App Control Loss Seizure

12:09 AM March 24, 2022 a paradigm shift or an interpreter and interpretation inversion speaking in a loose way maybe look at the different categories of re-connections that Paul Thagard inventories in this case I considered the most important aspect of a mushroom tree was the fact it was a mushroom and then much less important is that it had branching incidental

then I inverted that I think Paul Thagard one of his major changes that he maps out is inverting into invert the relationships what was previously a random incidental bug or nuisance the unnatural branching now becomes the feature and the main point and the central primary point is the unnatural branching that stands out awkwardly and uncomfortable you a sore thumb that is exactly the message

I went from the main thing about mushroom trees is there mushrooms an odd incidental feature is that they have often usually is almost always have strange branching features

Now : these are branching message mushroom trees; the main feature of these trees is that they express moving from branching to non-branching, from possibility branching to illusory nature a possibility branching, is their main feature.

and also they happen to depict mushrooms and that day in order to represent or depict the morphology of branching in nonbranching they do so through mushroom elements

I guess you could plot a trajectory that a few weeks ago I still thought of the branches of being incidental and accidental it’s true that I figured out the one image in particular about the branching and non-branching in that image but I still had yet even after I figure that out in November 2020 I still when I saw other mushroom trees I still tended to think of them as mushroom trees which were desirable and good fines because their mushrooms but then there was an annoyance or nuisance on them that they had whimsical random incidental branching anomaly unnatural branching on them

then a couple days ago I thought let’s actually start treating the anomalous branching features as significant in a general sense that they’re trying to express the idea of the branching being problematic that was a temporary interpretive solution but I was starting to be starting to look at the branching as a feature as a meaningful feature rather than a incidental random bug or nuisance

then can I trace how I got from there too well I tried several different formulations of the word label that I use I trip played around with problem branching branching problem or message branching problem trees and then I had to become more confident of that for one thing I realized these are never roughly broken branches and I have been using the word broken branches then I started to realize and did it was always neatly cut branches that was part of a big clue for me and I think a huge turning point is when Brown mentioned that “in passage of the dip this is it really shows that a lot of times you can get a lot of value out of clueless peoples writings as I have done from thatthen can I trace how I got from there too well I tried several different formulations of the word label that I use I trip played around with problem branching branching problem or message branching problem trees and then I had to become more confident of that for one thing I realized these are never roughly broken branches and I have been using the word broken branches then I started to realize and did it was always neatly cut branches that was part of a big clue for me and I think a huge turning point is when Brown mentioned that “in passage of the dip this is it really shows that a lot of times you can get a lot of value out of clueless peoples writings as I have done from that

in this case I think that Brown had included in the email the passage from the artist who wrote about the chapel frescoes before his book and this person before she failed to see the mushrooms in her head only described it as use cutting branches off brown didn’t see any significance in that use beardless use cutting off branches but then when I saw that I was prepared because I had been thinking about that main big tree and how it have been cut very visibly cut not broken off and then today

Then today I in my mind Zai I pictured those mandrake trees I thought wait a minute don’t those mandrake trees since were talking about tree and branching a non-branching don’t those mandrake trees have cut off arms cut off branching in after while I was able to find the two images and confirmed yes indeed they do and so do the mushroom trees on the left and so we have a consistent transfer of theme again we have this idea of that be sure to compare to think side-by-side in this case if you’re finding a lot of mushroom cheese maybe you can find a mandrake tree and then find themes that crossover between them between them

date

The witch Hatsis is telling the world of artists and telling the world of Christian artists that they are so incompetent and inept that it is impossible, literally impossible, to represent an identifiable specific psilocybin species of mushroom in art.

and after he’s done making that laughable indefensible specious argument, he then makes another statement which on the surface of it would appear to be relatively meritorious and might actually stand a chance of standing up to scrutiny for more than two seconds.

Immediately after Hatsis tells artist that is impossible for them to represent an identifiable psychoactive mushroom species in art, his immediate next statement of profundity is that he informs all artists of the world, including Christian artists, that it is literally impossible for them to represent – in their picture of an identifiable Psilocybe and Mushroom species – he says that it’s impossible for them to accompany that mushroom picture along with proof that they actually ingested the mushroom and had religious experiences from it and that they did so deliberately.

how many seconds will it take for the average artist to prove him wrong?

and how many seconds will it take for specifically the master Eadwine’s group who are masters of art and adept at Psilocybin to communicate to me in particular who I am an expert at mytheme decoding and the theory of the altered state –

How many seconds do you think it will take for an average Psilocybe an artist to prove how to full of shit and reveal his argument has been completely specious argument to a reasonable level of degree?

And then how many seconds do you think it will take for the expert master artist group to Eadwine group to communicate to me, the master expert decoder of mythemes and theorist of the altered state – how many seconds do you think it will take for that group of artists to communicate to me in a way where I can receive the message and prove absolutely, in a formal proof, that they definitely had peak advanced religious experience specifically from the psilocybin mushrooms which they literally depicted in their image?

I am actually able to literally answer that question; I have date timestamps of how long it took me to decode the leg Hanging and Balancing image from the Salter,

I have four witnesses: Max Freakout, Cyberdisciple, WrmSpirit, and Dr. Jerry Brown are all witnesses that it took me one week to decode and prove exactly specifically what you said is impossible to prove.

It took me more or less a week to decode it and to write an article which literally is a proof and is structured and presented literally as a proof of exactly what he says is impossible to prove; what he in effect says that it is impossible for eight wines artist group to lay out a provable image and that is it it is impossible for me to receive and unpack and do the proof to receive & publish the proof. Beyond the shadow of a doubt that the image 100% proves everything that has said what is impossible the image and my decoding of it absolutely proves him with 100% certainty that he is completely wrong on both points first of all it is trivially easy to do the first thing that he said is impossible is trivially easy any idiot artist could literally picked a provable psychoactive Mushroom and then even at add a general level of analysis we can generally show the totally specious character of his argument even on the more subtle point that he said even if you could

even if you could prove that the image was specifically a psychoactive species that it’s impossible to prove that the painting is proof of deliberate ingestion it and deliberate ingesting for this purpose of religious experiencing that that appears like you won’t be able to instantly and totally brush it aside it appears like it will take a little bit of effort and it will not be absolutely trivial to disprove like his first point was absolutely trivial to prove had no merit whatsoever not even for a moment this other point may take a little more than a moment in fact to do the full complete absolute and total devastating formal 100% proof

it did take it wines artist group a full week to compose and implement the picture and it did take me the expert receiver a full complete week even though I was as prepared as I could possibly be except I guess I know about branching the branching message better than I did in November 2020 but more or less I was the exact ideal person to work on the decoding so that is the degree so first of all any half decent artist could do a reasonable job of portraying that yes they actually ingested the mushrooms and that you could informally you could informally prove in fact it’s really pretty easy

hey a sort of a no nonsense casual approach is really fast any artist could quickly prove Hatsis wrong on the 99% 99% formal but not quite a 100% formal level any artist any artist at all even an inapt artist could easily prove have to have this wrong on a more less informal basis and then as far as proving Hatsis wrong on a formal absolute 100% formal basis when were talking about not merely beginner trippy like trippy visuals but an actual master expert level advanced level of experiencing that level will require about one week of artist work to send the message and to set up the proof and then it took me in fact one week me being the worlds most optimal and closest to being ideal knowledge the ideal decoder it took me a full week because that’s how rich the imagery is and in the case of most other branching message mushroom trees we can do a proof that was halfway in between the casual artist and this expert level mystic experiencing because you say for example Plaincourault

surprise surprise it lost lost text again we have three levels of art all three of which disprove Hatsis at three different levels of formality we have your average half big head shop trip art mushroom trip art how to says there is impossible for such a thing to exist as head shop mushroom trip art he says that that’s such a thing cannot exist and that he’s saying that if I go in the head shop and look at the are in a head shop to even though I see mushroom images I have no way at all of proving that the artist actually meant to depict psychoactive mushrooms and especially he gets all advanced your hat is makes a very sophisticated assertion here he says there’s no way

He says that it is impossible for the mushroom trip art artist to deliver proof in their image that they intentionally ingested those mushrooms which they are depicting magic mushrooms and and that there’s no way there any artist in there who who creates head shop mushroom art he says it’s impossible for them to include in their mushroom a magic mushroom images he said

it’s impossible for them to provide any evidence that they deliberately ingested those and that they did so for in order to have a religious experience

on the intermediate level of disapproving Hatsis and showing him once again as always to be completely full of shit and specious and his arguments having zero merit at all is the plane crawl Frisco which is a special a particular category of mushroom tree because it includes the serpent and snake the non-branching serpent but I the reason I pick it I really just pick up because it’s an example of your typical average branching message mushroom tree and then this case it happens to have a serpent nonbranching serpent as well bringing the fruit which is both at the mushroom and the message of non-branching and hats this is saying that it is in

