page created 7pm Dec 4 2024 Cybermonk
Overflow for draft article:
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
Contents
- Strategy
- Intro
- Don’t Directly Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion Yet; Stay Focused on Entheogen Scholarship, just to supplement Branching art article
- See Also
Strategy
Strategy: Empty the Cubensis-driven article webpage, then copy the Goal: sentences back to there as the outline of headings.
This approach works well for me b/c entire question is what do i want to accomplish; What do I want the article to accomplish? Lots of things; Find “Goal:” below.
Goal: Equip Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism.
Entry into Jerusalem (Lorenzetti)
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:14
Intro
This Cubensis-driven article is broad and focused on entheogen scholarship, not focused on [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion], because of its origin: this article was conceived to supplement specifically the Branching-message article.
Don’t Directly Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion Yet; Stay Focused on Entheogen Scholarship, just to supplement Branching art article
Conclusion: Minimal focus directly on Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion. Keep the concept scope: Broad delivery of Branching-message narrow art article, into field of entheogen scholarship. But do keep in mind,
Journal of Psychedelic Studies covers Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
My feeling is: that’s later. First blow open field of entheogen scholarship.
After that, later phase is blow away Cog Sci w/ Loose Cognitive Science.
Where the action is at NOW is entheogen scholarship, not yet Loose Cognitive Science, or Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
My 1988-1997 Phase 1 Core Theory of psychedelic eternalism = Loose Cognitive Science; Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
My 1999-2024 focus is Analogy; entheogen scholarship/history.
Feels like my Core theory (psychedelic eternalism) (= Loose Cognitive Science) is lame without myth analogies to bring it to life (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism).
That suggests keeping the original concept focus, of entheogen scholarship, more than changing the article’s scope to Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
This Cubensis-driven article is specifically to give broad wordcount in support of the Branching-message art decoding article.
I place the Branching-message art decoding article firstly in the field of entheogen scholarship, not firstly in the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
First, explosion happens – msg received from Eadwine – within field of entheogen scholarship. Then, the effect branches out to ramifications in Cog Sci.
The Branching-message article is in the field of entheogen scholarship, more than in the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion].
The pilzbaum dispute is within the field of entheogen scholarship – does my breakthrough change that, broadening that field (at this time) to overlap with the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion]?
Gut feeling: No.
The ramifications from my Branching-message breakthrough are more directly for the field of entheogen scholarship than for the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion].
That’s kind of saying, kind of a sign that the field of entheogen scholarship is further along than the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion, or Cog Sci, or Cognitive Science of Religion.
My work focus has been hammering hard at the field of entheogen scholarship, more than at the field of “Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion“.
I use a Cog Sci approach to entheogen scholarship – so the two fields interpenetrate:
- entheogen scholarship (done via a Cog Sci approach as conceptualized by me, purpose-built)
- Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion (per my custom, application-specific manner of thinking)
This Cubensis-driven article serves to offload the bloated section “Conclusion and future directions” from the Branching-message article, and to deliver the Branching-message article, connecting context to the broad field.
This way, the Conclusion section of Branching article will only have half and half: half about that narrow article’s topic, and half about the ramifications of the decoding of non-branching for the broad field of entheogen scholarship.
That Conclusion section got very bloated focusing too much on the broad field of entheogen scholarship instead of just only focusing on the narrow art interp article.
I needed entire 2nd aux article, Cube-driven, specifically for purpose of offloading “therefore, future directions” content from the Branching article – thus this Cube-driven article was never born & conceived for purpose of defining Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion].
Non-goal[??] for Cubensis-driven article: define Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]. A goal IS: Open the gates for Loose Cognitive Scientists.
Goal: Equip Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism.
thus becoming Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists; Loose Cognitive Scientists; Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists of Religion.
Goal: Equip Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists to endure eternalism.
Goal: Equip Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism. non-goal: define Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion], as several Goal sections.
my own native language within my field:
Goal: Equip Loose Cognitive Scientists to endure eternalism.
The Branching article is a gallery to show art pieces and their main motifs of: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Motivation of this page: Enable emptying the page for the draft article. That page also contains random breakthrough notes mixed in. Moved all that content to this new page.
Then I will copy just the “Goal:” sentences from here to the article’s page, as the outline.
The goal of the Branching article is narrow: show pictures; below each picture, identify the main instances below each picture, of (2 each): {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. Requires a little theory-explanation, just enough.
Not sure if summary of astral ascent mysticism [ie, heimarmene transformation at the fixed-stars level] belongs in Branching-message article or Cubensis-driven article.
Two systems to define/summarize:
1) astral ascent mysticism per the Egodeath theory;
2) the Egodeath theory (core theory: mental worldmodel transformation transformation from possibilism to eternalism ; mental worldmodel transformation from Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism to Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism;
An explanatory model of mental worldmodel transformation, in the loose cognitive state, from (literalist) ordinary-state possibilism [BRANCHING] with autonomous control, to (analogical) psychedelic eternalism [NON-BRANCHING] with dependent control aka 2-level control.
The present article is not:
Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science: xyz
Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science of Religion: xyz
Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science of Religion: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
The title of the article is:
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
Proof that the article is conceived as focused on entheogen scholarship, NOT focused on Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]: the two parts work together:
Explicit Cubensis-driven instead of Secret Amanita-driven…
entheogen scholarship: the best approach
The idea of the article is, instead of Amanita-driven entheogen scholarship, we instead need Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship, which has many advantages for the field of entheogen scholarship, including folding the Egodeath theory [ie, psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control] into the field of entheogen scholarship (though the Egodeath theory / psychedelic eternalism theory remains distinct from entheogen scholarship).
Also, the article here is not general/ broad as possible; rather, the origin of this article is: the narrow Art/ Branching article’s Conclusion tried to do WAY too much, and needs add’l greedy wordcount from entire separate aux article (the present article).
This is an aux article FOR what are the takeaways and change of direction for the field of entheogen scholarship that are forced and implied specifically by my Branching pilzbaum article.
This is not an article arising from need to define Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion. That’s why I didn’t list like:
Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science
Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
gut feeling: stay close to entheogen scholarship, not so much bend toward covering also Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]
I do list this:
Goal: Open the gate for Loose Cognitive Science. I guess that’s as far as I want to go, in this article, into the topic of exploring Loose Cog within the field of CogSci. Cog Sci is an aborted field anyway, ruined and reduced to reductionistic “Cognitive Neuroscience”
I HATE COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE!
“Cognitive Neuroscience” Is Anti-Cognitive, Pseudo-Cognitive; Eliminates Mental Constructs, Replacing Them by Reductionist Neuroscience
“COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE” IS ELIMINATIVE OF COGNITION/ MENTAL CONSTRUCTS.
The “Cognitive Neuroscience” approach destroys the very essence of the thing that the Marketing dept claims it will cover.
“Cognitive Neuroscience” abuses “cognitive” to enslave to glorifying Neuroscience, like Psil is abused to merely service glorification of Amanita
My Loose Cognitive Science is nothing like “Cognitive Neuroscience”.
Loose Cognitive Science is the opposite of “Cognitive Neuroscience”.
mental construct processing
loose mental functioning binding
loose cognitive binding != “Cognitive Neuroscience”.
I despite “neuroplasticity”, mis-centered at the irrelevant level; reductionist, it is ELIMINATIVE. loose mental functioning binding, not “cognitive neuroplasticity”.
I reject their entire lexicon, like “ego dissolution” pseudo-explanation, a substitute to stop thinking.
The Egodeath theory lacks the concept of “ego dissolution”.
I have the concept of mental worldmodel transformation; mental model transformation in the loose cognitive state, of loose mental construct binding.
The self (control agency) loosens, suspends, and transforms, in conjunction with changing the model of world possibilities branching.
At this point, the planned article amounts to a list of Goals that I have for the article; or actually:
goals for the article
goals for how the field of entheogen scholarship needs to change
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science needs to change
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion needs to change
(goals for how the field of [Loose] Cognitive Science needs to change)
The field of “Cog Sci of religion” SUCKS, needs a new president like Charles Stang
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science needs to change – but the journal is Journal of Psychedelic Studies (relates to entheogen scholarship), that journal does not relate to Psychedelic Cognitive Science.
Should Journal of Psychedelic Studies Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science?
When listing my Goals for the Cubensis-driven article, not sure if i covered Psychedelic Cognitive Science. Try it:
Goal: [of type: Goal for revolutionary change of direction for field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science]
Goal: Make the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science not suck. My vision of the field has NOTHING in common with “Cognitive Science of Religion” (bleh).
