Rightly Assigning Credit and Blame to Entheogen Scholars: Credit for Steering the Field Ahead, and Blame for Steering the Field into a Dead End

Cybermonk, April 6, 2023

Contents:

• Lessons Learned from John Lash Over-Broadly Crediting Wasson, and Jan Irvin 2008 Over-Broadly Crediting Allegro
• Summary of Realizations: Rightly Assigning Credit and Blame to Entheogen Scholars
• Gordon Wasson’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field
• [entheogen scholar]’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field
• Reconciling Gnostic Irvin with Logos Irvin: It’s a Matter of How Well You Use It
• Intro
• Latest Crops/Images
• Bad Entheogen Scholars Pushing the False Narrative of Separation of Entheogens from Christianity: “Hidden, Secret” Images Reflecting “Heretical Sects” Using Entheogens
• The Entheogen Scholars’ Project of Minimizing the Presence of Entheogens in Christianity
• Their Master Narrative that’s Their Main Objective: Explain that Early Christianity Minimized Use of Entheogens, and Frame all Evidence to Prop Up that Narrative of Absence and Separation
• Announcement: Wasson Wrote the Published-1986 Persephone’s Quest Passage about Changing His View, in 1952

Ruck appears to be Moderate, but he’s actually merely Minimal, and more stingy and restrictive than it appears.

Irvin 2008 appears to be Maximal, but he’s actually merely Moderate, and more stingy and restrictive than it appears.

Cybermonk, Egodeath Mystery Show, April 9, 2023

Original page title: Hatsis Mis-attributes Ruck’s Secret Heretical Sect Cult Paradigm to Irvin; Ruck and Lash Mis-credit Wasson as Asserting Mushrooms in Christianity

Lessons Learned from John Lash Over-Broadly Crediting Wasson, and Jan Irvin 2008 Over-Broadly Crediting Allegro

(the Dumb Word “the Fly-Agaric” Is to Blame, Somehow; I Just Know It)

People fixate on either Wasson or Allegro as a simplified universal mythic token representing the entire concept of entheogens.

Summary of Realizations: Rightly Assigning Credit and Blame to Entheogen Scholars

April 9, 2023

Gordon Wasson’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Wasson steered the field ahead:

Built on the research from Reko, Schultes, and Graves.

Wrote books asserting Amanita and some semi-general entheogen ideas.

• How Wasson steered the field into a dead end:

Pushed the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, in the Europe context.

Intensive, active, repeated scholarly obstructionism, severe lies of omission, withheld the weakness of Panofsky’s citation list consisting of flimsy Brinckmann 1906 and attached images and at least two letters from Panofsky.

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/

Evil lying and deception; Wasson the Deceiver.

He put more priority on self-promotion than on pursuing the truth about mushrooms in Christianity.

Harassed and insulted pompously, mycologists, “rightly or wrongly”.

Insulted the Plaincourault artist, lying about that artist, falsely (for self-aggrandizement) stating the painter had “no inkling”.

Falsely brags about being the first to figure out Genesis Eden text tree means Amanita. French mycologists beat him by 50 years, and ignores the thousands of other people who read Genesis esoterically/correctly as mushrooms.

Fabricated the lie of religious use of psilocybin in the Americas, per Irvin 2022 God’s Flesh. [todo: copy my Amazon review to this real page at Amazon] https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/

John Allegro’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Allegro steered the field ahead: Wrote a good book flap and book cover.

• How Allegro steered the field into a dead end:

Secret Christian Amanita Cult.

Falsely presupposed Antiquity was Prohibitionist per unthinking presentism.

Failed to give a damn about the hundreds of psilocybin mushroom trees.

Brian Muraresku’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

Everyone is twisting my arm to read and review The Immortality Key. I read Cyberdisciple’s critical review.

• How Muraresku steered the field ahead:

A popular strong, bold assertion of the general entheogen theory.

• How Muraresku steered the field into a dead end:

Pushes the Eleusis/ ergot/ kykeon primacy fallacy.

Gets sidetracked, like John Lash’s Not In His Name, on the topic of patriarchy.

Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Ruck steered the field ahead: Entheos journal, tottering tower of books, see praise by Muraresku.

• How Ruck steered the field into a dead end: Pushes, hard, the Secret Christian Amanita Cult bad explanatory construct/ paradigm/ presupposition. Secret Amanita. Dr. Secret. Restricts the presence of mushroom in normal, real Christianity.

Jan Irvin’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Irvin steered the field ahead: expose of social engineering astroturf manuf’g of the psychedelic revolution. 2008 book proving normalcy of mushroom imagery within DNA heart essence of Eucharist/ Christianity.

