Voice miss transcription
Value of Transcendent Knowledge
Discuss what value is transcendent knowledge; why is transcendent knowledge the most valuable thing?
Newbie Summaries Podcasts
Self-contained newbies summary podcast: Vialgate; summary of the Brown book’s and article’s inconsistent Interpretation of Walburga tapestry Vial
read the two passages
bad influence of Hatsis, does Irvin Rush see too many msh? yes & no.
criteria of proof & compelling evidence. browns proposed committee.
did church assert or deny msh? what does Rush 2nd Ed say?
Self-contained podcast summary reading the pair of Panofsky letters to Wasson
introduction to the subject of assessing Mushrooms in Medieval Church
What is the relationship between this topic and ahistoricity
multiple senses of “the Allegro theory” – Valentinian Gnostics believed Allegro’s theory per Pagels – sets of views per Freke & Pagels, the exoteric vs esoteric systems of thinking; world models
explain for newbies what the importance and relevance of this subject is regarding the full repeal of prohibition of psilocybin and the need to prepare session guides with the suitable required knowledge about passing through the door of control transformation or to snatch and {steal} sacred fire gnosis like a thief, experiencing & probing/ experimenting with the loss of control, without experiencing actual loss of control.
I am well prepared, having treated the subject many times, having spoken about this and written about it and this would be good practice for making an episode that would be aimed at people who didn’t know anything about the ego death Theory or about entheogen scholarship, or about who Wasson is, or who Panofsky is, or who John Allegro is
I would assume no knowledge of the field or the debate or the stupid silly slap-fight that’s well below any kind of a scholarly exchange.
stomach reading jan irvin book’s The Holy Mushroom exhaustive detail about the stupid non-exchange between allegro and Wasson, the utter failure of scholarly engagement, a gigantic scholarly fail.
I am obliged to get the color expensive version of Irvin’s book
, and I don’t know… I can’t deal with it 😞
who wants to go into exhausting detail on that 😵
but I have been willing to read brown
I have yet to really subject Brown to criticism on his reading of the second Panofsky letter , but in any case there is a lot to say about Panofsky’s newly published Exposed second letter ( including a critique of brown trying to read it as asserting Amanita).
I am more interested in the 100% thorough deconstruction of the two Panofsky letters that is my specialty I really doubt I am interested in Young irvin exhausting detail on further back-and-forth analysis between Wasson versus Allegro who cares but I don’t know I haven’t really seen what-all Irvin covers there.
I wrote a five star recommendation of Irvin’s book, the least I could do would be to get a copy of it
I am interested in Brown’s publishing of the second Panofsky letter and doing a summarizing of my deep Critique of Panofsky’s two letters and how Wasson abused them and tried to deceive everyone about them and tried to actually avoid people seeing and following through on the scholarly direction that,
as bad as Panofsky’s arguments are, he at least points us towards scholarly engagement, and Wasson didn’t want that
As banker for the Pope, and as PR engineer/ propagandist for the bank, Wasson couldn’t allow that, and so Wasson had to steer us away from Panofskys letters, (including two attached Mushroom tree pictures and two citations of Brinckmann’s book) because as bad as Panofsky’s scholarly letters’ arguments are, they point everyone towards critical scholarly engagement, and Wasson had to prevent such an investigation & engaging of the questions, not engage and try to win (impossible; certain failure/ losing).
especially because of the newly available second letter from Panofsky to Wasson and because the material is freshly treated by me in voice podcasts, I would like to try to make a self-contained newbie summary discussion and introduction to Allegro Wasson Panofsky retrospective summary, including both of Panofsky’s letters
and reading this would be a Prof. Jerry Brown 2019 response/ retrospective summary incorporating Brown’s latest work regarding Wasson and Allegro Panofsky this would be a summary of my 2006 Plaincourault article, updated to cover and summarize and introduce the pair of Panofsky letters
I would read aloud and discuss the entirety of both of been of his letters, including his two attached mushroom tree pictures and including his citation of Brinkman’s book;
I would describe exactly what you are supposed to look for in Brinkman’s book
you are supposed to look for compelling evidence that if you lay out the Mushroom Trees in chronological order, you find a definite tangible development from Italian pine tree to mushroom shape, expressed in terms of the development of templates
it’s all about the templates, and their development from Pine tree
be sure to say The word “pine tree” 10 times as much as you say the word Mushroom tree.
