Celebration of Specific Entheogen Scholars

Voice dictation

I do not intend this page 2 be comprehensive list of people and I do not intend this webpage to list specific contributions or to list contributions and limitations but

I really specifically want to applaud most recently John lash for his “discovery of a lifetime”, of Canterbury – absolutely you said it brother magnitude 10 of congratulations

that is indeed in fact the discovery of a lifetime and I consider this is the subject of judgment but I consider three sort of equal breakthroughs that I have made a series of my major breakthrough one major breakthrough number two in Britain

major breakthrough number three

the first one was 1988 figuring out that the real nature of ego transcendence is loose cognition changing to the mental world model of block universe frozen time

in 2013 I consider and I experienced that is a very intense emotional experience a very shaking a week long I consider this is the subject of judgment but I consider three sort of equal breakthroughs that I have made a series of my major breakthrough one major breakthrough number two in Britain major breakthrough number three

1) the first one was 1988 figuring out that the real nature of ego transcendence is loose cognition changing to the mental world model of block universe frozen time

2) in 2013 I consider and I experienced that is a very intense emotional experience a very shaking a week long

A week long shaking experience as the theory revisions rattled throughout my theoretical model and world model of understanding oh my god the people before us understood this to this incredible level of understanding we were a blood we moderns were oblivious and they had an incredibly a profound like the people before us had a profound incredibly profound understanding to be able to cram so much comprehension and so profound of comprehension to be able to cram that into the figures of branching tree branching antlers the serpent and eve in the book the power of myth by Campbell side-by-side with Hellenistic as I always do the Jason calyx calyx the Jason kylix cup meaning meaning really a saucer art Jason coming from the serpent python by the non-branching vine tree with Athena

3) and I’ll then my third great breakthrough is Canterbury and I have defined in another webpage five minutes ago that the word Canterbury I officially proclaim and declare and announce that the word Canterbury now is equivalent to the word Plaincourault exactly as we are familiar with referring to using that one word to refer to that image

Failure to Debate, only Deflect

controversy but not debate this sub amateur non-debate controversy slap fight improper deflection mirror deflection nothing but deflection nothing but avoidance nothing but cover-up nothing but deflection shameful scholarship a failure of scholarship a failure to do scholarship we’ve got a bunch of propaganda bluffing BS bullshit instead of actual scholarship scholars you have failed you are a disgrace you are frauds your daemonic liars or equally badly you’re just that stupid and let your presuppositions that you don’t even state totally completely 100 percent drive your so-called reasoning which is about the opposite of a chain of links of chain links links together pulling you inexorably to a conclusion what you’re doing is the exact opposite puffs of vapor here’s a puff of vapor here’s another puff of vapor we’re talking an extreme instance of how the so-called old theory is anything but a structured theory it’s a got all the structure of a bowl of oatmeal oatmeal like Andy Letchers books sroom what sort of a theory is a bowl of oatmeal or a series of vapor puffs because that’s what the so-called sub amateur so-called scholarship commentary from the art historian role romanesque bullshitters who know jack sht to be proclaiming

and then the dimwit journalist says that these are the people best position to interpret unlike anthropologist who taught culture of infusions history for since 1975 that counts for nothing according to this hack embarrassing excuse for a journalist who spent five minutes investigating and is the best position journalist in the universe now to identify who is the best position art scholars not an anthropologist no not even in mycologist

although mycologist can be excused for their blunder because they are simply merely ignorant that the amanita tree is one of a type and that there are hundreds and hundreds and and if only if only the ignorant the understandably ignorant mycologist if only they were aware that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mushroom trees they would instantaneously know obviously plane crawl cannot possibly be mushroom because if it were you would have to also think that all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other mushroom trees in art or also mushrooms which we cannot even mention that idea

it’s beyond unthinkable are presuppositions prevent us from even thinking that this is this these puffs of vapor or what passes for scholarship don’t even think of referring to plain cruel as a debate this is not how debates are conducted dimwit journalist pointing to a Romanesque book scribbler who knows Jack all about the subject of psychoactive Mushroom tropes and motives and art I’m grabbing her by the scruff of the neck and shoving her head into the database which is the Dr. Jerry Brown honorary database alpha of data the database of the data because the data is not your stupid Romanesque book filled with random directionless imagery

the data to be addressed in a scientific professional actual bona fide way not your arm waving pull it out your rear vapor puffs vapor puffs bayou who haven’t even looked at the data have you looked at my data know I know you haven’t looked at my data so why don’t you look at my data first and then flap your jaws and give your worthless thumbs up and you’re worthless thumbs down so that the dimwit journalist like Emma can do a tally

because that’s the kind of level of research that that investigative journalist is capable of doing who is best position who what qualifications constitute being best position I’ve written a book on Romanesque art that automatically makes me best position for the specialize topic I didn’t know that that that this book author of I did not know that this book author of Romanesque art that somehow by virtue of writing a generic book on Roman escort qualifies this scholar to be in the best position to judge on the specialized field with your June scholarship

Lookout field of entheogen scholarship, you have all been trumped by the worlds greatest best position entheogens scholar of them all she has written a book on Romanesque generic art form and therefore because she has written a book on generic Romanesque art form therefore her thumb up trumps all of your thumbs up all of you in theorists and scholars have been writing on the subject since 1957 and 1925 because all of these my colleagues are understandably ignorant because they were simply unaware, they were simply not aware that there exist other mushroom trees in Christian Art other than plane corral

it is very easy to excuse the blunder ignorance of the mycologists you can see how easily my collegeagues are led astray and so therefore we can understand how very easily any author who writes a book on Romanesc art is immediately thereby qualified to veto and out-vote the entire field of entheogens scholars since 1957 and 1925 by virtue of writing of generic book on RomanNask art , that makes that person better positioned than the specialized entheogens scholars.

and on a longer-term scale I’ve I’ve actually created a webpage appreciation for Jan Irvin but I don’t really I don’t really want to spend the time or get into the detail but Irving has made some awesome contributions and sleuthing detective work

John Rush

and also I feel like under song well he’s gotten some attention of sun and some cents certainly John rush by virtue of publishing a book editing a book collection joining chapters from many different intelligence scholars so he is recognized but I was frustrated with his book of blurry pictures for a failed God failed book failed book is the title failed book because it’s CD his DVD images were I just couldn’t make sense of them and I am his Audi I am his audience and I couldn’t follow what he’s talking about and referring to in the pictures it just the presentation wasn’t good enough but while one of my top one of my top five images is from John Rush image collection the Y branching Moses the Moses branching image is awesome. I have completely corroborated John Russia’s insight which was not my insight except that I did notice an impossibly coincidental exact isomorphism which cannot have been an accident in the salamander dancing man compared against Dionyse is victory mosaic both of them have a lifted garment lifted him and John Rush has provided the explanation very similar to hell in 1986 I read Revelation and I recognize that intelligent but I just didn’t know which one and then as soon as I read Clark Heinrich is awesome book I knew he had solved it similarly I read John Russia’s book with the CD when it came out and then later I saw the image I don’t know how I felt of whether I felt that he had already explained it ahead of time I did not feel I think that I should have felt that Rush had already fully provided the explanation I feel like as soon as I saw the lifted garment of the dancing man in Hatteras his fourth generation reproduction of the image following after three other scholars I thought I don’t think I’m pretty sure that when I saw when I noticed the him it was it was specifically in this usual case that I do all the time ofI read John Russia’s book with the CD when it came out and then later I saw the image I don’t know how I felt of whether I felt that he had already explained it ahead of time I did not feel I think that I should have felt that Rush had already fully provided the explanation I feel like as soon as I saw the lifted garment of the dancing man in Hatteras his fourth generation reproduction of the image following after three other scholars I thought I don’t think I’m pretty sure that when I saw when I noticed the hem

it was it was specifically in this usual case that I do all the time of it always happens this way is that when I put side-by-side a Christian image with a Hellenistic image

in this case I put the dancing man salamander image next to the dinosaurs victory mosaic image and I experienced a problem but there was in an impossibly unlikely exact match in the lifted garment motif and I don’t know why but I did not experience that oh I immediately recognize that obviously that’s a John Rush motif that he explained it took me longer than that to feel confident in that reading I was tending to be skeptical and dismissive that this must be a coincidence

I did not take the approach of immediately saying this is obviously not a coincidence of course John Rush has fully explain this already so I am I have zero surprise about this I simply read it in fact there’s no decoding there’s no nothing to be explained here because John Rush has already completely explained it many years ago

I did not experience that

what I experienced was I have a problem here this is an impossible an impossibly implausible exact match and it cannot be an accident and yet it is infinitely implausible why would a Christian art have the exact identical motive exactly isomorphic with the same strange odd unnatural artificial motif in a Hellenistic mosaic

and then eventually I concluded the John Rush was correct in any case sooner or later well now I know I have collected many many instances of lifted garment all throughout it’s a standard motif throughout Canterbury and I have come to expect and look for that image regularly so John rush fully documented that and fully argument argued for it for interpreting that motif the lifted garment means the altered state from intelligence visionary plants and so every time you say lifted garment every time you point out that motif that is John rush on thatJohn Rush owns that motif when you mention that motif just put in parentheses John Rush