My field is: Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science & Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
That’s a new (particular) framing for me. I’m used to Loose Cognitive Science, & the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I HATE the “Cognitive Science of Religion” series of books, they all suck bad, not worth reading, b/c lack ASC; the series editors, squaresville, HATE psychedelics. I bought and looked at some books like this, like eating sawdust.
They pursue the most boring approach possible, to the most boring conception of religion they could find. Utter dullsville. How to ruin a field and prevent it from forming.
I now have essentially an outline; list of goals or directives for the field of entheogen scholarship & Psychedelic Cognitive Science, for the draft article:
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/11/20/cubensis-driven-entheogen-scholarship-the-most-productive-relevant-and-rewarding-approach/
Snapshot of that page:
that page was started: Nov 20, 2024, 2 pm, Michael Hoffman
Draft article, broad in scope, to deliver takeaways for moving the field (entheogen scholarship & Loose Cognitive Science) forward, for Journal of Psychedelic Studies. Structure: Series of Goal statements/ injunctions.
Branching-message mushroom trees: Psychedelic eternalism depicted in medieval art as mushrooms, branching, handedness, and stability
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/ – Narrow in scope. Structure: Series of pictures with list of motifs.
Contents
- Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
- A Cubensis-First Paradigm
Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
Key Questions as Page Numbers in Brinckmann’s Book
Goal: Get German reader to give page numbers of Brinckmann’s book.
What page # discusses development of trees/ pilzbaum from pine to mushroom imagery?
What page # says that that development was universal & widespread?
What page # discusses corruption of prototypes?
What page # says that that gradualness of development from pine to mushroom shape proves that the artist had no purpose in making viewers think of a mushroom?
What page # mentions branches as conflicting with the mushroom imagery?
With Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson in hand, from the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019 Brown article: Panofsky didn’t provide page numbers to Wasson, despite strong recommendation that mycologists need to consult this book.
Not to “consult” competent art historians via personal correspondence; but rather, per standard academic practice as the first task, follow Panofsky’s citations of the book; that is, “consult” the library publications of what art historians have written about pilzbaum.
Heading
Goal: Restore the role of Great Canterbury Psalter folio webpage image f134 (leg-hanging mushroom tree) as a teaching instrument.
Goal: Correct Brown’s error in this journal re: botching St Walburga tapestry Amanita imagery identification.
Against anyone who says I’m anti-Amanita; here I prove against Brown in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019, Walburga is shown holding a vial that’s designed to look like Amanita. Serrated base proves that it IS Amanita.
Ardent Advocate in training, Prof. Jerry Brown.
Brown argued that the serrated base depicted in the tapestry proves it is NOT Amanita – an elementary error of identification traits.
This error also happens to trainwreck his whole train of arg’n about his field trip that decided to cancel his field trip, a decision that they based on the very clear pic [photo credit: not Julie Brown] in Irvin’s “unclear art gallery” where the unclarity is the cause of false positives/ misinterpretation.
Browns treated the image as so very clear, they made a decision based on Irvin’s gallery: a decision NOT to do field research and look at the tapestry first-hand – directly contradicting their claim for superiority of their ability to correctly interp by doing field research.
I have the Browns forever thinking they should have made that field trip, so I could write: “Photo credit: Julie M. Brown: The serrated base proves that the healing vial she holds is shaped to look like an Amanita. The Ardent Advocates are essentially right, yet again.”
Maybe Brown is right: if they had dismissed the blurry image from Irvin and had actually done the field research trip that they falsely market themselves as having done, Brown would have taken the time to check whether Amanita has serrated base, as A Golden Guide: Hallucinogenic Plants plainly shows right on the cover.
Richard Evans Shultes – 1st Ed of the Hofmann book, Ratsch = 3rd Ed.
Brown & Brown get lost in Dan Brown’s labyrinth, with bull in the middle.
what’s the point? 1) it’s this Journal. 2) field is so primitive, makes BASIC errors of id’n, eg Creation of Plants – Brown botched, 2nd isn’t Pana, it’s obv Lib Cap of course: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama. per me, Dec 13 2020. Matching my specimen observation categs; a practical classifn from Eadwine that MAKES PERFECT SENSE USEFULLY. 3) field trip” arg is more posturing, we all go to lib (irvin,f me), we all look at forests.
True, we were all sore disapoint by John Rush 2011 gallery of blur, but, Rush is Right in important ways – I’ll take Rush over Deniers literalists any day.
{Celestial Erection} for the win. & {mushroom hem} – two major, clear motifs directly about mushroom, brought to us theorized & spotted by J Rush. Whereas Hatsis contributed… what?, a better color pic of Dancing Man.
🕺 🍌🛼
Goal: Teach historical psychedelic Christianity.
per the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, according to pilzbaum artists & alchemy inheriting the same themes, & hellenistic roots of those themes/ motifs eg mosaic Dionysus Victory Marriage Parade.
Goal: Put pilzbaum Deniers on notice that their args will be routinely subjected to logical-fallacies critique & analysis to figure out which logical fallacies they are committing this time.
Deniers must anticipate the obvious objections and address them up front, else continue to lose credibility. But really the matter is settled like shift from Geo to Sun centric cosmology; that dispute is in the past.
Now we move forward with productive “Normal Science” (Kuhn) conducted within the new paradigm; Browns’ proposed database of evidence, but more sure-footed and integrating {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Goal: In CEQ, delete the sheister “Grief” fake factor; restore the “Dread regarding Control” factor.
eg OAV > Angst dimension > Item 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
Control-challenges are the Hallmark CENTERPIECE of challenging psilocybin experiences; CEQ must reflect that, not SUPPRESS THE SHADOW DRAGON MONSTER.
Debunk and expose CEQ’s deletion of all challenging experiences and replacing them by mere Grief fake effects/ items/ factor. Debunk the Grief factor; restore the Dread regarding Control factor.
Goal: Bust Wasson; explain full expose.
Thanks to the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019 Brown. Panofsky the top art historian urged mycologists (Affirmers) to see Brinckmann book 1906 86 pages in German.
Chickenshit Wasson hid the citation and the two mushroom trees from Panofsky, and the 2nd letter also urging to see Brinckmann’s “little” book; Wasson then lectures mycologists as ignoramuses for not “consulting” the “competent” art historians — AT THE SAME TIME AS CENSORING the Brinckmann 1906 citation, which is all they got, these “competent” experts.
It was a dirty bluff by Wasson, exposed by this journal in 2019, when interpreted and explained by my repeated close read-throughs in Egodeath Mystery Show.
The Deniers of pilzbaum have forfeited any credibility, stooping to lying, bluffing, academic fraud, censorship, deceit, and dissimulation.
See the ellipses and the word “consult”, in SOMA, re: “the” [sic] Panofsky letter.
You, consult — while I censor, to prevent you from the standard academic practice for “consulting”.
Goal: Kill off the fallacious move, “Mycologists need to ‘consult’ ‘competent’ art historians.”
Rule: ACADEMICS ARE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH their views on pilzbaum, else doesn’t count – ie, counts as a ruse, a bluff; dishonest, insincere, unbelievable, a put-on; bad-faith argumentation. A coerced faith-statement/ confession,
“I disavow pilzbaum!” <– no academic weight/credibility
To have any chance of being credible, historians and art historians must follow standard academic practice: publish (with citations not withheld & censored, this time), SO WE CAN CITE AND CHECK THE PILZBAUM DENIERS’ BOGUS CLAIMS AND CONFUSED ARGUMENTS.
No more of this bullshit move, “reach out to consult the competent art historian.”
If you have personally reached out to an art historian, like Brown did with Marcia Kupfer [todo: confirm], you are WRONG; this is a bunk, invalid move – A TRAVESTY OF ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP.
This totally bunk move is a bluff by deceiver Wasson, in SOMA and beyond, repeated multiple times, repeatedly actively lying by omission and suppressing and censoring the Brinckmann book citation, TO HIDE THE SCHOLARSHIP FROM US, and suppressing and censoring Pan’s two attached pilzbaum TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE FROM US at the same time as he chastises and berates & DEEPLY INSULTS MYCOLOGISTS (pilzbaum Affirmers) as dull, ignorant, etc.
Demonic deception by Wasson!
It is left to me, after Brown 2019, to firmly kick Wasson’s ass the f out of here, PHONY, FRAUD, RED-HANDED LIAR AND DECEIVER.