whenever any normal person would say mushroom tree, you must be sure to instead say “the development of the pine tree”.
and never focus on the finished artwork, which is clearly Mushroom Trees
instead, you have to always obsess and turn the spotlight on to the alleged hypothetical templates
it’s all about the templates
please ignore the mushroom tree artwork, and instead fill your head with the development of templates, specifically from pine trees <– look here
these are pine tree templates
☑️🌲🎄👍
do not think of mushroom Trees
🚫🍄🌳
You must instead think of pine tree templates
it’s all about the templates
it’s all about the pine trees
it has nothing whatsoever to do with the art products which we are given, which are mushroom trees
You must participate in the Panofsky project of converting Mushroom trees into pine trees
the input is mushroom trees, and the output of the process is pine trees
you must speak about “the development process of templates” for the purpose of setting up an actual present-day (1952) development process to develop mushroom trees (not pine tree templates), to explain away our problematic mushroom trees, by “developing” them into Italian pine trees, instead.
you have to use wording about “pine tree template development” in order to accomplish, in actuality, developing mushroom trees– thus forming a process in order to develop mushroom trees into pine trees, thus explaining them away.
what we have in actuality as far as a development process is not in fact the development process of pine tree templates for which the “finished product” is templates that look like mushrooms
but rather what Panofsky is doing in fact is to engineer and construct and set up a process a development process which can successfully take as input finished artwork mushroom tree products and then at the end of his development process which Panofsky (the most influential art historian) has fabricated and engineered.
the output of the Panofsky development process is to develop mushroom tree artwork into pine trees, or pine tree templates that look like Italian pine trees:
mushroom in, pine tree out
that is the actual “development process” which we have – or which Panofsky has sneakily created, rather.
Egodeath Yahoo Group posts vs WordPress weblog
I need to experiment at the ego death Yahoo Group WordPress weblog including bridging some of the mobile posting technique of voice transcription that I used then
that format was a “cast in stone” format, and then I could post follow up clarifications, but I could not edit, so any sloppy writing or experiments were permanent so that encouraged clean writing writing
but there are always pros and cons because I can edit some thing that I have already posted here that encourages leading edge experimentation and being freed from the burden / restriction of having to only post cleaned-up material.
Also consider that WordPress has a mobile app and there is sufficient support for voice dictation so this gives a lot of different ways and flexibility for contributing
I think I have now figured out how to avoid losing data when switching between WordPress mobile app versus desktop, what sync-states to check for and beware of.
I miss the threading of Egodeath Yahoo Group, not sure how to carry those threads forward, would require some experimenting.
Both platforms have pretty serious challenge with discoverability of excellent content; drinking the ocean through a straw. It is hard to remember that all Egodeath Yahoo Group postings to February 14, 2004 (start = June 2001) are duplicated at Egodeath.com, rearranged optimized for thread per page, and unfortunately lacking date stamps.
As far as mytheme History of mythemes Decoding, entheogen history scholarship, Transcendent Knowledge development in that transitional period from Core theory to myth & history, it’s good that that is double-posted at the Max Freakout archive of Egodeath Yahoo Group plus egodeath.com –
One place ( the Egodeath Yahoo Group / wordpress site ) has valuable timestamps date stamps; and the egodeath.com website has threading per subject, one thread per webpage
I could certainly add a degree of cross-linking between those two perspectives; that would probably be valuable and useful.
later Egodeath Yahoo Group posts after Feb 14 2004 – 2019(?) were very low discoverability at Yahoo Groups website; now they are probably higher discoverability and readability and linkability than ever, now that they are at wordpress, though it does have its issues of some formatting glitch with the > greater than sign, indicating a previous person’s post embedded in a reply post.