in a typical branching message mushroom tree optionally including a snake he says it is impossible for the artist to give any indication that they deliberately and just depicted psychoactive species of mushroom and it is impossible for the artist to indicate that they ingested it specifically for to have a religious experience and that’s what his argument is very sophisticated argument argument

my now that I understand clearly and perceive the two separate layers of him the mushroom trees the branching message mushroom trees they have two layers there’s kind of the surface and they enter penetrate but Thursday envelope the delivery vehicle which is the mushroom and and it’s morphology it’s visual morphology of the branching Mushroom the Mushroom with branching features and then there’s the message which is the message of non-branching or the illusory nature of possibility branching having to do with the model of time and control it’s a given that general understanding of the morphology and motive type of themy now that I understand clearly and perceive the two separate layers of him the mushroom trees the branching message mushroom trees they have two layers there’s kind of the surface and they enter penetrate but Thursday envelope the delivery vehicle which is the mushroom and and it’s morphology it’s visual morphology of the branching Mushroom the Mushroom with branching features and then there’s the message which is the message of non-branching or the illusory nature of possibility branching having to do with the model of time and control it’s a given that general understanding of the morphology and motive type of the

branching message mushroom tree whenever we see a branching message mushroom tree we immediately can assume in a kind of a semi-informal way as a general language it generally represents and pretty essentially proves immediately that anytime you see a branching message mushroom tree it means the ingesting of psychoactive mushrooms in order to have the peak religious experience the transformative cognitively transformative experience of moving the mental model from possibility branching to nonbranching and so given that understanding of that language it kind of amounts to an instant proof

that hat is wrong that the very motif it’s self is proof that he’s wrong the fact that the motif of the branching message mushroom tree exists that whole motif it’s self inherently this proves Hatsis the moment that you see a branching message mushroom tree it instantly shows him wrong because the the whole meaning of that art motif is by definition that very motif itself inherently means use of mushrooms to have the peak transformative religious experiencing so he saying that this motif can’t exist he assumes this kind of this type of a motive couldn’t existthat hat is wrong that the very motif it’s self is proof that he’s wrong the fact that the motif of the branching message mushroom tree exists that whole motif it’s self inherently this proves Hatsis the moment that you see a branching message mushroom tree it instantly shows him wrong because the the whole meaning of that art motif is by definition that very motif itself inherently means use of mushrooms to have the peak transformative religious experiencing so he saying that this motif can’t exist he assumes this kind of this type of a motive couldn’t exist

then thirdly we have the ultimate version or the ultimate instance of the branching message mushroom tree surrounded by 74 more typical instances of mushroom trees in the Canterbury Psalter I would ideally now have to discuss what makes the mushroom tree number 71 stand apart from the other 74 mushrooms mushroom trees in the Psalter

this branching message mushroom tree is in a context of a comic panel which makes statements about the branching message mushroom trees and the advanced use of them

it’s not necessarily that this one mushroom tree in itself is that special – although it is special, because it represents it’s a very specific layout of branching and non-branching elements.

we have the gigantic cut right-hand branch

that position next to the pink key tree so we have to factor in the pinky tree is a in effect in fact due to the layout of the picture whenever you have a crop of the leg hanging tree, that crop will necessarily include the pink key tree in the lower left as well.

The tree has two men in it. that’s not completely unique , because we have the youth cutting off branches.

this is probably not the only mushroom tree in the world that has a person on it, but a feature of this tree is it has persons who very specifically very particularly:.

first of all the pink initiate and the red initiate both have histories depicted in the comic panel they are they are not just generic people with no context.

we have a very particular configuration.

this particular branching message mushroom tree has the pink initiate is balancing in a certain way.

his right hand is hanging onto a cut branch on the otherwise branching half of the tree, and his right foot is secured on a cut off branch in the otherwise primarily branching portion of the tree.

and the tree has a sword at the bottom

this is just a few of the ways in which this branching message mushroom tree is specially equipped to utterly destroy, with 100% finality, Hatsis’ specious argument.