WASSON IS HEREBY STRIPPED OF THE TITLE “FATHER OF ETHNOMYCOLOGY”, DUE TO ACADEMIC FRAUD, AS REVEALED BY BROWN 2019 REVEALING PANOFSKY’S PAIR OF LETTERS, EXPLAINED AND INTERP’D AND REBUTTED HERE BY Cybermonk 2024/2025.
I’ve been discussing this pair of Panofsky letters, and related matters, on the Egodeath Mystery Show for years, since 2019 (2020; I didn’t fully vigorously engage Brown 2019 until like 1.5 years a bit late). eg I read aloud my LONG 2006 Plainc article on the show.
Under the conditions of Prohibition, published writings and personal statements of Faith Commitment like this are not valid scientific academic practice, and must be discounted accordingly.
Wasson/ Brown/ Huggins/ bunk pseudo-academic fallacy move, “Mycologists need to consult competent authority w/ stopwatch to measure how quickly they bark I DISAVOW PILZBAUM.”
An obvious fallacy, eg Argument from Authority.
Letcher 2006 endnotes “pers. corr.” in the finale of his mis-treatment of Bern Door, “Therefore, Bernward Door’s Blame scene’s Liberty Cap is a tree, not a mushroom. Proof: I reached out to consult a competent historian on this matter related to art and history.” End note reads: “pers. corr.”
I have a lot of BS, confused gibberish from Hatsis that’s “pers. corr.”, should I bank on that, likewise?
“The shape of the liberty cap is anachronistic. – Hatsis, pers. corr.
“You and Brown are contradicting your Allegro-based Secret Amanita view, by changing your position to Psil, which is a self-contradiction.” – Hatsis, pers. corr.
Goal: Reply to McCarthy & Priest (pair of articles about Psychedelic Christianity in 2024 Journal of Psychedelic Studies).
Inapprop arg’n, “Don’t make current-day psychedelic Christianity dependent on fanciful speculation about alleged past use, for which we have no evidence.”
If they knew the current state of the evidence — NOT MURARESKU’S TIK — it’s not speculation, and it’s not minor: we have MAJOR PROOF (max quantity, max quality) of an EXTREMELY DEVELOPED tradition of Psilocybin Christianity.
It’s irrational & inappropriate to frame this state of the field of study as “dependent on speculation”.
Doing so just reveals that the authors — like editor Winkelman wrote and as Prof. Brown wrote — McCarthy & Priest have NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT and are inexcusably ignorant of entheogen scholarship.
McCarthy & Priest failed to address this problem, about which Wink & Brown complained at length – ignored.
Logical fallacy: Lecturing people to not do what you yourself are doing (i.e. presupposition & projection)
Goal: Deliver Eadwine’s 1200 AD transmission of branching-message mushroom trees; give voice to the Medieval pilzbaum artists of 900-1300+ AD.
Hatsis lectured Irvin or Ruck on “colonial ignoring of the voices of historical agents”, while he ignored and suppressed the voices of the pilzbaum artists.
“SHUT UP, PILZBAUM ARTISTS, I’M TRYING TO PREVENT SCHOLARS FROM ATTRIBUTING A MUSHROOM MESSAGE TO YOU.”
– Hatsis, as cited in his overpriced book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: “For my proof on this matter which is central to this book, demonstrating my correct, tried-and-true, superior historiographical methodology, see my articles somewhere on the web.”
Goal: Establish a Forbidden Word List.
Secret, hidden, suppressed, Amanita, Ergot, kykeon, Eleusis, Plaincourault, Allegro, The Mushroom, The Holy Mushroom, sacred mushrooms (lumping /conflating Psil / Ama in order to rip off Psil to glorify Aman) cult, cults, sects, underground, counterculture, so-called heretics/ heretical sects. In all 3 Entheos, Ruck writes the phrase “so-called heretics/heretical sects”. Criticize Ruck for titling every book as “Secret”; criticize/quote Brown 2016 subtitle “Secret History”, criticize/quote the end of Brown 2019 article speculating about “secret initiation” – kill off that bad idea that CAUSES BLINDNESS through prejudice-based presuppositions taken as fact. Cite/quote Cyberdisciple pages about “secrecy”/suppression-premised bad theorizing.
I credit my discoveries of Psil Christian trad’n and world myth incl Hellenistic myth as Psil, connecting core theory to relig myth, b/c of my decades of theorizing that never employed would-be explanatory constructs such as “suppressed cult, secret & hidden counterculture”.
My motivation: Use myth to prove my core theory of psychedelic eternalism.
The Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck “Secret Amanita” paradigm was counterproductive toward that goal/ mission/ objective/ project, and so I had to do away with the Secret Amanita paradigm, in my 2002/2003 announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I was successful as a discoverer of pilzbaum evidence because I in 2002/2003 firmly condemned and rejected (overthrew) the Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, Moderate (aka Minimal) entheogen theory of religion, and their False King Amanita.
My method and project was instead on the Psilocybin Eucharist Mainstream paradigm, which gave me truckloads more evidence than the negative scholars entheogen scholarship with their “PRESENCE CONFIRMS SUPPRESSION THUS ABSENCE”; in which presence is absence; more evidence = more proof of heretical-only use of The Mushroom [🍄]. Evidence is neutralized by Ruck to keep the Bad Guys (like Lash does) from having The Mushroom, Our Holy Mushroom. and Our Fresco of The Mushroom.
I’m with Panofsky/ Letcher/ Hatsis/ Huggins on this point: burn down Our Fresco, trashcan Our Mushroom. Pop drivel, shallow, dead end, puerile pop theory and equally puerile pop debunking of that.
Quality Ranking of the Pilzbaum Deniers
Regarding specifically the quality of their arguments against pilzbaum / purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art: unclear. Hard to assess such badness; layers of logical fallacies. Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Panofsky?? I consider Dancing Man included.
Goal: End the rehashed parroted narratives of Pop Secret Amanita Suppressed by the Big Bad Church that’s Perma Prohibitionist.
Goal: Correctly assign credit for pilzbaum to Samorini 1996-1998, not to Allegro (Irvin 2008), not to Wasson (Ruck 2001, Lash maybe).
Goal: Make the field (entheogen scholarship; Psychedelic Cognitive Science) understand that we don’t know anything, cannot make premature conclusions.
Everything we “know” is total bullshit (“no psil in Europe”) (“no Cubensis in Europe”) (“Christianity lacks a psychedelic tradition”) (“the Church omitted entheogens”).
The field and its alleged knowledge/ conclusions needs a reset, needs to be scrapped and start over fresh, without Allegro and Secret Amanita at all.
Wasson blocked progress 1952-1998; the field is brand new. The first paradigm, the old science theory, was Secret Amanita.
Now I in 2002/2007/ 2020/ 2022/ 2024 bring the 2nd paradigm in the field, the new science / new theory, the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, including psychedelic eternalism.
Goal: Move Past Mysticism.
Trashcan “MEQ” as bunk psych science per Stang confronting / admitted by Griftiths, MEQ is BS fairytale based on “Science” from James 1902 + Stace 1960, “long in the tooth” quote from Erik Davis.
Important debate now in psychedelic “science”. I give the correct 3rd alternative:
foggy mysticism? hardcore materialism? Neither. Psychedelic Cognitive Science) (Loose Cognitive Science); the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism; mental construct processing.
Mention the Freewill Questionnaire, what’s wrong w it (domino chain det’m; egoic version of transcendent thinking; ought to be eternalism; block-universe eternalism).
Goal: Move the field (entheogen scholarship & Psychedelic Cognitive Science) forward, fully incorporating/digesting Brown 2019’s two Panofsky-to-Wasson letters.
Goal: Establish that Christianity has a fully developed psilocybin tradition.
Goal: Trashcan the CEQ-POS questionnaire; replace by my ECQ.
Also redo the MEQ-Uni-Rai 🦄🌈 “mysticism” 1902/1960, described as “long in the tooth”, per Erik Davis quote.
Go back to the A of OAV: Dread of Ego Dissolution [DED] [= AED], all 21 negative effects items/questions. Replace CEQ by my
ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire”
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/23/eternalism-and-control-transformation-effects-in-the-psychedelics-effects-questionnaires/
Require writing clear articles justifying creation of q’airs. In plain English, why did you delete Item 54: “I was afraid to lose control.” Require Open Science: questionnaires MUST be publicly viewable.
Goal: Identify exactly: What is there to be afraid of?
What’s There to Be Afraid Of? Identifying the Shadow Dragon Monster
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/11/30/whats-there-to-be-afraid-of-identifying-the-shadow-dragon-monster/
Goal: Provide stable control for Psilocybin users; open the gate for Loose Cog Science.
