totally unrelated note 2:55 i grasp canterbury f134 sword is the threat of loss of control or simply loss of control. 🔥 🗡🐉🚪 fire is loss of control aka the threat of loss of control = angel gate guard flaming sword, blade = arrowhead (psalter viewer) = spear = affliction not epilepsy, but the threat of loss of control aka loss of control. PAUL’s affliction on road to Damascus fall from “horse” Balaam donkey angel blocking path is the threat of loss of control = the challenging dread experiencing the threat of loss of control is the challenging experience is the negative mystical experience – I steer my horse donkey that I ride but it lies down on the path of control instability, donkey lie down = the threat of loss of control = sword that the msh tree guy hangs– just a sec–

HEY YOU IN THE TREE! GET DOWN FROM THERE!! IM TRYIN TO THINK HERE, WTF!!

floating sage with limbless looker means advanced recognition of the wrong hands which (skipping the feet, 1 level of analogy indirection) is wrong basis of ctrl as he receives = ingests the msh from bucket

f134 Row 2 Right

Because his eyes are attached to the floating guy who represents definitely advanced comprehension in contrast to the simple red guy the red youth who has simple basic understanding

given that the funnel hat floating guy his feet are isomorphic with the floating feet of the guy in the tree , that means that the Limbless Looker who is attached as an extra set of eyes — he has no function with his feet or hands, but he serves purely as a pointer to look to point to the {wrong hands} receiving the cubensis

this looking represents the advanced knowledge about the ramifications of having the wrong hand position when receiving the cubensis

The limbless youth’s pointer-eyes look at the newbie enthusiast psychonaut’s hands, which has the left hand down

and then the next level of analogy is that the given that the left hand is down

that means that the left foot is down

and the next level of analogy is that the left foot down means relying on possibility branching thinking as the control foundation, which is known by the advanced interpreter of this image to be unstable control, which amounts to the loss of control until the mind is driven and taught and instructed to put the right foot down instead, which means to rely on eternalism thinking world model with two-level dependent control

I see this instruction the session guides in a very intimate a charming relatable and realistic seen an F145 image number F145

solved: I have now proved through ESP that the limbless looker in Canterbury image F14501 left is looking at the guy who is floating on the two demons

and this is used to meaningfully–

this pointer is used to connect two appropriate items :

the scroll in row two, and the msh importer’s feet

and also to look simultaneously , so as to connect so as to connect the guy who is floating on the animal-thinking demons, one of them holding a branching pitchfork standing on the left leg, and the other one holding a non-branching rope who is standing on the right claw.

The people who are in charge of stocking the Mushroom lockboxes through foreign imports are teaching the traders advanced knowledge of the two mental models including the instability — see the handheld balance scale — the instability of the Possibility branching mental world model, in contrast with:

The stability of the second, mature mental world model, which has instead of autonomous monolithic ego mental model in a branching world instead has a two-level model of dependent control in a non-branching world, per the eternalism mental model.

The most frequently useful names of the Egodeath Theory

also a correction to my draft of branching message Mushroom trees article

regarding settling the names of my theory I do not think that a good main name is the Theory of Psychedelic Cybernetic Eternalism — intuitively I feel that the better trade-off is a shorter name without the problematic awkward heavy word ‘cybernetic’ i

nstead I would rather define

for the purposes of efficient name of theory I would rather redefined the word eternalism and redefine it to focus on cybernetics and to fold the self control topic into it

because yes we do need to emphasize control transformation of mental model more than the word eternalism can bear , BUT:

here’s the problem

does the word ‘cybernetics’ actually succeed at supplementing the word eternalism regarding control?

it brings confusion and alienation without earning it’s wordy word count

it is not a net gain

a Long wordy name is like a formal living room that nobody uses it is maybe technically technically it is the correct name technically but that is distinct from every day practical naming

in naming products you always want to have a long formal verbose name which nobody ever uses and then more practically everyone makes up a short name which might even conflict with the legal formal full long name but everybody ignores the legal formal long name of the product and everybody even the official product in practice everybody uses a shorter name the long name is impractical here is an impractical although technically correct name of the theory:

the Theory of Psychedelic Cybernetic Eternalism

awkward technically correct and will never be used it has poor meme propagation it is not nimble it is not agile it is not fast it is a slow name

really is kind of it reminds me all too much of my domain name “CybTrans.com” – Tone deaf as far as practical marketing

it is technically accurate, but and I come back to again a better performance

better performing name that has a better score on word count versus meaning and ease of use is the shorter name from which you can I believe reconstruct the entire theory even without the word cybernetics:

the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism

which is so much snappy like “Egodeath.com” quick to write quick to say it is not incorrect and in theory you could reconstruct the entire theory from this short name even without the word cybernetics A proof of that is that William James complained about block universe because of such control agency implications that the ego kubrrnetes is an illusion