Newbie Introduction Summaries
as Max Freakout has said and like Cyberdisciple described upon viewing egodeath.com prior to the main article, comic book summaries are always needed, and someone suggests that for the Egodeath Mystery Show voice podcast, like episode 28 of the Transcendent Knowledge podcast covering the basics of the core Egodeath Theory:
1985-1997 [analogical but not mythological] psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, switching to that in the loose cognitive association state from the initial mental model of literalist ordinary-state possibilism with presumed autonomous control.
Intellectual autobiography, history of Egodeath Theory Development
Core theory 1985-1998, Mytheme theory 1999-2022
The best I can figure, most likely, in 1998 I did a significant 3/4 of it working on publishing the phase 1, Core theory, and only 1/4 of 1998 working with the very beginnings of my phase 2, Mytheme theory.
in 1999 in my new study/library I definitely 100% had the tangible experience of working in new topics.
even if I can now perceive the roots of Hellenistic mysteries study and he historicity in 1998, I was not experiencing those as massive new areas of research in 1998, but probably what I was experiencing was intensive publishing work on the core theory at the website.
1998 was a year of not having a study/library (= new research), but entirely working on the website, to publish the existing material, not investigating new horizons of research at that time.
you might imagine that I was doing leading edge research on the web (in Phase 2 topics: myth, ahistoricity, entheogen scholarship) in 1998 – but that is unrealistic, because the web had poor content at that time; it was nowhere near as good as the librarys and bookstores.
my website which i was building out in 1998 was the only decent thing on the web related to such topics but it had only technical, Philosophy, Core, phase 1 content then. in contrast, my involvement in these phase 2 topics was really puny compared to my massive publishing of my core one phase 1 material in 1998
it’s only a 1999 when my phase 2 work really obviously surrounded me in a physical tangible way with my new study/library and definitely accumulating and reading new kinds of books on new subjects.
here’s a really good way to think of it:
1995-1996: Phase 1, Core theory development
1997-1998: Phase 1, Core theory publishing
1999-2005: Phase 2, Mytheme theory debelopment
2006-2007: Phase 2, Mytheme theory publishing
That way of treating 1998 together with 1997 really works very well, because I do not think of those years as developing either phase 1 or phase 2 theory – but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t doing anything, just because I wasn’t developing theory; I was actually publishing theory in 1998 ( and very tangibly in 1997 ie summary outline at P Cyb’a)
The problem/ the reason why I have had difficulty in assigning 1998 is because I’ve had too narrow of the concept of the word ‘developing’; I probably did a huge amount of Core, phase 1 theory “development” in 1998, in the sense of publishing; the website.
hell , everything i did from feb 1988 through like 1998 could be called “mere publishing” of my oct 1985-1987 breakthrough of jan 1988.
compare the year 1988 (starting after January 11 ) compared to the year 1998:
you could equally treat those years, all those years after the breakthrough, as mere “publishing”, as merely writing up the breakthrough insight and change of perspective or formation of the mental model with its basic pieces that I pieced together in the first days of the year waiting for the quarter to begin, jan 11, 1988.
given that I published the outline summary of the core theory in February 1997 well you know I felt like I was still trying to write my article even into the year 2001 I still felt that I was trying to write my core theory article I was not yet trying to incorporate Mythology so an interesting question is when did I first start thinking in terms of incorporating Mythology into my article for the journal of transpersonal psychology
when did I shift my vision for my Jan 1988 article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology so as to incorp religious mythology?
the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence: the actual nature of ego transcendence is block univ no-free-will cybernetic noncontrol w mental model transformation in the loose cog assn state
I was working on that article ever since January 1998 trying to make it converge instead of blow up.
incorporating religious mythology was the key that enabled me to have a direction that would converge rather than just a giant pile of writing, kind of an unconstrained and kind of undirected pile of writing, all about the core theory with its 12 principles – instead of my later, successful 4 principles or four quadrants.
when did I finally allow in mythology
maybe The same time as I announced the maximal entheogen theory of religion: 2002.