Strict Requirements for Teachers, Initiation Guides, and Students, Prior to Initiation
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/strict-requirements-for-teachers-initiation-guides-and-students-prior-to-initiation/
Goal: Move FORWARD productively in psychedelic eternalism , Loose Cog Sci, entheogen scholarship.
Not get hung on badly argued uninformed writings of the Pop Deniers: Panofsky, Wasson the LYING-BY-ACTIVE-OMISSION DECEIVER, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins. Consider their points, handle them as we’ve done, but move forward. Deniers’ credibility is in the toilet, re: the big point.
2019 Journal of Psychedelic Studies marks the start of a new phase of entheogen scholarship – now that Brown 2019 published Panofsky’s censored letters, and we can rebut his “branches” arg.
Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, & Huggins – these are the best pilzbaum Deniers, yet all of their argumnets are GARBAGE-tier, obvious logical fallacies. Scraping the bottom of the garbage can.
Unprofitable. Not Productive. Not Relevant. Ruck paradigm Not relevant. Letcher debunking ruck is Not Relevant. Hatsis debunking Irvin 2008 is Not Relevant. Not
Not Productive: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
The Secret Suppression paradigm CAUSES BLINDNESS eg Blue-to-Red shift (& reversing!) cover of 2002 Entheos Issue 3 tauroctony.
- Blindness to mushrooms in art eg psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg; my blindness to the dispensary bins in f134 Great Canterbury Psalter, due to my inherited negative prejudiced expectations and defeatism.
- Blindness to non-branching motif.
- Blindness to intermediate motif of {handedness}.
- Blindness to {stability} motif, found in conjunction with these other 3 motifs.
Everyone was blind to {Cut Right Trunk} of Dancing Man/ salamander bestiary, until me just the other day AFTER decoding f134 Great Canterbury Psalter.
Not Relevant: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
no one cares about Amanita ingesting, just pop drama storytime titillation. Irrelevant for Reform ie Full Repeal of Prohibition.
Not Rewarding: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
So everyone gets to ingest Amanita, which is already legal anyway. 3rd rate, urine recycling, sweat, delirium, false reality. No one wants Amanita ingesting. So why is everyone fanatical about Amanita-based entheogen scholarship?
Productive: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
My theory and interp gets rid of the secrecy-induced blindness to evidence, and makes perceptible not merely mushrooms in art, but psychedelic eternalism comprehension & recognition.
Relevant: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
My paradigm of doing theory & entheogen scholarship sets its objective as Repeal Prohibition of Psilocybin.
Cubensis is 100% relevant to the extreme. Amanita is 0% relevant.
Psil is being legalized; need to leverage Medieval knowledge of stqability, combined with my non-analogy based Core Theory of psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
Rewarding: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
When you get the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, you get the Egodeath theory along with it for free.
The Egodeath theory is the smallest, simplest, most explanatory power, and most relevant useful theory/model of mental model transformation in Loose Cognitive State, enabling Loose Cognitive Science.
My paradigm delivers: Totally legalized Psilocybin (like in 1900; full repealing of 1971 Prohibition), and tons of art history evidence.
Brown at Hancock already destroyed Hatsis into a smoking ruin. My 2006 Plainc article already warned to stop the fake non-debate and be productive instead.
(I am considering going deep re: Panofsky’s two letters – but NOT refuting in detail other idiotic topics like the Bernward Door bogus argument from Letcher, which mis-cites Stamets as asserting “secret”, then builds his arg on disproving “secret” – you won the wrong debate, and get a worthless trophy: victory over straw man.)
Meanwhile the real, serious, scholarly, evidence-based, evidence-engaging research continues, ignoring the time-wasting bunk logical fallacies put forth by prejudiced, shallow, reductionist, literalist scholars – those on the outside.
AGREE with Deniers, that POP SECRET AMANITA has to go. Hatsis is right, on that point (but let’s keep Santa Amanita, against Grinch Hatsis).
3rd option: Explicit Cubensis paradigm.
Huggins mentions branching 2024, but, I can ignore that ; Huggins 2024 just copypastes Panofsky.
I can cut off this bad branch at the root; demolish Panofsky directly, not merely demolish Huggins’ copypaste of Panofsky.)
Criticize Huggins 2024 for failing to point out that HE has Pan #2 but WE did not until Brwon 2019 – thx to jerk Wasson who berates pilzbaum Affirmers that they ought to “consult” art historians – at the very same time that Wasson censors those very art historians b/c their writings/ publications are near-nonexistent and do not support the Deniers of pilzbaum and do not support the Was/Pan CLAIM that art historians “are familiar” and “competent”.
Wasson, Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology
Don’t waste time on endless pseudo-debate mixed with willful logical fallacies. Keep the field moving forward productively. Keep warnings of the Deniers (of Pop Secret Amanita storytime? of purposeful pilzbaum in Christian art?) in mind to the right extent.
We still lack the Brown database, though Brown said my site is effectively that. I’m out of space, due to too many mushrooms.
We are WAY too early in research to draw premature conclusions – we do not have a comprehensive Brown databse to FORCE and SHOVE the face of Letcher into it to FORCE them to know and engage with the evidence gathered so far. To prevent their dirty move of 1-off isolating a few isolated “test case” examples.
Evidence = literacy at the visual genre of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. Data + Interpretation = Theory.
Deniers have NO credibility. There has been no 2-way debate. Deniers have nothing but logical fallacies. Deniers rely on lying through omission; censorship – SOMA ellipses on page 180 line 3 of SOMA by Wasson, = evil lying deception censorship;
Wasson the Academic Fraud Berates Mycologists for Not “Consulting” Art Historians, While at the Same Time Censoring Brinckmann’s Citation Urged by Panofsky Twice
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/wasson-academic-fraud-berates-mycologists-not-consulting-art-historians-same-time-censoring-brinckmann-citation-urged-by-panofsky-twice/
CITATION FKKING NEEDED, JERK! STFU ABOUT “CONSULT” MY AZZ! Frauds published NOTHING except Brinc, which you censored, DEMON WASSON!
Wasson, Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology
Wasson, Father of Fraudulent Obstruction of European Ethnomycology – “consult” means DO NOT CONSULT BRINCKMANN’S PATHETIC “LITTLE” BOOK THAT PROVES NOTHING – and DO NOT CONSULT Panofsky’s two attached pilzbaum pictures.
Wasson’s deceptive, lying word “consult” here means DO NOT CONSULT Panofsky’s 2nd letter full of bad logical fallacy argumentation & another strong recommendation of Brinckmann’s “little” book in support of Panofsky’s just-so storytime-telling of “development” from pine to mushrooms, which proves (somehow??) that artists have no intentionality, no purpose of mushroom elements, but are just sloppy.
Instead, use Argument from Authority: “consult” doesn’t mean Brinckmann & photostats; “consult” means instead, go WAY out of normal academic practice and personally contact the non-writers on this topic, and interrogate them whether they, “with impressive celerity”, bark out the correct, “competent” answer, “I disavow the pilzbaum!” like trained seals.
Never mind the obvious issues of compromised, tabooed, pressure of coerced position statements, and prejudice, and lack of knowledge of art or mycology or eternalism cybernetics on the part of these “competent” art historians “on a matter relating to art”. Utter bullshit, Wasson!
Looking Directly into the Face of Bullshit
🐮💩🍄😱 – Dissimulation, Deception, and Lying Double-Talk
There is not a single Affirmer theory.
There is Wasson; Allegro; Ruck; asserting each their own manner of Affirming some position or other:
Secret Amanita [Wasson version];
Secret Amanita [Allegro version];
Secret Amanita [Ruck version];
Explicit Cubensis [M Hoffman version].
There are multiple scholars giving each a unique critique of each distinct version of Affirming aka “THE” mushroom in Christian art theory, but it is theorIES plural.
Each writer should state their position and the specific and/or general position(s) that they argue against. Else time wasting slip-and-slide.
Do not waste time on churning, bad argumentation and 1-way non-debates. Keep focused on the research mission:
To what extent mushrooms in Christian art? How to interpret in context of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs?
per end of my 2006 Plainc article’s call to Get Serious and stop the fruitless charade.
I already refuted args, already called out Was/Pan arg from authority and CITATION FKKING NEEDED from your alleged “competent in this matter” authorities who PUBLISHED NOTHING but a flimsy, 86-page, ancient, German-language book that proves nothing about the contended purposefulness of mushroom imagery in pilzbaum.
