I want to work on my voice practice quotations page in conjunction with my scholarly Hall of Fame page interestingly a third page is in a certain category that’s forming because there’s also the quotes of the great mystics of ego death page all of these seem to lend themselves well to a voice practice material
Uncanny parallel 1. impossible to tell if mushroom use
rolfe’s book “The romance of the fungus world” has a sentence that is strangely uncannily parallel with Hatsis’ claim.
both of them use the word or the idea of “impossible”:
I want to study how to passage in one of hatsis articles where he says – it’s a great interesting argument, or set of 3 assertions: –
1. The Thomas Hatsis first principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible to depict identifiable psychoactive mushroom species in the medium of Christian art.
2. The Thomas Hatsis second principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible to depict ingesting the depicted mushrooms, in the medium of Christian art.
3. The Thomas Hatsis third principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible in the medium of Christian art to depict ingesting the depicted identifiable psychoactive mushroom species specifically for the purpose and context of religious experiencing.
The Thomas Hatsis corollary principle of Christian art versus secular art information carrier potential:
If the above image were in a Christian art piece, it would not be possible to identify this depicted mushroom drawing as a specific particular psychoactive Mushroom species.
However, because the above image is in secular art, we can immediately, and completely unproblematically, identify the drawing as specifically the species Amanita muscaria.
Hatsis says that:
1) you can’t prove that a Mushroom in Christian Art is a psychoactive species; and
2) even if you could, you couldn’t prove that it was ingested; and
3) even if you could, you couldn’t prove that it was ingested intentionally deliberately to have religious experiencing; that the depicted ingesting of the depicted psychoactive mushroom species specifically is in the Christian religious context of intention and meaning.
The cybernetician and communication theory expert Thomas Hatsis says that as far as signal and communication message in a medium, it is not possible to transmit a message that is proof and definite evidence of ingesting mushrooms; and it is impossible to transmit proof in that medium that the ingesting was done intentionally for the purpose of religious experiencing.
consider mediums such as cyberdisciple’s sharp, clean-cut distinction , division between text versus art (and who knows where statuary and coins fit into his cut and dry sword sharp cut off of the different branches of evidentiary artifact types)
We have carriers like a wire, or the air transmitting a radio signal , and we have text as a carrier of evidence , and we have art like pictures say pictures such as – random example – serrations base of Amanita on the children’s picture book that Julie might want to take a look at Ha ha ha
Why do we make the mistake of thinking that there’s two types of evidence: media or communication transmissions message medium of either text or art.
what about coins, what about statues, what about a metal wire, what about transmitted radio frequency electromagnetic waves as a carrier medium ; Christian radio broadcast of branching Mushroom messages?
Let us separate in our analysis, the medium of text or of pictures, which could be ink , paint, parchment, (animal skin or papyrus) , walls , cave walls, rock walls , illuminated manuscripts, graffiti inscribed with a donkey on a cross a Cross in Rome, or bas reliefs: shallow sculpture on a sarcophagus rock
The great cybernetician and communication theorist Hatsis explains to us that in all of these Christian art mediums, 2) it is not possible to transmit proof of ingesting the depicted psychoactive Mushroom species, and that 3) it is not possible to use the any of these mediums to transmit proof and evidence of the use of the depicted psychoactive mushroom for the purpose of religious experiencing.
2) There is just no way that we can indicate- that any artist could use any of these art mediums to transmit definite, positive Proof and evidence of ingesting mushrooms.
3) and especially, it is impossible for these mediums to transmit evidence and proof of a purpose a religious purpose of such ingesting of the depicted identifiable Mushroom species,
1) But let us not forget how to use his opening claim and great principle of communication theory : that it is not possible for Christian artists to transmit in art image form proof of identifiable psychoactive mushroom species.
1) For some reason, it is possible for the book “the golden guide to hallucinogenic plants ” to depict a scientific identifiable illustration of amanita, but for some reason, according to Hattsis’ is communication principle number 1 of the inherent limitation of the pictorial art form, he explains that it is not possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species image in Christian art.
That’s the Thomas Hatsis 1st Principle of Communication Theory based on transmission medium.
2) Hatsis then builds on this master-work fundamental principle of communication theory, by showing further that it is not possible for an artist or transmit pictoral proof and evidence of ingesting the depicted (if it were possible to to depict the identifiable psychoactive species, which is not possible; see Hatsis’ First Principle of Communication Theory).
1) Hatsis explains that it is not possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species image; that’s the Thomas Hatsis first principle of communication theory based on transmission medium.
