Today’s 2-hour Egodeath Mystery Show, April 12, 2022:
Listen to today’s Egodeath Mystery Show for details and examples. dl the mp3 from “idea devmt page 13 ” at this site.
I reject for my main article and I reject for Dr. Brown’s database project the notion that it is to convince anyone that there are mushrooms in esoteric art
this is a non-goal
that is an immature childish goal and a stunted development level on which to ask questions
after adopting a mature adult level of conversation, the questions still remain: in what sense, or to what degree, is that a mushroom?
but we are entirely changing the context
we are firmly rejecting the context of the isolated question ” are there visionary plants in religious art ?”
we must stop asking that as an isolated question
that’s immature and childish and stunted and goes nowhere and cannot succeed
My main article will still continue to ask “is this particular item a mushroom , or to what degree ?” – but it is to be understood that the entire world of religious art is a mushroom world through and through.
We are asking: in what way is item X a Mushroom, given that the entire context of meaning is depictions of mushroom experiences
Religious art, as a genre, is depictions of mushroom experiencing
that is the context, the correct mature context, in which we ask “in what way is item X a Mushroom?”
I will rewrite my article to delete any hint any indication where a question or debate is couched from the context of the isolated immature question
I will make it a non-goal for the article to ask “is it a Mushroom” as an isolated field of questioning
I will change the wording and basis context of what we are debating and interpreting. proof not that there are msh in Christian art, but rather, prove that the way Christian art depicts psychedelic religious experiencing is via non-branching.
compelling evidence not that Christian art contains msh (that is the data obvious given), but that Christian art contains depictions of effects
Cyberdisciple gave overcomplicated mutant threefold non binary types of evidence: two levels of depictions of PLANTS, and one level of depictions of EFFECTS of plants.
Focus on latter, prove latter, give evidence of latter.
Former (plants themselves) is strictly in a support role; else it is a non-goal.
I will establish that the premise from the very start of the article, the reader and author will assume that we all agree throughout the entire article that:
The purpose of religious art and the genre of religious art mystic esoteric mystical art the genre is depictions of psychedelic experiencing.
then the entire effort of the article will be within that given self-evident premise, context.
eg art historians call them msh trees; use that as a symbol.
the Salvation Salesmen know perfectly well they are msh;
their concern is to cover up the self-evidently obvious and pretend to not believe what they believe and pretend to not recognize what is perfectly, self evidently obvious.
Of course these liars know that they represent Mushrooms
that’s exactly why they call them Mushroom Trees
don’t play into their bluffing lies
just expose them and called them liars to their faces and reveal their conflict of interest
call them out publicly on their conflict of interest
they are bluffing
they are phony
they are frauds
they don’t believe what they pretend to believe
they’re trying to con everyone and swindle everyone when they know perfectly well that the mushroom trees represent Mushrooms
identify for example the crucifixion nails are slightly mushroom shaped, so that asks for interpretation
here is the adult mature level of interpretation to fulfill Dr. Brown’s project definition at a mature adult level, to move the field forward from its infantile childish stunted development stage regressive
describe how the result of mushrooms causes a crucifixion experience of being fastened like
my 2006 articleegodeath.com my main article describes the experience of being fastened to the space-time block
this is adult level of so-called Interpretation
my partly immature and partly mature main article at this website too often talks about convincing people
but convincing them of what?
and convincing which people?
we should not be concerned at all with convincing people whether religious art depicts psychedelic experiencing
we should take that as a given data
and then within that paradigm, within that explanatory framework skeleton, we fill in the flesh
we do our convincing
we do our persuading and
we do our interpretation
within that adult mature paradigm.
we are not critiquing the broken inferior past previous theory
we are not here to convince people to switch from the child childish old theory to the new mature theory
rather we are here to develop the adult and fill-in the new theory, the new explanatory framework
The article will take pains to differentiate these two different concepts of Dr. Brown’s database and art Interpretation committee
we are not here to interpret whether our includes any mushrooms or not
rather we are here to recognize the given data that art describes psychedelic experiencing, and then begin our interpretation on that adult basis
we need to move the conversation forward out of its developmentally stunted Carl Ruck stage gang
in childish fashion they try to define the field of Entheogens Scholarship as Spot the mushroom
my main article includes for Dr. Brown a chapter near the end calling for attention to experience instead of the physical plants
The coral Ruck groups approach paradigm is a childish paradigm that presents us with a childish version of mythology and entheogen Scholarship.
because Ruck , despite the word ‘consciousness’ in his book title, is only about physical science, not about cognitive science / phen’y.
we need to move the field of entheogen Scholarship from the childish level of physical science “look mommy there’s a mushroom” to the developed, mature, adult developed form of cognitive science
make good on his falsely advertised book title with the word ‘consciousness’
the field of scholarship here is not plants
we are not here to identify plants
that’s not our driving motive; that is merely an incidental motive
given that mythology is about the visionary plants, yes we do need to do some good identifying of plants
but we are not here for the ultimate purpose of identifying plants
that is Carl rock’s regressive definition of the field of entheogen scholarship as an infantile, developmentally stunted game of “spot the plant”.
we need to stop being driven and limited to a mere “spot the plant” kiddie game.
that needs to be a minor instead of the ultimate goal.
that needs to be merely a minor, supporting topic to support a new , higher level goal.
I am announcing that the new , higher-level, mature, developed, sophisticated, adult version of the field of entheogen scholarship does integrate mythology like coral Ruck has done, but this is adult-level Mythology, not child-level Mythology.
like Carl rock is childish, saying ivy must have been psychoactive, while he fails to look at the morphology, the non-Branching tendency of ivy – that is the cognitive-experiential message.
this is an example of how the Carl rock gang stunts and retards the field and keeps it at a childish level by saying that the goal and driving motivation of the field of Entheogen Scholarship is a regressive, developmentally stunted, adult-child game of “spot the mushroom”, and that’s all – It needs to be a game of “spot the experience description”, not “spot the plant”.
he needs to make good on the title of his book which has the word ‘consciousness’ , he failed to follow through on.
that is the whole purpose and real true goal of studying Mythology in combination with visionary plants.
The real concern of the field of entheogen scholarship & religious mythology is not to merely “spot the plant”, but rather, spot the psychedelic experiencing description, the plant experience, to explain in what specific way mythology and religious art describes the cognitive experiencing that’s induced by the plants.
– Cybermonk
The Egodeath theory 