10:21 PM March 23, 2022 therefore a good retort to how to says argument when he says because I I don’t think it’s Letcher I believe it’s how to make this argument I think in one of his articles he argues even if you could prove that the mushroom and Christian are represents a mushroom you could not prove he makes a very broad very very aggressive very broad and bold statement here very sweeping a search and he makes here he says even if you could prove that the mushroom and Chris start meant a mom

even if you could prove that a mushroom in Christian Art was intended as a mushroom there is no way it would be impossible to prove that the mushroom intends to represent a psychoactive Mushroom and even if you could he goes on to argue even if you could prove that the species of mushroom shown in Christian art is definitely a psychoactive type even then you could not prove that that was any evidence at all of intentionally ingesting it and intentionally ingesting it for the purpose of having a religious experience and I will not just say that I totally destroyed that

argument

dammit this is a flaky dammit this is a flaky flaky flaky interface my God look at the little things that I’m complaining right now about the little things to it’s it’s constantly inconsistent and I can’t explain it but it’s it’s doing the wrong thing at every step of the way it’s it’s buggy left and right left and right

It’s a specious argument that he makes it’s a it’s an argument that sounds like as if it’s reasonable but then as soon as you go to challenge it it turns out to be really really easy to challenge and disapproves argument his argument only appears to be have merit until the moment that you start challenging it and it immediately collapses collapses

A great initial retort to him would be what if the artist specifically took steps and made the effort to communicate both that the mushroom is a psychoactive species and that the artist expressly intentionally sought in strove to communicate to the reader to the viewer religious experiencing of a type that was expressly specifically associated with the Psilocybin type of mushroom would you has this would you continue to make such a bold and broad such a bold and such a broad sweeping assertion are you even claiming that even if the artist wanted to and tried to that there is no way it would be impossible for the artist to succeed at their attempt to deliberately and intentionally show us two things are you saying it’s impossible for the artist to depict a specifically psychoactive mushroom type and are you arguing are you really asserting that it would be lit

be literally impossible even if the artist wanted to and even if they’re smart and resourceful and a good artist and well-equipped and everything are you willing to are you really willing to argue that even if the ideal roll the clip well equipped artist that you’re saying that even if the artist strongly desired to prove that the art indicates intentional ingesting of specifically Psilocybe in species specifically for the purpose of proving that they experienced religious experiencing from it are you saying that that it would be impossible for an artist to do so first of all I know you’re not quite

first of all and let’s talk about specious arguments the easiest kind to revealed as being spaces your argument is two-part you would said first of all you argued that there’s no way to tell whether the mushroom you argued it even if we could prove the image representative Mushroom first of all you argued that there’s no way that we could be sure if it indicated a psychoactive type of mushroom that is easy to prove you false there is absolutely nothing at all the easiest thing in the world in fact this is a completely speechless specious argument it would be the easiest thing in the world for an artist to represent a provable identify positively identify but don’t you know anything at all about mushroom identification it is child’s play to provably indicate definite positive identification of an Amanita an Christian Art any artist who wanted to could readily make a positively identifiable Amanita and a positively identifiable Panaeolus and a positively identifiable commences and a positively identifiable Liberty Cap so your argument has barely gotten started and I have already totally destroyed it is utterly baseless and completely spacious because there is not a single thing in the world that would stop any artist from making a provably positively identifiable psychoactive Mushroom

now let’s destroy instantly and totally the second half of your specious argument your argument that seems like it would be sound until the instant that you try to reveal that there’s nothing to it at all

i’ll set contacts by repeating the whole specious argument even if we could prove today shape in Christian Art is mushroom and I will I will speak simply here of course when I say is mushroom I mean of course that the artist intended intended it well I guess being you’re being thickheaded I guess I’m gonna have to spell out the detail

The Hatsis argument is even if we could prove that the shape in mushroom art is definitely a mushroom it’s impossible to prove that that mushroom represents a psychoactive species and then part two of the specious argument is even if we could prove the image in Christian arc depicts a specifically psychoactive type of mushroom a particular psychoactive species of mushroom it is impossible to prove that it was understood by that

The artist to be psychoactive and it would be impossible to prove that the artist had deliberately ingested it specifically to have a religious experience

and that sounds like like it might stand up until the instant that you start to challenge that assertion because what you’re arguing the position that you’re taking amounts to that you’re claiming that even if the artist wanted to third is no possible way that an artist could provide proof birthday got a religious experiencing from the mushroom proof that they got a religious experiencing you’re saying that it is not part

now let’s move this conversation into the more abstract realm of possibility you were saying in general so kind of bracketing aside the question of Christian art you’re saying that there is no possible way to indicate through and painting you’re saying that it is not possible to paint a picture which proves to the viewer that the painter has religious experiencing from psilocybin mushrooms here you’re making a statement about the nature of religious experiencing that comes from psilocybin you are saying in a kind of a direct abstract way that there is no way to make a picture that proves that you have religious experiences from psilocybin mushrooms you’re you’re saying that even if you can even if it is possible to make a picture that’s definitely identifiable as a psilocybin mushrooms species you’re saying that even in that case there is no way that an artist can possibly prove to us that they use that and ingested that psychoactive Psilocybe and Mushroom species that’s depicted in their artwork and got a religion

got a specifically Psilocybe and religious experience from it your specious argument your specious argument claims that it is not possible to make a picture that proves that one has had psilocybin experience I’m looking for more practical ways to convey that assertion

