https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/article-p43.xml

special issue includes brown and brown Article https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/2054.3.issue-2.xml

His account is strikingly pro-psilocybin, but unfortunately, as always, when it comes to Europe, Carl Ruck is overly dominant and extreme overemphasis of amanita, at the direct expense of Psilocybin, and all of Winkelman’s efforts can’t overcome that extreme intensive bias against psilocybin in favor of kiddie mushrooms that’s baked into the Dr. Rut Secret Amanita paradigm inextricably.

Winkelman also succumbs to the tale of exaggerated suppression in mid-history, which I extremely disagree with and battle against.

this is a brand new issue

it just came out

it’s less than three years ago

it came out June 1, 2019

so we’re still within the second year

and so it’s brand new still and

Brown and Brown have just released hot off the press shortly before 2022 they just released both of Panofsky’s Letters to Wasson, side-by-side in adjacent pages!

which I have now printed out and enhanced and marked with highlighters so that I can analyze these brand new documents that just became available June 1, 2019.

I read the Browns’ paper when it first came out, but a deep reading can take years.

like 15 years.

Wasson corresponded with Panofsky in 1952. Robert Graves around 1954.

Wassen wrote a book in 1957, and 1968.

John allegro wrote a book 1970.

John King wrote a reply or a reflection book in 1970. A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth

Jan irvin published Astrotheology & Shamanism 2009 second edition black and white

and The Holy Mushroom 2008 and

John allegro’s book with the planecorralled Fresco re-added 2009

and I wrote the article about planecrawled & Wasson and Allegro amanita in 2006 which was three years before the second edition of Astrotheology book came out

and we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later, I wrote the article about allegro and plaincoral

Perspective on Time: Panofsky’s TWO Letters to Wasson Have Just Now Become Available for Assessment & Critique, for the First Time!

we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later I wrote the article about allegro and the stupid Road block obstruction that is plaincoral stunting the whole field and blocking all progress.

and only now 5 ms ago I stopped squeezing my eyes shut and actually took a critical look at the fresco to assess the morphology:

the V shape of Eve’s arms and Adams arms and the arms holding up the cap

And their arms holding up the yellow side of the cap

and Eve standing with left foot on top of the right foot with the right foot on the ground

and her legs squeezed together rather than branching apart

and the four limbs of the mushroom tree: the two arms and two legs of the mushroom tree.

and the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree

my Breakthrough groundbreaking work on interpreting and recognizing the basic elementary fundamental themes in mushroom art:

left hand

left limb vs right limb

branching vs. nonbranching

youth vs. bearded

turning to look to the right vs. left

balancing on right leg

tree contrasted against snake

branching contrasted against non-branching

left limb contrasted against right limb

“mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches” is precisely the scheme of these “transformed pine tree templates”, “schematized, schematization, impressionistic the rendered”, yada yada that Panofsky goes on and on about, as of desperate to tell a story, do storytelling hard enough to make it avoid leading to the destination which it produces,

but by putting all focus on the starting point of pine trees, he cannot undo magically the conclusion product result that’s the outcome of his process, which is: mushroom trees that look like mushrooms plus branching – recognizably, unmistakably so.

he thinks that just because there are templates development process did i mention -> 🎄FROM 🎄 PINE 🎄TREES <- (look here!!), he thinks he can get rid of the mushrooms that are thereby produced –

as if mushrooms and a templates development process that starts from pine trees are mutually incompatible!

Please explain why a mushroom intentional outcome is somehow incompatible with a pine tree template developmental process.

there is no contradiction there, in fact.

and he has zero explanation for exactly why did everyone come to accept the templates coming to represent pine trees which looks so extremely like mushrooms that despite having branches (and cut branches, by the way, which he fails to mention) that “we art historians” nevertheless “actually refer to them as mushroom trees”, because they look so very unmistakably like mushrooms that even though they have added branches (and cut branches I might add), we art historians call them “mushroom trees”, which destroys Panofsky’s arguments.

and he is constantly contradicting himself.

he lectures us about how “medieval artists hardly ever work directly from nature, but they work from templates” – and then he directly contradicts himself and says that the same artists, if they wanted to depict mushrooms, would throw their templates in the garbage can and suddenly go look up nature and draw a scientific illustration literal mushrooms.

and he never considers why do the templates show mushroom imagery combined with branches and combined with cut branches and sometimes these very same mushroom trees have zero ramifications added 10 out of 75 in Canterbury Mushroom plants have no branching – which directly contradicts the data, directly contradicts Panofsky’s assertions.

and he’s contradicting himself constantly.

and he’s even resorting to name-calling and insults, because he knows his argument is so weak, that he’s desperate and resorts to name-calling and using charged, smear language, loaded language, because he knows that honest argumentation he’s sinking

and he also reveals that he knows the truth that planecrawl is a proxy, and that is exactly how he treats it

he is all in 100% to treat planecrawled as proxy

and he acts guilty

he’s acting guilty and

his argumentation is incoherent, self-contradictory, and specious

and he resorts to name calling: “some especially ignorant craftsman”; “under the delusion”

and he fails to say why

tell me why why why Mr. brilliant most influential art historian, who goes around insulting anyone who reads mushroom trees as mushrooms, tell me why in the hell did the direction of distortion of pine tree templates settle at the final form after the process of transformation produced in its final form precisely Mushrooms plus branches plus Cut branches

why did that happen Y, Y, Y, of all the potential directions for distortion of pine trees, why did the artists agree to settle on that final form, which is precisely mushroom imagery, plus branches (plus cut branches)?