Development (from pine to mushroom) proves purposelessness? Does Not Follow. More likely, Brinckmann’s (alleged) demonstration of development from pine to mushroom suggests purposefulness, not purposelessness.
Letcher presents good contributions to critiquing various Affirmers of pilzbaum, but has serious drawbacks that waste time, like falsely mis-citing Stamets for saying Bernward door is “secret” — creating a strawman used as Letcher’s soggy foundation for concluding “no secret mushroom” (the Motte, easy to defend, but worthless) in order to then narratively conclude “no mushroom” (the Bailey, hard to defend, what he wishes he could defend).
Huggins Text-First Fallacy
“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out: “The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.”” – p 15, “Foraging” – Huggins
same page/para, Huggins employs Stang:
“Charles Stang, director of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, states the problem well: “if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers of early Christians using psychedelics like sacrament, I would expect [?? presentism??] the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it. I would expect we’d have ample evidence.”
WTF does Stang know about “ample evidence”, when Letcher only considers 1 out of 5 pilzbaum in Bernward door/column?
Thanks to Wasson’s obstructionist censorship of Panofsky’s double citation of Brinckmann, and censoring the two pilzbaum photostats, the field is WAY too early to gauge “ample”, other than on the false basis of blindness through presuppositions & prejudice.
Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
Goal: Everyone recognize and comprehend psychedelic eternalism.
Represented via {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Goal: entheogen scholarship must be directed toward Repeal of Psil Prohibition – not folk morality tales of identity formation by laboring to construct a barrier between us heretic psychedelic vs them mainstream prohibitionists for eternity (suckers tricked into self-defeating support for perma Prohibition) – the dysfunctional Secret Amanita paradigm ruining entheogen scholarship during awk adoles immature phase 1952-1996, ended by Samo 1996-97-98 into 2001 contrib to Conj Eden article. Brown 2019 frames new era starting 1998 and lists Cybermonk first.
The new era of entheogen scholarship started with Michael Hoffman Egodeath.com – Brown 2019 – todo
“Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates – Since the publication of Wasson’s Soma (1968) and Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), new evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a) and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art.” –Brown, p. 157, Journal of Psychedelic Studies 3(2), 2019. biblio entries for MH.
Brown cites my exhausting article on Plaincourault re: Moving Fwd Retaining the Real Point
Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a
Brown 2019 wrote: “it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. … The baby refers to Allegro’s thesis that visionary plants had been widely used in Western culture and religion throughout the ages including the mystical experiences of early Christianity. According to Hoffman (1985–2007a), this view is supported in one form or another by a variety of entheogen scholars including Chris Bennett, Peter Furst, Clark Heinrich, Jonathan Ott, Carl Ruck, Huston Smith, and R. Gordon Wasson, to name a few.”
Hoffman, M. (1985–2007a). Entheogens and religion. Retrieved
from http://www.egodeath.com/index.html#Entheogens_and_Religion
http://www.egodeath.com/index.html#Entheogens_and_Religion
Hoffman, M. (1985–2007b). Gallery: Christian mushroom-trees.
Retrieved from http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.
htm#_Toc135889185
http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.
htm#_Toc135889185
Goal: Make entheogen scholarship retract “No Cubensis in Europe.”
MAKE ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP EAT CROW AND RETRACT “NO CUBE IN EUROPE” — JUST AS THEY ALREADY HAD TO EAT CROW AND RETRACT “NO LIB CAP / PSIL IN ENGLAND” per Shroom by Letcher.
Goal: Kill the myth “Europe = Amanita, Americas = Psilocybin”.
Kick out on its ass the lie, folk tale: “Europe = Amanita, Americas = Psilocybin”. Total false bullshit. Totally false. Christianity has an important, extremely important, mainstream traditional (if those words mean anything) history of psychedelic eternalism.
Goal: Debunkers of Pop Secret Amanita, stop conflating that with entheogenic Christianity history
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm or general theory of entheogenic Christianity history.
Goal: End the Amanita Primacy Fallacy in entheogen scholarship.
Stop insulting Psilocybin by forcing it into a minor supporting role for False King Amanita. Instead, force Amanita into a minor supporting role for True King Cubensis just like headshop art: {spotted mushroom} means ingesting Cubensis, not ingesting Amanita.
- There always were Cubensis, Panaeolus, and Liberty Cap in Europe and England. Entheogen scholarship is full of shiite on this point, parotting folk myths as is established scientific fact, but it’s nothing but myth & prejudice. Paul Stamets says nothing to the contrary, but he has a HUGE blind spot, and was so weak in spreading his message, re: Europe, that Hancock had to set record straight: i watched this livestream that day
url 22:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkuNEBstkFs&t=1366s
Joe of Psychedelics Today podcast/outlet: transcription excerpts by Cybermonk —
In Visionary was this comment about psilocybin-containing mushrooms never existing in Europe, and one famous mycologist you chatted with said there’s no evidence, like before Columbus discovered the Americas, and then you passed this by Stamets, and Stamets said that’s that’s totally absurd.
Graham Hancock:
Yeah of course, and I had another mycologist do the DNA on Psilocybe semilanceata from North America and Psilocybe semilanceata from Europe, and these psilocybes have been evolving separately for tens of thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands of years, so it’s got absolutely nothing to do with contact between the new world and the old, but there always were psilocybe mushrooms in Europe, just as there always were in the Americas, and you know they’re– the Psilocybe semilanceata of course is just one amongst many, you know, there’s many more; this is a universally available technique.
A Cubensis-First Paradigm
“Cubensis” here means Cubensis first, subsuming everything else. Instead of Amanita first, subsuming everything else. As just one example:
In the book Strange Fruit, Clark Heinrich discards and shuts out all other entheogens, including Cubensis, when he takes Rev 22:2 and reduces it to: the tree of life is Amanita.
Each tree of life produces 12 different kinds of fruit crops every month, plus the leaves that heal nations. Using Heinrich’s & Bennett’s general reasoning, the tree of life means Cubensis, as well as Amanita and Cannabis, and ten other entheogens, such as (per Eadwine: Creation of Plants’s 4 mushroom types) Panaeolus & Liberty Cap.
The book Strange Fruit by Heinrich makes Cubensis serve the needs of advocating Amanita. Do the reverse:
The first and main plant is Cubensis, with Amanita reduced to a visual supporting role as a symbol representing all entheogens (per Dale Pendell).
Quote Pendell, Pharmako Gnosis: “Amanita M is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.”
The “Explicit Cubensis” paradigm shift: Mushroom Eternalism was NOT only understood by a few artists, but by mainstream Christians, & counts as “traditional psychedelics”
I have proved that Christianity has a psychedelic tradition.
Proof: Not only elite psalters have the 4 key motifs combined; Saint Martin church & the “St Eustace crossing the river” window are publicly, EXPLICITLY displayed for ALL CHRISTIANS.
Not Secret Amanita; Explicit Cubensis.
In Saint Martin church, Jesus’ elect follower shows understanding & agreement by holding out non-branching sticks + branching feather to inches within Jesus’s finger shapes: splayed left-hand fingers & non-splayed right-hand fingers:
The egoic autonomous king, as control agent, is sacrificed, negated, fastened to the tree = {Entry Into Jerusalem}.
The PUBLIC combination of the 4 key motifs signals that all Christians understood psychedelic eternalism – {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
In the “Dark Ages”, the Christian public knew Transcendent Knowledge; psychedelic eternalism, as revealed by the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, against the presuppositions of the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Thus I have proved that Christianity has a psychedelic tradition.
f134 Great Canterbury Psalter corrections/ addl decoding
Figured out Nov ~19, 2024. My voice recordings have a record; figured out while recording.
todo: move section to f134 webpage, but keep separate, with date, to show the record of discovery phases Nov 2022 – Nov 2024. a correction & expansion to fill in gaps where i was in error for not figuring out / decoding /recognizing these connections before.
Error: Eadwine tricked me into thinking that the L arm belonged to student 2; that is suggested, but overridden by hem line of teacher’s garment that says “no, if you study the puzzle closely, that arm MUST be assigned to the teacher, ie student 2 is shown as nothing but a face, only!
And yet you are being asked ie by floating sage’s furrowed brow, to answer: which foot must be down for student 2, based on the rules that are expressed in cluster of students.
Teacher displays not only R hand, as i previously wrote, but L hand too! and has furrowed brow — SAME as floating sage on R2R (& both have a Limbless Youth attached).
