The Panofsky/Hatsis Explain-Away-o-Matic Mushroom Eliminator

Contents:

[ Easily Explain Away ]

Output: One of the following section paragraphs.

Click the button to generate a new mushroom-elimination excuse.

About this Technology

Welcome to the Explain-Away-o-Matic: when you click the [Easily Explain Away] button, it spits out one of a hundred harebrained, off-the-wall, bizarre vectors of argumentation.

Each entry includes the source where Panofsky or Hatsis made each argument, and a 1-2 word hint about my rebuttal/refutation of less-than-specious argument.

This button is to put below every image at this site.

🍄🧙‍♂️

This button will save lots of time for Hatsis so he can be more productive in his wildly wrong misinterpretations – the most productive entheogen scholar, churning out more fourth-rate work than anyone else, re: mushrooms in Western history.

Thomas Hatsis the anti-mushroom Psychedelic Witch
http://psychedelicwitch.com

Catalog of Incredibly Dumb Arguments, Flimsy Excuses, & Ever-Shifting Bizarre Argumentation Vectors

Who are these “arguments” supposed to convince and persuade, except for the person who’s dumb enough to concoct them & put them forward? None of them can stand up to critique for even an instant.

These “arguments” aren’t even specious; they don’t even have the initial surface appearance of being sound. They’re more like just… puzzling.

How is “There are too many mushroom trees for any of them to mean mushrooms” supposed to be an argument? I don’t get it. Do you actually believe your own reasoning, Panofsky?

If you believe your own “reasoning”, what are your presuppositions that are you not stating but are simply assuming are too self-evident & universally agreed on, to be worth mentioning?

For example: I deduce that you are basing your “too many mushrooms” argument on the taken-for-granted premise, your own intensely biased assumption, that “Of course, no one is willing to assert that all mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.“

— which would be a false and unwarranted assumption.

But in any case, you need to explicitly STATE what your presuppositions and assumptions are.

Lay out your complete argument, explicitly.

And then listen to the contrary replies.

Don’t just articulate and transmit one-tenth of your argument, simply declaring yourself the convincing winner (“YOU GUYS GOT A BIG PROBLEM!!“), and not listen to the pushback – it must be a two-way conversation.

All mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.

My position is easy to defend; I feel sorry for you, having to defend your hard-to-defend, indefensible position. eg please explain why, per Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 6,

“Religious mediaeval art had little reason to think of mushrooms.“

Psilocybin mushrooms are ubiquitous, and they cause intense religious experiencing more than anything else does.

Therefore, in fact, religious mediaeval art had every reason to think of mushrooms.

The List of Slam-Dunk, Instantly Compelling Reasonings (according to the incredibly dumb asserters of them):

There Are Too Many Mushroom Trees for this Instance to Mean Mushrooms

Citation:

“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example — and, since the style is very provincial, a particularly deceptive one — of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” or, in German writing, Pilzbaum.”

“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”

— Letter 1 Sentence 1 & 2, Erwin Panofsky, May 2, 1952

“I should be somewhat skeptical because the development from pine tree to “Pilzbaum” is so universal and takes place in so many representations other than the Fall of Man.”

— Letter 2 Sentence 3, Erwin Panofsky, May 12, 1952

Retort/commentary

Panofsky was constrained by typewriter, and paper was expensive, so the most influential art historian at the most prestigious institution was not able to spell out a complete argument, but left 90% of his argument implicit, based on foundations that everyone certainly agrees upon.

His unstated argument is:

We all agree that how we interpret Plaincourault is how we must interpret every mushroom tree.

We all agree that we are not willing to interpret all mushroom imagery in Christian art as mushrooms.

Therefore we all agree on my conclusion, that none of them can be mushrooms, because the other alternative is that they are all mushrooms, and we all agree that we are not willing to assert and defend that all mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.

The sheer quantity of Pilzbaum prevents any of them from being mushrooms, because they’d all have to be mushrooms, which, obviously, you are not willing to defend.

It goes without saying, that it would be the very definition of a completely untenable position, to assert that all Pilzbaum mean mushrooms.

We’re in a situation of two options, where one option fits all agreed and established knowledge, and the alternative goes against everything we know, like saying either X, or the sun sets in the East.

The latter is known by all experience to be false, and therefore the alternative, X, must be true.

It’s a given that all Pilzbaum cannot mean The Mushroom (🍄).

It’s simply a given that all Pilzbaum cannot mean mushrooms; and we agree to the Proxy/class principle, that we must consistently interpret the class of all instances.

Therefore any given individual instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art cannot refer to The Mushroom (🍄).

Otherwise, they’d all have to so refer, which is known to be impossible and indefensible, like asserting that the sun sets in the East, which is known to be false.

Q.E.D.

Crop by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

The more evidence we find for mushroom imagery in Christian art, the more absolutely certain that they cannot possibly mean mushrooms

todo: Panofsky’s argument here, or connect to other similar entry.

More Evidence Proves More Absence from the Big Bad Church

The more evidence we turn up for mushrooms inside the Church, the more we have proof that the Church completely suppressed and eliminated mushrooms

I was delighted to find an exact equivalent mushroom Isaac scene in Golden Munich Psalter Feb 2023 yesterday just like Nov 2020 or early 2021 (I wonder what date?) in Great Mushroom Psalter by Eadwine.

But, this evidence just drives home the narrative that we are more fervently committed to pushing, greater than our advocacy of mushrooms:

the #1 most important thing is not mushrooms, but demonizing the Church.

