanded writeup of the 1997 Cybernetic theory of Ego Transcendence announcement-outline.

My 2006 main article CAN BE SEEN AS A FOLLOWUP TO THE 6-PAGE AND 14-PAGE 2002 & 2003 POSTINGS ANNOUNCING the maximal entheogen theory of religion.

title of article:
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death
(not the Cybernetic theory, not the Mytheme theory, not framed as a presentation announce of my mytheme decoding theory – though the article really is that). You could say, during 1999-June 2003, and during July 2003-Dec 2006, I was piecemeal developing my toeyr of theory of mytheme decoding , and that I officially announced my theory of mytheme decoding in the form of the 2006 main article, which is titled to focus on my (maximal) entheogen theory of religion. Salvia Div Mag is not about mytheme decoding; it’s about entheogens. THIS ARTICLE SOMEWHAT SERVES TO ANNOUNCE THE CYBERNETIC THEORY (BUT THAT WAS DONE 1997 IN PURE FORM), THE ARITCLE IS FRAMED MAINLY AS ANNOUNCING THE (MAXIMAAL) THE MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION, BUT SECONDARILY, SECOND OF ALL, SERVES TO ANNOUNCE AND PROVE AND DEMONSTRATE — IN FULL, SYSTEMICALLY, NOT JUST FOR A SINGLE TOP-10 MYTHEME — MY THEORY, AS SUCH(?), OF MYTHEME DECODING.

Purpose & Function of the 2006 Main Article

  1. Announce the maximal entheogen theory of religion. Stake claim to that.
  2. Announce my theory of mytheme decoding. Stake claim to that; use that success to spoort support my the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
  3. Reinforce the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence announcement of 1997.
  4. Tie-in strong but brief, my Ahistoricity theory, my ROCK LYRICS theory, and my

Consider this exaggerated ratings:

Curious notes:

  • the article actually has very little Ruck-style “spot-the-mushroom”; it has theory of loosecog, but “proof of enth history” aka “spot the mushroom” is dispatched briefly/quickly.
  • attention to broad-scoped top-level theories is purely implicit. all focus is on 6 of the 8 topical component-theories. (loose cognition, no-free-will, control cancellation, block universe; mytheme decoding, entheogen theory) (not much ahistoricity, rock lyrics. ) moderate amount of “spot the mushroom” eg Mithras’ leg, stained-glass window.
  • Fully presents / demonstrates mytheme decoding theory. probably doesn’t present that as a theory-announcement; that wouldn’t fit well w/ this entheogen magazine context.
  • Presents the maximal entheogen theory of religion (per article title), but not too much “spot the mushroom”,
  • Heavily presents the component-theories of the cybernetic theory, very integrated with mytheme decoding & the technical aspects of the (maximal) entheogen theory of religion – not too much the overly common “spot the mushroom” approach, just enough to show “I can surpass conventional entheogen scholars at this gradeschool-game.”
  • the article really does function as detailing teh 1997 article – but, it doesn’t explicitly state that it’s presenting an elaborated form of the 1997 core-theory aritcle.

Flagship Articles Often Formed By a Periodical as Format Venue

How many of my flagship articles were invited by someone, inspiring me? Many.

  • Bubble – my own iniative, for a zine.
  • Criteria article – suggested by Brown, not for a periodical.
  • Proof article – offshoot of above
  • Plainc article – suggested by Robert Price for Journal of Higher Critm
  • 2006 main article – suggested by eidtor of Salvia D magazine. I conjoined that with my since-1988 effort to write up an article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology — now, having done the 1997 spec-article of the cybernetic theory, and having confirmed my 2003 the maximal entheogen theory of religion and confirmed that mytheme decoding works for all myth, (eg 2002-2006), BY ADDING-IN MY MYTHEME DECODING AND THE MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION BOTH FROM 2002-2006, PLUS 1997 CORE THEORY ARTICLE, AND INVITATION FROM MAG EDITOR, I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO ARTICLEIZE MY JAN 1988 BREAKTHROUGH, BY ADDING-IN MYTHEME DECODING AND THE MAXIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION by conjoining and leveraging both ways: make [loose cognition, no-free-will, the block universe, control cancellation] support [mytheme decoding & entheogens ], and conversely, use [mytheme decoding & entheogen history] to bolster & clarify & support my expression of [loose cognition, no-free-will, the block universe, control cancellation].
  • 2006 article uses the new, Mytheme theory (mostly just the mytheme decoding & entheogen history parts, not much the ahistoricity & rock lyrics parts (makes intensive compact forceful statements about ahistoricity & rock lyrics)), to support my writeup of the Cybernetic theory; and conversely, use the Cybernetic theory (all 4 parts) (loose cognition, the block universe, no-free-will, control cancellation) to vigorously support the Mytheme theory (here mostly limited to mytheme decoding & entheogen history). It’s more loose cognition than entheogen history. Of the 4 component-theories of the mytheme theory,
    • mytheme decoding – 10
    • entheogen history – 6 (article is more about loose cognition theory than “spot the mushroom”) (title of article is “the entheogen theory of religion“
    • ahistoricity – 2
    • rock lyrics – 1