• How Irvin steered the field into a dead end:

The book the Holy Mushroom doesn’t contain the word ‘Eucharist’!

Irvin inadvertently continues to think from within the Secret Christian Amanita Cult paradigm (presupposition-set).

Even as he asserts in THM that “the mushroom” is essential of Christianity, not an alien addition to Christianity, Irvin fails to identify “The Mushroom” with the Eucharist.

He says Christianity comes from “the Mushroom”, but he neglects and fails to identify “the Mushroom” as identical with the Eucharist.

Therefore I should use the phrase “the Psilocybin Eucharist paradigm” as against “the Secret Amanita paradigm“.

When Irvin flipped against the 65 entheogen scholars he interviewed in 2012, he falsely pitted Logos against “the mushroom” by which he only thinks of Amanita, but should think of psilocybin.

Irvin falsely conflates the “suggestogen” social misuse of psychedelics as if that’s the cognitive mechanism of action. The actual action is loose cog.

As firmly as Irvin 2008 asserted normalcy of “The Mushroom” in Christianity, he still had a completely shallow, exoteric esotericism, which makes it easy for him to reject The Mushroom altogether.

Irvin doesn’t know the potential of psilocybin, so he easily underestimates it, in reductionistic way. Irvin is barking up the wrong tree anyway, continuing to overemphasize “The Mushroom” (picture kiddie Amanita 🍄 ).

He doesn’t even grasp that we are not talking about Amanita, but Psilocybin.

It’s easy to let go of “The Mushroom”, when you’re confused about what the word ‘mushroom’ means: the psilocybin Eucharist.

Irvin 2022 refrains from attacking directly the assertions of Irvin 2008. I have relieved Irvin from the labor of reconciling himself; the only one who can do that is me (or someone who applies my theory).

We can assume that Irvin 2022 (Logos Media Irvin) will avoid, and is not able to reconcile with Irvin 2008 (Gnostic Media Irvin).

Reconciling Gnostic Irvin with Logos Irvin: It’s a Matter of How Well You Use It

My Amazon review of God’s Flesh already solved the reconciling.

Irvin 2008 should be amplified to become Maximal, such that Eucharist/Logos = Psilocybin.

Psilocybin is ideally correctly used to its full potential, which Middle Ages Europe Christianity came much closer to than in the Americas.

Ideally, psilocybin usage is taught to produce efficient transformation from possibilism to eternalism, resulting in qualified freewill thinking.

Psilocybin should be used more like it was in Europe than in the Americas; then it reaches its potential to be the Eucharist.

Thus is Irvin 2008 “psilocybin is the Eucharist/Logos” reconciled with Irvin 2022 “psilocybin is the enemy of the Eucharist/Logos”.

It’s how you use it.

Psilocybin is a tool, that can be used or mis-used, used poorly or well, profitably or unprofitably.

John Lash’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How John Lash steered the field ahead: pushing psilocybin and criticizing Wasson for pushing Amanita & the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

• How John Lash steered the field into a dead end: refuses to permit mushrooms to contact Judeo-Christianity b/c “salvationism”. Fails to cover Mithraism, which destroys his false narrative of mystery religions. Refuses to all Moses or Jesus or Paul to have used entheogens, because those figures are “salvationism” (which is bad, says Lash).

John Rush’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How John Rush steered the field ahead: gallery of broad-thinking evidence of mushrooms in Christian art.

• How John Rush steered the field into a dead end: heavily pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory/paradigm of absence; “presence = abnormal = absence”.

Erwin Panofsky’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Panofsky steered the field ahead: announced the “hundreds” and tried to cite Brinckmann and provide two mushroom trees in “the” letter to Wasson.

• How Panofsky steered the field into a dead end: art historians plotted to carry out an information blackout, and forbid writing anything about mushroom trees, such that they ended up with only a single citation, Brinckmann (intensively repeatedly censored by Wasson).

Giorgio Samorini’s Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Samorini steered the field ahead: Finally followed up on Panofsky’s thousands of psilocybin mushroom trees.

• How Samorini steered the field into a dead end: 1998 article’s Figure 20 disaster, multiplies the mis-use of the fresco as if a paradigm.
• Still condones the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Browns’ Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Brown steered the field ahead:

2016 book

2019 publishing the Panofsky letters revealing major scholarly obstructionism and Wasson’s severe lying by omission.

• How Brown steered the field into a dead end:

Trying to use St. Walburga tapestry to discard the galleries of Irvin & Rush.

Partially still being stuck in the “suppression and secrecy” paradigm which strives to separate mushrooms from real, normal DNA of Christianity / Eucharist.