We can use mushrooms to advance that prime objective of demonizing the Church, costing nothing but merely the success of our mushroom advocacy.

Golden Munich Psalter Mushroom Trees
Image 29: Mushroom Isaac
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/06/golden-munich-psalter-mushroom-trees/#Image-29

Panofsky says: “See? Eadwine’s Mushroom Isaac is not the only Mushroom Isaac, so I find it even more difficult to believe it means mushrooms.”

The more evidence we find for mushroom imagery in Christian art, the more absolutely certain that they cannot possibly mean mushrooms.

This is the Carl Ruck “neutralize and invert the evidence” move.

See? Yet more proof of firm suppression of the Secret Amanita was absolute, just like McKenna said:

The Big Bad Church completely eliminated mushrooms, as proved by the John Rush book’s gallery of 350 pictures of mushrooms inside the Church/ cathedrals/ chapels/ manuscripts.

Lack of The Mushroom (🍄) was everywhere!

Buy my 28+ books, a tower growing every year and periodically falling over, for thorough coverage of the complete elimination of mushrooms from Christendom.

And keep putting people in cages, because the U.S. Supreme Court says:

“We learned from Terence McKenna & Carl Ruck & John Rush that your Church tradition utterly lacks mushrooms.”

These “entheogen scholars” who persist in insisting that “Big Bad Church eliminated mushrooms” are utterly self-defeating, absolutely idiotic strategically.

Could you be any more un-strategic?

Entheogen Scholarship: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Web search: “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22snatch+defeat+from+the+jaws+of+victory%22

The Carl Ruck & John Rush school says:

Send me more evidence of absence please, so I can neutralize it and invert it through en-caging each piece of art evidence in a cage of my heavy-handed “Secret Amanita Alchemy” framing, to separate The Mushroom (🍄) from real Christianity.

The more evidence we find for mushrooms inside the Church, the more we have proof that the Church completely suppressed and eliminated mushrooms

Citation:

Ruck’s fixation on writing “secret, suppressed, heretical, elites” constantly and automatically.

His contract requires including the word ‘Secret’ in the title of every book.

Amazon search: Carl Ruck: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=carl+ruck

Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck

The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries
Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Eleusis-Unveiling-Secret-Mysteries/dp/1556437528/ –

This Image Doesn’t Count, Because It’s Not the Plaincourault Fresco, Which Is the Single Image on Which Your Guys’s Entire “Secret Christian Mushroom Cult” Theory Stands or Falls

Citation:

Hatsis’ Brown-attack article at Graham Hancock site.

This Document Isn’t the Correct Type of Devotional, Orthodox Christian Document

Citation:

Hatsis’ article about Dancing Man salamander bestiary.

My Conjectured Prototypes Have Converted All the Mushrooms to Italian Pines

My confabulated “worked from prototypes” concept – I mean, the crude medieval artists’ prototypes converted Italian pines to mushrooms – I mean, my discovery of their use of prototypes converts mushrooms away into Italian pines, of a type found in Jerusalem.

It Doesn’t Depict Jesus, Therefore It Destroys Your Guys’s Position (You Guys Got a BIG PROBLEM!!)

Citation:

One of Hatsis’ online amateur blogger articles.

If You Would Delve into the Backstory Represented in this Scene, You Would Know that the Storyline Scene Depicted Is Not About the Characters Ingesting Mushrooms

Backstory not about eating mushrooms.

Citation:

multiple Hatsis articles

This Scene Has Violence, Therefore Can’t Be Mushrooms

This mushroom imagery cannot be meant by the artist as mushroom imagery, due to the backstory, which has violence and negative and therefore contradicts our position which Hatsis has assigned to us.

“This scene can’t be a depiction of The Mushroom (🍄), because this scene is violent. How are you gonna explain that??!! It completely destroys what your guys’s position is! Thus the backstory prevents that meaning of this art image. If you knew anything about how to read and do scholarship, like me, you wouldn’t have committed this FATAL BLUNDER. YOU GUYS GOT A BIG PROBLEM! If you guys keep up this bullsht, I’ll send you crying in a corner. I’m done acting nice, calm, and easygoing. 🤬 😤” – pretty much an exact quote of Hatsis’ online amateur web blogger post.

Retort

Like Panofsky’s “arguments”, it is curious how Hatsis only spells out part of the argument. As always, the shipwreck happens with all the unstated assumptions that his tip-of-iceberg argument floats upon. When you shine light on the unstated underlying assumptions, the (less-than) specious “argument” collapses.

Where did any entheogen scholar ever say that:

  • mushroom depictions always have to mean positive actions
  • art imagery is constrained by the textual backstory
  • mushroom imagery must always refer to Jesus-as-mushroom (he makes that argument in one of his articles).
  • That there exists such a thing as “the Secret Mushroom Cult theorists”, and that any asserter of mushrooms in Christianity is a member of that supposed group.

IOW, straw manning & tilting at windmills of his own creation/ imaginings, along with trying to exactly equate every mushroom scholar as being exactly identical to Irvin’s arguments/position and a simple exact drop-in, 1-for-1 replacement for Hatsis’ greatly missed gf/debate partner, Irvin.

By debating against an alleged “group”, “the X theorists”, Hatsis can more readily straw man any particular scholar – he is under no obligation to treat that scholar’s stated args or position, but can simply delete, get rid of that scholar’s argument, and replace it, by conflating each individual scholar by Hatsis’ fabricated/confabulated class that he constructed to be weak as possible, and then shoot THAT down instead of engaging with the actual arg of any actual scholar.