Student 2 is a Limbless Youth (limbless only means we must use other attributes – brow state – to deduce which mental model they are using & thus whether they are cubensis-compatible or will lose control in the altered state.
mobile app issue: cant add image
the “meaning” of row 2 right , floating guy’s floating feet: connects him to Row 1 left, student 2 & 4, feet not shown. part of Answer: we are being asked to assess which mental model each figure is using.
Answer: floating guy is displaying hand like students
Answer: floating guy has a guy w no limbs, attached to him
Answer: the examiner Row 1 L has extra face attached
Answer: ERROR trick correction: The L arm belongs to the teacher/ examiner, NOT to student 2. That is proved by the teacher’s vertical garment fold line.
Thus actually, the ONLY part of student 2 shown is his face! Yet we (as advanced sages/ students/ initiates) are nevertheless expected to assess feet of student 2 & 4, though – like the floating sage, whose feet we cannot use to assess which model he relies on – their feet are not shown.
Student 3 establishes that which foot is down overrides which hand is displayed; non-furrowed brow….
The brown, dead leaf proves his left hand is wrong answer, or converts his Left hand to expressing the correct assertion. In this genre, {R foot down} is directly the theme/ analogy, affirming non-branching. so, student 3 is stable. Crutch + L foot touching stable tower base in equivalent, in f177. Comparable is woman with CLOSED scroll w L foot touching {stable column base}.
In effect, two negative attributes cancel/ converts, to be Correct, affirming eternalism-thinking, which is stable (not loss of control during the Cubensis peak state).
Against Reading Student 3 as a C Student
Student 3 can be read not as giving wrong answer by displaying L hand, but as showing the correct answer by dead leaf touching L arm.
Student 1 is an A student, he expresses the basic rules of this game, via celestial erection (per John Rush) + correct R foot down + correct R hand displayed.
Student 1 functions to first confirm Row 2’s basic pair of figures (start here, following Student 1):
Tte foolish youth receiving Cubensis w wrong, L foot down (= possibilism-thinking; he will lose control in the Psilocybin state).
They are paired via touching heels:
The smart youth w sack of Cubensis w R foot down; he wont lose control in the Psilocybin state, because he is using eternalism -thinking; non-branching possibilities assumption.
Then after the basic rules are established, we must assess the floatung sage, which mental model he is using — but we are prevented from relying on simply looking at his feet to see whether his L or R foot is down.
Thus Eadwine sets up a series of progressively harder puzzles building out the genre’s standard motif of stand on R foot like Eve in Plaincouault fresco Amanita mushroom-branching tree.
The floating sage wrinkles his brow (like the examiner on row 1 left)) while looking up at the guy hanging from tree.
The floating sage is shown with neither foot down, so how do we read whether he is using possibilism thinking and has loss of control, or eternalism-thinking and stable control? –> same with guy hanging in tree.
Similar but less difficult, is the guy sitting in the tree.
todo/exercise: List such figures in order of difficulty of analyzing whether they use possibilism-thinking or eternalism-thinking.
Answer: thus student 4 must have L foot down else would have smooth brow. bc student 3 & 4 both show L hand, overlapped, yet result in different brow state.
Answer: similarly, student 2 (we only see face) has implicitly L foot down.
Answer: teacher + student 1 face = Row 2 R floating guy + limbless youth.
Answer: student 2 (only his face is shown, attached to back of teacher’s head) is unstable; bc furrowed brow.
in contrast, Row 2 R limbless youth is Stable (has eternalism thinking ) bc unfurrowed brow & his feet are replaced by stable column base.
Answer: row 2 R floating guy furrowed brow does not indicate he is unstable/ using possibilism-thinking – his furrow means: you are to explain the rules overriding rules that signal/ indicate which mental model each figure is using; loss of control if cubensis / loose cognition.
Ans: Row 2 L army: for each figure, assess which mental model / whether stable, — do this by listing all the positive & negative indicators, & which ones override:
floating guy R2R has:
Pros: jewish hat ; beard; R hand lower than left; msh hem / that is touching Stable Column Base.
Cons: furrowed brow, displaying L hand
Ans based on his pros/cons: he is Stable in the cubensis state, ie using eternalism-thinking.
army is left as an exercise for the reader.
i assessed woman previously, holding Scale Balance & Closed Scroll: i yesterday inventoried her +/- attributes: her figure expresses: you are stable when using the left foot egoic possibilism-thinking only IF you are in ordinary state; tight cognitive binding
Outline of Broad Article
todo: on laptop, enter topic list for journal supplemental article.
Pair of articles:
Branching-message mushroom trees – narrow.
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship – broad.
I will move Conclusion content from branching-message mushroom trees article to “Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship”.
old 2nd / companion article found today: “Roasting entheogen scholarship” – I forgot about that, but such a type of article is indeed key, to unload from the overburdened Concl secn of branching-message mushroom trees article: (free up word count)
the above title is poor , vs “Cube-driven entheogen scholarship”.
Huggins 2 articles
he presents Panof BRANCHES arg. glad u mentioned…
his Dancing Man Salm bestiary article
HATSIS JR.
as bad argn as Panof & Hatsis. Huggins Concl is reductionism + false dilemma fallacy. ultra obviously. 1-way “debate” , like Hatsis destroyed by Brown. they send out semi-articulated argn that is not designed for pushback.
They dont care at all about good argn . result is puzzling mux mux mix of unclear arg statement + obvious logical fallacies
todo: re: Brinkmann book
Brown: German lang reader: which p does Brink 1906 write re Development of pilzbaum from pine to mushroom imagery (fails to see nonbranching integrated w that motif)?
Which p of Brink says GRADUAL & WIDESPREAD devmt?
Which p says devmt proves unintentional? i say it proves intentional.
DOES NOT FOLLOW; ie the non sequitur fallacy
the real debate is: is there PURPOSE of the mushroom imagery?
yes: make viewers interp the image/ entire image as NOT mushroom but psychedelic eternalism , via CONJOINED motifs of tree AND mushroom ;
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs are found together, proving artists did not try to message either “tree” OR “mushroom”.
the MAIN msg & purpose of this genre is to communicate psychedelic eternalism.
Panofsky 2 sentence 7&8: “religious artists had little reason to think of mushroom – bc not in Bible “afaik” or stories of saints” – but see awesome perfect “St Eustace Crossing River”, that disproves all of Panofsky’s false statements.
Psychedelic Christianity article
McCarty & Priest article: Brown & Winkelman. Comment on their replies re ignorance of history.
retort to “dont make psyched Christianity DEPEND on history of Christian entheogens ” – that arg collapses, isnt viable, is absurd & inapprop, when there is overwhelming and relevant evidence.
“Ignore this massive, relevant evidence”. Wink, Brown, & I all push back hard, here.
McC/P totally ignore editor Wink & Brown in the meta replies section. “IGNORANT!” we all chant.
cite cyberdisciple “Against the assumption of suppression of psychedelics in Christianity”
cite Max Transcendent Knowledge podcast: “Ruck: entheogens were everywhere, but no one really knew about it ” “so which is it?”
“institutional Christianity elided entheogens ” – vague, unscholarly claim.
Motivation: re: Conclusion section of draft article “branching-message mushroom trees”, I was blocked trying to cram an entire article’s worth of broad re-direction of the field of entheogen scholarship.
minor, wasnt blocked by this: in branching-message mushroom trees article, below each pic, list the 4-6 motifs, give 2 instances each. to condense. add Splendor Solis: Philosophers Beside the Tree: add Tauroctony.
This is a companion article forming a pair of articles for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
the Secret Amanita paradigm vs the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
Panofsky letters critique
Huggins article critique especially branching
Secret Amanita theorists pay no attention to texts and ignore art historians. Conversely, Deniers (Panofsky, Hatsis, Huggins) don’t care at all about good argumentation.
In voice recording, I listed 3 difficulties in assessing their argumentation: what assumptions are they not stating?
have to glean & deduce & speculate.
They only state 2 of 5 points of the argument that they put forth; based on assuming that which is to be proved; obvious logical fallacies. Puzzling & difficult to read them, bc so much is hidden: iceberg arg’n — “Plainc cant be mushroom, bc there are HUNDREDS(!) of pilzbaum, QED.” Challenge: complete thecarg the arg steps. Panof dense abbrevd letters require extremely careful and critical reading
Huggins crazily cites Pan 2nd letter wo emphasizing Wasson censored for 67 yrs; Wasson villain; Browns heroes.
As if we had both letters since 1968; Huggins FAILS to give Brown massive credit & condemn Wasson.