Findings/observations:

Though the article is titled re: entheogen history, the article as far as announcing the the mytheme theory with its 4 component-theories, doesn’t really much announce the broad the mytheme theory, but heavily adds and presents & leverages mytheme decoding — without framing it as a distinct theory in and of itself.

The article makes intense statement about ahistoricity , but without any focus on that.

The article firmly locks-in rock lyrics, but w/ even less focus. So:

Good Analysis, Ratings Tell the Story: Main Finding

What the 2006 Main Article Adds Is the Theory of Mytheme Decoding, Even More than Adding Entheogen History & Functioning as the Title Advertises
Adds Mytheme Decoding as “Metaphor Explanation of Religion”, by Demonstration and Inter-Explanation with the Cybernetic Theory’s Component-Theories, not Presented as “Announcing the Theory of Mytheme Decoding”

There are precursor annnouncemnets of the broad the mytheme theory and the narrow mytheme decoding theory, in the form of..

  • the announcement-postings of the maximal entheogen theory of religion,
  • postings of lyrics commentaries, and
  • announcmenet-postings of decoding particular top-10 mythemes.

The best form I have, of announcing mytheme decoding theory, is the 2006 main article. Prior to that, is postings of decoding particular top-10 mythemes, which was hard-won piecemeal like solving a difficult-level jigsaw puzzle wher eit where it never “usdden suddenly all comes together”, but is hard-won each step of teh way. afaik, the … there MIGHT be postsings that grandely announce “Heree Is How to Decode Mythemes”. What I’m presently aware of, instead, is the 2006 main article, which I have just [12:41 a.m. January 15, 2021] shown, served, above all, add and integrate mytheme decoding , to my 1997 article.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1997 & 2006 ARTICLES IS, ADDED (INTENSIVE) MYTHEME DECODING. I COULDN’T HAVE EMPHASIZED MYTHEME DECODING MORE, EXCEPT TO ANNOUNCE A THEORY OF MYTHEME DECODING, AS A NAMED THEORY. in contrast, obv i could have emph’d rock lyrics vastly more, and ahistoricity vastly more. Moderately, I could’ve emph’d entheogen history somewhat more – spot-the-mushroom game. 2006 article really isn’t an entheogen scholarship article at all. The article does a spectacular job of entheogen scholarship (spot the mushroom) when it does, but, far more focused on explaining loosecog.

NOT AS MUCH ADDING ENTHEOGEN HISTORY, OR ROCK LYRICS, OR AHISTORICITY – ONLY THE MIAN MAIN PART OF THE MYTHEME THEORY , WHICH IS, MYTHEME DECODING THEORY. (THE NON-MAIN COMPONENT-THEORIES OF THE MYTHEME THEORY ARE: AHISTORICITY, ENTHEOGEN HISTORY, ROCK LYRICS).

Here’s what the article feels like, in coverage emphasis:

What I highlighted above, ~= the 4 puzzle quadrants, which are:
Dissociation = “Loose Cognition” & “Entheogen History”
Determinism = “The Block Universe” & “No-Free-Will”
Cybernetics = “Non-Control”
Metaphor = “Mytheme Decoding”. 1997 lacked.

Bibliography section note:
“Michael Hoffman has been developing
the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
since 1985, including
the maximal entheogen theory of religion;
see Egodeath.com.”