The Greatest Entheogen Scholar

so we must acknowledge it by far the greatest entheogens scholar of all time is this scholar who wrote a generic book on Romanesque art and has given her thumbs down on plaincrawled

she is better positioned then Carl rock in Dr. Jerry Brown an Cybermonk who has made the database of data that the author of the book on Romanesque art has not looked at the database of data and yet that author is the most well-positioned person to to stick her thumb in a downward direction

so step down and step aside a John Lash a Jan Irvin a John Rush because a far greater entheogens scholar than you has entered the scene by virtue of writing a generic book on Romanesque heart and is therefore in a much better position than you to stick her thumb in a downward direction on regarding whether Plaincourault depicts a psychoactive Mushroom

and you guys should start learning something that you’re making an understandable blunder of your ignorance mycologist in their ignorance make a blunder simply because they make the mistake they mistakenly think that plane crawl is a unique instance to justify secret

Insight: the assumption of secret is conflated with Panofsky argument that the image is not unique; when he says ‘unique’, think the word ‘secret‘!

I am making a serious point here announcing a serious point that in my

Sirius point here in my last recording about Plaincourault Ave I failed to it occur to me the secret I failed to bring in the theme of secret and I I know recognize listening to my listening to the egodeath Mystery show last night I recognized oh oops I forgot to tie in the concept of secret that in the argument in Panofsky’s argument about unique that saying so where we had where I talk about the word unique in my in my podcast where I talk about the word unique and the argument where Petoskey argues that if my college just learned if they would only

Panofsky argues if only the mycologist were aware that plane crawl is not unique then they would realize that it can’t be mushrooms because it would logically require that all of the mushroom trees mean mushrooms and that is obviously false what I failed to point out in last nights podcast was that we have involved in the premise of secret the important premise of secret is baked into their thinking here that reasoning that I listed above is premised on the Presupposition of secrecy set the what the what Panofsky believes that he is debating Panofsky believes that he is refuting the idea so he is he is conflating the idea of secret

Panofsky mistakenly thinks that what is

being proposed regarding Plaincourault is that it is specifically a secret Mushroom use he is arguing that plane crawl cannot possibly be a secret Mushroom use because in so he’s conflating the position of it being secret with identifying it as Mushroom for him and this is the same erroneous fat fallacy the same strange bizarre fallacious argument that the agenda requires the agenda requires that you adopt this strange a curious agenda I’m joking about rules heading above the plane crawl passage in which is that heading reads a curious myth in fact I think the chapter title is a curious myth here we have a curious agenda orPanofsky mistakenly thinks that what is being proposed regarding Plaincourault is that it is specifically a secret Mushroom use he is arguing that plane crawl cannot possibly be a secret Mushroom use because in so he’s conflating the position of it being secret with identifying it as Mushroom for him and this is the same erroneous fat fallacy the same strange bizarre fallacious argument that the agenda requires the agenda requires that you adopt this strange a curious agenda I’m joking about rules heading above the plane crawl passage in which is that heading reads a curious myth in fact I think the chapter title is a curious myth here we have a curious agenda or

A Curious Agenda-Driven Conflation

here is the strange reasoning that these people are all forced into it’s really weird they are forced to make a conflation we see these unbelievably invalid conflation how can this person possibly make this conflation I cannot believe it I really literally can’t believe that this person is making this completion why do people make this intensive this Hallmark this Hallmark amazing conflation between the theory that of an Amanita Plaincourault Bing secret what is it with this conflation of the word secret with the sheer use of the plant why are these people so fixated on the premise of secret

we see this for example an Thomas Hatsis his his incredible bizarre puzzling fix nation on the premise of secret why does his thinking absolutely require him to couch everything in terms of secret why is he forced to make that the center of his whole argumentation he is really under the sea or severe delusion that what he’s debating about is the idea of secrecy like why wait I’m not the one bringing that in it’s him he’s bring it in I’m just out I’m coming along afterwards analyzing what is his weird fixation on the the premise of secrecy he thinks it’s in the answer is that to accomplish his agenda he hast to make this conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the specificwe see this for example an Thomas Hatsis his his incredible bizarre puzzling fix nation on the premise of secret why does his thinking absolutely require him to couch everything in terms of secret why is he forced to make that the center of his whole argumentation he is really under the sea or severe delusion that what he’s debating about is the idea of secrecy like why wait I’m not the one bringing that in it’s him he’s bring it in I’m just out I’m coming along afterwards analyzing what is his weird fixation on the the premise of secrecy he thinks it’s in the answer is that to accomplish his agenda he hast to make this conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the specific

this agenda requires its adherence to make that conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the secret use hypothesis for them there is no difference between it’s almost like they are unable to perceive the position which I hold which is the sheer use meaning basically the non-secret use they are not able to perceive the existence of that it’s literally unthinkable to hats us and Panofsky they cannot conceive of the position of non-secret Mushroom use and so therefore I said that’s a curious moved and he let your mix in his books room it’s a very very notable very striking very distinctive move