My gut feeling with all things considered an carefully weighing scale of balance regarding the delicate trade-off of the word count of the name of the theory versus what is communicated in that name I I’m really leaning towards favoring the short elegant term this is kind of a compromise

The theory name:

the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism

is an objectively better tradeoff of word count versus meaningfulness than the theory name:

the Theory of Psychedelic Cybernetic Eternalism

there is nothing gained there’s not a net game by adding the word cybernetics because although it adds clarity it also brings a lot of cost and so I am thinking of having the long name as a auxiliary miner name but have the short name as the primary main name I feel my gut feeling is that the shorter name has a better market value better utility it is a more useful name in practice we’re not going to have everybody throwing around a long name we will easily have everyone throwing around the short name t

he long name is simply too long , and that’s that; yes it is in fact the name the formal name but it’s not a name that anybody will ever use very much or employ very much in terms of frequency of use it is really sufficient to simply say the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism —

And here’s an interesting argument in favor of that

I’ll bet that you could reconstruct if you did not know anything about the Theory I’ll bet that you could reconstruct it from the short name and you would not need to throw in the word cybernetics

original posting

Mobile app voice mis-transcription

Citations & Secret Item Tallies & References: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#Psychedelics-Questionnaires

After you show me the 11-Factors, put it in my hands, give me the URL that is the questionnaire, cough it up, hand it over, LET US SEE IT, this is not Science.

Frederick Barrett, Matthew Bradstreet, Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos, Matthew Johnson, and Roland Griffiths were unable to obtain the concrete Studerus 11-Factors questionnaire and misunderstood it to only consist of 42 items instead of the full set of 66 OAV 1994 items (psychedelic effects questions).

That explains why they didn’t see the concrete set of all 21 high-level Unpleasant Experiences dimension items, including item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.

ICC + ANX + SHA = DED

Why would we trust the obfuscating, complicated blob of math (cluster F analysis) that’s attached to the poor reasoning of a group of people who can’t even do basic adding of numbers up to 21?

Psychedelic “Science” soundly based on unavailable, vague, rumored, mythical psychometrics questionnaires: is this STEM?

Matthew Johnson is unable to add the numbers 7+6+8 = 21 when forming CEQ’s Initial Item Pool 😞

The shadow dragon monster item, the hot potato, behind closed doors in a dark room playing a shell game, Item 54 goes missing.

The Vanishing Dragon Trick

🎩🪄💨🐉 🤷‍♂️

You cannot get a college textbook specifying these mythical phantom questionnaires.

I don’t believe these questionnaires even exist.

There are no wikipedia articles.

Everything is behind closed doors.

nothing is available for you to look at

the articles are so incomprehensible that Roland Griffiths himself misread the 11 factors article and didn’t realize that there are 21 rather than 13 items in the high-level Unpleasant (= DED) dimension.

Do you even realize that there exists a high-level Unpleasant Experiences dimension in 11-factors q’air?

Evidently not, or else Roland Griffiths would have added all 21 Unpleasant experiences (DED) items to the initial item pool for the CEQ.

and would not have been able to make the “accidental” mistake of omitting eight out of the 21 dread “Dread of Ego Dissolution” (DED) Dittrich OAV items.

btw Dittrich in 1985, why did you simply assume , baked right into your name of the dimension, that what we dread is so-called “ego dissolution”?

How do you know, before you’ve even done the research, that what we dread is so-called “ego dissolution” — which a recent article says stop using that term, because it’s too vague to be scientifically useful.

Per the Egodeath theory — the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism — what we dread above all. most gloriously, is the threat of loss of control (control-instability, which is effectively no control) because we are, firstly, control agents — so much so , that we don’t even realize that that’s what we are.