Conclusion: The 2006 Main Article Announces & Fully Demonstrates My Theory of Mytheme Decoding, as a “Metaphor & Entheogens Theory of Religion”

Not Phrase “Mytheme Decoding Theory” or Broader “the Mytheme Theory”
Mytheme Decoding Theory Is Intensively Demonstrated & Leveraged
Entheogen History Is Moderately Demonstrated & Leveraged, but Loosecog Theory Is Heavily Used & Presented, from the Cybernetic Theory’s 4 Component-Theories
2006 Article Has Minimal Presentation of My Theory of Ahistoricity, Theory of Rock Lyrics, & Broad “the Mytheme Theory”
2006 Article Mainly Announces “The Entheogen Theory of Religion”, Which Is One of the 2 Important Component-Theories of the Broader, Mytheme Theory, the Other Being the Mytheme Decoding Component-Theory
2006 Article Title also Announces “The Theory of Egodeath” and Mentions the Article Being Part of “the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence”
2006 Article Leverages & Re-presents the 1997 Core/ Cybernetic Theory Components, Bolstered This Time with:
Heavy Presentation of My Theory of Mytheme Decoding (as “Metaphor” Theory of Religion),
Moderate Presentation of My Theory of Entheogen History (Repeats Heavy Presentation of My Theory of Loose Cognition), and
Minimal Presentation of My Theories of Ahistoricity & Rock Lyrics
Minimal but Forceful Presentation of My Theory of Ahistoricity
Slight Presentation, Tie-in, of My Theory of Rock Lyrics

Theories Named in this Announcement-Article

“the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion”

In Bibliography lead-in.

“the Entheogen Theory of Religion”

In the first part of the title.

“the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence”

In Bibliography lead-in.

“the Theory of Egodeath”

In the second part of the title.

“the Entheogen Theory of Egodeath”

In the second part of the title.

NOW, with this outline & measurements, it’s possible to truly characterize, to answer the question: (I actually have from ~2011, color-highlighted printout … but I want to color-highlight rn: mytheme aspects, entheogens aspects, and lump together

Where is the announcement of my (narrow) theory of mytheme decoding — is it the 2006 main article?

The above question is not asking about announcement of the broader Mytheme theory, which would have to include rock lyrics and ahistoricity, as well as entheogen history & mytheme decoding.

Late 2003 Through 2006, Focus Was Confirming Mytheme Decoding Together with Entheogens & Heimarmene, Throughout Religious Literature

I remember what it was like, it’s coming back:

After my March 2003 announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion, which was before my personal transitional reference point of July 2003, (a phase milestone reference point, you can’t see in the theory development, but meaningful to me & my library),

When did I work with the editor of the magazine editor of Salvia Divinorum? Identifying that publishing forum gave the focus of writing-context venue that I needed, to create the 2006 main article.

I remember that after July 2003, I was still in a Confirmation Phase, confirming that entheogens are described in all mystic texts, confirming that heimarmene is described in all mystic texts, confirming… and all these confirmations I was doing between July 2003 (= start of part 2 of my Phase 2 work) and December 2006 (= main article), were needed in support of my official making the case in support of my theory of not just mytheme decoding, but also, in conjunction with that… that’s the key word: IN CONJUNCTION.

Between my announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion in March 2003, and my publishing the 2006 main aritcle (check the Egodeath Yahoo Group for month), I don’t know (offhand) if I posted any form of “announcing my theory of how to decode Mythemese”.

Check/ research in the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

What I do know, from direct memory recollection, is that in that 2003-2006 period, I was in confirmation-mode, all together (not of Rock lyrics; that was established, 1992, 1997).

I announced my Rock lyrics decoding theory, or system/approach, in my Egodeath.com pages about lyrics.

I announced (literally, explicitly) my the maximal entheogen theory of religion in the Egodeath Yahoo Group 2002 (6-pages) & 2003 (14-pages).

I announced my views on Ahistoricity in the JesusMysteries Yahoo Group around 2000. I continued to heavily research & development my theory of Ahistoricity (& then Chronology Revision) through 2007 at Egodeath.com & the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

That leaves 2 theories to assess: from 2003-2006, I had formed an approach to decoding mythmes, which shows up as “Metaphor” in my theory of religion, entheogens, and ego death).

It’s starting to come to me, the answer, the history, …

I was able to post a grand announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion in March 2003.

  1. One period is Jan 1999-June 2003.
    • That’s the first sub-phase of my development of the Mytheme theory.
  2. The next separate distinct period of my scholarly R&D is July 2003-December 2007.
    • That’s the second sub-phase of development of the Mytheme theory.

HYPOTHESIS: PRACTICALLY, THE 2006 MAIN ARTICLE *IS* THE OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF MYTHEME DECODING THEORY, WHICH IS PART OF THE EGODEATH THEORY.