What must Panof or Huggins be silently assuming, to put forth 2 points as if a 5-point argument?
todo: start Idea dev page 20
Breakthroughs Log
todo: move this section to my Log webpage
splendor solice nov 7 2024 thu: from cover of Irvin/ Rutajit 1st Ed 2006 A&S book:
“Philosophers beside the tree” famous image, has the 4 motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Mon Nov 18 rev 22:2 — 12 fruits kinds, trees of life
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022&version=KJV
gated wall eden & city of god ~ nov 18
the tree of life on both sides of the river, promised to the elect by the Bible, provides
“twelve manner of fruits”
great news, huge news re: strategic entheogenic Bible interp:
Rev 10 & Ezekiel = Aman only, BUT:! …
Rev 22:2 – tree of life grows on BOTH sides of river of life, therefore it is MULTIPLE trees, and they produce TWELVE different crops/ plants (13 entheogens including “the leaves of the tree are for healing the nations”) – not one, eg not just cannabis w 12 or 13 “USES” like Bennett’s book Sex Drugs & Bible (the single-plant fallacy) – he left 11 or 12 entheogens on the table!
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
🍄🟫🪴🪷🪻🌾🍄🌳🌱🌵🌺
Rev 22:2 King James bible
Mithraism
[6:55 am Nov 24, 2024] SOL FIGURED OUT! or deepened connections to a threshold amount.
Sol is the local lower egoic control agent system after full enlightenment transformation,
Sol is no longer threatened, reached a peace agreement with the higher controller.
The sun inside the fated cosmos ruling consciously in conjunction with Mithras the creator uncontrollable higher controller outside your effective control area.
Mithras hands Sol the reigns to steer as a consciously virtual control agent steering in a virtual tree.
I went to sleep looking at Sol upper left watching Mithras knife (loss of control threat, overpowering) the bull, wondering.
The correct successful perspective came now in the morning.
Tauroctony image:
[10:35 pm Nov 23, 2024] stars in Mithras’ billowing cloth (cape) = heimarmene/ eternalism experienced in the psilocybin liberty cap state, like the star gate in Lorenzetti’s Entry into Jerusalem.
knife = mental demonstration of potential loss of control = Paul’s thorn in the side = pierced in the side = {blades} in Great Canterbury Psalter f134 leg-hanging image.
Nov 19, 2024: tauroctony folded legs – look at that foot; no weight on that foot; resolves & firmly contrasts / links other: bull foot down vs mithras foot down. not definite weight on down foot, but instead, depict weight not on other foot
pantocrator left ft lifted usu? 748am nov 20 2024
cautes srch Fri nov 8 2024 — leg/ torch dir correlation. 2/3 of time, Cautes’ weight on R foot & holds torch Up.
The data which doesn’t fit the theory is incorrect and inferior, and doesn’t count. The superior art conforms to my theory.
My expectation/ prediction is Confirmed: in my hi-res high-quality, thus higher credibility tauroctony, refined art:
Cautes with weight on Right foot holds torch Up; Cautopates with weight on Left foot holds torch Down.
Mark Hoffman flipped tauroctony Entheos isssue 3 cover violent palette skew forced from Blue mushroom to Red; the Amanita Primacy Fallacy deletes Blue. same w Irvin jamming Dancing Man from blue cap to red, desperately.
per David Ulansey: the Ruck school fell down into heimarmene block; they WERE above, outside the heimarmene prison rock, looking down at Taurus constellation affirming initiated R leg;
NOW Ruck school is looking up at Taurus from below; the non-initiates’ perspective, affirming weight on L foot, wrongly, producing loss of control. evil, not good.
M Hoffman made both a Red shift from Blue AND flipped the handedness-critical Tauroctony. on the cover – AND therefore the pop Amanita IDOLATERS fanatics failed to see the Psil blue mushroom in Tauroctony. a great example of this bad field.
the corrective compensation: we must weild the diamond hammer of interpretation and force the art database back from Red to Blue skew
Blue Rules, Red Drools
brains 🍄🟫 vs looks 🍄
copy recent Sent email to here
copy recent txt msgs to here
why does nobody give a sht about my ultra excellent cubensis mushroom trees in Great Canterbury Psalter? bc its not “THE Holy Mushroom, Amanita muscaria”
low-grade – per my theory of low vulgar pop esotericism 🍄 vs authentic actually transformative high esotericism 🍄🟫
disrespecting “THE” holy mushroom
Red/Blue Balance
multiply psil in art 10x to compensate for Amanita being 10x too visually appealing; the headshop principle. Psil was the brains & engine, Pendell: Amanita mere symbol.
exoteric esotericism 🍄
esoteric esotericism 🍄🟫, explicit cubensis left fingers beanching, right two fingers pressed together , like St Eustace image explicit nonbranching in Chartres Cathedral
heading
chat Rick post
in headshop art language, spotted mushroom does NOT mean using Amanita; it means tripping / psychedelic experience
tree of knowledge does not ultimately mean Amanita, it means the branching-related tripping experience
Huggins has a new good/ bad article that uses the arg from Panofsky 2nd, censored-by-Wasson letter, to deny that Christian art mushroom trees are mushrooms
his neg args are EASY to refute; all are obvious trivial logical fallacies
he’s right: mushroom trees do not mean mushrooms; they mean mushrooms’ psychedelic experience re: branching — especially non-branching eg cut branch/ cut right trunk
no one in the mushroom tree debate noticed the main art motif: cut branch, cut right trunk, that is integrated with the mushroom / tree motif
i was the only one to see the huge cut right trunk in the contentious Dancing Man/ Roasting Salamander alchemic bestiary image
earlier Rick chat
prior to discovering tree of life = 12 different fruit crops / entheogens partic Cubensis
early (unusually early starting morning scholarship).
the acacia/rue theory of Old Testament says Holy Shiite w u
bc i am concluding w Dale Pendell, Amanita in Gen2/ Rev2/ Rev22 tree of knowledge of good & evil, tree of life:
Amanita is NOT psychedelic, but is just a SYMBOL of psilo or dmt
guarantee Amanita does NOT produce psychedelic enlightenment
we are not to take Aman fruit of the tree literally as ingesting Amanita
the word “tree” equated w psychedelic Knowledge is key
branching vs the timeless eternity non-branching peak experience is more important than Amanita
the fruit is not Amanita;
the fruit is the transformative psychedelic non-branching experience
memorizing Pendell opening sentence of Aman chapter:
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody USES. It is the supreme SYMBOL of ALL entheogenic religion.”
u & Prndell inspire me to not compromise & hide my negative read on Amanita as merely a SYMBOL of cubensis or acacia/rue experience of tree nonbranching knowledge; eternity/ eternalism experiencing is the fruit
Amanita is merely a symbol that represents that fruit
European art is based on Fall of Man / the Original Sin tree of Gen2 – Amanita as a symbol is heavily present in Europe religious art but
glory to Amanita as a SYMBOL of cubensis or acacia/ rue transformative experience of timeless non-branching frozen eternity
our reward in Rev22 is not Amanita, but rather, eat of tree of life our reward is ability to use cubensis / dmt without loss of control
rick chat before the above
my broad Article’s concept has key word ‘repeal’.
(“policy reform” means “fine-tune the persecution”)
Amanita/ Ergot-driven entheogen scholarship is defeatist and inherently advocates perpetual prohibition and prevents a redemption arc; prevents victory.
Its perverse self-defeating goal/ strategy is to prevent the mainstream/ Church from ever having entheogens/ cubensis.
Amanita-driven entheogen scholarship is not strategic or objective-driven; it is directionless; it is not intentionally connected to achieving Repeal or driven by that objective in any coherent, strategic way.