Maybe my anger at the failure of the Ruck Committee to deliver any useful goods other than the worthless bottom of the barrel Amanita undesirable Mushroom Gave me the direction to forcefully embrace Mythology and show you you idiots here’s what you need to be doing with this religious mythology and the good kind of mushrooms and the ego death Theory ; let me show you how to put the pieces together, you fools
in any case I became genuinely hopeful and interested in mythology and enthusiastic about identifying how religious mythology describes and depicts and the artwork depicts my ego death core theory and corroborates and confirms it because since there’s no historical Jesus to confirm and approve my theory now I need religious mythology to do that instead and so that is how my scope and vision
for my 1988 January article changed from the core theory only to open up and finally be able to reach a closure and start finally converging towards a directed fulfillment and completion of initiation by explaining Religious Mythology and Mystery religions and not just being a modern science directionless explanation of the true nature of ego Transcendence in terms of block universe experiencing
I do think I could have done that and written my main article about that without any religious Mythology , but in 2002 adding in the whole field of psychedelic myth,
I felt like by including religious mythology in my article, I could include a proof that my core theory is correct and true and is supported, given that Mr. Historical Jesus ain’t there to give a stamp of approval, I’m going to have to take another approach at getting the New Testament to corroborate my core theory since …
1998 if anything was the year of discovering no Mr Paul/Mr Peter/Mr Jesus, or maybe the year of trying to get the new testament to corroborate my core theory, and starting to realize that wasn’t going to work, and I had to better understand the genre and nature of the New Testament, ie in terms of religious Mythology.
And I felt like I had failed I was never able –
in 2002 , I was still trying and failing to write my original article as planned (lacking religious mythology)
The climactic book that came out then was the Jesus Mysteries particularly noting its attempt its wish and it’s unfulfilled wish to cover visionary plants which was not permitted by the publisher but clearly it fit very well and I’m trying to remember why I met with Freke & Gandy but I’d imagine that it had much to do with this question:
I was highly interested in asking Freke & Gandy about this passage on entheogens, and they were highly interested in discussing what happened with that and how they were blocked by the publisher.
Thanks to my 1998 website work, they were able to read my theory and my postings at the Jesus Mysteries discussion group around that time.
after that, I read Elaine Pagles first two books as well as her Gnostic gospels book which I learned about because of freaking Gandys book the Jesus Mysteries is based on Pagels’ book The Gnostic Gospels. You could say that I got from the book the Jesus Mysteries and Elaine an Pagels first three books in 2002 successfully gave me the confirmation that I wanted that I had assumed I would get from the New Testament from Mr. Jesus and Mr. Paul
but I essentially got that confirmation of my Core theory from Timothy Freke & Elaine Pagels instead of from Mr Jesus & Mr Paul.
and that really effectively explains why I changed my concept of my article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology so as to incorporate and integrate this other leg , so that the two legs cross-correlate each other
my core theory side-by-side with religious Mythology and the whole set of ideas which Elaine Pagels Called Gnostics Against Orthodox, and wjich Freke & Gandy relabeled as esoteric versus exoteric – Two contrasted entire sets of views, regarding no free will and mythology and personal control agency and visionary plants.
my core theory can explain all this stuff and that’s very interesting, a lot of interesting material, a lot of interesting purpose and application
so I discovered through Freke & Gandy I discovered the application of my core theory, and thus I discovered a distinction between my core theory, and that’s how my core theory (perceived as such) was born, and how my treatment of myth Theme theory was born.
answers the excellent question:
when was the distinction between my Core theory versus Mytheme theory first perceptible? Creating the myth Theme theory was born out of it was an outcome following the aftermath of my failure to get Mr. Jesus and Mr. Paul and that sort of a conception of the New Testament to corroborate my core theory which was not called the core theory in 1998;
my Phase 1, Core theory at that time 1998-2002 (prior to discovering and constructing my distinct, subsequent Phase 2, Mytheme theory), was called the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, with no mytheme theory on the horizon in mind yet (except for Gnosis magazine & interpreting rock lyrics to map them as descriptions of this theory domain).
now, in 2002, by adding Freke & Pagels, & Heinrich & Entheos Journal, I was able to reach closure and make my core theory accomplish something definite that proves the merit of my theory, because of its ability to make sense out of and serve as an explanatory framework to explain successfully Religious Mythology.