But many precursor aspect-announcements: lyrics – check wayback precursor to egoodeath site

See other recent previous Idea Development page for Wayback domain name my before Egodeath.com, 1997 wayback v1 of egodeath site.

James Kent should like the v1 1997 of my egodeath site, not tainted with religion, history, “entheogen”, “sacred mushroom”, religious mythology. Only – maybe – rock lyrics decoding (check on that).

Precursors to the 2006 Main Article’s Announcement of My Narrow Theory Specifically of Mytheme Decoding (as “Metaphor”)

Easy to find (but still a PiTA to do this repeatedly) – the Egodeath Yahoo Group postings about decoding any one of the top-10 mythemes (snake, king, ivy, wine, tree, rock) – easy to find.

A hassle to find repeatedly. I’m REALLY TIRED of re-re-researching “when did I first decode {rock}?” That’s why I finally created the other day, Jan 2021, an official year-lookup page, to store these date-findings.

Hard to find: did I ever post “Announcement of my Theory of How to Decode Mythemes”?

Even with the relatively clear-cut example, of “when did I announce the maximal entheogen theory of religion”, it took hours to organize my findings of that trajectory.

I can now look up my findings, of “How long ft after my announcement of “the maximal entheogen theory of religion”, did I actually use the literal phrase as-is, “the maximal entheogen theory of religion”?

Answer: 1 yr, 2 mo. That “clear-cut” case, took a day to research and writeup!

The more complex question, “when did I announce my theory of mytheme decoding”, … takes days to answer.

That’s why I needed the other day, to do what … I DON’T KNOW offhand, in terms of “announcements” I did.

Existence of Egodeath.com = an announcement.

In any case, I NEED a home page for each component-theory of the egodeath theory, for many reasons.

Precursors to the 2006 Main Article’s Announcement of My Broad Mytheme Theory (Rock Lyrics, Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, Mytheme Decoding)
  • announcements of my theory of rock lyrics decoding: early egodeath.com site, lyrics pages. 1997, 1999, 2003, 2007
  • announcements of my theory of ahistoricity – my good leading-edge postings on JesusMysteries Yahoo Group. Not sure if I have copies of these. Or, how hard to retrieve those (probably possible).

Need 3 Things: Textbook Learning of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, and Cognitive Loosening Agent, and Ritual

In Transcendent Knowledge podcast episode 4, Cyberdisciple omitted an important point, I thought he was going to say it. He said people need both parts: the entheogen, and….

initiation ritual.

I expected him to say instead, the universal answer to everything:

knowledge of the egodeath theory.

Along those lines, 3 things could be needed, not 2:

  1. the Lesser Mysteries = textbook knowledge of the egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism); must pass an exam to graduate from candidate-initiate to full-on first-hand initiate.
  2. entheogen
  3. initiation ritual; the Greater Mysteries

One model is that the lower levels of initiation ritual are not ritual but are textbook study of the gods, the myths, the egodeath theory.

Historically, the Egodeath Theory (the original, Cybernetic theory) Doesn’t Explain “Religion”, So Much as Explaining Ego Transcendence

Kent should like the 1997 Cybernetic theory article much better than the 2006 Mytheme theory article.

In Transcendent Knowledge Podcast episode 22 (about James Kent) before 1:00:00, Max says Kent wouldn’t like the Egodeath theory’s angle, b/c the Egodeath theory explains religion.

But, the Core theory, the Cybernetic theory, per my 1997 spec/announcement, doesn’t exactly claim to explain “religion”, but rather, is framed as explaining ego transcendence.

Self-control Cybernetics, Dissociative Cognition, & Mystic Ego Death (1997 core theory spec)

That article is in the Site Map category: The Cybernetic theory. Not in the broader category the Egodeath theory, which includes the Mytheme theory.

1-Sentence Summary of the Egodeath Theory

The Egodeath theory holds that
analogies of altered-state, block-universe, control-transformation
explain:
spiritual regeneration; mystic enlightenment; satori; gnosis; initiation; esotericism; and equivalents.

The Egodeath theory holds that analogical psychedelic eternalism explains all of the following:
transcendent knowledge
religion
ego transcendence
mysticism
satori
gnosis
enlightenment
esoteric wisdom
mystic ul enlightenment
spiritual regeneration
esotericism
esoteric Christianity
higher-level Christianity
higher-level religion
mystic revelation
spiritual transformation
religious mythology
secret knowledge
elevated knowledge
esoteric gnosis
gnosticism
psychedelics
entheogens
the altered state
the intense mystic altered state
the ecstatic state
mental transformation
psychospiritual development
the perennial philosophy
ancient Greek & Hellenistic religion
salvific regeneration through the Holy Spirit
Mystery-Religion initiation
mixed-wine banqueting
high Rock lyrics
the figure of Christ the savior

John MacArthur – Strange Fire, Transcendent Knowledge
There is no:
“secret knowledge”
“esoteric gnosis”
“Transcendent Knowledge”

Be Conscious of Pattern in Summarizing the Egodeath Theory, “Foo is…” (“Religion is… “Enlightenment is…”)

The Egodeath theory is a theory of what? A theory that the nature of X is actually ABC. What is X?

The Egodeath theory is a theory that the nature of X is analogical psychedelic eternalism. What is X?

The egodeath theory holds that:
X = analogical psychedelic eternalism
What is X?

Implicit assumptions when summarizing the egodeath theory as (episode podcast 25 Strange Loop) as “Religion is….” <- implies that the egodeath theory is “a theory of religion” or a theory of what religion is.

That’s possibly true, that the Egodeath theory is a theory of religion, that “Religion is A, B, C”; but take stock of that, consciously & critically.

  • Is the Egodeath theory a theory of religion?
    If so, start by saying: “Religion is…”
  • Is the Egodeath theory a theory of transcendent knowledge?
    If so, start by saying: “Transcendent knowledge is…“
  • Is the Egodeath theory a theory of what ego transcendence is really about?
    If so, start by saying “I shall now summarize the egodeath theory in 1 sentence: Ego transcendence is…. analogical psychedelic eternalism.”
  • a theory of religious mythology ?
    If so: “The Egodeath theory is the theory that: religious mythology is psychedelics revealing noncontrol.”
  • a theory of the mind?
    If so: “The mind actually works & transforms as follows…”
  • a theory of the altered state?
    If so: “To summarize the the Egodeath theory in 1 sentence: The altered state is *actually* about loosecog revealing…”
  • a theory of psycho-spriritual development (Wilber)?
    Start by saying “Psycho-spiritual development is about (analogical psychedelic eternalism).”
  • A theory of what Satori is?
    If so, summarize the egodeath theory: “Satori is … analogical psychedelic eternalism.”
  • A theory of what psychedelics are really about?
  • If so, you’d construct the statement with ‘Psychedelics’ on the left: “I shall now summarize the egodeath theory in 1 sentence: Psychedelics loosen cognitive binding, revealing analogical psychedelic eternalism.”

The problem is, the egodeath theory is an explanatory theory of many things.

Summarizing the Egodeath Theory in 1 Sentence, as a Long List of Topics Solved, Followed by “is about analogical psychedelic eternalism”

The Egodeath theory holds that:

Religion, mysticism, religious mythology, Transcendent Knowledge, psychedelics, ego transcendence, mental transformation, the altered state, psychospiritual development, esotericism, the perennial philosophy, gnosis, Mystery-Religion initiation, mixed-wine banqueting, esoteric Christianity, entheogens, enlightenment, salvific regeneration through the Holy Spirit, high Rock lyrics, the figure of Christ the savior, and Satori, are about experiencing and understanding analogical psychedelic eternalism.

(the reversed list further above, “analogical psychedelic eternalism explains ABC…Z”, is more up-to-date than the above)

In October 1985 -April 1987 – December 1987, I didn’t exactly think of myself as working to form a coherent rational explanation of “religion”, but more, of “what ego transcendence is really about”.

Because I wanted to know about re-conceiving the ego – that would surely help support my project of fixing cross-time self-control integrity, a form of spiritual self-help.

Saying that the Egodeath theory is the solution to everything, is saying that analogical psychedelic eternalism is the solution to understanding or explaining everything high.

If we can lump all that together as “religion”, then Strange Loop and Max are right to summarize the egodeath theory in the pattern:
“Religion is [analogical psychedelic eternalism].”

Another good candidate is:

Summarizing the egodeath theory in 1 sentence:

“Transcendent Knowledge is analogical psychedelic eternalism.”

Some of the ep 25 formulations – I wasn’t quite sure what their final formulation ended up being.

The Egodeath theory is an explanation of what?

Strange Loop & Max don’t start with “Transcendent Knowledge is…”, but rather, “Religion is…”.