The threat of loss of control = 🔥 = 🐉 guarding the 🏆🏅 treasure of Transcendent Knowledge brought back and enabling you with the correct requisite psychonaut spacesuit new garment to {be able go in and out through the gate} 🔥🗡🚪🍄🌳 as the Bible promises as the reward at the end of time

and when “the ego dissolves”, that means control agency dissolves — along with the world in which it has the power to steer collapses into non-branching, and all the branches get cut off

we are afraid and paranoid our future control thoughts already permanently exist and are created for us and forced upon us

Canterbury f177 Row 2 Left: Left-Leg-Relying Rams in Control-Instability Fire Dragon Mouth

Row 2 Middle Right: Balance

Row 2 Right: Cubensis Lockbox, Stable Buildings

I’m Paranoid About this Cluster F Analysis Scientistic Process

speaking of paranoia Roland Griffiths CEQ article says do not use the paranoia factor that we seat-of-the-pants added out-of-band at the last minute, and we put in an item that doesn’t belong there so don’t use it the aggression item

Some science this is ; real “science” here, that delivers a Paranoia factor while telling you don’t use it because it’s bunk

There is only one paragraph in the 11 factors article admitting the existence of the two high-level scales

Studerus confusingly explains how they “dropped” items 3, 14, 26, 54, & 66-1/2 for either cluster F analysis reason A or reason B,

and that is what is foisted upon us as an explanation for how they magically made the shadow dragon monster vanish into thin air, of item 54: I was afraid to lose my self control and it’s a similar story with HRS questionnaire item: it was difficult to control my thoughts.

but shine the marketing spotlight over here, onto only the low-level 11 factors only which conveniently Photoshops-out the eight undesirable items and the 16 unaccounted for Pleasant items too – the 16 items in the Virtual factor 12 (VIR) and the 8 items in Shadow factor 13 (SHA).

How does it make any sense mathematically according to cluster F analysis (F stands for factor) To confabulate a low level factor named the compound named jumble things together “impaired control and cognition (ICC)”

I have improved the name of the ICC factor by clarifying that its name is “impaired control and impaired cognition (ICIC).

you won’t allow me to see 11-factors questionnaire in your psychedelic pseudoscience

and you won’t even allow Roland Griffiths to see it so that he can conveniently make the “accidental” mistake of deleting and omitting and never seeing in the first place 8 out of the 21 Dread/ DED/ Unpleasant items (38%)

maybe you can do the complex mathematics to tell me what percentage of unpleasant items does that make — 38%

presto-chango, vanished into thin air , because he didn’t have his hands on the concrete, slap it down on the table, 11 factors questionnaire, with count them

meet my tally challenge my tally test:

how many items are in the high-level Unpleasant experiences dimension of the 11-factors questionnaire and tell me the tally count

how many negative experiences items are not a member of any factor within the high-level Unpleasant dimension?

The correct answer is 8 out of the 21 dread angst OAV classic 1994 questionnaire from Dittrich.

See my tables of contents of my pages about these questionnaires for the secret tally counts to track and inventory and keep track of all 21 of the Dread items so that none of them can “accidentally” go missing — to the convenience of people who are trying, more interested in marketing their ordinary-state Grief counseling services, by deleting altogether the entire Dread category of negative challenging psychedelic effects, through sleight-of-hand shell game in the dark; you’re not allowed to look at the questionnaires, you little people.

Stand back, because we, behind closed doors playing shell games in the dark, are not allowing you to see the questionnaires which are the muddy, tottering , unstable foundation of this psychedelic “science”, as Studerus says:

S’s 2010 article page 2 covertly cites, using a mysterious obfuscating citation number 20 claiming that item 20 is the sound solid, tried and true (like the great historian Thomas Hatsis) scientific foundation basis for this tottering tower of mystical psychedelic science

well what is item 20 , secretly obfuscated 🤔 ??

Walter Stace’s 1960 book, Mysticism and Philosophy (out of print).

which says that mystical experiences are purely positive;

no mystic ever had a negative experience

see that reasoning on page 2 of Studerus article 2010 , that a positive experience is “therefore” mystical and a negative experience is “therefore” not mystical but rather a bad trip instead.

item 54, The shadow dragon monster; I was afraid to lose my self-control.

The scientific mysticism basis of this Science, citation 20, dated by 63 years, severely criticized by Charles Stang of Harvard Divinity school saying it fails to match the historical older historical mystics archives of negative experiences, which Studerus p. 2 reasons that these are negative experiences and “therefore” they are not mystical

and that this is “vouchsafed” — to use Erik Davis’s words he says “it must be acknowledged that all of this dubious tottering tower falling over a Psychedelics science vouchsafed by research from Walter Stace that’s 63 years out of date”

(and probably doesn’t even cover psychedelics, I’d have to double check)

and if you doubt the soundness of the foundation basis of our mystical science, the psychedelic science of mystical “complete mystical experiences”, then we’ll hit you with the intimidating citation of William James 1902, hot off the press!

just like Erwin Panofsky giving us the list of all the discussions which the art historians of covered mushrooms — which consists of a single book he calls “little”, that was already 50 years out of date in 1952, a single, 86-page book that only lists the word ‘pilzbaum’ five times