Abstracting a position is ok and standard practice, but not as a SUBSTITUTE for engaging actual specific args/positions of particular scholars.

We see that massive conflation in the pseudo-“replies” to Sanders & Zijlmans’ article “Moving Past Mysticism”, where the “replies” literally state that they are replying to what that article asserts — yet what the “replies” to Sanders ACTUALLY reply to and argue against is an abstracted, 2-polar-opposite extremist simplified caricature positions:

  • The wooly-headedness loving scientists/mystics who correctly INSIST that people have mystical experience, and defend the existence of subjective experiential consciousness. The rock-solid scientific foundation for this Science is the 1960 Stace book Mysticism and Philosophy (out of print and vanishing from Amazon).
  • The hard-reductionism materialist scientists who altogether deny the existence of mystical experiencing (and subjective consciousness/ experiencing), and strictly use neuroscience-level analysis.

The Psychedelic Witch 🧙‍♂️🍄 rebranded as “Psychedelic Historian”, but his specialty is Scopolamine plants, so a more precise branding would be “Deliriant Historian”.

Citation:

Hatsis’ page title:
The Mushroom in Mommy Fortuna’s Midnight Carnival
Section heading:
Mushrooms and Halos
https://psychedelichistorian.com/the-mushroom-in-mommy-fortunas-midnight-carnival/ –
https://psychedelicwitch.com/the-mushroom-in-mommy-fortunas-midnight-carnival/

Cubensis Grows on Bovine Dung, Around the Entire World — Except for Before 1976 in England and Europe

Canterbury, England artists worked hard to depict southern Italian pines that end up looking exactly like the Cubensis growing on bovine dung outside their window. – Panofsky/Wasson

– except that couldn’t happen until 1976, because per the authority, Paul Stamets, and even greater authorities: Letcher and Hatsis – there were no Psilocybin mushrooms on bovine dung in England before 1976.

The Theology of this Scene Prevents Mushroom Imagery from Being Employed to Illustrate the Scene

Citation: Brown’s list of all the ever-changing angles that Hatsis keeps trying to use for the Eden tree especially Plaincourault.

Some of the turgid, scrambling, ever-shifting theological argumentation from theologian Thomas Hatsis is in his book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions.

The Text Says Something Other than Mushroom

The Text Says The Image Is Something Other than Mushroom – Such as Tree/Arbor, Therefore It Is Not Possible to Knowingly Convey a Mushroom Impression

Citation: See “poison” discussion below.

During a tv show, I asked John Lennon if the 1964 song “Help!” was about ergot, and he said No. So that settles it.

Same with Neil Peart, who additionally called me egotistical for suggesting such a thing:

Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, Episode 28 – Basics of Core Egodeath Theory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/04/08/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episode-28/ – find “Peart” –

Scary stuff, these egocentric individuals. 

I assure you, other than perhaps dropping an “and” or a “but,” we take great care to make the lyric sheets accurate.”

Neil Peart of the Rock band Rush

It’s Definitely Culturecide to Assert They Used Mushrooms, Instead of Asserting They Did Not Use Mushrooms

If you assert that a culture used mushrooms, you are definitely guilty of attributing a cultural value that they did not hold, so you are certainly guilty of culturecide.

Citation:

The Hatsis article that contains the word “culturecide”.

beg the question much? he should say that you MIGHT be doing culturecide but that we currently don’t know whether you are or aren’t guilty of that, and that a firm assertion that they didn’t intend mushroom imagery is also at risk of possible culturecide if in fact they did use mushroom imagery. how is this not screamingly obvious?

When it comes to this topic, Hatsis is low-IQ; this is the result of being a committed skeptic, we see the same w/ Panofsky, who uses 50-IQ arguments when it comes to this particular topic.

Robert Price, editor of Journal of Higher Criticism, also reduced himself to a failing 5th-grader level of writing and argumentation, regarding Allegro, and Acharya thanked me to my 2006 article reconciling her with Price — so much, that recently Price republished and rewrote her book, Christ Conspiracy.

citation: C.C. 2nd edition

Selective stupidity to prop up a bunk incoherent prejudiced view based on ideology.

The Only Kind of Evidence Is Literal Recounting

If you knew anything about the theology backstory behind this scene, you’d know that the story contains not a shred of evidence that the story describes a time, an episode, when the figures ingested the mushroom (🍄).

We Art Historians Have Thoroughly Discussed and Investigated Pilzbaums, and Reached Reasoned, Evidence-Based Conclusions, Which You Mycologists Are of Course Ignorant Of

We historians have already read all such manuscripts and art works and have easily explained away all mushroom imagery and mushroom effects imagery (such as transformation to a non-branching mental world model) in all of the hundreds of thousands of works and images.

We’re professionals, so you need to consult our conclusions and not be ignorant.

See the little 1906, 85-page book from Brinckmann for proof of our thorough coverage. (Assuming Wasson doesn’t censor, five times, this pair of letters that gives this super-strong evidence to back up this strong claims.)

Citation:

Crop & transcription by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

“Erwin Panofsky.-
Please keep my poor little pictures as long as you wish. And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.”

Crop by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

Wasson’s own hand writing showing that he looked up and researched the exact title and author name.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Errata

Where did Wasson the unstoppable mushroom scholar publish his commentary about Brinckmann’s book which Panofsky in both letters urged him to consult?