A very striking very distinctive move that really stands out in Andy Letcher’s book and is very puzzling when he argues the mushrooms are on the door of the church therefore this disprove secret use therefore we have just disapproved the use he cannot he literally cannot conceive because of his agenda he literally the agenda does not permit him to think they thought he is not able to conceptualize and hold the thought like if you tell him your position is non-secret he cannot hear you his ears are closed he can’t hear you they cannot hear the existence of the position of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why they won hundred percent conflate secret useA very striking very Panofsky cannot imagine the concept of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why Pulaski assumes that when people say when people say that plain crawlers mushrooms what he hears them sing is the plane crawled represents secret use and that’s why Panofsky argues and thinks he has a slam dunk argument if only they knew that there are too many mushroom trees prefer it to be secret then people would abandon their assertion that amanita the plain curl means mushrooms now when he says mushrooms you have to understand it is crucial and key and critical you must understand that when Pulaski says mushrooms what he is thinking is secret mushroom use you have to understandPanofsky cannot imagine the concept of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why Pulaski assumes that when people say when people say that plain crawlers mushrooms what he hears them sing is the plane crawled represents secret use and that’s why Panofsky argues and thinks he has a slam dunk argument if only they knew that there are too many mushroom trees prefer it to be secret then people would abandon their assertion that amanita the plain curl means mushrooms now when he says mushrooms you have to understand it is crucial and key and critical you must understand that when Pulaski says

mushrooms what he is thinking is secret mushroom use you have to understand distinctive move that really stands out in Andy Letcher’s book and is very puzzling when he argues the mushrooms are on the door of the church therefore this disprove secret use therefore we have just disapproved the use he cannot he literally cannot conceive because of his agenda he literally the agenda does not permit him to think they thought he is not able to conceptualize and hold the thought like if you tell him your position is non-secret he cannot hear you his ears are closed he can’t hear you they cannot hear the existence of the position of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why they won hundred percent conflate secret use

it is mandatory and essential and crucial you must understand that when this agenda driven adherence when the adherence of this agenda when they say the word Mushroom as in where they talk about the assertion that the mushroom image means mushrooms when they say mushrooms you have to understand that what they are thinking is secret Mushroom use that that is hell 100% deep and intense their absolute conflation of V they cannot differentiate they are the agenda prevents them from being able to differentiate between the hypothesis of mushroom trees mean sheer mushroom usedit is mandatory and essential and crucial you must understand that when this agenda driven adherence when the adherence of this agenda when they say the word Mushroom as in where they talk about the assertion that the mushroom image means mushrooms when they say mushrooms you have to understand that what they are thinking is secret Mushroom use that that is hell 100% deep and intense their absolute conflation of V they cannot differentiate they are the agenda prevents them from being able to differentiate between the hypothesis of mushroom trees mean sheer mushroom usednon-secret they literally cannot think the thought of non-secret Mushroom use they think they’re debating about mushroom trees meaning mushrooms they really really think that that’s the exact same thing about debating whether it is secret mushroom use that’s why they always argue I have traced Letcher making this argument I have traced Hatsis making this argument I have traced Panofsky making this argument they always argue this way they always argue that we proved that mushroom use is not secret therefore we proved that there is no mushrooms they are

their agenda requires them to conflate non-secret Mushroom use with secret mushroom use

and coral rock does that to call rock conflates mushroom use with secret mushrooms he is unable why does a Carl Ruck share the same agenda as the bad guys the the cover up operation call rock agrees with those who adhere to the cover up operation he agrees that the only kind of mushroom use that that you can conceptualize the only possible kind of mushroom use that’s possible is secret mushroom use with they all agreed either their secret mushrooms or there is no mushroom use those are the two options non-secret Mushroom use simply is not an available debate option it is literally inconceivable

there are two kinds of intelligence scholars or there are two kinds of people who consider whether mushrooms in Christian Art mean mushrooms one kind of person is able to conceptualize non-secret Mushroom use the other kind of person is constitutionally in capable of thinking the thought of non-secret Mushroom use and you can really characterize and pinpoint the position that says those mushrooms are not mushrooms you can truly pin the essence the linchpin of their thinking and the linchpin of their agenda driven argumentation and motive reasoning

is that their inability to think the thought non-secret Mushroom use they are under the delusion that the entire debate well maybe it’s a couple different ways to put it or there’s a couple different aspects one good aspect one good clear-cut aspect is they believe that there are only two possible positions either secret mushroom use or else no mushroom use and so they believe as soon as they argue for and disprove secret use they really believe that they have therefore proved no use that is the structure of their argumentation that is the structure of Panofsky’s argumentation he’s arguing that I better do a voice recording on