Remember there are so many ways which we are reminded that the most prejudiced, biased and anti-scientific and in-denial field filled with the most bluster and fallacious argumentation

it’s the veritable gallery of , the best place that you can find all fallacious argumentation and posturing and bluffing, is in the field of psychedelics and entheogen scholarship

everyone is shaking in their shoes in terror and fear having a challenging experience of dealing with the name the secret bad guy in John Allegro it’s so everyone is dancing around dance dance trembling in fear –

We need to Photoshop out allegro and ideas that resonate with his ideas for marketing purposes photo shop out John allegro and his book cover

at least the book cover proposes that we can look and see mushrooms in our own religion

so no one’s supposed to propose that now , because that is the third rail, the allegro third rail

and so what kind of a travesty of “science” is going to result?

what kind of a scientific historiography is going to is bound to result from such a situation?

it’s all bluster, it’s all prejudiced, nobody can think straight

So you have Robert M Price , grand editor of the journal of higher criticism, making all kinds of sixth-grader errors when he goes to critique Acharya S’ The Christ Conspiracy book for favorably mentioning Allegro. Price opened his mouth and said something about psychoactives in case you were wondering whether he’s clueless as a rock now you know for sure the answer.

No surprise, since his wife wrote a psychedelics-oblivious book about the rock band Rush, which is a Philosophy band and therefore obviously would never use psychedelics.

but after my 64-page article set Price straight about Allegro, he is so reconciled with Acharya ( as she thanked me for) that Robert Price now has done a super editor re-writing of her book to make it more scholarly and has produced a deluxe version of her book.

and another thing why is there no name of the 11-factors q’air? every time anyone refers to it they refer to that questionnaire by a different name because nobody can get their hands on it

it doesn’t exist

dream: he knows too much! why does he know so much and articulate it so well?

I just remembered a dream that I had again type of dream I had again

I heard a random guy , presumably not very informed, articulately and elegantly reciting my Egodeath theory – Why the hell does this well-spoken guy know literally everything I know?

the answer is: because I was playing recordings of my podcast while sleeping

this has happened to be about three times now

The Shell game, dark-of-night, Magic vanishing dragon trick 🎩🪄💨🐉

it’s a Myth

Psychedelic Science is a myth, it doesn’t exist; you are not allowed to see it, you little person, you are not allowed to see our “science”.

You’re not allowed to give me a URL to concretely see these alleged nonexistent questionnaires.

There is only one paragraph in the 11-factors article by Studerus 2010 that mentions and admits that — despite their marketing of the shiny sparkly new 11 factors– there are actually two secret high-level factors which encompass all 66th of the OAV questionnaire items

hot potato item 54 shell game move 1: 🐉 exists:

Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, and Franz Vollenweider 2010 Figure S1, banished to a completely separate document by the marketing department, to hide the existence of the high-level dimensions– all 21 items of Studerus Unpleasant dimension = OAV’s Angst/Dread (DED) dimension.

hot potato item 54 shell game move 2: 🐉 still exists:

Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, and Franz Vollenweider 2010 supplemental separate document Figure S2

PRESTO CHANGE-O, Drakonium Vanishaie! 🎩🪄🎩🪄🎩🪄💨🐉 (gasp!!) 😲

Magicians Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, and Franz Vollenweider 2010 main well-lit Figure 1 on prominent display in the showroom floor, sparkling polished floodlight lit – shows every single item within the ICC category factor /scale /subscale AND also comprehensively includes every single item within the anxiety (ANX) factor/ scale/subscale — missing not a single item of all two factors of the Unpleasant high level dimension 😑

they are all accounted for, every one, and none of them are missing — and yet, Item 54 is gone! 😯

somehow now there are only 13 instead of 21 Dread (DED) Unpleasant psychedelic effects items, and 54 has successfully gone missing

(takes a bow)

(APPLAUSE) by Psychedelic (Pseudo) Science

The shell game vanishing dragon trick to make item 54 vanish into thin air, so that Frederick Barrett, Matthew Bradstreet, Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos, Matthew Johnson, and Roland Griffiths can conveniently “accidentally” not see the eight non-factor Unpleasant items, including item 54 , when confabulating the mythical, nonexistent CEQ, which you, little person, you are not allowed to see these q’airs, because this is Science, and we don’t allow you to concretely see our Science.

🚫🤚😑

Sorry, it’s a behind-closed-doors only , private event.

But you’re not allowed to see them, not even Frederick Barrett, Matthew Bradstreet,
Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos, Matthew Johnson,
and Roland Griffiths are allowed to see them, no one’s allowed to see all 66 items in the Studerus 11-factors questionnaire — which has eight different names, and everyone refers to it differently, because it does not exist, it’s a Myth.

This phantom “Psychedelic Science” doesn’t even exist.

“See Carbonaro article for details” , and the lack of basic explanation of how the CEQ Initial Item Pool relates to Study 1 & Study 2 is even more evident.

you show me the concrete 11 factors questionnaire — whatever the hell it’s name is because it doesn’t have an even have a name and everyone refers to it as the “the 5DASC which has 11 factors” ; it’s all garbled — and maybe I could call this an actual science.

Can’t get any intelligible consistent articles about these questions because nobody is able to get a hold of them nobody is allowed to see them

it’s all behind-the-back, behind closed doors

and even these scientist the pseudoscientists or confused about what the Studerus q’air contains

what its scope is

how many items?

this is my tally test, and you failed this

this science fails the tally test

Tell me, if psychedelic psychometrics science is a science , then tell me the tallies:

how many items are in the Unpleasant experiences high-level dimension of the Studerus 2010 11-factors questionnaire, which has 10 different names and so doesn’t even have a name

what is the Url where I can see and get my hands on Studerus 2010 11-factors questionnaire that doesn’t have a name

The 11-factors actually has 13 factors at the lower level + 2 high-level factors or scales or dimensions on the instrument pretentious bluster jargon jargon using cluster F analysis

The circle journal citation fest , throwing around the stock pseudo-explanation magic words: neuroplasticity, default mode network, ego dissolution, nondual unity oneness 😑

there: we have just explained everything, and can I be a member of your club now pls??

Why is it a great idea according to the mathematics science to have a set of eight unpleasant questions that are not a member of any of one of the 11 factors, and 16 items that are a member of the Pleasant experiences high-level dimension, but are not a member of any factor?

please explain this at a kindergarten level because I’m kind of stupid, I want some basic answers– but none are forthcoming.

what textbook will provide me with these answers? there isn’t any.

The 16 Pleasant experience items which are hidden and in denial that they exist, because the marketing department doesn’t want to shine the spotlight on the high-level dimensions but only wants to advertise and promote promote and market their shiny new sparkly low level 11 factors

and so there are 16 pleasant experience items which are not a member of any low level factor but they do and in fact constitute a set

which I have named since they failed to name it

I have named that set of 16 non-factor member items in the Pleasant Experiences high-level dimension Virtual factor 12 (VIR) 😇😊🦄

and I have named since they have neglected to name, their marketing department neglected to name the eight Unpleasant items which are not part of any of their highly touted advertised 11 factors, I have had to do their work for them in this pseudoscience

and I have named that set of 8 non-factor member items in the Unpleasant Experiences high-level dimension Shadow factor 13 (SHA) 😱😵🐉

well-lit with floodlights on the showroom floor is Figure 1, prominently displayed in the body of the Studerus 11-Factors article which Roland Griffiths was permitted to look at, which conveniently lists only 13 out of the Dread (DED) OAV items, so that the shell game could be successful in bluffing and magically making item 54 vanish into thin air through the smoke and mirrors which is the Psychedelic pseudo Science of psychedelic psychometrics questionnaires

(which are not available for YOU to look at, little person — or for anyone to look at concretely, not even Roland Griffiths).

🦄💨✅ VALIDATED 👍

No one actually has these questionnaires, they’re never published anywhere, they’re not available

all we have is articles about articles about validation of the rumored foggy myst.

we have validated our smoke and we have validated our mirrors too

I ate a can of beans, and after a couple hours they were validated 💨 😑

Presto-chango the magician makes the dragon disappear, the shadow dragon monster: item 54, I was afraid to lose my self control

it’s not a problem, because it doesn’t exist anymore, because you are not able to get your hands on and you are not allowed to see the 11 factors questionnaire which has eight names and has no name

it is “the 5DASC questionnaire which has 11 factors” which how many it fails my Tally Test: tell me, if you say this is a Science, a simple number:

how many items are in the high-level Unpleasant experiences dimension in Studerus 2010 questionnaire?

that spawned the offspring from hell, the CEQ monstrosity malformed Yaldabaoth

The CEQ is the broken wastebasket for the failures of the MEQ.

Timothy Leary’s MEQ. That people claim is from Walter Pahnke. But even Leary would have made a more negative set of items, going by the Tibetan book of the dead.

Cybermonk 9:23 a.m. March 20, 2023