Brain storm here has his claims that there’s no way for art to depict Psilocybe and experience I don’t know how old brain I see Hanses Hatsis says it’s impossible to represent Psilocybe and experience in art

funny this time I did say the word psilocybin, and now It misread it as the word Psilocybe that I’ve bern trying hard to get

Here is news to the art world from brilliant genius Hatsis :

dear world of psilocybin artists: did you know – interesting fact from Hatsis – did you know, that it’s not possible to represent psilocybin religious experience in art? because that is what his specious argument amounts to a certain when he says first of all it’s impossible for a Christian artist to unmistakably depict a psychoactive specific Mushroom and it’s also impossible the great art master Hatsis the great expert at altered states and an even greater expert at art he’s his name is Thomas Hatsis explains that there is no possible way that any artist could possibly prove in their art or or strongly indicate in their art their art which shows as an identifiable psilocybin species

hatsis has just revealed to us that it’s impossible for an artist to create a painting of an identifiable Psilocybe in species and also indicate in that painting proof that they had had religious experiencing from that psilocybin species

Truly Hatsis you have a dizzying intellect

10:06 PM March 23, 2020 to the minimal entheogen position or theory is completely unrealistic it brings in a whole raft of extremely negative and unrealistic presuppositions that don’t hold up the scrutiny and it makes ridiculous it does a divide and conquer approach of even if you force me to admit that this one particular mandrake image in Christian Art means mandrake I’m going to presuppose and couch that around

i’m going to build huge protective walls to wall off that one instance by a wall of negative presuppositions I’m going to reluctantly and grudgingly acknowledge that that one single loan isolated mandrake instance means to the one person the artist themselves and nobody else it means the one time used it and that there heretical and that it was secretly used and it to be at the extreme the presence of that mandrake image actually indicates the absence of use of mandrake that’s the extreme so every bit of evidence is thus strategically isolated and severed from all other evidence we don’t allow a big picture to be built up we don’t allow realistic attitudes that anyone who’s using part of the Pharma Copia

is going to be using all of them we refused to take into account the utterly realistic reality that anyone who uses one visionary plant is bound to use all of them that they can get their hands on so we will sever so that even if you could force me as a minimalist even if you could force me to admit that this is a mandrake I would not consider anything else except for that sheer isolated fact and I would do everything to keep that fact isolated I would say well you can’t prove that they used it for religious reasons this is a Hatsis type of reasoning he’s use this reasoning it gets mushrooms he said even if you could prove that that mushroom image in art you was a mushroom you couldn’t prove that it was psychoactive never mind the fact that I’ve ask

i’ve actually done so with the leg Hanging Balancing image he said he argues you couldn’t prove there was anything more than a dinner mushroom and even if you could somehow prove that it was the psychoactive type you couldn’t prove at all that they understood and intended and deliberately used it because of its religious effects he’s argued that and I’ve actually just proved all of that I’m not only showing that it’s possible that it is theory and theoretically possible to prove those things I have in fact literally proved those things that he said that there would be no way to prove those things but I’ve done it thanks to eat wine group geniuses communicating to me and giving me the exact specific concrete evidence that I need to then receive the message and decode it and explain it so that we have established a communication channel of proofi’ve actually done so with the leg Hanging Balancing image he said he argues you couldn’t prove there was anything more than a dinner mushroom and even if you could somehow prove that it was the psychoactive type you couldn’t prove at all that they understood and intended and deliberately used it because of its religious effects he’s argued that and I’ve actually just proved all of that I’m not only showing that it’s possible that it is theory and theoretically possible to prove those things I have in fact literally proved those things that he said that there would be no way to prove those things but I’ve done it thanks to eat wine group geniuses communicating to me and giving me the exact specific concrete evidence that I need to then receive the message and decode it and explain it so that we have established a communication channel of proof

unbeknownst to the witch there was a deliberate communication of specifically specifically to get around his claim so I would say I would retort to her to what if an artist knew that you would make your bank decision your bank claim your claim that there be no way to tell suppose that you had an artist who wanted to circumvent the alleged limitation that you’re talking about suppose that you have a artist a skilled artist group who knew that you would try to block them and they actually took steps to make an absolutely explicit proof and communication to meand so this artist group made a language of communication and a technology of communication basically a language and they set it up even with a decoding key the pink tree that was designed in order specifically to communicate beyond any doubt exactly precisely what’s going on in the ultimate adapt use of souls I’ve been mushrooms and that is in fact what happened so how this is imagining a bunch of incompetent inapt artists and he wouldn’t fathom anything like the concept of the theory of branching a non-branching like like hats what if what if he had his trip or Christians who were delivered