I have a 100% coherent and perfectly fitting explanation: because mushrooms induce the experience of avnon-branching world, in contrast to the ordinary-state experience of branching

and this is what religious experiencing peak ecstasy is all about

so it is nonsense, sheer nonsense to say, to argue, as he does, he falsely says “Medieval artists would have no reason to depict mushrooms” – but he just contradicted himself! he just said, two seconds ago, that French witches may have ingested “toadstools” in order to induce ecstasy. he just answered his own question, two seconds ago!

so why does he say middle-age medieval Christian artist would have no reason to depict mushrooms in the Religious mystical art, given that mystical equals ecstasy?

his argument doesn’t make any sense, and he’s contradicting himself left and right, and he has no explanation except “no reason”.

🤷‍♂️ art style = no reason

he says “no reason”; it’s he says “random meaningless impressionistically rendered Pine trees, that it is purely coincidence, and there’s no reason whatsoever why this impression mystically impression ended up “quite unrecognizable” as pine tree impression.

yet the art historians say the theme is, the final end result of “the Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process” at its final conclusion, to use his own words against him, the conclusion of the process, the grand conclusion of “the grand Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process”, which he goes on and on and on about “the process of the Pinetree process Pinetree Pinetree process process”

Keep saying “pine tree process”, maybe that will desperately change the fact that we have a big giant arrow pointing from pine tree to what? to what, and why?

pointing to mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches (plus no branches!) – that’s what your Panofsky Pine Tree 🎄 Transformation Process points to

and the proof is that we art historians describe them as “Mushroom Trees” despite the branching, because despite the branching, they are extremely recognizable – as exactly mushrooms plus branches.

so why tell me why, oh why, Mr. “most influential art historian”, “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”, Erwin Panofsky, tell me, answer me this, Mr. influential:

why why why did the artists agree to halt and stop and terminate your “Panofsky pine tree development process(TM) , transformation process, process, Pine tree process, transformation development process, pine tree 🎄🎄🎄 yada yada (chant harder!) “Yet another instance” and more instances and instances beyond instances “exemplifying” the Panofsky great pine tree transformation process instances exemplification (never call them “Mushroom Trees”; call them “pine tree transformation instances”; “process process” – he wear his himself out in his vigorous repeated strenuous storytelling.

As if chanting the word “process” & “pine tree” 🎄🎄🎄 enough times can change the fact that the outcome of this very process is none other than mushroom images with added branching (and cut branches, and no branches).

I don’t care how “process” your process is, and how very processy your processed process is – that doesn’t change the fact that the outcome of the process is mushrooms with branches! WHY THAT OUTCOME?

Answer the question, and your answer is “no reason no reason at all impressionistically rendered sheer random accidental meaningless insignificant pointless pure empty style”, says “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”.

not impressed by the overwhelming power of this compelling argument of yours, your argument from pointless meaninglessness and insignificance

you say that art is insignificant pointless and meaningless, Mr. influential art historian

I know only one other historian that makes as much sense and is so trustworthy and reliable and solidly-based as this argumentation from senseless pointlessness

no reason at all , he says, just whim; arbitrary meaningless insignificance, “purely fortuitous”.

🎄->🍄=no reason, purely fortuitous, and every last one of those artists who are not “delusional” and “exceptionally ignorant” would be shocked, shocked! that anyone would interpret their mushroom trees (despite branches) as if they intended mushrooms, which wouldn’t make any sense, for a mystic religious artist to depict that plant which Panofsky just said induces ecstasy

NO REASON , is Panofsky’s “explanation” of artistic choice, of his Panofsky Pinetree Process(TM) that concludes in & settles on quite recognizable mushrooms with branching, fully recognizable even despite the added branching (& cut branches, & no traces of ramification, i 13% of instances of the Panofsky Pine 🎄 Tree Development Transformation Process).

