Michael Hoffman, December 31, 2024, 9:30 pm
Contents:
- Motivation of the Email and this Posting
- Intro
- Email to Hoffman, Ruck, & Brown, Dec. 31, 2024
- See Also
Motivation of the Email and this Posting
Need to follow the Brown 2019 Panofsky leads.
Mark Hoffman can help identify the two pilzbaum art images that Panofsky attached in his first letter to Wasson.
I want to identify the two art images, to counter Wasson’s censorship and coverup of pilzbaum in Christian history.
I want to interpret the art images to identify {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Intro
I “reached out” to “consult” the “competent” mycologists.
More intensely than Ronald Huggins can fathom, we pilzbaum Affirmers totally disrespect the meaningless disavowals by PATHETICALLY compromised, establishment-OWNED art “authorities”.
The “competent” art authorities are pathetic.
Letcher in book Shroom (2005-2007) at end of his awful mis-handling of the Bernward Door (ignoring the 5 pilzbaum in the Bernward Column, inventoried in “ConjEden” 2001 Entheos 1):
Letcher’s Bernward argument is based solely on the premise of “secret”, which amounts to strawman fallacy; shifting the goalposts, or the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
Remove Letcher’s arbitrary ‘secret’ component (not that he invented it), and his argument crashes down.
Andy Letcher in Shroom p. 35 misrepresents Stamets’ p. 15 picture, even though Letcher got Stamets’ permission to use the photo!
Letcher: “Can I use your picture of Bernward door pilzbaum “blame” panel, p. 15?”
Stamets: “Ok.”
Letcher: “Stamets’ book claims that his Bernward Door picture shows a hidden, secret pilzbaum.”
Shroom p. 35: “Bernward door claimed to be secret” – endnote 31.
p. 305: endnote 31: Gartz and Stamets, neither page number is given. (It’s p. 15 of Stamets.) I don’t have Gartz’ book to check whether Gartz says “secret/ hidden”.
Shroom p. 306: A totally worthless endnote citation of a Medieval England historian, “pers. comm.”, with the brilliant high-IQ interpretation, expert genius revelation that no one else could have thought of:
“The pilzbaum on Bernward Door means a fig-tree.”
This is what you get by consulting the competent history authorities: a coerced pre-fabricated position statement that’s worthless and predictable and pointless except to con the uncritical reader.
Most “citations” in Letcher don’t even give a page number. Such endnotes are a fake illusion of scholarly apparatus.
Stamets PMotW book has no trace of “secret” or “hidden”, but Letcher FALSELY CITES STAMETS AS FRAMING THE BERNWARD DOOR PILZBAUM AS “SECRET AND HIDDEN”.
It’s a lie-by-citation, committed by Letcher. Strawman accomplished.
Letcher lies and falsely says Stamets says the Bernward door shows a hidden secret mushroom tree, and then argue that that pilzbaum is not secret — to gain a worthless “victory” against the strawman.
Letcher loses by winning his false depiction of the opponent’s position.
Letcher plays the fool by “reaching out” to “consult” the “competent” historian of Medieval England, who is pre-guaranteed to disavow pilzbaum else lose “competent” status by the corrupt institution. End note: “pers. comm.” – totally worthless citation.
The compromised, paid shill asserts whatever they are paid to assert.
“Competent historian for hire. History fabricated on-demand. Record-setting speedy disavowal of pilzbaum.”
A scholar’s COERCED POSITION STATEMENT is worthless.
Historians and art historians are not allowed to affirm pilzbaum – so it is pointless to “consult” them on this point, of whether pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms.
Better than “Do pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms?” is:
Whether pilzbaum mean the peak transformation experience that’s produced by intentional ingesting of psychoactive mushrooms to have a peak religious experience of mental worldmodel transformation; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Email to Hoffman, Ruck, & Brown, Dec. 31, 2024
email 1: Does Wasson Archive Drawer Contain These Two pilzbaum Art Images?
My email to Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, and Jerry Brown, 8 pm December 31, 2024
Hi Mark,
Happy New Year’s Eve
Where are the two art pieces, photostats, that Panofsky attached in the 1952 first letter to Wasson?
It’s an important question opened up in 2019 by Brown’s article’s publishing of Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson.
Brown didn’t mention trying to look for these.
In the Wasson Archive, does Drawer W3.2 Folder 20 include two pilzbaum photostats?
* Art photostat 1: A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom.