Selected formulation-sections from the Commentary page on Episode 25 (below is mix of titles by Strange Loop, Max Freakout, and Cybermonk):

1-Sentence Summaries of the Egodeath Theory, Mostly from Strange Loop & Max Freakout

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the psychedelic state of consciousness.

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the psychedelic state of consciousness via ego death control-loss.

Religion is a metaphorical description of tripping out and discovering Eternalism via the experience of panic-attack control-loss ego death.

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the state of consciousness that is exclusively elicited by Psychedelics, via ego death control-loss.

Religion is a metaphorical description of Psychedelics revealing Eternalism via loss of control and ego death.

The above item is Cybermonk’s formulation afterwards. But complaints:
‘eternalism’ is jargon.
“metaphor” is complicated vs “analogy/ies”.
“loss of control is “sort of”.
“ego death” is undefined.
2nd attempt:

Religion or ego transcendence is from psychedelics converting the mind to Eternalism through a transformed experience of time, self, possibility, and control.

That’s better, just have to replace the tech-jargon “eternalism”. pre-existence…

(The above were derived from de-linked section headings of podcast 25 (Strange Loop) notes)

Headings from Podcast Notes that Aren’t 1-Sentence Summaries

eternalism/possibilism – literalist antidrugs possibilism vs. psychedelic metaphorical eternalism

The 3 pillars (guest proposed): Determinism/ Eternalism, Self-Control Cybernetics, Psychedelics

Holistic everything-at-once atemporal acausal determinism

Misplaced Focus on ‘Psychedelics’; “Jesus Is a Mushroom” < the Resulting Phenomenology – but Still, Must Explicitly Lock-in Psychedelics, to Shut Out the Meditation Hucksters

Proof & Critieria of Inadequacy and Failure of terms ‘Entheogens’ & ‘Eternalism’

Say “the state of consciousness that is exclusively elicited by Psychedelics”

The 3 pillars: det/cyb/loosecog (fails to lock-in psychedelics)

Linked Sections, to Podcast 25 Notes

Summarize the Egodeath Theory in a Sentence

My review of the main parts of the theory, related to a single-sentence summary

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the psychedelic state of consciousness.

eternalism/possibilism – literalist antidrugs possibilism vs. psychedelic metaphorical eternalism

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the psychedelic state of consciousness via ego death control-loss.

Religion is a metaphorical description of tripping out and discovering Eternalism via the experience of panic-attack control-loss ego death.

The 3 pillars (guest proposed): Determinism/ Eternalism, Self-Control Cybernetics, Psychedelics

Holistic everything-at-once atemporal acausal determinism

Misplaced Focus on ‘Psychedelics’; “Jesus Is a Mushroom” < the Resulting Phenomenology – but Still, Must Explicitly Lock-in Psychedelics, to Shut Out the Meditation Hucksters

What Is the Final, Bulletproof Sentence Describing the Egodeath Theory?

Religion is a metaphorical description of discovering Eternalism in the state of consciousness that is exclusively elicited by Psychedelics, via ego death control-loss.

Religion is a metaphorical description of Psychedelics revealing Eternalism via loss of control and ego death.

Proof & Critieria of Inadequacy and Failure of terms ‘Entheogens’ & ‘Eternalism’

Say “the state of consciousness that is exclusively elicited by Psychedelics”

The 3 pillars: det/cyb/loosecog (fails to lock-in psychedelics)

In April 1987, I’d say something like:
“Transcendent thinking is about cross-time self-control integrity.” That was the Benefit that I expected from Transcendent Knowledge, in OSC daily life. Gaining cross-time self-control integrity, was the expectation that motivated me to create the Egodeath theory, which was sometimes titled as “The Theory of Ego Transcendence”, in 1988. So in 1988, I’d likely give this form of 1-sentence summary:
“Ego Transcendence is [analogical psychedelic eternalism]; [block universe, no-free-will, loose cognition].”

It’s harmless keeping the word ‘analogical’, since analogy – per Hofstadter – is ubiquitous; analogy (as his title of his 2013 book says) is the fuel and fire of thinking.

Hofstadter uses ‘Analogy’ & ‘Analogies’ in TWO Book Titles

Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
http://amzn.com/0465018475
2013

Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models Of The Fundamental Mechanisms Of Thought
1995
http://amzn.com/0465024750

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

One thought on “Idea Development page 10”

  1. Pingback: Commentary on Episode 26 (2020-12-06) Kafei (appearance 4), Max Freakout, Cyberdisciple – The Egodeath theory

Leave a comment