Heading
I keep debating & flipping back-and-forth on where to assign 1998, a transitional year, and the equally strong third argument is to split 1998 in half and include it in both phases.
there are several moderate reasons arguing for phase 1, and several moderate reasons for phase 2 assignment of 1998. I don’t think I did substantial work on the theory that year or so there’s not much to work with in trying to assign that year – though I may have done a lot of website work, of publishing my phase 1 theory that year
periodization debate: is 1998 The end of publishing the phase 1 Core theory or is it the beginning of turning attention to the myth Theme theory?
in 1998, did I do more work on the Phase 1, Core theory, or more work on the Phase 2, Mytheme theory??
I speculate and conjecture that I did more work writing up my website of the core theory including rock lyrics mapping to the altered state mental model transformation, And I was only just starting to turn my attention more to Hellenistic Mysteries and ahistoricity – but I don’t know that I had any entheogen scholarship books that year yet.
1997 is definitely part of my Core theory era , because February, I published the summary of the core, – though I probably had my vision of non-Branching labyrinth that year, which is phase 2
Similarly I feel confident about 1999 it definitely was not core theory and it definitely was phase 2 Mytheme theory.
So I have a solid argument for assigning 1997 to phase 1 , and assigning 1999 to phase 2.
most debatable and unclear and hazy is the year 1998 , transitional year:
on what basis do I assign 1998 to phase 1 versus phase 2 , when I can’t really remember and would have to investigate that year as part of my “intellectual autobiography” project i’ve been doing ever since hiatus starting 2008
the first quarter of 2008 , I realized I had severe amnesia : how the hell did I get here??
My intensive work of the period 1988 through 1997 and then 1999 through 2007 meant that when I switched gears in 2008 January, I had lost all track of how I had gotten here.
so 2008 was largely occupied with reconstructing my history and timeline.
my hiatus from posting the Egodeath Yahoo Group was jan 2008- ~Sep 2011.
One cheat that I sometimes do is I just omit 1998 from my periodization. Or equivalently, include the year in both phases.
I wish I could treat the year 1998 as more of a positive, productive, determinate thing instead of treating it like a null point, a turning point, nothing but a transition an empty nowhere, neither here nor there
really that’s probably doing a great disservice to that important year of 1998
subtracting 1998 from my life regarding Egodeath Theory Development would probably be a massive huge loss
I should really learn to treat 1998 (re: Egodeath theory devmt) as a positive thing.
what if I could have a summary of what I accomplished each month of 1998?
I would probably be singing a different tune.
and I think that that’s really the strongest argument for actually omitting 1998 from my periodization. It feels kind of dishonest including this year where as far as I know I didn’t really I was on hiatus I think it was more hiatus year but I
I have no qualms about including the (public) hiatus years of 2008 through 2010 in Phase 2 , And the content of those years is about as equally under-mapped as the year 1998.
I was not doing very much Egodeath Theory work during 1998 compared to other years as far as I can recollect – Maybe drug policy reform that year, not certain.
1998 was a huge bridge-crossing year. it feels like neither work on my phase 1, Core theory, nor work on my phase 2, Mytheme theory.
As if it was a year in which I detached from phase 1 in order to subsequently attach to phase 2.
But since I am not certain, I think it is very wise to assume that I was doing massive very important work on my egodeath site publishing my core theory that year, which would make 1998 a core theory year, not a phase 2, Mytheme theory year.