Wasson is the great Father of Ethnomycology, the leading scholar who in effect, is the creator of mushrooms (per John Lash). Wasson is the one who coined the word ‘entheogen’, after all. (again, per Lash, endnotes, Not In His Image, 2nd Edition).

i think this is Michael Pollan’s book How to Change Your Mind
Center: Wasson

We need a list of the publications in which Wasson cites Brinckmann’s little 1906 book.

End notes show that the Wasson theory is occasionally called “the entheogen theory”, which is unfair to Wasson because it doesn’t give Him all credit for the fullness of His Creation.

Fun etymology fact: another word for Wasson’s entheogens is ‘psychomimetics’, which means “mind-mimicking”, because Wasson’s entheogens mimic the mind. So that’s a good term to use, too.
https://www.google.com/search?q=psychomimetic

It’s great that we can count on John Lash’s solid, insider scholarship to set the record straight on the history of Wasson’s entheogens that He created.

John Lash, p. 337 in Not In His Name, 2nd Ed.

John Lash, p. 220 in Not In His Name, gives us this fact:

Wasson’s thesis is that ingesting sacred plants is the origin of all genuine religious experience.

John Lash, p. 220 in Not In His Name, 2nd Ed.

Quote my 2006 Plainc. article accusing Wasson of withholding Panofsky’s citations that he MUST have provided to back up his strong claim that art historians have discussed/ studied/ treated/ written about mushroom trees. copy the set of excerpts from my wordpress page.

John Lash is planning to write a devotional book about Wasson — I mean, a book devoted to Wasson.

The 9 archived John Lash articles:

Wise as Serpents: Entheogenic Religion and the Paris Eadwine Psalter (John Lash)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/07/07/wise-as-serpents-entheogenic-religion-and-the-paris-eadwine-psalter-john-lash/#Eadwine-Folder –

“my proposed book on the Wasson theory of the origin of religion (working title “Paradise Denied’), a project that did not get sold. It relates the Eadwine psalter to the Mysteries”

Only a Naturalistic (i.e. Ordinary-State Based) Interpretation Is Neutral and Objective

Citation:

Hatsis online blogger articles.

Accidental, Intentionality-Lacking, Inept, Randomly, Meaninglessly Degenerated Prototypes

Medieval Artists Have No Control over the Impression that Their Mushroom-Looking Imagery Forces Upon the Viewer 😑

Medieval artists worked from prototypes and had no intentionality and would be shocked, SHOCKED, that their mushroom imagery that we say looks like mushrooms, gives any viewers the impression of mushrooms.

Citation:

Transcribed:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/

Photos of Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson, published by Brown 2019: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/22/prof-jerry-browns-works-psychedelic-gospels/#Crops-of-Panofsky-Letters

Branching, Therefore Can’t Mean Mushrooms 😑

If the mushroom-tree artists had wanted to depict images that give us the impression of mushroom trees (for what we describe as looking like mushroom trees), they would have omitted the branches.

The mushroom-tree artists didn’t omit the branches, therefore their mushroom trees are not intended as mushrooms, but must be intended as trees instead.

Crop & transcription by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

“some especially ignorant craftsman may have misunderstood the finished product, viz., the “Pilzbaum”, as a real mushroom.

“But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show at least some trace of ramification;

“if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”

– The most influential art historian, Erwin Panofsky.

Panofsky is someone for the great historian Thomas Hatsis to look up to and aspire to be able to provide as good of explaining-away as Panofsky conducted.

Panofsky’s Censored Pair of Letters to Wasson Revealed and Transcribed
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/

That will be very useful and powerful for critical analysis and shredding his incredibly weak “arguments” that are guaranteed to convince every committed skeptic. They stand up to critique — until the moment you critique them, then they instantly collapse into rubble.

In Egodeath Mystery Show 2021- especially in 2022 i talked-through all of Panofsky’s arguments, about 6 arguments, to list here.

The Shape of the Liberty Cap Is Anachronistic 😑

The shape of the liberty cap is anachronistic.

Citation:

url https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/idea-development-page-12/#Tom-Hatsis-Reply-to-Me

Rebuttal:

url https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/16/liberty-caps-and-panaeolus-caps-in-the-canterbury-psalter/#Liberty-Caps

For additional commentary, Search this site: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/?s=The+shape+of+the+liberty+cap+is+anachronistic

You’re Not Allow to Deviate from Allegro, Who Is Your Foundation, Origin, and Boundary of Thought 😑

You guys are not allowed to speculate on Psilocybin, because you are committed to limiting yourself to Allegro.

Citation:

can’t make this shiite up; see:

url https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/idea-development-page-12/#Tom-Hatsis-Reply-to-Me

I have done intensive intellectual autobiography and have determined that my Core theory (the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence) and the mytheme theory are 0% influenced by Allegro.

In no sense whatsoever did I “come from” or “depart from” Allegro — or from Wasson for that matter, as John Lash would just as falsely proclaim in the exact same wrong manner as Hatsis’ mis-conception of the field.

Don’t project YOUR lame, gullible influences and trajectory of error (or YOUR boundaries of YOUR thinking) onto me.

You are describing yourself, not describing me.

As far as I know, still as of February 13, 2023, Thomas Hatsis still knows absolutely nothing at all about the Egodeath theory or its origin of development, and is in no position at all to make claims about its relation to Allegro.

Page title:
Site Map
Section heading:
John Lash
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#John-Lash

Hatsis should blame his buddy Carl Ruck for feverishly pushing his Secret Amanita primacy fallacy.

