purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording day before yesterday
The title of the episode means Panofsky’s argument ( or cover story – who knows which it is?):
The reason why we are not permitted to conjecture or interpret Amanita as the Plaincourault fresco Interpretation is because there are too many mushroom trees all throughout Christian art –
not only the subset representing the tree of knowledge, but far beyond that subset
and it is most remarkable his proxy-driven thinking he takes as given.
Panofsky totally absolutely takes it as , unstated, as a given, that our interpretation of this one mushroom tree is physically locked together – it is the same exact interpretation that we are forced to apply to every single mushroom tree
he never even mentions the possibility of interpreting this one mushroom tree, only, as Mushrooms
well like Giorgio Samorini , imagining that we might hold a different interpretation for the remainder
Samorini uses ESP to speculate that one mushroom tree artist did not realize that he was drawing a mushroom, while a different mushroom artist did realize that he was drawing a mushroom
so this way SamRenee instantly robbed us right out of the gate of 50% of the evidence, by supposing that stupid “particularly ignorant craftsman” who have no sentience and no intention behind there mechanical, unthinking copying from templates, Drew Mushroom Trees without realizing what they were drawing
this is the tone of SanMarinois conjecture about intention on the part of the artists
Samorini plays right into this notion that it’s very likely that the mushroom tree artists had no idea, and they would be shocked, shocked! if someone interpreted their mushroom Trees as if intending Mushrooms
but in fact , they would be mad at us for failing to realize and perceive the ramifications of their mushroom trees – Or should I say, the lack of ramifications implied thereby, esoterically speaking – and damn Carl Rut damn you if you try to frame ‘esoteric’ as meaning hidden, and trying to block communication
because against you, is now added a big giant middle finger in my title, my revised, improved title of Brown’s Article, I emphasize pointedly the explicit, not implicit, depictions, specifically in order to communicate – against Carl Rut , not to hide, not to obscure, but rather, to *explicitly communicate* the payload message, which is *not* the stupid mushroom 🍄 object, like Carl Rut says, but rather, the *ramifications* are the *whole point*, ultimately, which is non-branching, experienced in the mushroom-induced state.
that is what the artist means
the artist does not mean “mushrooms”, the mushroom 🍄 object. childish, primitive, concretistic thinking from the Rut camp! a dead end.
the artist means the ramifications, the non-ramifications of the ramifications which are included to turn the mushroom into a mushroom tree
(to answer panofskys question why the tree of knowledge Not Mushroom of knowledge of good and evil)
Anyone with the slightest imagination obviously knows that it is both, it is both a tree with ramifications of mushrooms with ramifications of tree branching ramifications of non-branching experience in the Psilocybin mushroom-induced altered state, which brings the knowledge of branching-based moral agency as conduit of good and evil.
The mental world model of possibility branching-based agency & world is contradicted by the mode of experiencing & perception & thinking/cognition (cognitive mode) that’s revealed in the mushroom induced loose cog state.
Panofsky disagrees with Giorgio Samorini and Panofsky takes it silently as a strong absolute given that we definitely have to treat Plaincourault as a proxy Panofsky implicitly asserts with a 100% strong assertion implicit asserts that however we aim our thumb regarding this one tree it is automatically silently a given absolutely locked together that we are at the same
The same time aiming our thumb in that same direction for every single mushroom Trees and Panofsky absolutely takes it for granted, never mentions it explicitly, that planecrawled absolutely is a proxy
for example, mycollegests had been aware of the hundreds of mushroom trees it what is the impossible absolutely impossible for them to imagine or assert that this one particular instance of mushroom tree is a Amanita
this is one reason why I suspect maybe Panofsky is not an idiot but rather is a liar a conscious intentional cover up artist who is trying to deliver garbled specious party line to the public relations inventor are Gordon Wasson does Panofsky believe his own bullshit I can’t tell but why on earth would Panofsky hold the implicit cell
self-defeating implied premise that we have no option except to treat the plane corralled fresco as a proxy why doesn’t he ever mention the possibility of asserting that this one instance of mushroom tree means mushrooms while simultaneously asserting no position regarding the hundreds of other instances why else would he adopt the implicit proxy role ROLE ROLE for Plaincourault unless he
are motivated by fear the fear of the ramifications of angle in your thumb in an upward direction regarding this one instance
why else would he take it as granted that this will force us to , in that very same act of thumb angling, be voting by proxy on behalf of all of the hundreds (which means thousands) of mushroom imagery which is “so universal ” or “so universally ” present, and not only in the subset of mushroom trees which are used to represent the tree of knowledge, but even far more than that, more numerous orders of magnitude – by an order of magnitude, more numerous
and therefore he evidently, quite evidently believes and takes as granted, takes it as granted that we have no option, no alternative to taking this one instance as a proxy for the entire set of all of them
why does he act like this is an all-or-nothing decision regarding thumb angling?
That seems like a completely self-defeating assumption
why doesn’t he let go of that PROXY assumption?
I think it’s because he knows inside that how we vote on this tree, in fact, is a proxy for our entire paradigm
the entire lying, false paradigm stands or falls with our thumb angle direction regarding the single lone instance of PILZBAUM
regarding angling of his thumb of our thumb
direction that we angle our thumb
is he an idiot, or a liar?? it’s anybody’s guess, – a combination of the two? 🤔
he is, unfortunately, the “most influential” art history fabricator and cover-up artist, in servile service to his overlord, the Salvation Salesmen, frauds who are directly in conflict of interest against identifying ramifications of mushroom trees intended by Ardent intended by artists to explicitly – not implicitly – communicate , and not hide…
I am wagging my finger at Carl Rut
and these mushroom imagery artists use the gigantic humongous enormous Amanita to serve as the advertisement billboard to indicate – just as , exactly the same as head shops – the effective, clean, cognitive loosening agent, physically small and much less visually striking Psilocybin Mushrooms, the ramifications of mushroom trees, by which the artists intended to explicitly communicate the ramifications of mushroom trees, which is to communicate the message of non-branching – the narrow way, the narrow path of Jesus, with pre-existing control thoughts annihilating king ego’s false claim to steer among branching possibilities
both the king’s steering and the possibility branching vanish from experiencing, upon ingesting, being given the psilocybin fruit of the tree of Knowledge, by Christ and by the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; altered-state loose cog insight perspective about moral controller egoic agency.
The purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording yesterday or day before rather, as I have about the second or third chance of listening to that recording
the immediate purpose right now is to note in recording 128B, about 2/3 through about 70% through, because the timestamp on my mobile mobile player is not reliable at all
you can hear me in realtime making out what the handwriting from Panofsky is at the bottom of the second letter to Wasson, “my god”
Please keep my poor little pictures (meaning the two photostats adding to the Brinckmann book citation) as long as you wish.
and then the final sentence, handwritten, the final word from Panofsky to Wasson:
And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.
Brinckmann, Mushroom Trees, & Asymmetrical Branching

The Egodeath theory 