Panofsky’s wording:
“a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape”
* Art photostat 2: A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap.
Panofsky’s wording:
“a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”
most interesting observation: In the same paragraph where Wasson insults mycologists for failing to “consult” (phone-up in person) the art authorities, just six lines above that, at the very same time, in the same breath, Wasson quietly replaces the Brinckmann citation by elipses, in order to PREVENT mycologists from properly in academic real fashion, consulting PUBLISHED … [see completed sent. below]
“censored” – most interesting observation: in book Soma, top of page, Wasson shows one of the two Panofsky letters, including … ellipses where Panofsky strongly recommended Brinckmann’s 1906 “little” 86-page book on Tree Stylizations in Medieval Art, in German, which constitutes the entire body of publications by art historians about their pilzbaum, as of 1952 (or 2006, or 2024).
Details, Reference, & other topics:
______________________________
Huggins’ odd out-of-the-blue citation of two Panofsky letters gives (slightly garbled) drawer numbers; compare how Brown cites the letters:
I added “drawer” to the “Panofsky’s letters revealed” page:
Brown published both Panofsky letters. Wasson censored around 5 items from Panofsky:
Censored item 1:
* Brinckmann 1906 book citation.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/
Censored item 2:
* Existence of 2nd Panofsky letter. Ronald Huggins strangely (dishonestly?) pretends we’ve all had this letter since 1952 – actually we’ve had it only since Brown 2019.
Brown 2019 article:
Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson, complete and uncensored (but not showing or naming the two art attachments):
Censored item 3: below
Censored item 4: below
Censored item 5: below
Huggins’s 2024 Foraging Wrong article about pilzbaum:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/
Pressured by Sunil Aggarwal, I’m reading The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku – the book has plenty of good passages, despite critique by Cyberdisciple (Classics expert, expert in the Egodeath theory ie psychedelic eternalism): Cyberdisciple is cited by Brown at Hancock site article:
https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/
If I had reviewed the galleys of TIK in mid-2020, as requested by Sunil and Mururesku, I might not have discovered the Great Canterbury Psalter in mid-November 2020.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/
An image I was blind to for a couple years (a positive mental attitude is a requirement, to prevent blindness): Cubensis dispensary, Canterbury, England, 1200:
Cyberdisciple’s articles analyzing TIK by Muraresku:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=muraresku
I still wish to produce my 2nd-take read-aloud of your article in Pharmacology, a more professional voiceover reading.
– the good M. Hoffman
the theorist of psychedelic eternalism, and the mytheme theory interpreting myth as analogy describing psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
Egodeath.com – incl. quite good Wasson article w/ lots of valuable quotes:
http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
email 2: The Deceptive Ellipses Move by Wasson to Prevent Consulting Art Historians
I accidentally hit shortcut key for Send; have to finish summary of the bunk, deceptive ellipses move by Wasson.
Summary list of 5 censored things by Soma passage:
1. citation of Brinc. in 1st Pan letter.
2. Art photostat 1.
3. Art photostat 2.
4. existence of 2nd Pan. letter.
5. citation of Brinc. in 2nd Pan letter. (strong urging to consult, handwritten/added)
_______________________________________
Panofsky’s Branches argument against pilzbaum purposefully meaning mushrooms
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 Foraging Wrong article plays out Panofsky 2’s branches argument, which is the most important IMO point in 2nd Pan. letter: pilzbaum have branches so can’t be mushrooms – never mind that the branches – i point out – exactly match cubensis in ball/stem form.
I have not told Huggins this demolishing of his Letcher/ Hatsis/ Huggins type bad arg’n.
Picture: these mushroom-shaped “branches” prove that this pilzbaum looks nothing like mushrooms (argues Huggins):
Page section containing that:
_______________________________________
Bad argumentation by pilzbaum deniers:
Letcher/ Hatsis/ Huggins type bad arg’n:
The topic of pilzbaum is the optimal machine for generating bad arg’n / logical fallacies:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/11/23/deniers-logical-fallacies-pilzbaum-mushroom-tree-debate/
___________________________________________
The bunk, deceptive ellipses move by Wasson:
finishing my elip. sent.: p. 180, Soma, Wasson, 1968: https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg –
Line 3 shows the evil ellipses I should have pinpointed in my 2006 Wasson article b/c I knew no way Pan. could claim “oh sure we art historians are familiar” —
Me in 2006: “WONDERFUL! Citation needed; I urgently WANT to read all your publications about pilzbaum – cough them up, Wasson / Panofsky.”
I’m beating head against wall b/c I came SO close to realizing in 2006, before 2019 Brown article, that right at the exact spot where I expected a citation to back up Panofsky’s claim of familiarity w/ pilzbaum, was exactly the spot where ellipses instead. At least I accused Wasson of censoring the citation in 2006; find “cit/citation” in my 2006 Wasson article.
most interesting observation: In the same paragraph where Wasson insults mycologists for failing to “consult” (phone-up in person) the art authorities, just six lines above that, at the very same time, in the same breath, Wasson quietly replaces the Brinckmann citation by elipses, in order to PREVENT mycologists from properly in academic real fashion, consulting PUBLISHED academic works.
Wasson corrupts the meaning of “consult” to reduce it from “read Brinc. book” to “phone-up a compromised authority w/ stopwatch in hand to measure the great celerity/quickness they bark forth the denial and disavowal of pilzbaum as purposeful mushroom imagery.
Do you think we can break the world record for how quickly a “competent” art authority disavows pilzbaum?
Mark: Phones art authority: “Are pilzbaum…”
“Competent” art authority: “I DISAVOW PILZBAUM!!”
⏱ 🏎🐇💨💨
Entheogen scholar sets new world record for celerity of art authority disavowing pilzbaum.
— M. Hoffman
email 3: The Branching of pilzbaum Confirms They Purposefully Mean Mushrooms (for Peak Religious Experiencing)
The branches of pilzbaum do not support pilzbaum Deniers; the branches of pilzbaum support pilzbaum Affirmers.
Kind of like Wasson censored Brinc. b/c Wasson recognized that the Brinckmann book, & the two attached pilzbaum art pieces, actually supports pilzbaum Affirmers, not pilzbaum Deniers eg Panofsky.
The fact that pilzbaum have branches is absolute direct proof that pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms, in fact mean PEAK religious experiencing.
Letcher specifies my name in a comment at his site where he claims we can’t show pilzbaum:
1. mean mushrooms;
2. mean psychoactive mushrooms;
3. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms;
4. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms to have religious experiencing.
I did all that by decoding pilzbaum genre, and topped Letcher’s personal challenge:
5. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms to have PEAK religious experiencing.
We know pilzbaum shows peak experience, b/c urges us to use non-branching and reject branching, to retain stable control and avoid death by {flames} and {blades} and {get through the gates} to get the {prize} (maturity; {imperishability}; {immortality}; our Final Form, our permanent mature lasting state/configuration).
vs. temporary, perishable, childish, immature mental worldmodel that collapses when ASC light shines in the personal control system.
This interp & recog’n of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs is “the immortality key”.
The pilzbaum genre recommends rejecting the branching model with autonomous control, and affirming the non-branching model with 2-level, dependent control.
I think I left out only that one point, but it’s important: my Egodeath theory as I posted around 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group: re the two competing Physics views:
non-branching block universe (Minkowski/Einstein) [revealed/experienced in ASC]
vs.
possibility-branching manyworlds (typical of quantum physics) [experienced in OSC]
I advocate mental worldmodel transformation from a branching possibility model per quantum physics manyworlds (ego empowerment), to a mental worldmodel that’s non-branching.
In the pilzbaum genre I recognized this same contrast between these two mental worldmodels.
The payload message of the pilzbaum genre artists is not mushrooms – the message is, to avoid loss of control / control instability while on mushrooms, reject branching; affirm non-branching, pictured as:
Don’t put weight on left foot; put weight on right foot. (eg. Eve in Plaincourault fresco.)
I first hypothesized that when I was looking at Hatsis’ presentation of the salamander bestiary image aka Dancing Man, Christmas 2015.
That post is in the Egodeath Yahoo Group: Max Freakout archive:
Subject: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-144/#message7442 – later in that thread, find “left” and “right”:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-145/#message7459 – “The raised left leg refers to the initial, illusion-based mental model … The right leg on the ground refers to transcendent thinking …”
That hypothesis was 5 years later confirmed way more than I could have imagined possible, by Eadwine in Great Canterbury Psalter and then by pilzbaum genre overall as shown in set of pictures in draft article:
— M. Hoffman
See Also
Site Map > Panofsky per Wasson
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#Panofsky
The Egodeath theory 