Page title:
Scholarly Fail-Quotes Hall of Shame
Section heading:
John Lash: “Variations of the Wasson theory, including considerable departures from it”
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#John-Lash-Variations-including-considerable-departures

I worked up some points here, moved that to Idea Development page 18, about John Lash. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/14/idea-development-page-18/

It’s a Standard, Commonplace Parasol of Victory 😑

It’s a parasol of victory. 😑 It’s a super common, standard trope/motif, don’t you know anything? You should be a superior Historian applying professional methodology like me, [etc etc]

Citation:

Brown article at Hancock site:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/22/prof-jerry-browns-works-psychedelic-gospels/#Graham-Hancock-Website-article

My Methodology Is Bigger than Yours

Have I told you about my superior historiographical methodology? Blah blah I’m great, you suck. Blah blah, you ought to use Sound, Tried and True Methodology(TM) like me, blah blah…

Citation:
The Thomas Hatsis Guide to Exemplary Historiographical Methodology

Cyberdisciple critique of Hatsis’ grandstanding and interpersonal posturing that tries to stand in for substance.
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-hatsis/

url https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/mushrooms-in-christian-art-discussed-by-tom-hatsis-and-jerry-brown-at-graham-hancocks-site/

I Have Read All Christian Writings and There Is No Statement that “We Ingested Psychoactive Mushrooms, for the Purpose of Inducing Religious Experiencing”

I have read all of the Christian writings, never do they report a literal trip report that says “I ingested The Mushroom (🍄), and I mean specifically psychoactive, and for religious experiencing purpose.” Therefore, no Christian has ever ingested The Mushroom (🍄).

Citation:

Cyberdisciple site & Brown article at Hancock, find “bluff”.

I Smash Your Ego Make You Cry in Corner

I am going to smash your puny ego so hard, you’ll be crying in the corner.

Exact excerpts:

“I am going to unload on this entire nonsensical idea in a way that will have those who believe this bullshit crying in a corner. I’ve been too generous and nice, and I will NOT be walked over or insulted again.”

Citation:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/22/prof-jerry-browns-works-psychedelic-gospels/#Hatsis-Email-to-Brown

Pagans Are Trustworthy Accusers About the Awful, Horrid Mushroom

The pagan critics never accused Christians of eating the abominable (shudder) mushroom (🍄), therefore, we know Christians are innocent of this awful, worst of crimes.

Citation:

[again, can’t make this shiite up – i read aloud all his articles – this “argument” is from his first article, published in UK journal] – the article is listed at:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/#Hatsis

url https://psychedelichistorian.com/the-dogmatists-debacle/ –

Hatsis wrote:

“And the problems mount: even pagan detractors of Christianity never once addressed the “supreme secret” that would have brought the whole institution crumbling, all the while slandering Christians for far greater crimes than eating fungi: cannibalism, infanticide, and insecticide!

“Indeed, some pagan authors like Celsus and Julian the Apostate wrote entire treatises against Christianity that never reference the sacred mushroom.”

Rebuttal:

First, note how Letcher Hatsis makes the ‘secrecy’ premise his assumed, taken-for-granted, entire foundation of his argument.

What position does he assume that he’s debunking?

Why latch onto that position as the thing to attack, and tilt at that windmill of his own choosing?

Secondly, if their enemies accuse Christians of everything bad they can muster, and don’t accuse Christians of mushrooms, that doesn’t prove Christians are innocent of mushrooms — rather, it proves that pagans didn’t include the accusation of mushrooms in their catalog of offenses.

Suppose that everyone in Antiquity venerated Psilocybin mushrooms (and possibly Amanita).

This would perfectly explain why the litanies of accusations of everything that everyone considered heinous, didn’t include mushrooms — because no one considered mushrooms heinous.

Bunk arguments characteristically fail at the level of their unstated, covert, unthinking presuppositions.

For the argument to seem and appear as if convincing, requieres that you buy into the same presuppositions that covertly prop up the appearance of persuasiveness.

The moment you shine light on these covert presuppositions, the bunk arguments collapse.

The presuppositions are mortal: they endure only until they are revealed, then they straightaway fail and collapse.

My Exemplary Historiographical Methodology Has Proved that No Mushroom Imagery Means Mushrooms — Citation: See Somewhere in my Internet Blogger Articles

I already firmly disproved this. See my online blogger articles somewhere.

Citation:

Where he argued that: Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)

The Fact that You Disagree Proves that You Haven’t Read My Articles, and Are Just Ignorant

You just have an opposing view because you have not read my article. The fact that you hold your view proves that you are ignorant of my article. I won’t summarize my proof here in this $15 book about that very topic.

Citation:

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis) 

I’m Going to Smash Your Puny Ego

I’m going to smash your puny ego

Citation:

[copy Hatsis wording to me]

He demonstrates zilch comprehension that I am the theorist of meanings of ‘ego death’ and related terms.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc. (endless supply)

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 1

“In my opinion — which, I am confident, will be shared by any art historian you may care to consult — the plant in this fresco has nothing whatever to do with mushrooms (which would indeed be surprising since it was the tree, and not the mushroom, of good and evil which brought about the transgression of the First Parents), and the similarity with Amanita muscaria is purely fortuitous.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 2: Too Many Mushrooms

“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example — and, since the style is very provincial, a particularly deceptive one — of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” or, in German writing, Pilzbaum.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 3: Too Many Mushrooms

“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 4

“If you are interested, I recommend a little book by A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baumdarstellung im Mittelalter (or something like it), where the process is described in detail.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Considered as part of this sentence: I now believe, since the day or day after I published this page, it was not Wasson, but rather Panofsky who hand-wrote the author name & title on the letter.