Hatsis’ Contributions to and Harms to the Field

• How Hatsis steered the field ahead:
• Identified the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, the dead end of the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

• How Hatsis steered the field into a dead end:

Conflates Amanita with “mushrooms”.

Claims no psilocybin in England before 1976.

Lifts Irvin’s call to stop the secrecy premise from Irvin without crediting Irvin, and then falsely claims that Irvin pushes the secrecy premise.

Very aggressive and clumsy industrial-scale strawmanning.

Hatsis should accuse Ruck and Allegro of pushing Secret Christian Amanita Cult, not Irvin.

Hatsis is poor at Theory; lots of fallacious argumentation eg. “neutral = naturalistic = firmly assuming ordinary-state” interpretation of esoteric art.

Pushes the “text trumps art” fallacy.

Anti-mushroom psychedelic witch.

Presupposition that antiquity demonizes mushrooms (presentism projection of Prohibition, copycatting Allegro’s error).

Calls to END the field, rather than correcting it. Conflates “Allegro’s Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory is wrong” with “therefore no mushrooms in Christianity”.

Heading

Against Jan Irvin’s claim, John Allegro fails to give a damn about Erwin Panofsky’s broad category of (psilocybin) mushroom trees; Allegro only cares about the one, deviant, Amanita fresco.

Wasson limited and restricted mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity exclusively to the Genesis Eden tree text, no further, no later, eg not in the book of Revelation, even though it mirrors the Genesis trees.

Carl Ruck (with Gonzalez per Irvin 2008) falsely tries to credit Wasson with asserting Panofsky’s “hundreds” (ie. thousands) of mushroom trees. That credit belongs to Samorini, not Wasson.

Jan Irvin ought to criticize John Allegro for setting up a DEAD END, against the attempt (as stated on the cover) of Irvin & Rutajit’s 2006 book Astrotheology and Shamanism to try to broaden Allegro’s theory.

Allegro’s Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory is inherently the opposite of broad; you’re trying to do the opposite of Allegro.

Allegro CANNOT be given credit for broad interest in mushroom trees. ALLEGRO DIDN’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT MUSHROOM TREES, Irvin – he ONLY cared about the deviant, lone Amanita tree, in the one fresco, that’s it; that’s all.

Irvin, stop mis-portraying Allegro as a Samorini-type, Cybermonk-type broad embracer of Panofsky’s “hundreds” (ie thousands) of (psilocybin) mushroom trees.

Against John Lash, Gordon Wasson refrained from asserting mushrooms in Christianity, so Wasson cannot be given credit for the broad idea of entheogens as the origin and inspiration in all the religions.

Against Thomas Hatsis’ claim, Irvin 2008 calls for ending the “secrecy” premise and Ruck’s & Wasson’s restrictive aspects of the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

Irvin errs in condoning the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Hatsis needs to blame Allegro for fabricating the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

Hatsis needs to blame Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck for pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

Jan Irvin needs to credit Giorgio Samorini, not John Allegro, for giving a damn about Panofsky’s hundreds of (psilocybin) mushroom trees.

John Rush — not Jan Irvin — pushes the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory. See my expose of Rush’s narrative, contradicting his evidence, of his 2022 2nd Edition book:

John Rush’s No-Mushrooms Narrative vs. His Evidence Base
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/john-rushs-no-mushooms-narrative-vs-his-evidence-base/

My other pages about Rush’s book:

John Rush – Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity – 2nd Edition
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/05/09/john-rush-jesus-mushrooms-and-the-origin-of-christianity-2nd-edition/

John Rush gallery
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/20/john-rush-gallery/

Book citation:
Rush, John. (2022). Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mushrooms-Origin-Christianity-John/dp/B09VWP4CV1/

Intro

Latest Crops/Images

url https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

Bad Entheogen Scholars Pushing the False Narrative of Separation of Entheogens from Christianity: “Hidden, Secret” Images Reflecting “Heretical Sects” Using Entheogens

The Entheogen Scholars’ Project of Minimizing the Presence of Entheogens in Christianity

Their Master Narrative that’s Their Main Objective: Explain that Early Christianity Minimized Use of Entheogens, and Frame all Evidence to Prop Up that Narrative of Absence and Separation

Seen clearly in the 2022 2nd Edition book cover blurb and imagery by John Lash, which totally DOES push “the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory” that’s condemned by Thomas Hatsis. Hatsis 2013 should be condemning Ruck and Rush, NOT Jan Irvin!

Hatsis falsely attributes Ruck & Rush’s actual position to Irvin!