Huggins two articles – Rick chat
i have draft of 1st artic online (Branching Mushrooms in art)
About to create a draft webpage of 2nd article online (Cube-Driven).
have tons of gripes-and-fixes (incl citations/ quotes) ready to write up.
will cross-cite the pair of articles
too bad i missed pub’g in that issue, but i am unblocked
reading Huggins’ new article criticizing mushrooms in Christian art, & another by him re the “dancing man/ roasting salamander” bestiary art. i half agree
previous Rick chat
it is a pair of articles for Journal of Psychedelic Studies, editor Michael Winkelman wished to have my Branching Mushrooms art article for the Sept issue on “Psychedelics and Christianity”, but i was blocked trying to cram a critique of the field of entheogen scholarship into Conclusion section.
now i relieved that pressure on that article, got unblocked, by new plan: break out sep. broad “critique/repair” article (Cube-Driven entheogen scholarship)
new Dec issue just came out.
chat before the above
holy 💩🍄🟫!!
thought of the most kick-azz title for my revolution-defining companion article for Branching Mush art article:
Cubensis-Driven Entheogen Scholarship
The most rewarding, relevant, and productive approach
Paul Lindgren published Great Canterbury Psalter mushrooms in 2000
this Rick chat has photos of my books research highlighted pages
i discovered today that i overlooked the super milestone “cover image” note in the front matter of colleagues/ friend’s James Arthur’s 2000 book Mushrooms and Mankind , which was the first discovery of the awesome Great Canterbury Psalter mushroom imagery: the first entheogen scholar to discover that was Paul Lindgren 🏅🏆
credited by Ruck 2001 Conj Eden article , not discovered yet by Samorini 1997/1998
McCarthy & Priest’s vague claim that Ruck says institutional Christianity elided (omitted) entheogens
my ultra close reading of 4 publications:
Ruck 2000 Conjuring Eden article p 14, Entheos issue 1
Ruck 2000 Daturas for the Virgin article p56, Entheos 2, critiqued by:
Irvin 2008 The Holy Mushroom p 104: Ruck tries to LIMIT entheogens — but see Irvin: Astrotheology and Shamanism 2006
irvin in 2009 2nd Ed A&S deleted his OWN “limiting” claim, was sentence 1 in Conclusion of 1st Ed, “elites kings priests kept entheogens secret from the masses”
irvin wrote to me in 2006 1st Ed A&E. his 2009 2nd Ed cites even more of my work. recent pics of that inscription. & Concl page
I assessed Ruck’s Secret Amanita obsession project of constructing CIRCUMSCRIBING every entheogens image to prevent broad Christianity from having entheogens – why i rebelled against Ruck in 2002, formed the maximal entheogen theory of religion and disparaged his moderate, limit-obsessed project
my Phase 2, 21st C project was different from Ruck: interp all world myth as psychedelic eternalism per the Egodeath theory core theory; create the mytheme theory – TO PROVE MY CORE THEORY by proving myth is garbled reflection expression of psychedelic eternalism (= non-branching).
Sunil chat post
w image photos
2/3 of Brown’s commentary against McCarthy & Priest is History, ie pushing them to pay attention to history of psy’cs in Christian history.
Brown mentions:
the “bona fide traditional ceremony purposes” requirement of the RFRA
much of McC&Priest’s reply to the commentaries is re: the debate about the notion of “traditional”
previous Sunil post
news flash re strategic Bible interp
the tree of life on both sides of the river of life, promised to the elect by the Bible, provides
“twelve manner of fruits”, kinds of fruit, crops of fruit each month
Rev 22:2 King James bible
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022&version=KJV
not just one entheogen, eg Aman per Heinrich, or cann per Bennett
single-plant fallacy btfo’d
Notes file on Rev 22:2
Rev 22:2
trees of life bear twelve kinds of fruit each month
the tree of life / Trees of Life
twelve:
manner of fruits/ kinds of fruit/ crops of fruit
each month
KJV:
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:
NIV:
Eden Restored
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.
Ampd bible:
The Perfect Life
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Christ), in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month;
Living bible:
And he pointed out to me a river of pure Water of Life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street. On each side of the river grew Trees of Life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, with a fresh crop each month; the leaves were used for medicine to heal the nations.
Tree of Life tr.
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life—bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the city’s street. On either side of the river was a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month;
Devil 🍄 Atman project substitute placebo entheogen deliriant
the devil spread this false idol 🍄 to keep people from knowledge, decoy, dummy, substitute; exoteric esotericism – low, vulgar, junk version of Transcendent Knowledge
Apply the headshop principle: spotted mushroom imagery means Cubensis
push Blue TWICE as hard as Ruck pushes Red
My motive for taking over entheogen scholarship (myth as cubensis descr) from above in 2000-2003
1998: Mr. Jesus & Mr. Paul & their Bible will confirm my 1997 core theory outline.
The Jesus Mysteries book by 1999 F&G: oops, relig founder figures are myth.
“instead, use world relig myth (as a garbled reflection like 1986 poor books about enlightenment) to prove / match/ describe my core theory theory. but Ruck is not aggressively leveraging Samorini’s great findings; Ruck is lost & not my project”
“I need world relig myth to be expression of psychedelic eternalism, thus confirming my theory of mental model transformation” – i said in 2000-2003. Succeeded in 2003, 2020, etc
I assumed Psil is source of all relig myth. the maximal entheogen theory of religion
vs stingy Ruck; Dr. Secret Amanita – a dead end project, Prohibition-compliant enabler.
my Explicit Cubensis paradigm delivers 12x the tree of life fruit kinds especially Cubensis, than stingy, self-defeating Bennett & Heinrich single-plant fallacy
More posts, emails, many hours of rapid voice rec’g progress past 3 weeks …
Rev 22:2 delivers 12 different plants
bob email
news flash re strategic Bible interp
the tree of life on both sides of the river of life (so, multiple trees), promised to the elect by the Bible, provides “twelve manner of fruits”
Rev 22:2 King James bible
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022&version=KJV
not just one entheogen, eg Aman per Heinrich, or cann per Bennett
single-plant fallacy disproved today
Bennett & Heinrich leave 11 entheogenic plants on the table
Stamets Silent re Cubensis in Europe cow cattle dung re: why not
John R email
I inspected Stamets’ 1996 bk again: conclusion: the book only has 4 words re: cubensis presence in Europe/ England: “not known in Spain”. So:
Stamets’ book is silent about whether cubensis in Europe. Stamets cannot be assumed as stating psil’s absence. His silence reveals a prejudiced blind spot; evidence:
If Stamets had considered whether cubensis (was naturally) in Europe, he would have written about whether or not it occurs there. He wrote only 4 words, which is evidence that he never considers that topic/ question in this book.
No one has ever seriously looked to see whether cubensis is naturally in Europe.
Great Canterbury Psalter literalistically depicts cubensis (along w effects motifs), and stylistically depicts lib cap and panaeolus.
Its art director Eadwine depicts king David ordering imports (camel) & storage of cubensis. What countries did Eadwine obtain his cubensis from?
See these 3 pictures/ folios:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#f134
— Michael
dup:
I inspected Stamets’ 1996 bk again: conclusion: the book only has 4 words re: cubensis presence in Europe/ England: “not known in Spain”. So:
Stamets’ book is silent about whether cubensis in Europe. Stamets cannot be assumed as stating psil’s absence. His silence reveals a prejudiced blind spot; evidence:
If Stamets had considered whether cubensis (was naturally) in Europe, he would have written about whether or not it occurs there. He wrote only 4 words, which is evidence that he never considers that topic/ question in this book.
No one has ever seriously looked to see whether cubensis is naturally in Europe.
Great Canterbury Psalter literalistically depicts cubensis (along w effects motifs), and stylistically depicts lib cap and panaeolus.
Its art director Eadwine depicts king David ordering imports (camel) & storage of cubensis.
What countries did Eadwine obtain his cubensis from?
See these 3 pictures/ folios:
John R email
Eric Pendel book:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/06/pharmacognosis-book-on-amanita-pendell/
Amanita chapter: sentence 1:
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion”
Avoiding the Single-Plant Fallacy:
Carl Ruck, in the article “Daturas for the Virgin”, Entheos journal issue 2, 2001, argues that mushrooms 🍄 were often unavailable, therefore the Eucharist was considered to be ANY visionary plant. Ruck means Datura, but should mean Psil cube/ lib cap/ panaeolus.
Amanita imagery in religious art (& Ezekiel & Revelation text) does NOT mean Amanita specifically, but means ALL visionary plants — preferably Cubensis, because Cubensis delivers the most psychedelic effects with the least other effects, & is reliably identifiable. The Great Canterbury Psalter supports these assertions.
Ruck book on myth txtbk is massively pushing the (Secret) Amanita Primacy Fallacy – every index entry page is on Secret Amanita, never on Psil.
“the” 🍄 mushroom, EXCLUSIVELY Secret Amanita.
openly display my left fingers splayed & right 2 fingers together: = the “Explicit” Cubensis paradigm, as St Martin church picture fingers & sticks/feathers; as exposed in Chartres Cathedral in “St Eustace crossing the river” window “brazenly displayed in the heretics places of worship”- Ruck.
irvin: THM 104: “Ruck attempts to limit entheogens to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretics”– That is completely unfounded. Mainstream Christianity itself is based on entheogens.” “See my bk A&S 2006 [concl: “entheogens were limited to elites”]
Irvin 2nd Ed 2009 deleted that limiting Concl secn sentence.
— Michael
The Egodeath theory 