Handwriting Analysis Proves Panofsky (Not Wasson) Probably Wrote Brinckmann’s Author Name and Book Title on Letter 1

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/22/prof-jerry-browns-works-psychedelic-gospels/#Crops-of-Panofsky-Letters –

Crop by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels
Crop by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

Compare handwriting of “Ehich” to the “Erwin” signature – they match.

Crop & transcription by Cybermonk, from: Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Brown 2019: https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 5

“Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 1 Sentence 6

“What the mycologists have overlooked is that the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-1-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 1

“Unfortunately I know very little of folk lore and witchcraft (though I do know that those people in Kamchatka still induce ecstasy by eating amanita or drinking some sort of decoction thereof).”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 2

“So I have not the slightest idea as to whether the French witches also used the crapaudin (which, incidentally, seems to be fairly generic term originally, like our “toadstool”; I know it, e.g., as denoting a kind of cooking pan shaped like a mushroom, and even another plant, Sideritis) for similar purposes.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 3: Too Many Mushrooms

“However, even if so, I should be somewhat skeptical because the development from pine tree to “Pilzbaum” is so universal and takes place in so many representations other than the Fall of Man.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 4

“The only possibility I should be prepared to admit is that, once the transformation had taken place and was generally accepted in art, some especially ignorant craftsman may have misunderstood the finished product, viz., the “Pilzbaum,” as a real mushroom.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Critique of What Brown Attempts to Make of Letter 2

Feb. 7, 2023 — I just realized that Browns’ weak / dubious assertion/ argument that Panofsky admitted/recanted maybe Plainc. means mushrooms, is further weakened or called into question by the fact that the Browns were working with their mis-transcription of Panofsky’s word “product” (ie prototype) as “project”[sic] (ie fresco).

Do Browns think Panofsky is admitting something about the “project” (fresco), where Panofsky actually wrote “product” (prototype)?

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 5: If meant mushroom, would’ve omitted branches

“But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Rebuttal:

Massive and profound.

Search this site for: “branching-message mushroom trees”:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/?s=%22branching-message+mushroom+trees%22

What if the artists’ main message to depict was a message about branching, revealed by mushrooms?

Did you even TRY to think of reasons for this morphology?

Why maybe artists specifically were trying to communicate both mushrooms and branches (not to mention cut or removed branches — or cut trunk).

THE BRANCHING IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE DAMN POINT; the whole message (referring to transformation from possibilism to eternalism), the very purpose of Pilzbaum.

Plus, Panofsky contradicts himself like crazy. “These look like mushrooms. These are not mushrooms, because to make them look like mushrooms, the artists would need to omit the branches.”

(And cut branches, your forgot that point by the same bunk and clueless token.)

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 6: Religious mediaeval art had little reason to think of mushrooms

“In addition, religious mediaeval art at least had little reason to think of mushrooms at all.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

“Religious mediaeval art had little reason to think of mushrooms at all.”

“Religious art has little reason to think of mushrooms.”

Rebuttal:

Religious art, in fact, has EVERY reason to think of mushrooms, because mushrooms are the source, origin, and ongoing wellspring of religion and religious experiencing.

YOUR CLUELESSNESS RUNS UNFATHOMABLY DEEP, “the most influential art historian”

Panofsky Letter 2 Sentence 7

“They do not occur in the Bible, so far as I know, nor in the legends of the saints.”

— Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Published by Jerry B. Brown & Julie M. Brown 2019: 
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels, transcribed by Cybermonk, February 4, 2023,
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/panofskys-censored-pair-of-letters-to-wasson-revealed/#Letter-2-per-Sentence

Rebuttal:

Wrong and wrong.

“Mushrooms do not occur in the Bible.” FALSE.

“Mushrooms do not occur in the legends of the saints.” FALSE.

I was too dumb and mentally childish to figure out and think to analyze the branching morphology and handedness motifs in this image, all the way from publishing this image at the top of my main, flagship article in October 2006, mentally snoozing all the way to March 21, 2022.

It would be easy to find exact date/time stamp at the present site. Look at posts that have a URL between March 21 – April 13, 2022, in Site Map page, maybe bottom.

todo: memorize dates:

In a March 21, 2022 10-day rush period, I took Brown’s Marcia Kupfer quote about youths in trees cutting branches:

I, this time (after 2016 book and 2019 articl), finally recognized the themes, and I then worked that into my decoding of mushroom trees’ branching features, along with incorp’g …

As I result, I gained (coinciding w/ Brown conversation) comprehension of branching-message mushroom trees — rather than my under-clued “problematic-branching mushroom trees” prior to that.

I then finally thought of applying my Nov. 2020 decoding of the Eadwine initiation image back to my familiar catalog of esoteric mystical art images, including:

https://psychedelichistorian.com/roasting-jan-irvin/ –

https://psychedelichistorian.com/wp-content/uploads/bodleian-fol-027v.jpg

“Figure 1 (above) is the image in question.

“As should be demonstrably clear, the supposed “red cap spotted white” mushroom that Ruck describes isn’t that at all.”

– a huge fail by Ruck, probably he was & Samorini was guessing from b/w.

“The cap is unmistakably blue; the trunk inarguably green (amanita stems are white). “

oh here goes Hatsis building his house on sand, WHO CARES what the alleged text caption backstory is.