Who were deliberately trying to indicate specifically in their artwork those very things that has his claims are not possible to indicate what if you had Christians who deliberately indicated mushrooms that not only literally match the physiology but they also found ways and devised ways to communicate their altered state experiences in a way that was a unmistakable an absolute proof that only an experienced adapt could possibly have these kind of of a adept level expert level of experience with these plants and that their adapt artist at communicating with those definitive experiences and so essentially these artists are dead set on doing precisely what has his imagines and assumesWho were deliberately trying to indicate specifically in their artwork those very things that has his claims are not possible to indicate what if you had Christians who deliberately indicated mushrooms that not only literally match the physiology but they also found ways and devised ways to communicate their altered state experiences in a way that was a unmistakable an absolute proof that only an experienced adapt could possibly have these kind of of a adept level expert level of experience with these plants and that their adapt artist at communicating with those definitive experiences and so essentially these artists are dead set on doing precisely what has his imagines and assumes

cannot be done they are artist and adept at Psilocybin it transcribe correctly that time psilocybin well then it went and wrecked it but it did get it psilocybin mushrooms psilocybin mushrooms Psilocybe Mushroom I got it I got the transcription right that time like a Bayleaf bay leaf Psilocybe babe yeah I got it the transcription works

like a windowsill and then go and then fly like a sigh of breath of sigh and then be like a Bayleaf Laurelleaf bay bay Laurelleaf still go side bay Psilocybe Mushroom Psilocybe a voice dictation Psilocybe a really psilocybin mushrooms voice dictation Psilocybe a Mushroom voice dictation Psilocybe and Mushroom voice dictation Psilocybe a Psilocybe he

I went to all the trouble to learn how to pronounce the word correctly and now I have to pronounce it in a special way the voice recognition won’t get it mixed up with the word philosophy OK here’s advanced level voice dictation this is my philosophy of psilocybin that didn’t quite get it this is my philosophy of psilocybin no I didn’t say psilocybin I said psilocybin OK got it that time this is my philosophy of psilocybin nope didn’t get it psilocybin Celeste Psilocybe babe ha ha philosophy no psilocybin psilocybe Psilocybe he you have to emphasize say making a sigh of breath a breath of sigh Psilocybe my philosophy of psilocybin no I got it wrong my philosophy of psilocybin Psilocybe philosophy Psilocybe philosophy of psilocybin philosophy of psilocybin know it keeps on doing suicide in that context ha ha I

psilocybin oh it got it right and then it changed to psilocybin psilocybin mushrooms no wrong psilocybin mushrooms Psilocybe a Mushroom I added the letter a it added the E the stem thing can’t even get the word it’s correct Psilocybe a retarded stupid voice recognition Psilocybe and Mushroom no I did not say psilocybin I said psilocybin Psilocybe Mushroom it’s extremely inconsistent and unreliable voice dictation

broken buggy half broken I’ll generously say this tool is half broken ha ha Ha

956 March 23, 2022 this is the second post in this webpage so I am now going to continue where I left off at the bottom of the below long posting at the bottom of this page because new entries go at the top of the page I think I have a clearer grasp of it than ever before the amazing degree to which assumptions and presuppositions and evidence are all a crazy tangled mess and I have learned that

scholars are much much more driven by presuppositions for example look at how far I was able to push amazingly aggressive assertions about the degree of infusion use by being creative with my presuppositions and and basing those so-called presuppositions basing them on actual real world experience for example here’s some evidence for you as if a person enjoys one specific visionary plant you should assume that that person enjoys all visionary plants if a person goes hunting for one mushroom type you can safely very truthfullyand very reasonably and very much based in reality you can confidently assume that if someone gathers and values and understands psilocybin mushrooms then they also gather and use and respect and understand amanita and they recognize Amanita in our you can absolutely serve the most reasonable thing in the world and it’s easy to prove that this is the case and that this is reasonable and reality-based if someone recognizes Amanita and christian are and they appreciate it’s visionary effects you can confidently assume that that person also understands and appreciates similar plants such a Psilocybin and conversely you can assume that anyone who recognizes and comprehend Psilocybe and Mushroom images and Chris art also of course