I should probably just split the difference and say and make the claim as if June 1998 equals phase 1 and July 1998 equals phase 2 🥴
an argument for ending the “Core theory” development at 1997, and beginning the metaphor mytheme Entheogens Theory in 1998
it seems a no-brainer even though you can complicate things by tracing lyric Decoding since 1991 or even 1988
and you can place the reading of gnosis magazine in the 1990s and reading the fundamentalist Dave Hunt books which veer into the mythological around 1994
And a vision of the labyrinth non-branching, in that important transition year academic year 1996 to 1997
in February 1997 posted the summary outline of the core theory, leaving the rest of 1997 unclear, but trying to remember which small few books- maybe tech gnosis by Erik Davis, and continuing to struggle to write the main article, which was finally accomplished in 2006 due to adding Mythology Religious Mythology
so in a way, I never wrote my article as conceptualized for Journal of Transpersonal Psychology as intended since January 1988. I hadn’t added Freke & Pagels, & Heinrich & Entheos journal, yet, To serve as some thing to be explained successfully by my core theory and thus serving as the confirmation that I had expected to get from Mr. Jesus and Mr. Paul
this really can be seen as the form in which I finally got that confirmation that I was looking for in 1998.
you could fairly say that 1998 was the year in which I set about to get confirmation of the Core theory, which I had summarized successfully in a complete core way outline in 1997
given that I published my successful core outline of the theory in 1997, now in 1998, I need to get the New Testament or religious mythology or something to corroborate my theory
and here is how you would put the year 1998 into the phase 2 era rather than the phase 1 core era, because in 1998, my main need or pursuit, as far as pursuing something new (while at the same time continuing to publish what I had achieved, my core theory) , my main pursuit was to go about finding confirmation in the mystery religions, and finding confirmation of the …
my main experience I remember of 1998 is not the experience of publishing (even if that’s literally what I did ) but rather, it was the experience of looking for the New Testament /Mr. Jesus/ Mr. Paul to corroborate this distinct thing, the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence.
so look very closely at the two things here: on the one hand, you have my theory (the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence ) ; and on the other hand, you have my looking for {a way to corroborate my theory}
and here you have the seed or root or beginnings of the distinction between my “phase 1, Core theory” versus my “phase 2, Mytheme theory”.
phase 2 would be the corroboration of my core theory, by virtue of the successful ability of my cybernetic theory of ego transcendence to explain this other, distinct thing; the New Testament, which is Mr. Jesus, which is Mr. Paul, which is: esoteric Religious Mythology.
My 1997 summary outline at Principia Cybernetica website was a stopgap, since every time I tried to write the main article for JTP, it blew up too big; expanding instead of converging.
like when you know that your efforts are taking you in a direction that’s, the harder you try, the more you fail.
I probably created my more real websites in 1997, containing the core theory so I should not only think of February 1997 posting at the cybernetics website but also creating my real website which would become egodeath.com containing the core theory is what I was doing through 1997.
then as I see it with the big change of context in 1998 I went to get Jesus to sign off on my cybernetic theory of ego transcendence so in the graduate library I looked up Christian Mushroom and found John King’s book commentary on John Allegro
And I’m trying to remember the context of finding entheogen scholarship about 1998, but I’m sure it must have to do with Amazon: the improving selection at Amazon and improving content there and more books being written and becoming available there.
1998 was a transitional year, and I was focused on putting together my knowledge at my websites so far – but also very much I felt that I had because I had finished the technical content of my core theory which I simply called “my theory” (the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence) (not yet “the core theory”), it’s true that I was still doing my project of writing my article stating what that technical theory is, but also, I was looking for how to have religion prove or confirm my theory (the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence; “the Core theory”, as I now distinguish Versus the ability of that theory to successfully explain something else, the domain of religious Mythology so as to cross-correlate and cross-corroborate the two distinct parts or legs.
My 1997 theory, and distinctly my 1998 effort to corroborate my 1997 theory, eventually became:
my phase 1, Core theory, and my phase 2, Mytheme theory.
my leading edge pursuit of looking in new directions my actual research beginnings of a kind of a research in 1998 genuinely genuinely the start of my phase 2, Mytheme theory research & development.
1998 was the year when I tangibly converted my knowledge into websites more than doing new research and development.
I really think it was 1999 when I settled in and reassembled my library and my study yes it seems that 1997 and 1998 we’re heavy website years while not having a personal study library and at the start of those years I published the summary of the core theory and then die then I spent much of those two years making more bigger major websites summarizing my knowledge so far rather than yeah
Rather than yet beginning a new phase of idea development in myth Theme religious Mythology and History and entheogen scholarship. & ahistoricity – 1999 seems to be the year for that when I reassembled my a study and library and then my first memories of that sweet fresh clean set up was full-fledged beginning reading entheogens scholarship books.
And then I recall doing more ahistoricity work in my subsequent library study 2003 through 2007. What I remember in my 1999 through 2003 study/ library is entheogen scholarship then religious mythology.
then in my next study/library, 2003-2007, I did some more work reading Mythology and confirming that the books of church fathers and Astrotheology and Esotericism contain the same themes of visionary plants and altered state and mythology and no free will , but my focus was a little on more ahistoricity and reformed theology and philosophy of science then, more than on entheogen scholarship & mythology. it’s hard to say because I had I was sweeping across 20 different subjects during all 3 periods:
1988 through sep 1996
1999 through mid-2003
mid-2003 through 2007
I should be posting this discussion at the Egodeath Yahoo Group thread called intellectual autobiography history or history of my intellectual biography
it’s one of those things where if you look too closely at it, the simplistic, artificially clarifying narrative falls apart and becomes problematic, and I start to see more mythology (supposedly characterizing my later, Phase 2 work) within my earlier, Phase 1 “Core theory” period.
And then if you say that description of mental models in terms of possibility Branching is core theory you could claim that I did development of the Core theory core theory in Nov 2020 – March 2021, pull along by my work in mythology, Mapping Mythology back to the Core egodeath theory and then adjusting the core theory to make it fit that mapping better
Phase 1/ Core theory=
psychedelic eternalism (incl “noncontrol”)
= 1985-1998
Phase 2/ Mytheme theory =
analogical psychedelic eternalism
= 1999-2007-2022
I am inclined to see the two years after posting my outline summary of core theory in February 1997 framing the remainder of 1997 and the year 1998 were sort of writing up my core theory in the form of a (bigger) website. I feel that I was writing my core theory still into 1998 and I strongly picture of the books strange fruit and the long trip and ahistoricity I do remember in the 1999 or 2000 period, My first spate of finding such books and scrambling to adjust my thinking, well before 2006. when I picture my 1999 study/library I am thinking of full on entheogens scholarship which contains Mythology very much the Jesus Mysteries book and strange fruit would be two very good representative books to represent the 1999 through 2001 and Ruck book textbook on Greek Mythology.
I definitely was reading entheogen books and ahistoricity in 1999, and that makes 1999 definitely phase 2 Mytheme theory era , not the phase 1 Core theory era.
in contrast I know that I was more publishing and writing up my existing core theory knowledge in 1997 and 1998 as far as I know and as far as I can remember and deduce since I don’t have
I only have one definite memory of I definitely was given a book on the Hellenistic Mysteries in 1998, and by that token (by an art history person), and based on that, you could claim that I started my phase 2 in 1998
and in 1998 I believe I was still trying to get Jesus to confirm my cybernetic theory of ego Transcendence which is core theory phase 1.
So there is not very much material to work with in trying to assign 1998 to fit within the end of phase 1 core theory publishing, versus the beginning of phase 2 Mytheme theory.
I would have to investigate some dates to really prove but I think that the strongest case is that:
in 1999, my phase 2 was very tangibly very definitely started, whereas 1998 is kind of a question mark, with just the beginnings of questioning historicity and Hellenistic mystery religions which, strangely, are not actually covered within Gnosis magazine/ theosophy worldview.
The Egodeath theory 