2) Hatsis then builds on this master-work fundamental principle of communication theory by showing further that it is not possible for an artist or transmit pictoral proof and evidence of ingesting the depicted (if it were possible to to depict the identifiable psychoactive species, which it is not possible; see communication Hatsis community Communication principle number 1: it is not possible).
2) Even if it were possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species in the art format medium, even if you could, it would not be possible to transmit evidence and proof in this communication medium of art of ingesting the depicted mushroom ( if it were possible to depict an identifiable psychoactive Mushroom species).
3) And then his great third principal, which let me explain to you in this lecture, of Hatsis’ 3rd Principle of Communication Cybernetics theory.
the grand finale here so put your seatbelt on ha ha ha ha
3) it is not possible to transmit, using the pictoral art medium, proof and evidence – definitive clear-cut beyond-a-doubt proof and evidence – of ingesting the depicted mushrooms (if it were possible to depict a identifiable species, which is not ; see Hatsis’ communication principal number 1) in that very same image, it would not be possible to provably depict ingesting it for the purpose of religious experiencing.
… Cyberdisciple would categorize as so-called “art”.
We have a medium and we have a message.
The medium can be either one of two things: for some reason, God has provided us with precisely – he has taken a sword and precisely cut the medium into exactly 2 types: either text, or art.
Cyberdisciple’s text is artless, and his art is illiterate, because God has sharply cut with his sword our branches of transmission communication message mediums into exactly 2 types.
just like there’s male and female God created them , and in such manner also there are two mediums:
Cyberdisciple explains that in the beginning, when God created the evidence, text and art God created them, and he saw his creation, and he saw that it was good.
Now that we have cut apart the transmission medium from the message which is thereby transmitted the great cybernetician Thomas Hatsis has explained exactly why it is not possible to transmit proof of mushroom species in pictographic form (please inform Richard Schultes the author of “the golden guide to hallucinogenic plants”, who has foolishly attempted to depict a specific mushroom species of amanita on the cover of his children’s book that’s leading children astray thinking that they might be able to become religious artists and depict specifically Amanita in their art , but this is not possible in fact, as Hatsis has explained, because of the inherent limits of the pictographical medium of communication and proof and evidence.
even though it is possible to transmit evidence and proof in the form of a text.
Claude Shannon went to the grave without ever solving the problem of why this is.
get to the point
the summary is the :
put side-by-side:
Hatsis’ claim that it is impossible to give proof in art of use of mushrooms for religious experiencing.
side-by-side with:
1925 book Rolfe: “the romance of the fungus world”, who claims (when mis-identifying the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the “tree of life”), he claims that it is impossible to tell whether this use of mushrooms has any historical basis.
Thomas Hatsis’ article where hatsis claims that it is impossible for artists in the middle ages to deliver and transmit proof in their art imagery that they that the psychoactive mushrooms which they are depicting in these pictures were ingested by the artist and we’re done so ingested for the purpose of religious experiencing.
put those two quoted passages side-by-side.
Uncanny Parallel 2: “followers of Wassen” – or “followers of allegro”??
The other parallel that is the purpose of this webpage:
the other uncanny striking remarkable pearlallel which shows how people don’t think as individuals but they follow a course of a certain school of thought in a certain type and manner of thought rather than thinking as autonomous individuals the other example is
to get to the point before the end of time and second coming
I need to make a local full copy of the article that’s at archive.org because we know articles disappear from the web all the time it’s the default by default every article will vanish from the web we need to make back up
in John Lash his deleted articles about entheogens in which he says he made the discovery of a lifetime that would be enough to retire on it was such a major mind blowing discovery end and he’s correct when he discovered mushrooms in the Canterbury Psalter.
The uncanny parallel here is put side-by-side the quotation the citation excerpt of :
John lash’ deleted article where he says (see my hall of shame quotes page) he says anyone (other than John Lash) who writes anything at all about the subject of mushrooms in religion is by definition a follower of Wassen – including anyone who takes any different view other than Wasson – they are all to be considered as “followers of Wason “
put that side-by-side with :
Hatsisis’ exactly Word for Word identical passage were Wasson where instead of fingering wasson as the villain, Hatsis arbitrarily chooses to finger allegro as the villain instead, and says that anybody who writes anything (again hats this is somehow magically exempted but ) anyone (other than hatsid) who writes anything at all about mushrooms in Christianity is by definition a “follower of allegro” – wait a minute, why allegro here instead of wasson? what’s going on here? what strange parallel but with that one arbitrary difference.
The Egodeath theory 