The “sacrifice of Isaac” scene with ram caught helplessly in mushroom thicket – the mind is made to demonstrate control vulnerability in God-mode override-of-control-limits state, threatening one’s child-thinking to death, cross the boundary that transforms the control model into recognizing the two distinct levels of control, reaching the control stability boundary violation, perceive underlying dependent control not autonomous control.
The Egodeath Community is helpful in asking to focus the Egodeath theory on a 2-level model as the foundation & center, not 3.
The actual nature of ego transcendence is that the mind changes from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Greedy 3-level model results in losing all understanding, rather than “twice the transcendence”.
Erik Davis proves that simplicity is the foundation of an effective, powerful explanatory model of the altered state, in Led Zeppelin IV p. 118 & 122.
In my university course design, the 2-level model is the emphasis, not 3, just as math courses avoid complex intractable math problems that force an empirical solution.
My emphasis regarding 3-level models is their tendency to spawn and foster incomprehension and fog and misleading ironic clever inversions that mislead people to sell a corrupted spirituality product to people who want to avoid Transcendent Knowledge – exhibit A: Hanegraaff falling into the I Hate Fate trap that his hermetic text heroes dug for him, to sell their hazy, crude, confusing, roundabout, inefficient priestcraft product.
If I thought poetry haze were desirable, I would not have had to create the Egodeath theory to speak clearly for once and construct a useful, usable technology for understanding Transcendent Knowledge and how mythic hazy garbled poetry is mainly reflecting Transcendent Knowledge – reflecting but not explaining, and often, avoiding Transcendent Knowledge.
Look at Hanegraaff’s confusion as if enlightenment is switching from initial eternalism-thinking to final possibilism-thinking – 3-level overreach backfires into incomprehension.
The {Sacrifice of Isaac} is firmly 2-level in focus & emphasis.
Understanding the mytheme-set {Isaac and disempowered bush-caught ram} is basic/essential.
Even if the Egodeath theory is a clear simple explanatory model, still it is challenging to describe/ map to non-poetic direct explanation of control-transcendence the myth theme {threatening the child} – new mytheme to add to the Key Mythemes catalog.
The Egodeath theory is, since its start in 1985, emphatically disdainful of poetic analogy as a foundation; such an approach is the problem and is the reason why we effectively didn’t have Transcendent Knowledge in the way we have increasing science and technology.
There are two legs of the Egodeath theory, but really it stands on its right leg only (STEM, Loose Cog Science) and never stood on the leg of mythemes/ poetic analogy as a basis.
Hanegraaff is an outright Newage spiritualist/ religionist compared to me.
He talks about a scientific foundation for study of history of religion then he fabricates and imagines (a theme of his book) a fantasy backwards version of spirituality and a mystic cosmos that contradicts all science and mystic sensible coherent tradition too.
I’m the actual science-grounded theory, which enables me to do a better, correct job of resolving myth, accurately identifying its referent in the loose cognitive intense mystic altered state of consciousness. Per the non-myth-grounded, entheogen mytheme theory.
My 1997 attempt to condense the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence failed, kept ballooning not converging, until I distinctly incorporated mythic metaphorical description 2003-2006.
Douglas Hofstadter has two books advocating in the title that analogies are the essence of thinking.
STEM aims for the most direct and clear expression,using analogies to clarify the actual referent clearly identified, not to cloud and fog it all up in an Atman Substitution project (Wilber) to protect the mind from revealed knowledge that the mind desires to reject and avoid and deny.
God is defined as the higher control level, in the Egodeath theory; the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.
I find it constitutionally easy because my thinking is based in STEM and practical figuring stuff out, easy and natural for me to distinguish between my STEM-type core theory vs. its decoding/mapping/ recognizing of mythic metaphor analogy poetic descriptive mythemes.
Two legs; stand on the right leg, to gain Transcendent Knowledge straightforwardly.
I am glad the Egodeath Community supports a streamlined powerful clear 2-level model.
The Egodeath theory is the definitive seminal 2-level and 3-level explanation of mind and myth – and explaining avoidance strategies to preserve lower thinking in a foggy haze.
Any multi-state scientific theory of religious myth must be excellent at explaining both 2-level & 3-level models, to be relevant; that is the explanandum that is given to us.
Resolve mythic analogy, as description, to its non-hazy, non-avoidant, non-poetic, non-substitutive referent – identify how a set of mythemes is analogous to things of the transformation trajectory in the loose cognitive state.
The Egodeath theory 
That makes so much sense. Thank you.
The analogies found in religion were never meant to cause confusion and instead, when strategically deconstructed, and constructively used, shows their precise meaning within the true origin of religion -the loose cog altered state, as expressed within the Egodeath Theory – two level model- multi state scientific theory of religious myth.
Not only does that process clarify meaning for the mind, but also keeps the mind in balance within the world of three level model and far-out reaching quantum physics.
All the more grateful for the Egodeath Theory.
LikeLike