The reason why we know for a fact that these don’t mean mushrooms is because process process process process pine tree development process therefore the end result cannot possibly mean mushrooms because process

Process; therefore, cannot mean mushroom, because process.

do you follow my argumentation good I knew you would

why did it end up looking so extremely Mushroom-like that we art historians refer to these as “mushroom trees” despite the branching – and might I add, the cut branches

and your answer is “for no reason at all”

that’s your answer

you propose that it was no reason whatsoever that your Pinetree process outcome equals Mushrooms, so very mushroom-like that even adding branches cannot hide the fact that these are obvious blatant Mushrooms , which is why we art historians call them “mushroom trees” despite the Branching

and all you have to say for yourself for your sorry Cover-up operation is that there is no reason

this is the Panofsky explanation, equals no reason; pure coincidence, no reason, purely fortuitous, no reason at all they randomly impressionistically produced, that the production outcome process result final termination final form equals Mushrooms with branches and cut branches

and what is your explanation Mr. most influential art historian?

answer: “no reason “; “purely fortuitous”; “”impressionistically rendered Pine tree”, “Pine tree” , say at 18 times: “Pine tree, “Pine tree” 🎄 🎄

Panofsky, maybe if you say the word “pine tree” and “process” enough times, you can implement a reverse transformation process, to convert your mushroom trees with branches and cut branches back into pine trees, in order to neutralize them.

this is what a Panofsky “pine tree development process” is really all about:

it is to “develop” the mushrooms with branches (& cut branches, & no ramifs) into pine trees – which is the opposite of what your artists are trying to do.

we have a war of the art historians at war against the artists.

the artists make a process that converts pine trees to mushroom trees plus branches plus cut branches (& no branches), and then here comes Panofsky, “the most influential art of story and of the 20th century” (century of stupidity and cluelessness, and whose fault is that? 🤨😠), and his job is to set up a counter-process to counter-develop, to turn the Mushroom Trees with Branching and cut branches – and some of the trees with no branching at all (against his assertion that “even the most mushroom-lookin mushroom trees have at least traces of ramification”, which is a false claim, because 13% of Canterbury have no traces of ramification, and plus I found in the Eustis window of Chartres cathedral, I have discovered what I get to name “Pilzbaum Pairs”(tm Cybermonk), which means stylistically matched pairs that have one mushroom tree that has no branching, combined with and contrasted against another mushroom tree that has branching – which I think that was this morning, about five seconds ago I invented/discovered that recognition reading, or maybe yesterday, May 4, 2022).

and Panofsky thinks that he can put the spotlight on “the development, the Pine tree development process” will somehow change the fact that the outcome of the process is so very mushroom-like, that we art historians call the mushrooms (plus branching plus cut branches plus some mushroom trees with no branching) “pilzbaum”, showing that although you call them “quite unrecognizable” ( as pine trees), we are at historians declare that they are in fact quite recognizable, as mushrooms with branching features.

and I demand to know, Panofsky, what is your explanation for exactly why did the “impressionistically rendered pine tree process” produce the outcome that is unmistakably, highly recognizable as mushrooms – why, tell me why, explain to me why THAT outcome?!

and your explanation is what?

no reason, randomness, and sheer denial that these mushroom shapes don’t mean mushrooms (delivered with girlish insults, in place of arguments) and

you say that that is proved by the fact that “they all have ramifications added” but for one thing, I proved the 10 out of 75 in Canterbury do not have ramifications at all ,

and I proved that there’s a deliberate contrasting of a mushroom tree with no branching, contrasted against a mushroom tree that has branching and so

I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast branching versus non-branching is the whole message & intent!

and what’s your excuse Panofsky?

sheer denial, sheer name-calling, insults and sure insistence that…

“some especially ignorant craftsman”

“under the delusion”

“misapprehend”

on WHAT BASIS all this girlish & weak resorting to name-calling insults? these are sheer foot stomping declarations & Proclamations

these are not arguments; these are position statements, not argumentation statements.

“I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that the “pine tree process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form that artists come to accept, happens to be exactly:

mushroom shaped plus branches plus cut branches plus no branches.

of a mushroom tree with no branching contrast against a Mushroom tree that has branching and so

I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast Branching Versus nonbranching is the whole message

sheer denial, sheer name-calling & insults, and sure insistence that “I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that “the pine tree transformation process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form, happens to be exactly, quite recognizably mushroom shaped, plus branches, plus cut branches, plus no branches

and what’s your excuse for that highly recognizable as mushroid outcome of your Grand Pine Tree Transformation Process, Panofsky?

and you say that they have no intention of looking like mushrooms and that it’s purely a coincidence and that the reason that they end up looking exactly like mushrooms with branches is no reason at all and pure accident pure coincidence for no reason at all . purely FORTUITOUS.

🌳->🍄process outcome = no reason

that’s your “explanation”.

not very compelling.

and you argue “why would a religious person want to depict ecstasy from mushrooms?”

are you stupid?

the “most influential art historian” is a DOLT.

Panofsky says “why would a mystic artist want to depict mushrooms that I just said produce ecstasy?”

what the hell do you think ecstasy is , if not religious experiencing?!

can you be any stupider

and self-contradictory?!

can you put forth an “argument” that makes any less sense?

The Name of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

and why the hell can’t anyone get the name of the tree correct

the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

the name of the tree is not the tree of knowledge

the name of the tree is not the tree of good and evil

everyone gets it wrong all the time

the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil