Materialistic vs Experiential Entheogen Theories

On the one hand, we have Shanon & Cybermonk (the Egodeath theory; analogical psychedelic eternalism)

and on the other hand, we have all the other entheogen scholars, all agreeing with each other about “the Mushroom”

I thought of that listening to 2/3 through episode Egodeath Mystery show 140B where I formulated the principle of artist responsibility against 1952 most influential art historian

Link might still work, at idea development page 13. Egodeath Mystery Show

damn this voice dictation awkward touch screen in her face interface

Erwin Panofsky

who solves the problem of artists meaning mushroom, by simply deleting the artists, and deleting consciousness, and deleting meaning –

presto, we have gotten rid of everything except the distorted Pine tree physical objects, in order to get rid of the mushroom physical objects, and any pesky humans with intention and responsibility and intent and meaning and reference

Art does not mean mushrooms, because art does not mean anything at all

we have managed to solve the pilzbaum problem by getting rid of the mushrooms and getting rid of the humans and getting rid of intention and consciousness and everything so that the only thing remaining is rocks and trees and definitely no mushrooms and certainly no intention of mushrooms, because we’ve gotten rid of intention, consciousness, and artistic responsibility

– brought to you by the most influential art historian of the mid 20th century, heyday of denying the existence of consciousness

Who other than me and Benny Shanon, is based in experiencing, based in phenomenology?

never was I ever based in physical mushroom object materialism, which like Jan Irvin gives lipservice

these guys make sure to mention the word experience , and then they go right back to their physical concretization in pursuit of the mushroom 🍄 object:

childish, concrete thinking, physical; materialist

in the key years 1986 1987 I made sure to never focus on the agent that brings loosening of cognitive binding, and that is one reason why I never heard of allegro I never read any of these guys in the field of entheogen scholarship

and so my core theory never had the taint of concrete physical limitation to that childish realm, but was always based in experiencing, 1 hundred percent, that’s where I come from, unlike others entheogen scholars

I dug in the other day to test again does Carl rock book called consciousness entheogen’s myth and human consciousness does it in fact contain the word consciousness and here’s what I found that it contains a bunch of gibberish academic nonsense words that don’t appear in the dictionary, used in weird ways

words like debranch, possibilism, eternalism; wtf , speak English!!

So it’s anybody’s guess who throws around obscure terminology like that

is this guy talking about consciousness??

it’s not clear at all what the hell he’s talking about

but I guess most relevant is the question is he talking about block universe world lines Branching nonbranching experiencing phenomenology?

or on the other hand is his Theory of Visionary Plants limited and restricted to the physical concrete materialist realm, and so based in that realm that this scolor only gives mere lip service to the word experience , once in a while, or put the word consciousness in the title, but just provide a bunch of gibberish instead, not really talk about the experiencing

There seems to be a convention in this field of entheogen scholarship, of a focus and a limitation to the concrete physical realm of objects materialistic

ironically since we’re talking about the agents which give the imagination flight and give rise to a different motive mode of experiencing which is very much not physical

but ironically we talk about it’s sort of like exoteric Esotericism – we have ordinary state based studies in altered state plants that focus on the physical plants, per materialistic science – where in the hell is cognitive science and phenomenology in all of this asc scholarship?