Irvin 2008 doesn’t reject Amanita emphasis as much as he should. When Irvin tries to reject, calls for rejecting the Secrecy premise, he should have (ideally) realized and recognized how much the Amanita is identified with the Secrecy premise.

Irvin does cover psilocybin art, and his Index lists many page #s on psilocybin. But he doesn’t recognized how Allegro was terrible and wrong for latching onto Amanita conflating it with “mushrooms”.

Irvin wrongly attempts to grant credit to Allegro for all psilocybin and amanita mushroom trees, but we cannot credit Allegro for anything stronger or broader than Secret Christian Amanita Cult in primitive Christianity (30 AD) and a tiny sliver (incoherent) of Secret Christian Amanita Cult in 1291 in Plaincourault ONLY, as a narrow, stingy, (cite Irvin’s wording), rare, deviant, non-Christian, alien, exceptional, abnormal heretical cult from the East.

fact: Allegro was a huge part of the problem, the narrowing, trying to SEPARATE entheogens — ie, Amanita ONLY, from Christianity.

What Allegro asserted: Secret Christian Amanita Cult in primitive Christianity (30 AD) and Secret Christian Amanita Cult in 1291 in Plaincourault, ONLY.

What Irvin tries to credit Allegro for:

Samorini 1997 rightly gets credit for the full Panofsky “hundreds” of mushroom trees IN Christianity although most likely, Samorini habitually tries to SEPARATE as abnormal, psilocybin & amanita from real Christianity.

Irvin’s book emphasizes clearly, Christianity IS entheogen based; the DNA of Christianity is entheogens; entheogens are the essensce of normal, real Christianity.

Jan Irvin in The Holy Mushroom (2008) calls for entheogen scholars to stop trying to SEPARATE entheogens from real Christianity. Irvin is provably the OPPOSITE of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory” which sloppy Hatsis the sloppy lecturer about historiographical methodology, carelessly assigns Ruck & Rush’s position to Irvin.

Irvin’s flaw is to continue overemphasizing Amanita; Irvin ought to firmly switch from the Amanita primacy fallacy to the Psilocybin primacy premise.

todo: quote Jan Irvin’s book THM where he criticizes stingy Carl Ruck who thinks his job is to REMOVE mushrooms from Christianity by separating mushroom use as “sect” and “cult”, and deleting and separating mushrooms from Christian art by artificially labelling each occurrence as “hidden” and “secret”.

Ruck in fact is THE one who is pushing “the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory”.

Irvin ought to criticize John Rush for pushing the same narrative of absence, or NARRATIVE OF SEPARATION OF ENTHEOGENS FROM Christianity.

In John Lash’s false telling, if you assert visionary plants in religion, you assert Wasson’s idea.

Lash over-broadens Wasson’s narrow limited idea, to falsely say in body of 2nd edition of Not in His Name, falsely claiming that Wasson wrote that “all authentic mystical experience is from entheogens.” todo: insert photo of that page.

Wasson wrote that the ingestion of visionary plants is the origin of all genuine religious experience.

John Lash, Not in His Image, 2nd Edition, p. 220, WAY over-crediting Wasson and mis-painting him as FAR more assertively asserting entheogens in all religion including Christianity — which Wasson never asserted, but refrained from asserting, and always consistently harassed and was obstructionist to people who did assert mushrooms in Christianity

VERY false statement from Michael Pollan’s book How to Change Your Mind; WAY over-crediting Wasson:

Irvin’s book THM is specificially to set the record straight to correct attribute narrow credit to Wasson only penetrating into Genesis text chapter 3 and no later, because Wasson never asserted in any clear definite extent, any later presence of entheogens in Judeo-Christianity. Irvin wants to give as much, as broad credit to Allegro as possible, badly wishes that we could give credit to Allegro for the entire general set of Panofsky’s “hundreds” (ie thousands) of mushroom trees. Citations available in THM, for my above assertions. I read aloud the passages to back that up, in Egodeath Mystery Show. But in the show so far, I was in process of doing the research. Now I have determined the situation and here are my conclusions.

Irvin DOES NOT assert Secret Christian Amanita Cult, but in fact, the opposite: Irvin REBUTS and calls for REJECTING Rucks’ (with Gonzales) …

(this makes me happy because in 2008, Irvin is criticizing Carl Ruck for much of what I in 2020-2023 have been (and maybe in Oct 2002/March 2003) rebelled against Ruck for: though I reject Amanita, specifically; Irvin doesn’t do that.

I condemn Ruck for pushing Secret Amanita …. let me now strengthen my condemnation, leveraging “sect” and “cult” :

Just like Ruck puts each msh image in a cage to remove it and separate it from real Christianity, he call / he labels and he neutralizes by labelling each image as “hidden” and “secret” though they are shown openly. similarly, Ruck jails each psychedelic user in Christian history into the jail-cell brick cell as “sect” and “cult”. Irvin has good wording here, todo: quote Irvin THM against Ruck.

wish i read before, The Holy Mushroom book’s beginning & ending.

Irvin supports with the best evidence my position against the Secrecy paradigm. And shows that the field has two opposed paradigms.

Irvin emphasizes msh were the origin and inspiration within Christianity, and calls to stop fabricating a brick wall between msh & real Christianity, as Ruck tries to do.

Irvin tries to credit Allegro with asserting msh trees, which i think is unjustified. Samorini is the first to assert that, in 1997, Afaik

voice rec’gs made

Next I want to make a voice recording and a post and update my introduction and conclusion to my branching message mushroom trees article to connect a series of three things number one rightly giving right credit and restricting the credit regarding Mushroom trees because mushroom trees is the same thing as emphasizing visionary plants in Christianity really amounts to Mushroom Tree’s

That is the middle point to discuss the first point to discuss is giving the right amount of credit to the right people and this also includes listing who tried to give the incorrect amount of credit to Giorgio Sam Marini or Gordon Wasson or John allegro or to me or to Professor Brown

And John Lash’s gets some specific credit for some thing and John Lash’s wrongly tries to give too much credit to Gordon Wasson but uncharacteristically John Lash’s does criticize Wasson — I am glad — for pushing the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, and failing to emphasize psilocybin instead.

I don’t know that Thomas Hatsis gets credit should get credit for anything but Thomas Hatsis tries to falsely assign blame not credit but blame wrongly assigning blame Tyonna irvin’s Jan Irvin when in fact that blame is rightly directed at Carl Ruck’s and Carl Ruck’s @that’s correct and at John Rush

And connect those two topics of assigning credit and assigning blame rightly and specifically together with the middle topic of equating visionary plants with specifically mushroom trees as announced by Erwin Panofsky in 1952 connect that with the third topic which is my introduction and conclusion of my branching message Mushroom trees article explaining the motives of stability motif and Branching Mushroom motif and handedness motif and non-branching motif and explain how those motives map to the developmental model of the mental world model developing from a child immature mental model of control and in world to an adult mature mental model of control in world.

Announcement: Wasson Wrote the Published-1986 Persephone’s Quest Passage about Changing His View, in 1952

(not in 1968), or whenever the very first time he ever wrote about Genesis Eden tree or the Plaincourault Fresco

It is actually very simple and I made it pretty mistake I made a pretty mistake and mistaken 2006

clearly it had to be long before the 1968 book SOMA, because he wrote in Persephone’s quest it has been he wrote ” I have not thought about Genesis Eden tree since I was a child and now I thought about the genesis Eden tree for the first time since I was a child.”

logically then, this is quite simple !

when did Wasson first think about

Wasson says this is the first time I have written about or thought about Genesis Eden tree since I was a child — we know that he was standing at the Plaincourault Fresco in June 1952 , and that he wrote with letters to Erwin Panofsky about the Fresco in May 1952 , which would necessarily mean — as an sane person would agree —

dup as backup of broken app:

Wasson says this is the first time I have written about or thought about Genesis Eden tree since I was a child — we know that he was standing at the Plaincourault Fresco in June 1952 , and that he wrote with letters to Erwin Panofsky about the Fresco in May 1952 , which would necessarily mean — as an sane person would agree –that Wasson must have thought about the genesis Eden tree when he was discussing the Plaincourault Fresco

that Wasson must have thought about the genesis Eden tree when he was discussing the Plaincourault Fresco

it is impossible to discuss the Plaincourault Fresco without thinking about the Genesis Eden text

therefore it quite it is very simple to prove that this passage must have been written in the era when Wasson visited and discussed the Plaincourault Fresco, 1952.

so now it is very simple: we can definitely date when he wrote the Persephone’s quest passage: it is whatever date that he first wrote anything about the Genesis 2 & 3 Eden text or the Plaincourault fresco.

QED!

initial writing of this secn:

Also very interesting I have pushed back this is an Errata correction of my 2006 article and a correction of Jan Irvin 2008 book.

My 2006 argument doesn’t quite reach coherence.

When did Wasson write the passage in the 1986 book Persephone’s Quest? The correct answer is before May 12, 1952 — whatever date that he first wrote anything about the Genesis 2 & 3 Eden text or the Plaincourault fresco.