understands and recognizes and sometimes uses Amanita as well these are all stronger than prep presuppositions these are all absolutely justified rational reasonable real real world based on evidence of how life actually works and how peoples values and peoples comprehension actually works it is the easiest thing in the world to justify these presuppositions which lead to conclusions like the presence of psilocybin imagery and Christian Art is evidence for an understanding of amanita and conversely the presence of amanita an Christian Art it is easy to prove that that is evidence of knowledge and understanding and read

reverence for psilocybin and only a biased person would think otherwise only a biased person who’s out of touch with reality and misrepresent reality would argue otherwise only an unreasonable person would would make a hard line differentiation to hermetically seal and isolate Amanita from Psilocybe and I’m saying that in practice nobody really thinks Amanita in art literally represents strictly the use of amanita and no one really people are out of touch with their own beliefs but I think that in practice nobody seriously thinks that a psilocybin image in art strictly and exclusively represents

understanding and valuing and using psilocybin although we do get carried away in our artificial abstractions we are still sane and grounded in reality enough to have a practical intuitive reality-based realization that of course and amanita in art represents knowledge and valuing and use of psilocybin as well as amanita and probably mandrake to and conversely an image of psilocybin I’ll try transcription an image of Celotta be philosophy Mushroom philosophy philosophy OK well we have discovered the philosophy mushroom not to be completed with a philosopher stone in the Smart shop the most the most reasonable rational and realistic grounded thinking will acknowledge that of course a slice of the mushroom image in Christian Art represents the use of Sloss a B and amanita and mandrake

it is a completely unreal and unrealistic false presupposition to act like and think as if a specific visionary plant in art exclusively represents and necessarily and strictly and solely represents that one specific visionary plant that is completely unrealistic thinking that’s not how values work that’s not how the annual crops work that’s just not how reality works so the most realistic thinking match is the maximal entheogen theory and I don’t mean the extremist maximal but I mean a reasonably maximal reasonably generously

first post is below

I am not sure what voice dictation text got captured in that previous page it I had to kill the app it got hung I was watching it enter text madly as fast as it could text that I had spoken I couldn’t tell if it was re-injuring it 10 times or what re-entering it 10 times and then the app the page froze on me I had to kill the app so I’m I don’t know I’m gonna start a fresh short shorter page I think I may have had a limit I don’t know too much profundity too quickly and I locked up the app

I will have to use express simple ideas slowly and not blow the apps mind too fast last I remember I was trying to explain how the minimal theory would perceive a mandrake in Christian Art versus how the maximal theory would perceive that same mandrake and what presuppositions would be brought to it and it’s remarkable we can paint an incredibly negative scenario for the minimal theory and we can paint an extreme opposite scenario for the maximal theory to the maximal theme

dammit man I hope that it even transcribed a bunch of valuable text and then when I terminated then it deleted all the text

I just saw do do it again it transcribed text and then when it stopped, it deleted the text

buggy piece of crap!!

from the point of you of the maximal theory a single mandrake in Christian Art is proof that all Christians everywhere have always used every kind of visionary plant

from the point of view of the minimal entheogen theory a single mandrake and Christian art is proof that no Christian has ever used any visionary plant

those are not those absolute extreme positions are not the very most useful which is why I always defined kind of against the against the sometimes idea that the ego the theory is always to contrast the things you can see the practical necessity often of using a scale instead of a strict binary are usually define three positions the maximal moderate and minimal theory I’m feeling right now like I need for positions because a minute ago I defined extreme like truly extremistpositions I defined an extremist version of the maximal theory that’s hard to take seriously by any point of you and I also defined a rabid extremist version of the minimal view which was not actually minimal right here I guess what what would I usually call that well depends on how you define minimal one I think I’ve said this before I think I wrote this before that there’s almost 2 very different versions of minimal there’s minimal position in the sense of being absolutely against it I think I may have posted it Egodeath.com of a whole spectrum of different positions of something more like five positions than just three because we can define a ball headed committed skeptic point of you which says visionary plants are a religious and therefore it is a contradiction in terms to ever use a visionary plant in a religious way that is a nonsensical idea nobody has ever used a vision a visionary plant in a religious way because the idea is a self-contradiction and this would be not merely the minimalist position but it kind of a rabid hard-core raging anti-anti-mystic just like you can see a certain brand of fundamentalism loves loves to demonize every single form of gnosis mysticism esotericism Mystery religion Babylon mystery Babylon they love to demonize any kind of thing and some of them even demonize the Pentecostals as well and then say that anything other than a straightlaced fundamentalism is Babylon mystery religion gnosis and they would put plants they would eat instantly lump all visionary plants in the same category been at the other extreme a minute ago I defined an insanely rabid maximal extremist maximal position

which I am I have the intellectual power to define such an extremist maximal position that even I am not able to take that position

suppose let’s take our example of one mandrake image in one Christian artwork the rabbit extremist insane maximal position would be that that is absolute proof that every single Christian ever uses every kind of visionary plant that was ever existed and the day they all and they do so I’ll explicitly as the Eucharist every week

there is a big definitional problem when you define a scale and you say let’s say let’s suppose if there’s a maximal moderate and minimal positions you have to find those in so see ego death.com to see how I defined those position because I literally don’t know how I defined us and when you start really getting into the nitty-gritty and you start throwing around terms like minimal and maximal pretty quickly you’re going to run into definitional problems what is the word minimal supposed to mean what is the word maximal supposed to mean Thomas Hatsis is a Minimal a East minimalist on certain specific points but not on other points

in fact it’s coming back to me now I have a damn memory of times when I got frustrated and I said that the whole I think this was recent I think I discussed it with cyber disciple that in maybe November 2020 I became frustrated with the idea I was needing a more flexible model that has I think especially it was houses and other people where they were refusing to fit into my net categorization my neat knit categorization how come voice transcription seems to have the biggest problems is the most trivial simple words that I’m pronouncing them perfectly normal and perfectly clearly and it just dies it becomes completely retarded on the mosthow come it has the hardest trouble with the easiest words to transcribe

I don’t remember offhand what my frustrations were and why I I pretty much frankly ended up ditching in frustration my rigid simple minded model of maximal moderate and minimal entheogen theories and then I remember feeling favorable about the grid game I feel like I don’t remember for sure and I don’t remember the trajectory but I feel like my version one model was expressed as minimal moderate maximal and I feel like that got superseded by the grade game which Max defined and then I flushed it in with a lot of detail and then I added the construct of the forgot plots

i’m sure a lot of people in this position I know I’m in this position where I have written so many ideas that I literally don’t know there is not enough time in my lifetime to go review and reread what I wrote before so I’m kind of alienated from some of my own theories like exactly what is my model of minimal and moderate and why did I end up feeling like I had to abandon it it just didn’t have the Percision that I needed it’s kind of useful as long as you restrict yourself to using it and using it in a hazy blurry first order approximation kind of way but is soon as you start trying to push that model too hard you run up against the limitations of it and I feel like I felt

I felt happier around November or we could’ve been February 2021 whenever I made podcast episodes about the forgot plot and the grid game .

I was not feeling frustrated When developing my new idea of the grid game and forgot plots like I had been feeling frustrated with my moderate and minimal enth theories spectrum.

maybe I could try expressing myself now in terms of the grid game and forgot plots I still do feel it’s useful to imagine how would a minimalist fill-in the grid game where it’s all chopped up and artificially divided into which plant in which era in which region each cell has like three layers I’ve analyzed it in some detail it would be like a set of different grids two dimensional grids and I described two different philosophies of playing the game one philosophy starts with all the cells empty or negative

they defined the game in such a way that they start off all negative and the best you can possibly do is come out zero neutral it was a biased way I don’t remember how I explained it but you start off by filling in a negative and -in each soul of the grid game of the grid and then any time you find positive evidence you write a plus but next to you write a – in parentheses so it’s zero so if you tally up and if you assume number by number quantity of souls and then you score it you find it in the negative way of playing the game the highest score you can get zero in the in the maximal

in the maximal way of playing the game I think the idea was that you start off with a plus on every cell until proven otherwise assume that every religion has intelligent roots and that they used every single antigen that they could get their hands on and assume that if we have no evidence that we should go ahead and assume that they use the visionary plans anyway so so it’s a matter of two different biases you can be justifiably very biased in favor of assuming they use a visionary plants just by the argument that religious experience and comes from visionary plants and does not come from other methods therefore wherever those religion there must be visionary plants and that’s why we should play the grid game bye

I think I joked I may have joked about the extreme of hears’s how the maximalist plays the grid game:

put a plus it every cell; you’re done. instant win; 100% maximum score.And

the attitude of I will I will die by that I will I will live or die by that I I am willing to

I am absolutely willing to make a simple flat out assumption with no explicit evidence because I consider the evidence is self evident:

wherever there’s a religion , there must be visionary plants; end of discussion

And the attitude of I will I will die by that I will I will live or die by that I I am willing to I am absolutely willing to make a simple flat out assumption with no explicit evidence because I consider the evidence is self evident wherever there’s a religion there must be visionary plants end of discussion