Panofsky Letters Discoveries

Wasson Archives in the Harvard University Herbaria – https://huh.harvard.edu/pages/archives

[pers. corr.: Jan. 22, 2023 Prof. Jerry Brown:] copied from Idea Dev page 16:

“As a result of that visit, the Wasson Archives sent us the image of Wasson and Richardson with Maria Sabina, which we published as color plate 4 in the book.

“We also read a good deal of Wasson’s voluminous correspondence, including with Robert Graves, and in the process came upon the two 1952 letters from Panofsky.

“We requested [in 2012 or in 2019 when writing the article] and received the images of the two letters along with permission from the Wasson Archives to reprint them with proper citation.

“For this reason, the Panofsky letters are cited as follows in this [2019] article:

Figure 2.

Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass

Figure 3.

Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass

“To honor our responsibility to the Wasson Archives, this [the above] is the way to cite the Panofsky letters when you reprint them, along with the fact that they were published in our article …”

Ruck, M. Hoffman, and Brian Muraresku set up Wasson West:

The Wasson-Ruck Entheogenic Research Institute and Archives (WRERI)
http://wassonwest.com

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

Search this site: panofsky letter
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/?s=panofsky+letter

Panofsky Letters Discoveries
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/04/28/panofsky-letters-discoveries/

Voice dictation, May 1, 2022

6:49 AM May 1, 2022 – applying more reflection and weighing the indicators, I must conclude/ we must conclude that Panofsky in letter number two is not in fact just considering the lone question of the planecurled Fresco

it is evident because his reasoning doesn’t make sense if he’s only talking about a single tree

he rigidly conflates this one tree question with the question of interpreting all mushroom trees.

His letter overall doesn’t make sense if what he has in mind is only exclusively the single tree.

This whole reasoning is very much emphatically proxy-assumed, proxy shaped

clearly he believes, it is plainly clear that he believes that planecrawled is a proxy.

his letter and his reasoning cohere if you assume that what he has in mind is the question of how to interpret all mushroom trees all together all at once

Errata

Ep128b Too Many Pilzbaum – MORAL: yet again I see the downside of when I’m trying to analyze a passage while reading it aloud for the first time

I instead I am supposed to shut up and stop my dang commentary and first read the whole passage, entirely and accurately.

This is really bad – I’m listening to when I then finally did a straight reading and I swear I misread during a straight reading I wrongly said the word “project” but I’m rubbing my eyes now and it says the word “product” not “project”

this is a pretty embarrassing inexcusable misreading.

read the entire passage smoothly and accurately word for word before I comment on it

do not dive into analysis before I have ever finished reading the first the whole paragraph – But my problem here is worse than that: I am just plain misreading it.

even when I simply read the passage aloud, I’m misreading the word.

I need to focus on accurately reading the paragraph as is , to comprehend which word choice he is using, before I spout off and go off under my own delusion that the author wrote the word “project”, when in fact if I would shut up and read, and stop going off prematurely, I would accurately comprehend and firmly consistently grasp that the author wrote the word “product”, not the word “project”

in fact the only “project” going on here is I projected my confused misreading onto his writing word choice

I need to read the whole paragraph first before I spout off and dive into analyzing it.

I keep failing at this

I keep misreading, a terrible mistake and teetering of mine – and I keep flip-flopping between Panofsky’s phrase “the finished product” and my misreading as “the finished project” because the font of the typewriter font maybe blurry and because it was my first time reading through his often unclear leaps of reasoning and presuppositions but he writes “the finished product” he describes the alledged gradually distorted templates

therefore the fact that he wrote “the finished product” in the context it must mean that he’s talking about the templates were misread as mushrooms, not that – as I incorrectly interpreted during my initial run, I incorrectly interpreted and decided that Panofsky was saying that the artist(s) misinterpreted their own “finished project” but rather Panofsky was talking about the artist(s) misinterpreted the finished product of the alleged (FABRICATED) pine tree “gradual transformation process” which he keeps on emphasizing and going way out of his way to emphasize and which I describe as

what’s going on here as in fact it is Panofsky who has manufactured a conversion process, a transformation process of his own invention

Panofsky developed and fabricated his Pinetree conversion process actually in fact for the purpose expressly of converting mushroom trees to pine trees

the only templates that were involved and the only alleged transformation process and conversion process gradual conversion process is that gradually Panofsky made sht up and fabricated this whole conversion process for the purpose of the reverse of his lying invented fabricated story

or maybe Brinckmann fabricated and invented it , but the purpose of this story about the transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible

distortion The transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible

Panofsky refuses to say the templates or the mushroom trees, he always expresses and forces himself on us , shoving down our throats his “the transformation process” “the conversion process” of pine trees

but in fact what we have here is his own fabricated lying invention of a transformation process to transform mushroom trees – which is the given data – per his phrase “the finished product”( which I keep mispronouncing as the finished “project”) and I am good at reading, so this proves how bad we are at reading) into imagined as if original pine trees

he fabricated and invented the conversion process – which actually in fact is it a conversion process of converting mushroom trees to pine trees, but pretending and putting on the pretense and pretext that the conversion process goes in the other direction, from pine trees to mushroom trees conversion

orig timestamp of page here

I just noticed, I just discovered that neatly handwritten on the first letter from Panofsky to Wasson is the correct German title of Brinkman’s little book.

also in my exhausting/ exhaustive word by word analysis of Panofsky’s bizarre reasoning and thinking style with the incredible lack of imagination and rigid unimaginative thinking 99% of it unstated and implicit only.

all kinds of arbitrary assumptions making it difficult to follow what his train of argumentation even is , with gigantic leaps premised on unbelievable unimaginative assumptions and arbitrary assumptions that are as

they’re both pre-judged prejudiced presuppositions and considered not explicitly spelled out there arbitrary

everything is wrong with this

what passes for thinking

this seems more like sleepwalking

The first letter

we must see the photographs that Brown and Brown have provided of Pulaski’s letters

everything is left out of them all the time

people never even mention these things these important things

I’m finding all kinds of key observations and these two letters from Panofsky to Wassen

there’s a ton of relevant stuff here that nobody talks about, nobody pointed out, and I’m pointing out a whole pile of points that people haven’t made .

Panofsky makes an argument “they can’t be mushrooms, because they have branches.

“the artist didn’t mean mushrooms, because if the artist meant mushrooms, the artist would have ignored the distorted templates and would have drawn the mushroom trees with no branches”

first Pulaski recommends Brinckmann’s book which wasson sensors out

then I discovered that Wassen or someone hand wrote the correct title of Brooklyn’s book on the first letter

and then I discovered that Pulaski hand wrote on his second letter to Wasson that “you may keep my poor little pictures” ; the photo stats, the two of them, of mushroom trees.

and then he adds the interesting sentence “but I do recommend to look into the little book by a e Brinckmann”

so two times Panofsky recommended Brinckmann’s little book which he twice Calls it a “little” book

Panofsky two times recommends Brinckmann’s book to Wasson, and additionally, handwritten on the first letter, is the correct German title of Brinkman’s book(!)

but tell me this, Carl Rut:

did Wasson ever write the word Brinckmann, for “the public” “consumption”??

and if not, why not?-banker for the pope

no direct, financial conflict of interest there

💰

The ramifications branch out from there

the Purpose of entheogen scholarship is to block and prevent entheogens Scholarship entheogen scholarship and protect the Salvation Salesmen’s racket.

and The Witches play right into it

their actions show which side theyre on, complicit compromise

Time for Jonathan Ott to lead a new entheogenic reformation