KEY PRINCIPLE: INTERPRET ART BY MORPHOLOGY FIRST, NOT STUPIDLY LEAVING THE ART AND TRAVELLING TO TEXT BACKSTORY. READ IMAGE *BEFORE* READ TEXT, AND DISTINCTLY FROM TEXT.

Mystic Art Interpretation in an Illiterate Era: You MUST Utilize A Morphology-First, Not a Text-First Reading

I f’d up and fell into this pit of mistake in 2006, blocking myself from simply reading the morphology of the Eustace window & of the Dionysus mosaic, “because I lack the backstory” – massive error!

In this mystic-form art genre, you are supposed to read the morphology; it is assumed you are unable to read the text.

Hatsis takes a text-first approach to reading visual art – contradicting himself. Requires prioritizing visual elements OVER text.

I speak as THE MOST successful decoder of this genre, this art form.

Hatsis continues:

“As for the inscription, the man in the image is hardly “dancing” or experiencing “intense revelations”. He has, in fact, been poisoned and is dying. “

How clueless of esotericism could a “Psychedelic Witch” be?
Answer: 100%: Never heard of mystic-state ego death.

The most clueless of literalists. Failed witch.

Hatsis’ logic continues:

“Irvin contends: “the salamander is a symbol of the Amanita muscaria”[Irvin (2008), pg. 115], but that is emphatically not what the artist meant to represent.

“The author of MS. Bodl. 602 wrote rather clearly that the poison from salamanders was so strong that if it crept into a fruit-bearing tree, the once-palatable fruit turned poisonous. “

Says the anti-mushroom Psychedelic Witch 🍄🧙‍♂️ regarding those horrid, purtrid, awful, abominable mushrooms (shudder):

“Since mushrooms were known poisons in antiquity, requiring no infiltration by salamander venom, the tree in folio 027v most emphatically cannot be a mushroom; the text even calls the plant a “tree” (arbor).”

/ end of logic from Hatsis

My brilliant leading-edge analysis PROVES that this Placidas/ St. Eustace window depicts the highest, ultimate Psilocybin effects, expressed eg by the CONTRAST of branching Cubensis vs. non-branching, on the left.

The distinctive effect of Psilocybin is transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

This picture of St. Eustace fording the river depicts transformation from possibilism to eternalism, expressed elegantly and fittingly via Cubensis imagery.

Ezekiel & Revelation: See Strange Fruit or later edition of that book, by Heinrich.

Plus at a high level, all authentic religion is about Psilocybin and the effects, especially transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

The word ‘Eucharist’ or Lord’s Supper mainly refers to Psilocybin.

Tilting at Windmills of Their Own Imagining

https://grammarist.com/idiom/tilting-at-windmills/ –

“Tilting at windmills means fighting imaginary enemies.

“The idiom tilting at windmills is first seen in the English language in the 1640s as “…fight with the windmills…”

“The verb tilting was soon substituted for the word fight.

“The term is taken from the classic Spanish novel, Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes.

“In the novel, the main character becomes enamored with the idea of chivalry, and spends his time fighting with windmills that he imagines to be giants.

“Tilting is the medieval sport of jousting with a lance.

“Of course, the windmills are not enemies but are simply inanimate objects, and Quixote’s tilting at windmills was an exercise in futility.”

Who does Panofsky, or Letcher Hatsis, imagine he’s arguing against?

Who does he imagine he has engaged with?

What does he imagine “winning” his debate would amount to?

How these “arguments” from Hatsis and Panofsky imagined by them to have any compelling power.

Not Even Specious

They are not even specious arguments; that is, these things which are delivered grandly as if they are arguments, don’t even initially seem convincing on the surface.

Define ‘specious’:
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+specious
“Superficially plausble, but — ” — hold on!

The quasi-“arguments” transmitted 1-way by Hatsis & Panofsky are NOT plausible, whether deeply or superficially or initially or momentarily — their quasi-“arguments” are just weird, bizarre, and arbitrary – practically random.

How are these “arguments” supposed to convince anyone? eg:

“Plaincourault cannot refer to mushrooms, because there are too many mushroom trees – and even worse, they are not just limited to Eden/Genesis!”

I haven’t even finished recovering from the strangeness of the first statement, before Panosfky levels-up and hits me with the second.

Panofsky transmits arguments of form:

“Not only is coffee on tap, but apples take on rainbows, making that problem even worse!”

Huh? Huh? and Huh, regarding the connection? You have COMPLETELY lost me.

How would that… “argument”(?) convince anyone?

Panofsky (or Hatsis) strikes a tone of voice as if he’s putting forth a coherent, compelling argument, but in fact leaves everyone just scratching their head:

“I don’t follow; I don’t see how this point would even constitute an argument, much less be compelling to anyone.”

That explains why Wasson censored Panofsky’s second letter: because the “arguments” in it are not even arguments, despite Panofsky’s confident rambling like he’s articulated a case.

Wasson knew that the mushroom-denial position is guaranteed to lose, if he were to invite people to actually engage in debate.

I wrote here about these points already, in October 2020. Check my page, Psychedelic Mystery Traditions.

Especially, I spoke about this, talked it through, in episodes of Egodeath Mystery Show:

Wasson looked at Panofsky’s thoroughly weak “arguments” and sensibly said:

“No way can we present these Panofsky “arguments” to people; we would certainly raise questions, cause people to engage in actual critical thinking, and we are guaranteed to lose and fail to bluff people.”

Don’t cause a Streisand effect! Do not invite actual critical engagement! We will completely lose, and everyone (“The Public”) will say:

YES WE ARE EAGER TO AGREE TO YOUR PROXY DEAL: THAT THIS IS ALL-OR-NOTHING, THAT WE MUST INTERPRET ALL PILZBAUM CONSISTENTLY: AND WE ARE EAGER TO ASSERT AND DEFEND THAT ALL OF THEM MEAN MUSHROOMS.

This is why Panofsky is only permitted to give 10% of what his argument is: “too many mushrooms”. 😑

Everyone, in reply: “What? I don’t understand how you think “too many Pilzbaum” — along with “Even beyond Eden!!” — is supposed to amount to an “argument”.

I’m just puzzled. Maybe I’m not following what your argument is — could you please explicitly state your complete argument?

90% of your argument seems to be covert, hiding under the surface – or nonexistent.

So (Wasson rightly reasoned), we must restrict ourselves to shutting down, steering away from any critical engagement — not invite such engagement, as Panofsky’s 2nd letter does, foolishly, in a way that would ensure our lie’s defeat; the failure of our cover-up attempt, and worse:

The inevitable result will be a massive backfiring, when instead of agreeing that “therefore, no mushroom-tree imagery can mean mushroom”, our pseudo-argument will massively backfire, and “The Public” will reach the true, and therefore wrong/antithetical conclusion:

“Therefore all mushroom trees mean mushrooms.“

___

continuing from above:

Could you please ARTICULATE your COMPLETE argument?

I just don’t follow how point 1 is relevant, or how point 2 is relevant, or how point 2 is relevant to point 1.

Every one of these flimsy arguments seems to share this quality: 1-directional tilting at windmills, and strawmanning or worse; strawmanning on steroids.

“I dictate that you hold the position which I have assigned to you; and whether or not you hold it, that’s the position I’m committed to defeating, gloriously.”

“I have destroyed you Secret Christian Mushroom (🍄) Cult, Allegro-type thinkers!”

Ironically, the #1 most Allegro-type thinker is Hatsis, who has Allegro define the boundaries of this thought.

Hatsis can’t handle it when you pay no attention to Allegro, or Plaincourault, or Secret Amanita Cult – Hatsis commands the ocean of scholarship to stay within the bounds that Hatsis has erected, all defined by and limited to Allegro — or to Allegro the Myth as Hatsis imagines “Allegro” and “the Allegro theory”.

Hatsis keeps declaring victory against positions that no one holds, but he acts like “you guys” hold those positions.

Hatsis is thus out of touch with reality of what people’s positions are; his blows (in debate) are all landing in thin air, yet he shouts “Bam! I got you again — your argument is so defeated!

My argument is nowhere near where Letcher Hatsis is deliriously imagining and demanding that it be.

All during reading Letcher Hatsis’ 2007 book Shroom, the whole time, I kept wondering:

Who exactly, and what position exactly, does he think he’s arguing against? “The Secret Amanita Cult theory”? “The Secret Christian Holy Mushroom Cult theory? Where the hell is Hatsis getting these theory-labels?

I haven’t read Jan Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom, so I can only guess that maybe Hatisis is picking up these phrases from Jan Irvin’s book.

I, for one, have never thought in terms even remotely like:

  • The Secret Amanita Cult theory
  • The Holy Mushroom theory
  • The Secret Christian Mushroom Cult theory

Even if you look only at the entheogen history portion of the Egodeath theory, — consider my Plainc article: I repeatedly say we need to weigh what’s wrong and right with Allegro’s position-elements, and, finally, we need to abandon this mythic Allegro figure, and SIMPLY and DIRECTLY ask,

To what extent Psilocybin in Western history?

(And maybe Amanita — if considered as nothing more than just a colorful symbol/ billboard that refers mainly to Psilocybin, as Dale Pendell asserts.)

WHO is asserting a “Secret Amanita Cult”, or any of those other concepts that are created by Letcher Hatsis — other than Hatsis’ buddy, Carl Ruck?

I guess Jan Irvin (2008) asserts some sort of “the Holy mushroom” concept, as such, but I don’t know, I haven’t looked at his book, just the title.

Panofsky and Hatsis publish their arguments, and then carry and present themselves as if they’ve accomplished something that has compelling force.

But their transmitted messages are not having the persuasive effect that they imagine.

Panofsky and Hatsis aren’t asking people:

“What is your position?”

“Does my argument have any relevance to your views?”

“What is your counter or rebuttal to my slam-dunk argument?”

“Do you find that argument to have merit?”

Their arguments have no relevance, no persuasive power, and no merit – they are really a waste of time to engage.

They are off-base, misconstrued arguments, directed to no real, actual person and that person’s actual position.

Their argumentation is a purely 1-way transmission, that fails to hit any actual target. Panofsky and Hatsis are just talking to themselves, or to an imagined foe, but there’s no one there.

Letcher Hatsis takes aim at an airy abstraction, “Those pop people who assert The Holy Secret Mushroom Cult” — but there’s no one there; he’s tilting at windmills.

See Also

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)
url https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/

List of Hatsis’ amateur online blogger articles:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/#Hatsis

Find “Panofsky” in list of page titles at site map: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/

The Letcher-Panofsky Intelligence Test

The Old, “Secret Entheogen” Paradigm vs. the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm

Prof. Jerry Brown’s Works (The Psychedelic Gospels)

url https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-hatsis/

url https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/mushrooms-in-christian-art-discussed-by-tom-hatsis-and-jerry-brown-at-graham-hancocks-site/

Noon, February 4, 2023, Cybermonk

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment