Idea Development page 23 (2025/01/06)

Michael Hoffman, started 2025/01/06 on mobile, updated Jan. 28, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Apparently a gen’d image using
https://stablediffusionweb.com – my view was blocked by popup.

Site Map – Previous page – Next page

Contents:

toc updated 7:46 pm Jan. 15, 2025

Pinned Content

Proof “Creation of Light” Balance Scale Bowls Contain Mushrooms

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman , f11
[1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025]
Y Y I I

Day 1 & Day 4: Proof that Day 1 Creation of Light Scale Balance Bowls Contain Mushrooms

“Creation of Plants” Branching Form Develops from III, IYI, YI, IY/YI

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025

Day 3: Branching Form Develops toward Increasing Comprehension from Left to Right: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI

“Tree of Knowledge” Grid of Liberty Caps w L & R arms Proves Grid = Branching

Crop by Michael Hoffman, f11
{cut right branch}

Eat from Tree: Arms/Branches of Each Liberty Cap in Grid of Cap Indicates Mushroom-Trees within Mushroom-Trees, Proving every grid-cap = multiple/ branching

Includes {cut right branch} cross-under under cap/crown matching Dancing Man and the two adjacent trees.

Incoming Ideas

Entheogen Scholarship Is 73 Years Out of Date and Ripe for Correction

In 1952, Wasson went to Plaincourault chapel, first hand so you know his lying fake pretended opinion is true and that you are one of the ignorant, blundering mycologists who have been under a misapprehension since 1910.

2025-1952 = 73 years out of date entheogen scholarship.

How many years since Wasson 1968 wrote:

“How strange it is that the most spectacular, the most potent, mushroom lacks a name in the English language” (Wasson 1968).

2025-1968 = 57 years outdated notions and imaginings from entheogen scholarship/fantasy.

Walter Stace 1960 book’s fantasy-based “mystic experiencing”, which is the foundation of PSYCHEDELIC PSEUDO SCIENCE, is 2025-1960 = 65 years out of date.

Amanita is visually spectacular, but Amanita is NOT potent, focused, or reliable or relevant in the way that matters, causing transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

This is baseless fantasy from Wasson, who was consistently disappointed and drew a negative conclusion by 1986 because Psilocybin ran circles around Amanita.

Psilocybin actually delivered every effect that everyone always wished and fantasized Amanita would produce.

Massive, way-over-the-top HYPE around Amanita; but only Psilocybin little brown mushrooms actually deliver the goods.

Every Mid-Wit Thinks It’s Easy Pickins Puncturing & Easily Debunking mushroom imagery in Christian Art, Because Entheogen Scholarship Is that Much Fantasy-Based, and Fails to Correct Its Thoroughly Disconfirmed Fantasy Speculation Dreaming About The Holy Mushroom, Amanita

This is part of the problem, the source of noxious deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art: entheogen scholarship per Graves/Wasson/Allegro / Ruck IS a laughingstock.

That quote (no page #) is according to 2002 article:
Mushroom Myth and Imagery in Hawai’i: Evidence for an Indigenous Cult
Mark Hoffman, 2002, Entheogen Review, 7 pages
https://www.academia.edu/5075795/Mushroom_Myth_and_Imagery_in_Hawai_i_Evidence_for_an_Indigenous_Cult_Mark_A_Hoffman

208 sheets, a new record for longest Idea Development page 🐷🐷

try editing this page in mobile app 

💥
🔥

Alexamenos Graffito Donkey Cross

Cyberdisciple wrote, 9:16 AM Jan. 28, 2024:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Cyberdisciple wrote:

“Perhaps also handedness (combined with branching), as human has left hand raised with fingers spread open [=branching], right hand down with perhaps single finger extended [=non-branching].”

I wrote:

{splayed fingers contrast} & Y stand out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito#/media/File:AlexGraffito.svg

{mushrooms}: donkey arms form like flat-top Amanita shape, bottom shirt line like dropped veil belt

{branching}: Y upper right; left fingers splayed vs. right finger extended

{handedness}: left fingers splayed vs. right finger extended. If donkey faces us, turning to look right = remember. {right hand lower than left hand} = good/stable/enlightened — that’s a driving theme of Great Canterbury Psalter f134.

{stability}: donkey is standing on cross bar, compare right foot of straight leg on ladder in Splendor Solis > Philosophers beside tree.  

Relative Height of Feet

Both feet at same level in tree. Compare foot-heights in cover of Brinckmann book, entry into Jeru; the artist could have done better:

Guy in tree has splayed L fingers, R holds removed branch.  (Dancing Man has splayed R fingers.)

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

I can imagine a variant of that picture that’s objectively better at depicting handedness.  Has room for improvement.

Entry into Jerusalem. Das sogenannte Evangeliarium Kaiser Ottos III (The so-called Evangeliarium of Emperor Otto), Latin Codex 4453, Munich, around 1000 CE. 

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_8AgwAAAAYAAJ/page/n75/mode/2up

The Degree to Which Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Engage the Body of Evidence

Letcher 2006 was not serious about engaging evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Hatsis 2018, same.  I expected both of them to use the approach of isolating and only treating a couple isolated instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Huggins’ article 2024 is focused on the topic.  

Huggins restricts to only “Great Canterbury Psalter” (& Dancing Man in 2021 Dizzy article), and even then, the self-protecting Psalter shields such outsiders from seeing the mushroom imagery, by the brick wall of 10 pages of images at the start.  

Huggins has penetrated further than Letcher Hatsis, b/c he vaguely throws around counts of Panaeolus and counts of trees.  

Yet he doesn’t show or discuss images beyond the first few pages of the Psalter [he also shows Golden Ps] – isolated selected panels, totalling hardly more than 6 panels within 4 folios.  

Huggins Foraging Wrong covers the following mushroom-trees evidence:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Foraging-Wrong-Looks-at-4-Folios

  • f11: 5 of 12 panels
  • f16: 1 of 12 panels (not that all 12 are relevant)
  • f20: 1 of ~6 panels  (this is past the initial 12-panel first 10 pages)
  • f22: only mentions 1 of the 10 mushroom-trees, mentions the little plants mixed in w the (5) mushroom-trees in the mount in the middle.

Huggins Silent that Day 4’s 4 plants look like mushrooms and don’t have branches, against Panofsky’s Claim that Every Mushroom-Tree Has Branching

Any mushroom-trees that lack branching disprove Panofsky’s claim:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-6 – “But even that is not very probable because 

even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification;”

False, per Day 4? or would Panofsky argue “Those plants don’t count: they have no branches, therefore not mushroom-trees, so DOESN’T COUNT”?

Panofsky is right, re: Day 4 Plant 1 has “some traces of ramification” as follows: 

Day 4: Plant 1 & 2 have a grid cap of Lib Caps, which the “Eat From Tree” panel proves is multiple little trees (each w/ a L & R “branch”) in the cap [each little tree has arms like Day 3: Plant 1 & 2. 

And Day 3 proves {grid-cap} is equiv to branching.

Day 3: branching form of 4 plants: trident, IYI, YI, IY/YI

Day 4: branching form of 4 plants: Y, Y, I, I    (Y, in that the cap has grid of lib cap trees, which is equiv to “branching” thus “Y” not “I” like plant 3 & 4).

Eat from Tree > Tree of Know: cap has grid of detailed lib cap trees each of which is like Day 3: Plant 2 but you here can see L & R little arms.

Huggins exhibits aptitude for mushroom imagery in Christian art

Huggins is astute enough to trace features like that, across f11 image’s 12 panels – more than Hoffman/Ruck/Staples did in Conj Eden – 

Huggins incorrectly misquotes/mis-cites them and gives them too much credit for tracing details across panels: 

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Brown-wacky-identifn – 

Find Huggins quote in middle of that section: 

“same as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because its crown displays the same pattern“

Huggins is projecting his superior analysis onto Ruck (Conj Eden article) who does not actually have that detailed of an analysis.

Huggins’ mis-citation gives more, not less, credit to the cited writer.

Huggins’ high aptitude for mushroom-trees analysis is manifest despite his committed skeptic negativity/rejection.

Panofsky continues:

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

Mushroom Mount (f22 middle)

Does Huggins in any sense “identify” the 4 plants in Day 3 with branches, 

or in Day 4 without branches?  

No, all he says about day 4’s excellent mushrooms with no branches is:

“74 The artist also shows little interest in depicting the same trees [trees? day 4 lacks branches] in both the third- and fourth-day
scenes.”
“a third-day image might represent all trees”76 – 76 “we find them [“trees”(!)] mixed with smaller plants in the subsequent
scene [Day 4], which represents the fourth creation day, as well as in another scene later (fol. 6v) [mount w 5 mushroom-trees mixed w/ little plants].”

Mount w/ little plants in middle of image:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom

The set of 5 plants on mount disprove Panofsky’s claim, 

“even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification;”

There’s no way out, here on the mount: if you agree there are 5 mushroom-trees, two of these mushroom-trees have no trace of branching, not even via the equivalent motif of grid of Lib Cap trees in crown.

Not Claiming Whole Tree Matches Whole Mushroom, but Tree Has Mushroom Features and Tree Features

See the good tree on R of entire image: Amanita-colored Liberty Caps in crown grid with blue Cubensis trunk/stem/branches. 

We are not looking for a whole mushroom and whole tree matching, but mushroom imagery elements/features – against Huggins’ brain-dead Conclusion section & arg’n. 

Suddenly art historians are wrong and “this tree doesn’t look like a mushroom, at the whole level of entire plant”. 

The better-worded of the claims by affirmers never said a match at level of whole figure- Brown implies that, by singular mushroom in “M I C A” but we are looking for mushroom features piecemeal, attributes, not just [stupidly] whole entire mushrooms.

Dumb wording: “Is the plant a tree or a mushroom?” 

I SPOTTED A MUSHROOM 🍄, SO I’M AN ESOTERIC INITIATE

Being able to perceive mushrooms in art, like basic beginners entheogen scholarship, is not esoteric in the proper, high sense.

I never expected entheogen scholarship to deliver anything but shallow – by definition, since entheogen scholarship is not the Egodeath theory.

Around 1998 when I had finished Core the Egodeath theory and started to look to religious myth to corroborate the core their, theory, I found entheogen scholarship such as Heinrich’s 1995 book Strange Fruit, which wonderfully id’d Rev 10 scroll as Amanita. I read that around 1999.

By 2003 I figured out the limitations of entheogen scholarship.

I never demanded or expected entheogen scholarship to be the Egodeath theory. I understood that entheogen scholarship — until it incorporates the Egodeath theory — would be limited to exoteric esotericism.

“Look mommy, there’s a mushroom! (🍄)”

Entheogen scholarship: can you spot the mushroom?

I copied the below sections about the Secret Esoteric Mouse image to page:
Puzzles to Interpret via {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} Motifs
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/21/puzzles-to-interpret-via-mushrooms-branching-handedness-and-stability-motifs
Article about this esoteric image, in-depth.

As esoteric as Ruck & Hoffman: Entheogens, Myth and Human Consciousness
https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Myth-Human-Consciousness-Carl/dp/1579511414/

https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Myth-Human-Consciousness-Carl/dp/1579511414/

The Level of Sophistication Baked into the Brown “Isolate and Explain Away” Database of Mushrooms in Christian Art

Brown database: Please contribute your assessment on this isolated image:

Typical art interpretation level of sophistication of entheogen scholarship: CAN YOU SPOT THE MUSHROOM? 🍄

[best not to edit the below superseded copy – master copy is in Puzzle page, link above]

{mushroom}

Two Amanitas forming a YI pair, with taxonomical facsimile of Liberty Cap, Panaeolus, and Cubensis features.31

31 Paul Stamets, Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide, 1996, p. 15

Per John Rush, the figure in the middle holds something in right hand, that looks suspiciously like a mushroom.

Per Ruck, with as much bravado as faceplant (matched only by Brown, and also by Brown):

One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: The mouse has a typical mushroom-tree beside him. The mushroom has a red cap, and a similar mushroom branches from its blue-staining trunk/stem. There are spots of bluing on the stems, and blue is associated with Cubensis, which indicates that this branching pair of Amanita are psychoactive.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/ahahaha-hatsis-did-totally-bust-carl-amanita-promoter-ruck-for-taunting-based-on-wrong-guess-that-salamander-cap-is-red-and-white-%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%8d%84/

📚🖼📕😓😓📚📓🖼🤔🤔📒📚🤯🤯

Add brilliant strenuous scholarly research from Brown, with double IQ from Brown:

We intensively academically researched the backstory, and discovered that the central figure is considered in folk-lore about this tapestry, that the figure is understood to be a mouse!

Therefore, not a mushroom. 🍄🖼 –> 🗑

This astute, critical, negative conclusion is our main case for why our identification skill is superior – we stake our entire Psychedelic Gospels theory and reputation for credibility on it.

Per Ruck, the colors identify this as secretly Amanita, because associated with The Mushroom (🍄) are the colors red, white, gold, purple, blue, green, yellow, orange, pink, gray, and black, as well as silver — and this image has gold-orange-redpurple, therefore, it secretly matches.

{branching}

The bricks in the big left mushroom are relatively branching compared to the small brickless mushroom, therefore this mushroom-tree is branching form YI, which is the classic form with branching mapped to Left, non-branching mapped to Right.

Non-branching tail & path.

{handedness}

Tail is CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH the mushroom-tree on the left, by touching it on the right side of the God/Jesus/mouse figure. Head tilted right, means mystic-state remembering.

A straightedge proves that the mouse nose is pointing at the HIDDEN MUSHROOM.

Butterfly’s left antenna is touching branching flower, proving that this image affirms the standard mapping, Left = branching = loss of control in the Psilocybin loosecog state of loose cognitive association binding.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“mouse butterfly.jpg” 13 KB, 7:21 pm Jan. 28, 2025
https://trinkyz.com/product/wooden-jigsaw-puzzles-for-kids-ages-3-5-10-pack-choose-from-22-designs/
{stability}

{unfurrowed brow} + rainbow touching head indicates stable, transcendent control.

Typical art interpretation level of sophistication of entheogen scholarship: CAN YOU SPOT THE MUSHROOM? 🍄

According to Bennett, the above is sophisticated masterful art, compared to Plaincourault:

Eve’s weight is on right foot. {standing on right foot}, like Golden Psalter same scene, Eve at the Tree of Knowledge.

Esotericism for Exoteric Thinkers (Has Anyone Thought of Having Multiple Levels of Initiation? 🤔 Newbie Level: 🍄)

Heinrich failed to identify Rev 22:2 as 13 entheogens, and instead reduced the Tree of Life of Rev 22 to Amanita only.

Exoteric esotericism is not esotericism; it’s exotericism pretending to be esotericism.

I am uncomfortable with the word ‘esoteric’, when saying “The exoteric referent is tree, the (secret hidden) esoteric meaning is just mushrooms”.

  • Low, most vulgar, literal-only, eliminative reductionist:
    The referent is tree.
  • Mid-level comprehension; exoteric esotericism:
    The referent is mushroom.
    PATHETIC LOW ESOTERICISM LIKE RUCK:
    “I SPOTTED AN AMANITA, SO I’M an ESOTERIC init i INITIATE”
  • Highest meaning:
    The referent is control stability, non-branching.

In the above usage, the word ‘esoteric’ has inherently the same DNA problems as “hidden” and “secret”.

Feigned Pretended Retardation and Denseness Obtuseness, a Loser’s Desperate Argumentation Move: “I’m Too Stupid to Think of Tree Having a Mundane Literal and ALSO a Esoteric Higher Meaning”

Low IQ wording in Huggins’ Conclusion section where he heavily parrots and channels the voice of Panofsky; he makes Panofsky give the stupid, dull-minded wording in the Conclusion section about “ruling out” and “rules to see if it is a tree or a mushroom” – crude wording/ conceptualization!  

Brilliant big-brain Huggins gives self a lobotomy, as is common in this special-pleading debate/field: 

How stupid, dense, & unimaginative can we present ourselves as being, to present ourselves as winning our argument?

You are stupid in mis-identifying the mushroom-tree as a mushroom, because I am too stupid to know that an image esp. in non-realism art can refer to mundane exoteric and ALSO higher esoteric referent (eg mushroom, or even non-branching or conditional stability mapped to L & R).

You lose the debate of identifying the plants, because I am too stupid to understand “and also“.  You affirmers deny it is a tree. You say it is a mushroom.  

Let’s reduce the debate to the lowest literal reduction we can manage: see Conclusion of Huggins, making Panofsky express the deniers’ stupid false dilemma, a false dilemma that Ruck’s bad wording fits right into.

Ruck has it coming, by writing badly, “They look like mushrooms are they are mushrooms and nothing else“.  

Proof that Ruck can’t think higher than physical body of mushroom; shape & color, no adult-level esoteric thinking, not even in book mistitled “Entheogens, myth and human consciousness” by Hoffman & Ruck.

Ruck provides bad wording, Daturas p 56 “they are mushrooms b/c they look like mushrooms and nothing else” – wrong; poor wording, a vulnerable argument wording.

Branching form in the 5 mushroom-trees in f22’s Mount: (f22 has 10 mushroom-trees total; 11 trees total)

Library site full-res:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom

My gallery of all Eadwine-painted images in Great Canterbury Psalter:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f22 – copied: need closer crop though [done]:

Mushroom Mount

Crop by Michael Hoffman, June 10, 2023

f22: Mushroom Mount: Mount with 5 mushroom-trees

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 28, 2025

Bottom row: I; I  (no grid cap) [mirroring each other]

Middle row: 

IY bc grid cap [mirroring each other]

YI bc grid cap [mirroring each other]

Top/center: 

IY bc cut branch on L, grid cap on R – the only {cut branch} of the 5 plants – God touches the side of grid cap near the cut left branch with a {pitcher on a stick?}

Branching form of little plants on mount: trident.  

They have potential to form YI like in “Eustace crossing river”, but have no meaningful branching form.

Huggins Goes Next-Level by Tracking Motifs Across a Set of Images Better than Brown & Ruck

Huggins shows impressive attention to detail by pointing out that such “little plants” are in Day 4 & f22 Mount.  

Huggins gets a little lost in botanical distinctions between trees vs. plants, but makes sense per his approach of sweeping across multiple Psalters re: 6 Days of Creation.

Per The Eadwine System, {grid of lib caps in crown} is to be read as relatively {branching}, as established by the set of images: f11 Day 3 + Day 4 + Eat from Tree of Knowledge).

Huggins accidentally does a better job than Brown, of precision analysis and thinking about how the imagery can interrelate: 

“The PMTs’ first crucial misstep in interpreting the GCP third-day scene is assuming that the patterns used to render the foliage heads of the four plants can serve as a guide for identifying the illuminator’s intent, and for discerning the relations of these four to GCP’s other plants / trees using the same patterns.”

Brown is actually barely articulate, barely claiming what’s possible – Huggins attributes a more ambitious and precise claim to Brown than Brown actually makes – Huggins is misrepresenting the affirmers’ arguments, almost in an over-generous, over-astute way.  

Affirmers don’t make as precise of assertions as Huggins claims they do.

The affirmers don’t have that great of assertions or args, eg Samo’s “veil = branches” is weak compared to asserting “gills + veil = branches”.

Brown says briefly [and falsely, as Hug says] that red and brown mushrooms and blue and tan orange are throughout the Psalter, but Huggins reads that as if it’s a precise claim, as if Brown had made a much more detailed claim about Day 3 serving as a key to identify all mushroom-trees in the Psalter.

toc at 

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/

shows that the wall of images (the contig set of 8 image-pages) is:

Full-page 3×4 grids (8)
f11: Creation, {balance scale}
f12: Cain and Abel, Noah, Sacrifice of Isaac
f13: Life of Moses
f14: Moses, David, Goliath, John the Baptist
f15: Jesus’ Ministry 1
f16: Jesus’ Ministry 2
f17: Genealogy, 18 Figures
f18: Young Jesus

Next image (the first half-page scene) is f20:

Half-page scenes:
f20: Dancing, Mushroom River, Hell-Mouth Furnace Demon with Angel Wings
f21: top of page decoration: 3 guys with books and scrolls
f22: Mushroom Mount
f23: Capital letter: Dragon Q
f25: Absalom Hung from a Tree

Repairing the Brown database of mushroom imagery in Christian art 

Brown’s database scope is only {mushroom} imagery.

That’s like judging a single instance of mushroom imagery but failing to take into account the entire image or set of images or genre.

The database and analyses:

  • Must include analysis that sweeps across a given set of images.
  • Must sweep across 4 motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Multiple imagery within the image or set of images: do not analyze (read: dismiss) the 1 mushroom-tree in Bernward Door without also analyzing the 4 mushroom-trees in Bernward Column (the 4 are each covered in Conjuring Eden article).

Andy Letcher book Shroom written 2005 doesn’t cite that 2001 article Conjuring Eden – so he’s underequipped and ignorant, underinformed, unprepared to debate mushroom imagery in Christian art.

afaik, that Bern Door instance is the only instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art that’s considered by Letcher in 2006 book Shroom, even though the book is a critique of the claim that Europe/ England has a history of considering mushrooms as inducing religious experiencing.

Huggins’ article has 100 times as much attention on the specific claim of mushroom imagery in Christian art claim than Letcher’s book.

Similarly, Hatsis’ book is disappointing how little attention and how few instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art he treats.  If you include his 5 vanished articles, there’s enough images for a gallery, which I created.

I expected Letcher and Hatsis to use this avoidance strategy.  

Huggins is superior: he doesn’t do an avoidance strategy (other than refusing to cite Brown 2019 as source of Panofsky letters & Brinc citation, and help us check the Panofsky articles in drawer whatever at Harvard).

Huggins avoids Great Canterbury Psalter other than staying near the 6 Days of Creation image, as he claims he will do in the subtitle “test case”.

It’s annoying to pay $ for Hatsis book Psych Mystery Tradn (I had only Kindle, now have real paperback), only to read the verbose abstract claim “my method is superior … for proof, see my articles somewhere on the web” — 

and now Hatsis’ site has been down, making that passage extra-unscholarly.  

Instead of giving us good methodology = citations and summaries in the book, Hatsis treats his own articles like they are low-value (Academia.edu Hatsis?) and says to see them, but doesn’t bother with real citations of his own articles, “slam dunk, tried and true proofs of the 5 classes of errors committed by those who are asserting Secret Christian Amanita Cult” – what a mess of seriousness claims and lackadaisical execution.

Now that I have Hatsis’ book I can review the badness, and count:  Good useful question:

Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Examine Only a Few Pieces of the Evidence

How many instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art are shown or treated in:

* Letcher Shroom 2005-2007 — 1?

* Hatsis Psych Mystery Tradns 2018 — 3?

* Huggins “Foraging Wrong: A Test Case” 2024 — 8?

* Hoffman “Branching-message mushroom trees” 2023-2025 — 35?

Subtitle “A test case” signals that limited instances will be considered.  

Brown database reduces commitment required and price-of-entry, price-to-play:

You don’t have to write article; just contribute to the database of images & comments.  

How can we officially scope the Brown “Psychedelic Gospels” database/catalog not just to mushroom imagery in Christian art — and avoid treating only in isolation each instance –, but a degree broader: to {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs?

Eadwine Great Canterbury Psalter is not a set of isolated mushroom-trees; is the The Eadwine System, eg in full image f11 including 6 Days of Creation & Eden, the Tree of Know detailed cap has grid of Lip Caps that each have L & R arm, and that affects – as even Huggins mentions even more than Ruck.

Huggins claims that Ruck makes an argument of similarity based on details in several of these mushroom-trees but Ruck is NOT as detailed as Hug claims – Huggins shows aptitude at id’ing mushroom-trees.

I have a sense/premonition of Huggins becoming increasingly anxious as he delves deeper and deeper into the mushroom forest, 

“These aren’t mushrooms, these aren’t mushrooms!” — desperation increasing as they become more, and more, and more mushroom-like after he punches through the wall barrier that’s the few few pages of Great Canterbury Psalter.  

Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article claims to use Great Canterbury Psalter as test case, yet he never makes it past the first pages except he makes vague claims of counts of how many trees have which type of branching (under cap vs larger scale).  

Huggins seems more intelligent than Hatsis, more likely to be able to learn & change views.

The Brown database catalog of Psychedelic Gospels mushroom imagery in Christian art

The Brown database catalog of analysis would have mushrooms as loosely the focus, but not exclusively.

Neither should the catalog/database branch all the way out of all religious art that has a speck of white & red paint per John Rush’s too-easy, too-broad approach/gallery.

It is illegal to write about mushroom-trees without covering the entire set – as far as article or book requirements. 

Most writers are not trying to focus much on whole field of mushroom imagery in Christian art, but they wish they could treat:

  • only a single isolated instance (Letcher 2006), 
  • a few isolated instances (Hatsis ~2013 articles + PMT book 2018), or 
  • around 7 instances within a single work (Huggins 2024, + Dancing Man in 2021 Dizzy article [only Dancing Man??]).

Inadvertent contributions of evidence from deniers

I am proving you wrong about this 1 mushroom-tree purposefully meaning mushroom imagery, by calling you ignorant and showing multiple other comparable mushroom-trees.  Following the Panofsky move.

“Plainc can’t be mushroom b/c there are hundreds of other instances of mushroom-trees.  Therefore can’t be mushroom.”

Dizzy article: “Dancing Man can’t be mushroom, b/c there are various other mushroom-tree images similar to it.”

I ironically created page titled “Gallery of evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art provided by Hatsis”:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/06/29/hatsis-gallery-of-mushroom-imagery-in-christian-art/

Thanks for the additional galleries of evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art, deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Now I’m extra glad I copied/extracted Hatsis’ gallery, bc his sites are down!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Perhaps also handedness (combined with branching), as human has left hand raised with fingers spread open [=branching], right hand down with perhaps single finger extended [=non-branching].

/ end of reply to Cyberdisciple about graffiti

Mushroom-Driven Motif Sequence Order

mushrooms

the most important — and only — motif we are looking for

branching especially non no non-branching possibility control embedded snake carved rock altar of transformation immature (mortal, temporary, passing, transient) to mature form

FINAL FORM, IMPERISABLE

IMMORTAL FORM

those who are in the final form, of eternalism-thinking, using qualified possibilism-thinking – always using, always qualified in relation 2-level the transcendent control system helpless local thorugh thought receivier and uncontrolable thought-source inserter of control thoughts revealed when brought to the Eucharist of mental worldmodel transformation

Thje kein kind of transformation that counts is via Psil only , spec’ly, lit’ly, exclvly.

Say no to non-drug entheogens.

non-drug psychedelics

section for e davis

Ruck & Hane are pedalling non-drug psychedelics.

Panofsky 1952 & Huggins 2024 say not purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art bc has branches.
[branches often like mushroom]

These can’t mean mushrooms, b/c they have branches. thats actually a good summary of Huggins argument…

Huggins’ only argument: mushroom-trees can’t purposefully mean mushrooms, because they have branches

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#day-4 —

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 2 right creation day 4 plants.jpg” 91 KB [8:08 pm Jan. 4, 2025]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom#

Plant 1: Liberty Cap. Grid Crown Lib Caps with L & R arms branching equiv pointing at V compass like Y

image: mystic andro gyne holding rebis holding a Y where the heck should i get it? do i have alchemy page?

Plant 1:

Plant 1:

Plant 4:

Huggins’ argument in 7 words: mushroom-tree branches so tree not mushroom

Mushroom-trees are trees, not mushrooms, because branches.

Huggins Is Silent About Identifying the Four Plants in Day 4

Research done; see above, find “four” re: Day Four or Fourth Day.

Huggins says nothing about whats in the bowls of the balance scale, obv mushrooms.

no way to prove that way no way way impossible

It’s possible and it is proved, if artist WANT to signal to confirm the theme of {branching}, {mushrooms}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#Fourth-Day-of-Creation-Plants
Me Dec. 2020 re: YYII Lib Cub Pan Ama [correct?] 95% certain from mem of image. Blue Is Two, right? mem: tan w grid cap of lib caps; blue same;

Day 4’s Four Plants: Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama; Y Y I I ie Branching = Compass = Left, Non-Branching = Balance = Right

Crop by Michael Hoffman

HUGGINS GOES SILENT RE DAY 4 PLANTID’N

These can’t mean mushrooms, b/c they have branches.

ok, i got that glad mention branches

fav topic especially R type of branch feature

Funniest part of Foraging Wrong Article: Huggins Out-Mushrooms Brown

Ironic: Huggins does a better job of ID’ing Day 3 Plant 2 than Brown & Brown! That’s the funniest part of Foraging Wrong.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Browns say Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 3 of Creation: Creation of Plants, Plant 2 of 4, is Panaeolus – yet the plant has a grid of Liberty Caps in its cap.

I proved that a grid of Liberty Caps in the cap is equivalent to (two rows below it) Tree of Knowledge’s grid in its cap detailed showing that each small Lib Cap tree has L & R arm, like the big-scale set of 4 trees.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman

In Day 3, each of the 4 plants has a L & R arm — except Plant 3 blue special 1-arm 💪🌳.

In 2020 I wrote, and in 2024 Huggins wrote, obviously Plant 2 is Lib Cap.

x2 penalty lost oportunity by Brown and also Brown – x4 penalty for book then they repeat in article.

Identification of Day 3 Plant 2: Liberty Cap, not Panaeolous

The weak identification by Brown 2016 as Panaeolous is better than Rue(!) Arthur 2000. Its Liberty Cap in the Eadwine System

(Is that the first time that I wrote the phrase “The Eadwine System”? It’s possible to confirm: find in site.)

The Eadwine System: {branching}, {mushrooms}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs

The Eadwine System: {branching}, {mushroom}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs

The Eadwine System: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

The Eadwine System of Imagery: {branching}, {mushrooms}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs; the Mytheme theory, incl {mushroom hem} & {phallic garment}

the mytheme theory the Egodeath theory the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

Day 3: Plant 2 Great Canterbury Psalter

Plant 2 ID’n Day 3 Great Canterbury Psalter

stability motifs ({scales, tower, building, threatened, unfurrowed brow})

leveraging branching

branching

mushrooms

state of debate

The telling, backwards order of identifying the Four Plants in Day 3 Image

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/18/the-six-days-of-creation-in-great-canterbury-psalter/#The-Image

Brown (2016/2019) follows Arthur (2000), starting on the right of the set of 4 plants in “Day 3: Creation of Plants”, they start from the Right, because Amanita is there.

Huggins 2024 like me in Dec 2020 normalizes the order of ID’n Day 3: Plant 1 to 4: identifying the 4 plants starting from the Left, not starting from the right.

On the right is our Sacred Beloved All-Potent Amanita, our solid ground of reference for the Secret Amanita paradigm.

An interesting, revealing bias:

Mushroom-tree affirmers show their hand, reveal their religion, by always starting with (The Scholars’ Holy Mushroom) Amanita, going so far as to count backwards and read in reverse, to always start with Amanita.

Amanita — mythic Amanita or do you mean actual amanita, which one are we talk ?

Golden Calf Shrine to the God Amanita the False Idol of the Entheogen Scholars

the Idol of entheogen scholarship is Amanita is

exoteric esotericism

kiddie “msyticism”

newbie lite

Avoid gate interesting guarded shadow dragon monster attractor revealed under the hood, the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts frozen in rock single future

{dead king hanging from tree branch}

king on donkey hung on branch of tree

dead king hung from tree branch

dead king on tree branch

dead king in tree

king steering in tree

king in tree

Avoid the gate guarded by shadow dragon monster attractor revealed under the hood

the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts

unless you want to toke the 12 “uses” of hemp per Bennett instead of

The Mushroom

Low Mythic vs. High Mythic

theres a low and hi version of everything

pop vulgar and the true esoteric

low eso high eso

low perennialism hi pere’ism

Mythic-Plane Ergot vs. Actual Ergot

The Word ‘Perennialism’ Is Meaningless Because a Wildcard, Bogeyman Word: Are You Guilty of Perennialism? That’s as Bad as Religionism!

But Here’s 10 Ways Its Wrong and Directly incompatible death match

Mutually Exclusive Death Match: Either the Egodeath Theory is True, or Perennialism/ Common-Core Mystic Experiencing Is True

Either the Egodeath theory or common-core mysticism [read: Staceanism]

It sounds like much pushback against MEQ, LOTS PPL ASKING QUESTIONS

Charles Stang asks: Your “mysticism” is baloney and contradicts everyone.

Griftiths to Stang in video interview at Harvard site:

scholar quote hall of shame worthy ?

“Yes, we use a POSITIVE-BALANCED MODEL OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE. But we made the CEQ, so all is hunky dory in Negativeland!“

Griffiths’ Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) is part of PSYCHEDELIC PSEUDO SCIENCE – added on awkwardly to the pile of closed pseudo science.

Studerus’ articles serve to obscure WHY 11 factors ICC & ANX & shadow Factor 13, who decided which of OAV A q’s to go in which category or none?

Why the intense focus on factors ICC ANX and ignore the other 8 of 21 Chall Angst items from A of OAV by Dittrich?

Why Does CEQ Go Through the Intermediary, 11-Factors q’air by Stuperus, Instead of Drawing Initial Pool Items from OAV’s A 1994

so respectful of breadth of effect “item 54: i was afraid to lose my self control”

filtered trashily through – ITS NOT EVEN OAV BY DITT –

IT IS THE INTERFERING 11-FACTORS WHY?

WHY DRAW FROM ICC & ANX, IGNORING 8 OF 13 UNPLEASANT EFFECTS, WHY MESS AROUND W/ 111 FACTORS – MARKETING??

WHY NOT GO STRAIGHT TO OAV 1994 – THE ANGST DIMENSION OF 21 ITEMS.

WHY INTRODUCE AS AN INTERMEDIATE, 11 Factors?

What’s to be gained –

Why does CEQ article say they drew THROUGH 11 factors – A reducing subset!

IF YOU only look at the marketed Factors, IGNORE THE MAGIC TRICK INDIRECTION OF ATTENTION:

Shadow Factor 13, items too broadly negative that they cannot cleanly fit in ANX or ICC, Anxiety and Impaired Control and Cognition [lame factors by the “C” TEAM

They put their worst DESIGNER OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS CATEGORIEZATION outline – THE LOWEST PRIORITY IN the 11-Factors project, assign the C team to awkwardly categorize mere negative effects of Psil.

The poorly outlined items in the Studerus Unpleaseant high-level dimension.

THE LOWER QUALITY FACTORS ARE IN THE “Unpleasant” set of 21 items in high-level dimension Unpleasant Experiences.

STUDERUS

STUPERUS 11 FACTORS q’air doesn’t even have a NAME!

wtf is the name of 11 Factors q-air?

It’s the greatest ever – yet has no name.

Joke!! what a joke, psychedelic pseudo science.

psychedelic pre-existence

block-universe determinism

Our positive-balanced or rather Grief-balanced model of failed non-pleasand non-mystical experiences”

CHALLENGING THEREFORE NON-MYSTICAL

THE “NEGATIVE THEREFORE NON-MYSTICAL” FALLACY

Unpleasant Therefore Unmystical

Studerus p. 1, 11-Factors article: they enthuse about SCIENCE BASIS STACE 1960 model of mystical experiencing.

Stacean experiencing.

That article doesn’t explain 11-Factors or even give its name of the q’air the 11-Factors q’air

Griffin “We got the superset of challenging experiences about ordinary-state Grief therapy, a tiny subset of the superset of chall Psil fx.

They’re Mutually Exclusive: Either the Egodeath theory or perennialism: only one may live.

100% incompatible, incommensurable; two utterly incomprehensible mut excl BINARY CHOice:

either perennialism, or the Egodeath theory

either common core mysticism, or the Egodeath theory

Don’t even THINK of calling the Egodeath theory “a version of a form of a type of common core mysticism a form of pereenialism” – i know word so well it means nothing.

The Sacred Fungi ergot my MYTHIC-PLANE “ERGOT” treated as if in make-believe land ergot = Eucharist

Aman The universal point of reference, symbol, paradigm of everything tell everyone about the Secret Amanita paradigm

But mushroom-tree deniers (Huggins) sensibly start from the left, regardless of whether (our Holy Beloved Savior God) Amanita is on L or R.

Brown didn’t originate starting from the right (w/ Amanita, in Day 3 image); he copied James Arthur, who went R to L.

Huggins and everyone forgets that Arthur is not trying to identify 4 plants as 4 mushrooms; he’s doing a completely different project: attempting to read a 5-plant SOMA recipe, thus the wildly far-off identifications –

if you think MY classifications, if you think the image doesn’t look extremely like MY 4 mushroom types, my solution is a perfect match, compared to James Arthur’s WAY-off identifications.

I looked at a poppy capsule, and looked at the Day 3: left plant 1: NO resemblance.

I looked at photos of Syrian Rue, and looked at Day 3: Plant 2: NO resemblance.

Brown Database and the Gradual Improvement of Assessments of mushroom imagery in Christian art

The improving proposals – confirming Brown’s call for a database – GOOD idea, effective — to ID the 4 plants in Day 3

Outcome of Hugs’ article: it’s proof that Brown is right, need to have a database of art, not nasty back-and-forth articles that are very hard to follow.

Huggins would have to grant that our identifications of the 4 plants are getting much closer to botany:

2000: James Arthur: Poppy, S Rue, Psil, Aman.

FAR from a match. And “Psil” is vague.

2016: Brown: Psil, Pana, Psil, Aman.

I took great note, that Huggins was as surprised as me: why does Brown not say 2nd plant is Lib Cap??

Huggins is kind of on the path to correct recognition, HE IS CONVERTABLE to affirmer??

2020: M S Hoffman: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.

These are rock-solid, sufficient, highly coherent, consistent matches, especially considered as a coherent set of classes.

I’m the first to really identify the 4 types specifically, in Day 4 as well (Lib Cub Pan Ama).

branching-message mushroom trees:
{branching}, {mushrooms}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

{branching}, {mushrooms}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs

The Egodeath Theory Against Perennialism

No, the Egodeath theory is not a version of Perennialsm

Perennialism is WRONG, because it’s not the Egodeath theory. 😑

The Control-Transformation Gate into Psychedelic Eternalismland

The Transformation Gate into Psilocybin Eternalismland

What passes for mysticism is to not the real-deal transformation gate, the only gate that counts: the Psilocybin gate into Psilocybin Eternalismland.

Can You Pass the Eternalism Control Analogy Test?

PASS THROUGH THE CONTROL TRANSFORMATION GATE TO PSILOCYBIN ETERNALISM CLEAN IMMORTAL MATURE FORM

-according to the most best standard, Psilocybin, towering over non-drug meditation,

the traditional methods of the mystics construct from academic theory and parrotting memes

The Egodeath Theory Against Perennialism (2)

The PERENNIAL TRADITION OF GARBLED CONFUSION FOISTED AS STACEAN “MYSTICISM”, expressed cloaked as SECRET HIDDEN myth on a mythic foundation to interpret.

The tradition of revealing how to avoid transformation by avoiding Psilocybin gate.

Actual traditional methods of the mystics might be Charles Stang’s area.

Exclusively, literally, specifically Psilocybin, none other.


Jesus I Am the Only Way means specifically Psilocybin eternalism; psychedelic eternalism.
not non-drug meditation
not non drug contemplation
not non-drug entheogens
not bunk breathing
not Amanita (whether real or mythic-realm)
not “can could might may” cause the Psilocybin state

The Next Step for Scholars Perversely Redefining ‘Entheogen’: per Ruck & Hanegraaff, Everything Is Entheogenic (Except for Perhaps Psychedelics)

Exactly directly counter the Ruck/ Hane claim “everything is an entheogen, except maybe psychedelic chemicals”

The Theory guards against cheapening ‘entheogens’ to mean anything at all that “can could might may” cause Psil fx/state.

Non-Psilocybin methods attempts claims: they cause 1 thing: AVOIDANCE OF PSILO because only Psil brings the gate and through to Psilo Eternalism Land w dependent, 2-level control.

The mind always relies on possibilism-thinking, now qualified possibilism-thinking all the time. Harm not the youth, egoic donkey ridden.

Smart donkey lifts left leg relies on right foot for Jesus right foot touching donkey right leg on ground.

The Egodeath theory Against Common Core Mysticism

Pop Low-Dose Staceanism but Stay Well Away from Gate Guard Shadow Dragon Monster

Why Perennialism Is Wrong and False and Reject

The Egodeath theory is Against Perennialsm Wildcard, Reject and Disprove “Common Core Mysticism” actually “Common Fabricated Staceanism”

Moses at Burning Bush (Canterbury Psalter)

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f13 row 2 middle burning bush.jpg” 178 KB 9:39 pm Jan. 26, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f13.item.zoom#

[6:53 pm Jan. 26, 2025]

This mushroom-tree clearly confirms common mapping:
L branch of mushroom-tree = L arm/foot/limb/leg/elbow
R branch of mushroom-tree = R arm/foot/limb/leg/elbow

[9:43 pm Jan. 26, 2025] Angel right wing touch hat, moses left hand touch hat (contradicting).

Row 2 middle – Moses at burning bush – features:

  • Angel’s R elbow touches top of flames.
  • Moses’ Left elbow touches flames. {fire} means cybernetic contradiction destructive of egoic thinking/ the egoic control system. Confirms my long-term hypoth re: burning bush: burning away the branching. Only 1 route in the tree/bush is immortal/ true, in a tree; the other branch paths are illusory.
  • Moses weight on L foot (bad), R leg bent = lifted.
    • Right hand is near above the serpent-staff. snake = non-branching = R mapping usually.
  • R arm of mushroom-tree touches Moses’ R arm.
  • L arm of mushroom-tree touches L foot of ram.
  • The rams who face God have weight on R feet, L feet lifted.
    • The rams face away from God have weight on L feet, R feet lifted.
    • Back legs match front, of rams.

 2022 (day of discovery of Cut Right Trunk). https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image_13deda52-0d24-4831-a23e-99b6c32904c7.img_8645.jpg

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Right fingers splayed (branching)

R hand on head <– my emp. here; contrast Moses at Burning Bush

L hand holds removed branch

Weight on R foot, R heel touching cut right trunk. Moses weight on L foot.

‘Perennialism’, ‘Mystical Experience’, ‘Sacred Fungi’, and other Useless Wildcard Terms That Aren’t in the Controlled Egodeath Lexicon

Expanding the forbidden word list:

  • perennialism
  • mystical experience
  • common-core mystic experiencing
  • sacred fungi
  • naturalism
  • ego dissolution
  • neuroplasticity
  • unity
  • default mode network

Dumb brainless terms substituting for comprehension. We don’t have a theory, so we’ll throw around some terms as if that’s a theory, in this crude, pre-Science phase.

See also:

Article title:
Rejecting Confused, Unhelpful Explanatory Constructs: Naturalism, Ego Dissolution, Neuroplasticity, Unity, Default Mode Network
Section heading:
Irony: All Scientific Questionnaires on Philosophy Positions Forcefully Default to Possibilism
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/rejecting-confused-unhelpful-explanatory-constructs-naturalism-ego-dissolution-neuroplasticity-unity-default-mode-network/#Default-to-Possibilism

Egodeath Glossary; Core Concepts catalog:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/17/glossary-for-the-egodeath-theory/

Succinct explanation of why it’s not practicable to agree that “the Egodeath theory is a form of perennialism” or “common core mysticism”:

because the word ‘perennialism’ is a wildcard.

ie ambiguous and used in fluctuating ways.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Egodeath-Theory-Cant-Be-Called-Perennialism

Similarly, article, re: ‘mysticism’, Find “ambig”, 4 hits:

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein
2024
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars

One of the sections about that article in the present Idea Development page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#How-to-End-the-Mysticism-Wars

1/4:

“The primary confusion is that G&E’s phrase “the mystical” (like S&Z’s term “mysticism”) is ambiguous. 

“First, this phrase could simply refer to mystical (type) experiences— .. … no serious doubt that people really have experiences
of this kind. 

“On the other hand, “the mystical” could refer to … mystical realities such as a cosmic consciousness or ground of being.

[newage claptrap woo: “the crystalline ground of being” per 1988 Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence] 

“Under this second reading, to grant the existence of mystical experiences is to grant the existence of mystical realities.”

2/4 & 3/4:

“The problem here is that the phrase “the mystical” is ambiguous, and whichever way we disambiguate it, one of the premises of the above argument turns out to be false.”

4/4:

“S&Z [Sanders & Zijlmans] exemplify this idea when they claim that “psychedelic science has not made a concerted effort to supersede Stace’s mystical consciousness concept with an alternative rooted in empirical data and an unambiguously secular framework”;41 

“a similar concern can be seen in Mousourinjohn[sic] et al.’s remarks about linking constructs such as mystical-type experience to underlying neurobiology.”

78. Mosurinjohn et al., “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences”, 6–7. – i just now printed it out.

Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science
(Sanders & Zijlmans, May 2021)

my page title:
Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/

Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)

Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique
(Mosurinjohn 2023)
Sharday Mosurinjohn1, Leor Roseman2, Manesh Girn3
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1077311/full
REVIEW article
Frontiers in Psychiatry, 04 April 2023
Sec. Psychopharmacology
Volume 14 – 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1077311 —

  • 1School of Religion, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
  • 2Department of Brain Sciences, Centre for Psychedelic Research, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 3Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Cognitive –> 🗑

Web search:
Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences Mosurinjohn
https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychedelic-induced+mystical+experiences+Mosurinjohn

“This article is part of the Research Topic:
Down the rabbit hole – the psychological [cognitive phen’y?] and neural mechanisms of psychedelic compounds and their use in treating mental health and medical conditions” View all 14 articles

Abstract:

“Contemporary research on serotonergic psychedelic compounds has been rife with references to so-called ‘mystical’ subjective effects.

“Several psychometric assessments [q’airs] have been used to assess such effects, and clinical studies have found quantitative associations between ‘mystical experiences’ and positive mental health outcomes.

“The nascent study of psychedelic-induced mystical experiences, however, has only minimally intersected with relevant contemporary scholarship from disciplines within the social sciences and humanities, such as religious studies and anthropology.”

That Abstract continues below.

todo: copy the rest of Abstract from below to here

Define ‘duplicitous’: Two-Faced Liar, eg: Wasson Censors Panofsky’s Brinckmann Citation in the Same Paragraph as Chastising Mycologists for Failing to “Consult” Art Historians 🤥👖🔥

The NERVE & Audacity of Wasson Writing “the mycologists have refrained from consulting the art world” at the Very Same Time as Replacing the Strongly Recommended Brinckmann Citation by Ellipses🤥👖🔥. . . .🔍🧐🤔🤨😡 Charlatan!

https://www.google.com/search?q=duplicitous —

“Duplicitous means intentionally misleading people, often by saying different things to different people. For example, you might describe someone as duplicitous if they lie to serve their own agenda.”

Synonyms
deceitful, two-faced, double-dealing, fraudulent, dishonest, and crooked.

Examples
“They were accused of duplicity in their dealings with both sides”. [art historians and mycologists]
“His duplicity, or deceitfulness, was obvious from the cement caking his shoes”.
[from comparing Wasson’s ellipses in SOMA 1968 (and conjoined chastising for failing to “consult”) vs. Panofsky’s 1952 letters published by Brown in 2019]
Origin
The word duplicitous comes from the Latin word duplicitās, which means “double” or “twofold“.

DUPLICITOUS Definition & Meaning – Dictionary.com
What does duplicitous mean? Duplicitous is used to describe someone who intentionally misleads people, especially by saying differ…

Dictionary.com
Duplicity Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
5 days ago — The idea of doubleness is at the core of duplicity and duplicitous. Duplicity is the older of the pair; it comes from a …

Merriam-Webster
Duplicity – Definition, Meaning & Synonyms – Vocabulary.com
Other forms: duplicities. Though he said he didn’t know anything about the footprints in the new sidewalk, his duplicity, or decei…

Vocabulary.com
DUPLICITOUS Synonyms: 58 Similar and Opposite Words
5 days ago — adjective. du̇-ˈpli-sə-təs. Definition of duplicitous. as in deceptive. given to or marked by cheating and deception warn…

Merriam-Webster
Word of the Day – duplicitous – Dictionary.com
Nov 9, 2020 — More about duplicitous “Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is the man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks anot…

Dictionary.com
DUPLICITY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
dishonest talk or behavior, especially by saying different things to two people”

/ end of dictionaries for robots

Gordon 🤥👖🔥 Wasson, The Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology

Panofsky, twice: “Be SURE to see Brinck’s little 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings, and here’s two mushroom-trees.”
Yet Wasson, while hiding the Brinckmann citations and Panofsky’s letters etc. for 34 years, wrote repeatedly: “You ignorant, blundering mycologists under a misapprehension, failed to CONSULT the art historians.”

Wasson ACTIVELY deceived everyone by keeping secret some 5 things from Panofsky, from 1952-1986 = 34 years, at the same time as repeating the same put-on/bluff, in both private and public communications.

A life of committed, long-term deception. A committed liar and cover-up operator.

That Abstract of “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)”, above, sounds like lying deceiver con-artist 🤥👖🔥 Wasson bluffing:

“Mycologists are just ignorant of the massive scholarly conversations by expert art historians who have thoroughly scholarshipped about mushroom-trees.

“This is an instance of failure of communication, by failure of mycologists to crawl their on knees begging the art authorities to enlighten them and relieve them of their blundering misimpression.”

👆 jerk Wasson, The Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology —

To get your dues, top mycologist John Ramsbottom in 1953 ought to re-publish his new book quoting your Dec. 1953 letter to him, “Rightly or wrongly, we are committed skeptics and are going to reject Plaincourault and all mushroom-trees.“

And Brown ought to publish the TWO Panofsky letters which you hid and censored and play-acted to deceive everyone – duplicitous, dishonest scoundrel, liar, con artist, phony, fraud, deceiver, pretender, anti-scholarship scumbag.

And you still owe us the two Panofsky mushroom-tree art pieces.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-9 – “Please keep my poor little pictures as long as you wish.”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7 — “Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”

The art historians’ “mushroom-like shapes” don’t really look like mushrooms (Huggins)

Huggins in Foraging Wrong article: “the art historians’ mushroom-like shapes don’t really look like mushrooms”. Copypaste exact two quotes:

“Ironically, none of the four plants really resembles the mushrooms the Browns have identified them with.”

Brown hardly identified the four mushrooms; merely wrote Psil, Pan, Psil, Aman — mine is a REAL, specific, balanced, real-world mushroom-hunting relevant, classification identification: Pan, Lib, Cub, Aman.

I’ll gladly argue against Huggins:

Day 4 four plants do look like Pan, Lib, Cub, & Aman.

Do not inappropriately judge Medieval art as if realism; on any other topic hypocrite Huggins would agree that there’s flexibility in style in non-realism art.

It’s special pleading that in the topic of mushroom imagery, only, these plants that art historians describe as “look like mushrooms” now per Hugs “don’t REALLY look like mushrooms”.

The first plant looks like Panaeolus.

The 2nd plant looks like Liberty Cap, re: certain features, aspects, imagery;

Plant 3 looks like Cubensis’ traits, AND

Plant 4 looks like Amanita re: its contrasted traits, ALSO:

The set of 4 plants looks like a coherently stylized match with 3 species, Pan Lib Cub Ama, EASILY WELL within the range of non-realism stylization.

If Day 4 plant 3 isn’t “really” looking like mushroom, this is extreme committed skepticism and NO MUSHROOM IMAGERY COULD EVER BE BOTANICALLY PERFECT ENOUGH TO SATISFY DENIERS.

In f11 entire image, the whole set & system of mushroom imagery in f11 CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRAL WHOLE IMAGE is an extremely strong indicator of purposeful mushroom imagery.

MY INTUITIVE SENSE of increasing unease by the best denier, Huggins: HUGS IS GOING FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THE FOREST of Mushrooms, claiming “there are no mushrooms in this forest” – and he’s seeing more, and more, and more indications that there are overwhelming mushrooms imagery in Great Canterbury Psalter – which he refrains from looking at past page 6.

Hugs writes of Day 3: “None of the plants really resemble the mushrooms with which the PMTs want to identify them.”

Hey Huggins, do your art historians describe these as pilzbaum?

What they hell do you mean by “None of the plants really resemble the mushrooms” – a mighty hollow, empty, nonsensical, meaningless claim, given that your art historians classify these as “trees that resemble mushrooms“.

Error by Hugs: it is not true that James Arthur identifies these 4 plants as mushrooms: he instead tries to make a 5-plant recipe for Soma. The only other people to semi-try to ID them is Brown & Brown, vaguely, as mushrooms (psil, Pan, psil, Aman).

STRATEGY: APPLY HUGS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE MUSHROOMS IN GRID OF PLANT 2 , TO INSTEAD, GRID IN TREE OF KNOW: below, I’m trying to set up to do that.

Hug cites 1st Ed of Rush i don’t have here. i have 2nd Ed: see pp. 220-223 about Great Canterbury Psalter f11.

I can barely follow Rush’s format and points – it’s hard for everyone to follow what Rush is asserting, about which picture. I admire Rush’s extreme assertive readings, but seems like he floats off disconnected – can’t even tell which picture he’s making claims about.

Rush’s separate gallery is a disaster now, catastrophic failure, since his site died. I think the DVD for 1st Ed has same numbering, usable w/ 2nd Ed i hope. I have DVD. Archive.org lacks gallery, from what I’ve seen.

Hug writes:

[In GCP Day 3] The Browns identify … the second [plant], as a psilocybin-containing mushroom called Panaeolis, because of “the color, shape, and fringes of the eight tiny mushroom images embedded in the cap.”49

49 Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 138. The Browns note that others have identified this plant as a Syrian rue (Peganum harmala) pod, but insist that “careful inspection reveals that it bears no resemblance.” This contra Arthur, Mushrooms and Mankind, 79, followed by Irvin / Raujit, Astrotheology & Shamanism, 177. Ironically, none of the four plants really resembles the
mushrooms the Browns have identified them with.”

so, Hug’s “really resembles” , in context, is meant as a rebuttal against Brown saying that against James ARthur, plant 2 bears no resemblance to Rue (I strongly agree; but look at the STRONG “no resemblance” which Brown truly points out, vs the WEAK Hug wording – “plant doesnt’ REALLY resemble”. This is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY fallacy. Actually:

  • Plant 2 looks NOTHING like Rue.
  • Plant 2 looks VERY MUCH like features of Liberty Cap

Brown wrongly — as Hug points out – ID’s it as “Pan”. Hug in 2024, like me on Dec. 13, 2020 https://egodeaththeory.org/idea-development-page-7/#Cropped-Zoomed-4-Plants, wonders why Brown didn’t ID plant 2 as Lib.

My Dec. 13, 2020 id’n “Panaeolina” was mixed with “Panaeolus” in Idea Development page 7. Stamets’ book PMotW p. 67 shows that the two words are closely related (details are complicated), and practically equivalent re: id’g the 4 plants in Day 3 & Day 4.

Huggins Agrees with Me That Brown Is Nuts to Identify Plant 2 as Pan instead of Lib

Notice that this identification is not based on the shape of the plant’s actual crown (foliage head), which is round, but on the pattern on the crown, which could as easily be described as tiny trees or parasols as mushrooms.50

“50 Interestingly the Browns did not seize upon the little dots at the peaks of these trees/parasols to identify the mushroom instead as P. semilanceata which has nipple-like papillae at the top of their caps.

“Depictions of trees with little balls on top were quite common throughout our period, see, e.g.,
Physiologus Bernensis, Cod. 318, fol. 9v (9th cent.);
Morgan Library, MS M.728, fol. 11v (c. 860);
BL, Harley, MS 2821, fol. 16r (11th cent.);
Uta Codex, 89v (11th cent.);
Codex Aurelius of Echternach, fol. 52v (11th cent.);
MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 14r (13th cent); and the
Bernward Doors (11th cent.) in Hildesheim Germany.”

“Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples further claim that this plant [Day 4 Plant 2] is the same as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because its crown displays the same pattern.51″ “51 Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 32.”

Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity (= 2nd Ed.)
2022. pp. 220-223. John Rush.

That footnote is re: the 4 plants in Day 3. Huggins notes that Ruck notes that 2 rows below it, Eat Tree of Knowledge, the cap is “same pattern”, but in fact, Tree of Know has FAR MORE DETAIL ie the two artms of every inner trieee i in the cap grid. See pinned images above: compare grid-cap of plant 2 in Day 3:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#4-plants-progression-pinned
vs. the image below it, the grid-cap of Tree of Knowsis: [5:31 pm Jan. 26, 2025] – they are same, but more detail! SO TREE OF KNOW IN F11 FITS THE “OPEN BOOK” CLAIM OF DAY 4.

Hug writes:

“Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples further claim that this plant [Day 4 Plant 2] is the same as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because its crown displays the same pattern.51″ “51 Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 32.”

ERROR Huggins is wrong, over-specific: p. 32 of ConjEden does NOT argue based on …. they do not write “this plant”, they are not focusing on Plant 2, and they do NOT argue “because its crown displays the same pattern.” Page 32 has none of that reasoning, but has Ruck’s elastic poetry, that “the same tree”(? there are multiple trees) appears in this and that panel, but Ruck does not focus on Day 3 Plant 2 and the detail in the cap – Brown does mention grid cap of Day 3. Hug might be jumbling several authors’ discussions/args.

Partial truth; define “same pattern”. Tree of Know – BELOW DAY 3 — has an addl level of detail: that each lib cap in grid has a L & R arm, matching the hi-level form of Day 3 Plant 1 & 2.

image: Day 3 plant 2 in f11: no L & R dots, spots, or arms:

[is there a cap that’s in between w/ 2 red spots? yes… about 5…]

I previously wrote the principle of blurry & clear: given a range of instances of a motif, you can apply the details from the detailed instance, to a blurry instance.

To illustrate more, to expand that principle: you can spread an array of instances from blurry to detailed- all are equivalent.

Day 3 Plant 2 Grid Cap vs. Tree of Know Grid Cap, Which Adds L & R Arms/Branches (vs. Ruck & Huggins Claiming They Have “Same Pattern”)

Crop by Michael Hoffman – f11 row 3 right, tree of knowledge, establishes that a grid of lib caps is understood/ indicated as having two arms, L & R. Often shown as two red dots/spots in other lib cap caps/crowns.\

Spectrum of Grid Caps from Detailed to Blurry

L & R Arms/Branches: Tree of Knowledge Shows Detail That’s Thereby Implied in All Lib Cap Grid Caps

Crop by Michael Hoffman

L & R Spots/Dots, Representing Arms/ Limbs/ Branches According to Tree of Know’s Cap/Crown

Subset that are similar color.

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.

No L or R Spot

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Day 4 Plant 2
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
below cap: cut right branch on left; cut left branch on right; middle is Y – outer is I.
Under cap, morph form: branching form:
I; cut right cross-behind; Y; cut left cross-behind; I
[9:08 pm Jan. 26, 2025]

Under cap, morph form: branching form:
I; cut right cross-behind; Y; cut left cross-behind; I
[9:08 pm Jan. 26, 2025]

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.

Combining Features of Ama, Cub, & Lib (& Tree)

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
imagery: Ama, Lib, Cub
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.

Huggins re: Day 3 Plant 2

Ruck & Huggins do connect Day 3 Plant 2 to Tree of Know, as “same pattern”, but they don’t realize that Tree of Know adds detail: that each Lib Cap in the grid in cap/crown has L & R arm.

Half the Lib Cap caps in Great Canterbury Psalter have a L & R spot below cap, which is explained via Tree of Know to represent L branch & R branch.

quote: from Huggs. Hug was talking about the Day 3 plant 2 instance, but on same page of Psalter, is also the key image, Tree of Know, zoomed to show that the cap’s mushrooms have 2 arms, like the 4 plants in Day 3, which is two rows above it: we could even argue that the below cap is pointing up to the Day 3 4 plants above it.

Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 3 right, tree of knowledge, its cap/crown’s detailed grid of establishes that a grid of lib caps is understood/ indicated as having two arms, L & R. Often shown as two red dots/spots in other lib cap caps/crowns.

Samorini 1997 article “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault” dates chapel 107 years earlier. Note 4. 1184 AD, not 1291. So the glass painting is two centuries later.

Abstract of “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)” continues:

“Viewed from the perspective of these disciplines—which feature rich historical and cultural literatures on mysticism, religion, and related topics—‘mysticism’ as used in psychedelic research is fraught with limitations and intrinsic biases that are seldom acknowledged.”

That Abstract continues below.

A Positive-Balanced Nightmare Trip

🍄😱 –> 🤑💰💸

Griffiths to Stang, in the video interview:

We use a positive-balanced model of mystical experiencing. For negative therefore non-mystical effects, see our positive-balanced negative effects q’air, the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ).

Take any route you want, the so-called “mystical experience” that we give you ends with you caught in our Grief factor therapy treatment. 🍄😱–>🤑💰💸”

Abstract of “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)” con’t:

“Most notably, existing operationalizations of mystical experiences in psychedelic science fail to historicize the concept and therefore fail to acknowledge its perennialist and specifically Christian bias.”

Remember, in our Psychedelic Pseudo Science, the very worst crime you can possibly commit is Christianity.

“Here, we trace the historical genesis of the mystical[??] in psychedelic research in order to illuminate such biases, and also offer suggestions toward more nuanced and culturally-sensitive [ie, delete Christianity] operationalizations of this phenomenon.

“In addition, we argue for the value of, and outline, complementary ‘non-mystical’ approaches to understanding putative mystical-type phenomena that may help facilitate empirical investigation and create linkages to existing neuro-psychological constructs [in this field of science].

“It is our hope that the present paper helps build interdisciplinary bridges that motivate fruitful paths toward stronger theoretical and empirical approaches in the study of psychedelic-induced mystical experiences.”

/ end of Abstract from “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)”

You mean Stacean experiences, not mystical experiences.

That article “Psychedelic-induced mystical experiences: An interdisciplinary discussion and critique (Mosurinjohn 2023)” is cited by the article:
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein
2024
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars
One of the sections about that article in the present Idea Development page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#How-to-End-the-Mysticism-Wars

Sites Down: Psychedelic Effects Index; Hatsis; John Rush

Hatsis Sites

http://psychedelichistorian.com – my page has links that used to work: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/#Hatsis – Hatsis has other social media accounts.
One snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20240511023142/https://psychedelichistorian.com/

https://www.google.com/search?q=thomas+hatsis

Looks like scholar Hatsis has nuked his ~5 articles. Reasons:

  • The articles were too personal and nasty against Jan Irvin.
  • Hatsis is investing in books instead of online articles.
  • Hatsis tries really hard to insult me as web scholar (researcher?), yet Hatsis is a web scholar, publishing at several sites of his.

Bennett called me a researcher.
I think Hatsis at Hancock site article called me a scholar.
But actually, I am a sensitive theorist, working on my work, which no one understands.
https://www.google.com/search?q=king+missile+sensitive+artist

Search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=thomas+hatsis

Josie Kins Sites

https://www.effectindex.com/effects/perception-of-eternalism – 404

https://www.google.com/search?q=josie+kins

John Rush Sites

John Rush clinical anthropology

Search: john rush psychedelic
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+rush+psychedelic

http://clinicalanthropology.com – 404
clinicalanthropology.com – the gallery of not enough mushrooms , unclear images is there, and DVD with 1st Ed of 2011 book vs 2022 online only.

My Redundancy Sites

The present site EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com =
https://egodeaththeory.org

https://egodeath.com

used to have Yahoo Groups url, now at WordPress. https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com

https://washington.academia.edu/MichaelHoffman – Academia.edu – todo: format the present page as a 1000-page journal article:

  • 1997 outline
  • 2007 main article
  • Wasson Plaincourault article (missing a couple citations),
  • Bubble article for zine

Those were all carefully copyedited for publication.

Needs checking and polishing:

  • article for Brown – compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art
  • spinoff article: Proof Great Canterbury Psalter Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter
  • later: branching-message mushroom trees article
  • later: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm – article to re-steer the field; Cyberdisciple outline of it.

Utility purpose of decoding art motifs in branching-message mushroom trees

wrmspirit wrote:

“Regarding the Canterbury motif pattern:

“What readers wonder when reading the Egodeath Theory blog.

“You have found a significant pattern in the motif for experience with psilocybin, which justifies mushrooms in Christian Art.

“How does that help your readers in the experience with psilocybin?

“Is it intended to be helpful?”

“People [eg Thomas Hatsis, James Kent] who are so down to earth and have not made any crucial sense of the mystic altered state, might not be able to see the significance of the motif.”

“The psychologists who assist people in the ‘medicinal ” altered state stay with the patient throughout and guide them with whatever appears.”

“How, specifically, does the Canterbury motif help the reader during experience?

“Is it meant to?”

“Is it specifically to validate mushrooms in Christian art?

“If it is not meant to help with experience in the mystic altered state, is that mentioned?”

Utility purpose of decoding art motifs in {branching-message mushroom trees}

[10:16 am Jan. 26, 2025]

The small reward that the MICA “mushroom imagery in Christian art” debate mistakenly thinks is the big reward:

Proof of purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art – proves that adding Psilocybin to today’s Christianity is NOT an innovation and is not new.

Supports Repeal of the recent (1970) Prohibition.

The bigger reward of recognizing & understanding MICA, mushroom imagery in Christian art, is “the message of the pilzbaum artists” [pilzbaum is too rare of a term to use]

The “message of the mushroom-tree artists”: emphasizing: the message is NOT “mushrooms”.

The “message of the mushroom-tree artists”: the message/takeaway is not “stand on right foot” – that’s just a throwaway intermediate mechanism in visual art communication. 

It is envelope, not message. 

And this genre violates L/R handedness convention / mapping, as much as establishing that convention.

The message of the mushroom-tree artists

The “message of the mushroom-tree artists”: to avoid loss of control [technically: control instability] on Psil., repudiate relying on the branching possibilities model with autonomous control; affirm non-branching possibilities [the block universe “snake in rock” model] with dependent, 2-level control.

The best of the images in the pilzbaum genre [too rare a word]

The best of the images in the “mushroom-trees” art genre teach us now, to have stable control in the Psil state, reject the branching model of control (w/ autonomous control steering), and affirm the non-branching model of control (w/ dependent 2-level control).

The list of 4 motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs 

NOT in order of emphasis/takeaway importance.

Hard to say if that is the ideal sequence for title of article for Journal of Psychedelic Studies.

“mushrooms” comes first in title b/c title of journal.

“branching” motif comes next in the title b/c:

*  biggest emphasis of what ppl haven’t been noticing.

* The biggest objection by the Deniers (Panofsky letter 2 & Huggins Foraging Wrong 2024 article) is “these can’t mean purposefully mean mushrooms, b/c they have problematic branching that “rules out” (Huggins) purposefully meaning mushrooms.

Huggins (ghost of Panofsky) is correct – mushroom-trees do NOT mean mushrooms; they mean a message about branching, more than mushrooms.

Debate: shouldn’t {stability} come before {handedness}, in the title of the article about branching-message mushroom trees?

Handedness (the arb. mapping of the two directions L & R to the two mental models: transformation from possibilism to eternalism) is the least important, most variable part of the message.

Why isn’t the sequence in the title:

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {stability}, and {handedness} motifs 

These two distinct motifs are included within the {mushrooms} motif:

{mushroom hem}, {phallic garment} – latter typically has mushroom hem at its base; like {billowing cloth} in Hellenistic art, {phallic garment} indicates the Psil state; “the power of the holy spirit/pneuma/wind/breath}” such as to propel a boat.

Real Education: Teaching Initiates to {stand on right foot} (non-branching possibility control) to avoid loss of control

Crop by Michael Hoffman – Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 1 Left: classroom teaching to stand on Right foot (non-branching) to avoid loss of control.

Teaching Cubensis Traders {stand on Right foot} to Avoid Loss of Control on Psilocybin

Crop by Michael Hoffman – Great Canterbury Psalter, f145 row 1 Left: teaching cubensis traders stand on R root to avoid loss of control on Psilocybin.

Priorities in the message/takeaway from Medieval art:

1) {stability} motif/message  — {balance scale} + teaching motif (image f145 row 1 L: teaching the blue-mushroom traders) – i think 8 instances of {balance scale} motif in Great Canterbury Psalter.  Often pans filled with mushrooms.

2) {branching} motif/message — reject branching, affirm non-branching, of control steering possibilities.

3) {mushrooms} motif/message; ie we are re-adding and restoring Psil to Christianity, not an innovation.  (3rd priority, not first!  not the main message)

4) {handedness} motif/message; a utility convention mapping L = bad = unstable = branching; R = good = stable = non-branching.

Reading/receiving the message in the art that the artists are sending/transmitting: and being careful to differentiate message vs. mere envelope/ carrier-wave:

To achieve mental transformation in the Psil state and avoid loss of control & transform control to be compatible with the Psil state, reject relying on branching possibilities (& reject autonomous control); affirm non-branching (& affirm 2-level, dependent control).

Summarized at any level of detail / elaboration / condensing:

Be sure to stand on R foot ie use non-branching control, to avoid loss of control.

In modern terms, Relativity & Minkowski spacetime is like snake frozen in rock, superdeterminism.  But the Egodeath theory in no way relies on Physics as a basis; the theory is just drawing a general concept from 1908 Physics: time as 4th dimension; the experience of spacetime block w/ pre-existing SINGLE future.

vs. Quantum Physics particularly the assumption of many worlds branching.  

With no usage of myth, around 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group, I contrasted the two physics models circa 1920 – I characterized them as “branching QM vs non-branching Minkowski block universe”.  Modern people, psychonauts, need to have the concept of moving from a branching worldmodel to a non-branching worldmodel.  My study of Medieval genre of branching-message mushroom trees helps express that distinction and visualize this combination of views:

in the Psil state (loose cognitive association binding):

* branching = loss of control = unstable control = king steering in tree = autonomous control = immature transient model that collapses & is disproved.

* non-branching = stable control / viable control = snake frozen in rock = 2-level, dependent control = mature model that endures the Psil state; final form.

General strategy: two distinct areas of theory:

* core model of mental worldmodel transformation, using no myth, and barely using 1920-era Physics.  Map that to — use analogies from:

* religious myth, including the Medieval art genre of branching-message mushroom trees – to illustrate the above Science-expressed model.

Art is not the basis or foundation of the Egodeath theory; my 1997 outline summary (only a trace of myth analogies) stands on its own without requiring myth or art.

Myth and art are analogies that help explain and illustrate the 1997 non-myth, non-art, core theory.

I am slightly adjusting the expression of the core theory — the theory of psychedelic eternalism — to lend itself well to being illustrated by religious myth including art motifs in the mushroom-trees genre = branching-message mushroom trees.  

To keep the core model separate / distinct from analogies/myth/art, but helpfully map them together, so art helps explain the core theory.

The core theory, illustrated by myth & art (the mytheme theory) is all designed to be as helpful and useful and relevant as possible, to achieve both:

* stability (to endure the alt state) and 

* to gain – not avoid! – the treasure of transformation; to enable going through the gate into the promised land desired zone, “ability to endure & be compatible with the Psilo. loose cognition state”.

/ end of reply

Image Announces It’s an {open book}: Right Mushrooms point to pans; Left Branching grid-cap mushrooms point to V compass

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman , f11
[1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025]
Y Y I I

11:23 pm jan 25 2025 in f11 Day 4, God’s
L hand: V open book,
R hand: fingers pressed together not branching.

This picture is an open book, directly readable.

How do I konw this page is an open book? bc the page tells me so: the 4-mushrooms god says open book , mushrooms pointing to depicted balance scale with golden teacher piled high in each pan

[1049pm jan 25 2025] open book = mushrooms pointing to balance scale pans and also important mushrooms pointing to V Alpha Omga (John Rush) balance scale mushrooms pointed to by

[10:57 pm jan 25 2025] clear – might have said before but felt now: clearly:

The two BRANCHING trees on the Left.
The two NON-BRANCHING trees on the Right.
branching on the left. stability on the right. in scope of: Day 1 + Day 4 paired.

in Day 4 f11 Great Canterbury Psalter Row 2 L.

Both mushrooms pointing to pans is big.

branching grid left mushrooms point to V compass basic branching feature split top of Y

a Y stem and a grid = branching crown cap grid of — per Eat Tree panel’s zoom in — grid of Liberty Caps with left and right arms

  • plant 1 & 2 have grid branching caps pointing to Alpha V branching compass
  • plant 3 & 4 point to balance scales pans in Day 1
  • open book points to balance scales in Day 1
  • held-together fingers pointing to God creator face above in Day 1

Branching-cap Liberty Cap & Cubensis point to branching V compass; non-branching-cap Pan & Ama point to balance scale.

The Egodeath theory is a Closed, Monolithic, Insular, Self-Founded Paradigm

Totally Incommensurable Paradigm

The Best Source of Standards Is Psilocybin

The Best Source of Standards Is Psilocybin Eternalism The Golden Teacher of Righteousness

purpose/point: the Egodeath theory is not accountable to external frameworks of judgment.

The only valid framework for judgment is:

The Egodeath theory sets its own standards and does not agree to be judged by external standards. The gold standard referent of truth is Psil, which causes — can could might may cause mental worldmodel transformation transformation from possibilism to eternalism Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism

literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

psilocybin “teacher of righteousness”

wtf ‘incommensurable’ def’n – that was worth lookup!

‘incommensurable’ defined by Oxford

Oxford lang: incommensurable

not able to be judged by the same standard as something

having no common standard of measurement

“the two types of science are incommensurable”

MATHEMATICS(of numbers) in a ratio that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers.

an incommensurable quantity

/ end Oxford

Crop by Michael Hoffman

A Poor Crop of Mushrooms by Some Especially Ignorant Craftsman

Crop by Some Especially Ignorant Craftsman

Man I do not like this crop, I need better [done].

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-5 – Some especially ignorant craftsman may have misunderstood the mushroom-tree in the prototype as a real mushroom.

Copied good new crop to f134 page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/19/psalter-rows/#Row-3-Middle-Oxen-and-Blue-Vase

Check date on old: how tf did I crop so badly?

The lower left is unthinkable, reject.

The author seems have no sense of sensible crop boundary – seems based on Math instead of intelligence.

Clueless photographer, no comprehension to judge what is a good crop.

The Egodeath Theory Is the Paradigm of Paradigms with Purely Internal-Based Standards of Judgment

The Egodeath theory cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. How much the Egodeath theory is an incommensurable quantity?

To resolve academic mysticism vs the Egodeath theory: throw former in trash, use latter.

The ultimate instance of paradigm:

The Egodeath theory is the paradigmatic instance of a self-founded paradigm that CANNOT be grasped or engaged or critiqued from outside of this all-encompassing, self-based SYSTEM OF JUDGMENT

— by Psilocybin by this theory.

Specifically, literally, exclusively Psilocybin, and none other.

100% brittle, purist, impenetrable ball of a paradigm that can only be assessed from within its impassable boundary of brittle exclusiveness of all other, pre-scientific non-paradigms

the old therory – murkiness and crude,

sometimes not wrong, but not helpful, not relevant, should be outmoded – the old non-theory is outmoded by the Egodeath theory – am I prepared to debate against phlogiston.

SHOULD I BE WORRIED WHAT POP MYSTICISM ASC SCHOLARS ACADEMIC CLUELESS ACADEMICS bringing THEIR OWN IDEAS of “common core myst perenism”

They cannot comprehend the Egodeath theory to judge it, by bringing their confusions to it.

CONFUSION = mysticism actual and mysticism academic.

mysticism = confusion;
academic study of mysticism =
confusion layered on confusion

Should debaters of mystgicism & science they bring their poor & misinformed system of judgment to the Egodeath theory?

Their poor idea of mystm, their poor idea of “Science” designed to avoid the important.

Incredibly Irresponsible and Uninformed Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art

idea for critique: hand-wringing bad arg’n from Huggins, crying: “The theory of mushroom imagery in Christian art is IRRESPONSIBLE & careless.”

“Affirmers give too little attention to the all-important, constraining, SURFACE LITERAL MEANING, which once we identify that, RULES OUT mushrooms.”

Hatsis: “The irresponsible mushroom affirmers deny the artists a voice.”

Projection much, Hatsis?

Shameless use of atrociously bad arg’n; embracing of obvious logical fallacies, trivially easy to rebut.

OBVIOUSLY Hatsis’ arg goes both ways – HATSIS the RUDE, DISRESPECTFUL OPPRESSOR OF MEDIEVAL ARTISTS:

Hatsis to Medieval artists:

“Shut up, I am your voice: There are no mushrooms in this pilzbaum genre of mushroom-trees. I deserve a medal for protecting the artists from oppression by affirmers of mushroom-trees.”

Beg question. Assume that which is to be proved. Circular reasoning. Presuppositions.

Circular logic Hatsis’ 8-track tape endless loop in 1970 forever.

I Wrote Surface Meaning “Rules Out Mushrooms”, So I Won the Debate

More like Rules Out any Chance of constructive scholarship by the ignorant and irresponsble Deniers.

Huggins Empty and Pretentious Moral Posturing

Added Articles in “Moving Past Mysticism” page about Debate within Psychedelic Science

The Buddha Statue racks up many miles, Walks Back & Forth from Griffith’s Trip Room to the Hopkins Storage Closet.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#High-Mysticism

At War with the Mystics (Flaming Lips, 2006)

Album: At War with the Mystics
The Flaming Lips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SEa9JqWq0c&list=OLAK5uy_n6q92WH5ppC1zcfoaBOJjXfsaXXnIHiEU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_War_with_the_Mystics

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
(How to End the Staceanism Wars in Psychedelic Science)
Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein
2024, in:
Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Psychoactive Drug Use
(Rob Lovering, Editor)
https://www.academia.edu/124791282/How_to_End_the_Mysticism_Wars_in_Psychedelic_Science
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
Rob Lovering, Editor
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65790-0_8
28 Pages
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Medicine
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars – my official location to store the citation

There’s a typo in the article, it says “Mysticism Wars”, but the entire topic is not mysticism, but rather, Staceanism, a fantasy that James 1902 hallucinated: “While on Nitrous laughing gas, it occurred to me that mysticism means rainbows and unicorns.”

Letheby Cites Paul Thagard: Endnote 98: Paul Thagard, “Why Astrology Is Pseudoscience“, in conference “Phil o Sci“, 1978, Cambridge

The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Psychoactive Drug Use (October 15, 2024)

Category: Articles That Cannot Be Read

$200. Or, instead of having the book, you can save money with Kindle e-book for only $250, to read these articles Against Exclusivism, Advocating Accessibility; a call for Open Science.

The Sample view shows articles, pretty interesting, in Table of Contents.

https://www.amazon.com/Palgrave-Handbook-Philosophy-Psychoactive-Drug/dp/3031657896/

https://www.amazon.com/Palgrave-Handbook-Philosophy-Psychoactive-Drug/dp/3031657896/

blurb:

“In this Handbook, philosophers from around the world address the metaphysics, epistemology, [not PHENOMENOLOGY] and value of

psychoactive (mind-altering) drug use.

“In so doing, they attempt to answer questions such as:

“What does the fact of drug-induced mind-altering experiences tell us about natures of the mind, free will, and God?“

[branding immature branching control i sunsatable, it fails when put to the Psilocybin test guarded riddle gate repuside depending on child sand foundation the egoic control system.

Repudiated that to not sink ship / loss loss of control

loss control unstable failure of control by the personal control system when the higher level 2-level control system is unveiled revealed lift the engine

LIFT THE HOOD TO SEE THE SNAKE FORZEN IN ROCK

the helpless thought-receiver – lca local control agency, pretend autonomous control; experience is shaped near-always as auton- control

the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts

blurb:

“What does [the fact of drug-induced mind-altering experiences] tell us about what, and how, we can know? “

What does Psilocybin tell us about what we can know?

What does Psilocybin tell us about how we can know?

“Are drug-induced mind-altering experiences valuable, morally, aesthetically, or otherwise?

Is the acquisition of drug-induced mind-altering experiences ever immoral?

“Should the acquisition of drug-induced mind-altering experiences ever be legally prohibited?”

[sarcastic retort here about premise – the “Prohibition is the given natural original state, shall we deviate and “legalize”?]

FULL REPEAL OF PSILOCYBIN PROHIBITION

PSILOCYBIN FREEDOM FOR PSILOCYBIN

blurb continues:

“The Handbook gives an overview of the current research, and

“sets the stage for future directions in philosophical thought relating to psychoactive drug use.”

High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism (Baier 2021)

Series of books:
Studies in Oriental Religions

Book:
Constructions of Mysticism as a Universal: Roots and Interactions across Borders
2021, Annette Wilke, Robert Stephanus and Robert Suckro (eds.):
Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden

Article:
High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism
Karl Baier, 2021
https://www.academia.edu/30979148/High_Mysticism_On_the_interplay_between_the_psychedelic_movement_and_academic_study_of_mysticism?email_work_card=interaction-paper

“The paper discusses

how the term “mysticism” entered the discourse on hallucinogens.

This is followed by an examination of

the conceptualization of mysticism

by important representatives of the psychedelic movement, such as
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) and
Timothy Leary (1920-1996).

Filter theory is presented as a central doctrine shaping the psychedelic movement.

The second part addresses the debate on

the relationship between drug experience and mystical experience,

focusing on
Walter N. Pahnke (1931-1971),
Robert C. Zaehner (1913-1974), and
Frits Staal (1930-2012).”

[The source of mystical experience is Psilocybin.

Non-drug, attempted ways of accessing the intense mystic altered state fail and are of the devil.

The gold reference standard for mystical experience is Psilocybin.

Non-drug meditation or non-drug mysticism is a sham and avoidance technique, a way to pretend to transform but fail to transformation from possibilism to eternalism. No cigar, unproductive.

Non-drug “mysticism” is a contradiction in terms and pure fakery, THE MOST FAKE THING ABOUT MEDITATION IS TAKING AS GRANTED THAT NON-DRUG MEDITATION IS AUTHENTIC AND THE STANDARD.

Non-drug meditation is inauthentic and is NOT the standard.

Non-drug meditation has to defend its aggressive bold claims, false claims.

Empty bragging, self-assured MEDITATION HUCKSTERS. THEIR most offensive lie is the PRETENCE than non-drug meditation is the “normal”, “standard” type, and that Psil is fake.

It’s the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THEIR PREJUDICE: the fake wannabe loser method that FAILS to transformation from possibilism to eternalism, is non-drug meditation.

The reference standard is Psilocybin, the distant 2nd-runner, loser of the race DESPITE ALL THEIR POMPOUS SELF-ASSURED BRAGGING AND BIG CLAIMS, delivers NOTHING, except that it delivers avoidance of mystical transformation.

Non-drug meditation delivers only one thing (and none of its big-talking promises): AVOIDANCE of REAL mysticism, which is Psilocybin seizure freakout system lockup self-thwarting self-overcoming of control instability that falls down, branching-thinking’s basis of foundation of vulnerable sand is revealed to perception.

Non-drug meditation is nothing but an avoidance mechanism to avoid Psilocybin loosecog revelation of baselessness and vulnerability of the egoic control system childish, transforming to mature immature form final form, non-dying, non-perishable, non-mortal, finished form, imperishability, everlasting life, no more childish collapse of the egoic control system now that the 2-level, dependent control has been transformed into as an adult mature developed final permanent long-lasting non-transient non-temporary form.

Larval form, mature … immature, childish, transform, initiated, beard, raptured, to be raptured by the god is same as maturation from immature to mature form; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism (Baier 2021)

Good Articles that Critique MEQ

Article:
High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism
Karl Baier, 2021
https://www.academia.edu/30979148/High_Mysticism_On_the_interplay_between_the_psychedelic_movement_and_academic_study_of_mysticism?email_work_card=interaction-paper —

“Huxley was d’accord with William James’ view that mystical experiences induced by psychoactive substances are not able to replace the dimensions of religious life developed within the religious traditions.

“But neither James nor Leuba considered the possibility of combining the use of drugs with a fully elaborate mystical religiosity.

“That was exactly Huxley’s vision of a psychedelic culture that combines the occasional use of psychedelics with ethics, rituals such as rites of passage, meditation or sacramental sex and an elaborate worldview that integrates the mystic experiences in life.”

I am [was] looking in vain for a good point made in some article yesterday author says combine psychedelic with long-term tradition practice”.

Suspected articles where I read that yesterday:

  • Stocker: Revival of PEQ
  • good article: High Mysticism – found it. combining
  • ron cole-turner: Psychedelic Mysticism & Christian spiry

Probably below in this page, I complained that False Dichotomy:

No one EVER talks about COMBINING psychedelics + long-term religion involvement. Still, the entire discussion, even this article, falsely assumes that “the traditional methods of the mystics” are not psychedelics.

The source of religions and mystical expeirence is none other than psychedelics – so, all discussion in the field is wrong and distorted, insofar as every writer incorrectly takes it for granted that mysticism didn’t come from psychedelics.

So all such writing, big-brained commentary analysis by learned, learned scholars, is wrong and distorted, and distorting, and fallacious.

High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism 
Karl Baier, 2021

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#High-Mysticism

https://www.academia.edu/30979148/High_Mysticism_On_the_interplay_between_the_psychedelic_movement_and_academic_study_of_mysticism?email_work_card=interaction-paper —
“Huxley was d’accord with William James’ view that mystical experiences induced by psychoactive substances are not able to replace the dimensions of religious life developed within the religious traditions.
“But neither James nor Leuba considered the possibility of combining the use of drugs with a fully elaborate mystical religiosity.

Psilocybin Freedom

RETURN TO the NATURAL DEFAULT STATE: FULL REPEAL OF FAKE PRETEXTUAL PROHIBITION-FOR-PROFIT HELD held down by The Enterprise per Robert Forte article interview with random title – though Bennett’s /__trashed/ article has world’s worst title: The Mushroom Paradeiloliaiae.

While High on Nitrous 💨💫😵, It Occurred to Me that Mystical Experiencing Means Unicorns Farting Rainbows 🦄💨🌈

The articles say “Mysticism Wars”, but the entire topic is not mysticism, but rather, Staceanism, a fantasy that James 1902 hallucinated “while on Nitrous laughing gas, it occurred to me that mysticism means rainbows and unicorns.”

While high on Nitrous 💨💫😵, it occurred to me that mystic experiencing means unicorns farting rainbows. 🦄💨🌈

Wm James, 1902, scientifically confirmed by Stace 1960, mathematically validated by Griftiths 2006

Super believable Academia entry of Letheby’s article that doesn’t mention Letheby in the webpage title:

web search: while on nitrous oxide, it occurred to me that william james

First, typical b.s. censorship of the most important lead-in — Wasson-level deception: note the LYING capital O: also notice the ellipses!

“🔍🧐🤔 “Our normal waking consciousness . . .🔍🧐🤔 is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the flimsiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.

“We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus and at a touch they are all there in all their completeness . . .🔍🧐🤔 No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.”

Next, take key phrases, add “nitrous”, web search:

“normal waking consciousness” “flimsiest of screens” james nitrous

aggh!! another LIE instance:

https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/william-james-the-pragmatic-visionary

I give up. The entire web censors Wm James: while pretending to venerate him, they CENSOR him, his lead-in.

I believe that page is a LIE, re: capital O: page says:

“Moreover, he contended:

Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we…

simple search:

“that our normal waking consciousness”

Yet another LIE! Another false “quote” of James for the purpose of censoring him.

Shut up, James, I’m gonna quote you:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10285829-one-conclusion-was-forced-upon-my-mind-at-that-time

“William James > Quotes > Quotable [IE CENSORABLE] Quote

“One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time [WHAT TIME? YOU MEAN THE TIME YOU WERE ON NITROUS??], and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one…”

Positive-Balanced “Mysticism”

Stace in 1960 found there was still a little gas in James’ tank, and Stace agreed:

Mystics report that unicorns do, in fact, fart rainbows, with lovely sheen.

At least, Staceanists report that. For actual mystics, see Charles Stang, instead, who does not employ the “POSITIVE-BALANCED” model of Staceanism/”mysticism”.

If you want something other than positive-balanced, see our positive-balanced negative-balanced model, CEQ, which is a superset of the 3 leading questionnaires’ negative effects, mathematically condensed down into just the subset of positive negative effects, consistently complimenting (“You look especially positive-balanced today”) our positive-balanced approach to the full range of mystical experiences, a model which users report as “completely ineffable”.

It’s a Mystery approach to Science.

The resulting positive-balanced subset of the superset of all negative effects yields the most valuable and profitable outcome: ordinary-state Grief therapy.

We treat all challenging Psil. effects, especially and exclusively those effects which are not unique to Psil, but sound like ordinary-state challenging effects of not ingesting Psil and as a result, suffering psychological grief, which we counsel by new Psychedelic Science, firmly based on Stace 1960 positive-balanced model of mystical experiences.

No one is doing research on, or writing papers about, mysticism. Instead, they are all dealing in Staceanism, falsely posing as “mysticism”.

The Worst Article Title Ever

Candidates for worst article title ever:

* Bennett: The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels

* Kitchens: What We Do Is Secret: Part One: The Night Watchman

* Kitchens: What We Do Is Secret: Part Two: There Must Be a Way Out

* Kitchens: What We Do Is Secret: Part Three: Random Word Generator

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)
Good theorizing in this article (added to my “Moving Past Mysticism” page)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars

How to End the Staceanism Wars in Psychedelic Science

How to End the ….

I cannot write this ruined word. Take the entire body of writing including Kitchens, do bulk replace:

change from:

mysticism, mystical

to:

Staceanism, Stacean

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels (Bennett, Aug. 2021)

The easiest way to find info about that impossibly titled article was at Cyberdisciple site – though his site never gives the title of Bennett’s article against Brown; 0 hits on Pareidolia.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/

https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/

Brown – 141 hits

Samo – 1 hit

Crowley – 1 hit

Next, check if Cyberdisciple page says the article is “against Brown”: confirmed: “This article is prompted by Chris Bennett’s recent article criticizing Jerry Brown and Julie Brown’s The Psychedelic Gospels.'”

todo: in my page, add “vs Brown” in that heading…

It’s probably not even a word: ‘Pareidolia’ — https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia

ok i need a word for ignorant scholars who are committed deniers of mushroom imagery in art:

need an obscure, unpronounceable, unspellable word that no one ever heard of, a medical term for “shameless embracer of astoundingly bad argumentation”.

Crazy, employing made-up words like “eternalism”, “entheogen” that no one heard of ever, or “debranched” – speak common English, ppl!

Bennett’s “Pareidolia” article is a strong candidate for worst title ever of an article: in the /__trashed/ directory, of Cann. Culture, by Chris Bennett:

Perhaps a 1960s article was titled Teonanycatl (sp???? 🤷‍♂️), which is almost as self-sabotaging as Bennett’s title – b/c unpronounceable.

It is impossible to remember or spell the title of his article, and I’m having trouble figuring out who his article — this particular one – critiques: Brown, Mike Crowley?

Pretty sure Mike Crowley is in my church.

My new Bennett page has section headings:

Article: Bennett vs. Brian Muraresku (Travis Kitchens, 2024/12/23)

Article: Robert Forte vs. Brian Muraresku (Travis Kitchens, 2025/01/02)

Those would be better article titles than I saw by Kitchens: “Chris Bennett vs. Brian Muraresku”.

I was having trouble finding that impossible Bennett title “The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels” – searched my site for “trashed” (tip). ok i have a new page for Bennett b/c of this problem.

But there is no section linking yet, my contents outline fails to list the article…. Fixed. Here is anchor:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

I will check final titles of articles by Kitchens, which I described as “random word generator” – I summarized/characterized, what is the focus of each of the article: Bennett vs. Mura, or Robert Forte vs. Mura – titles entirely hide that, are they even titles?

It’s not even clear that Kitchens has titles, for the “Part one” Bennett vs. Mura article, or Part 2: Robert Forte vs. Mura article.

Are those supposed to be titles, of these articles?? They don’t serve as titles.

Kitchens needs an Editor, to create real titles for those two articles.

I was trying in vain to find what James ACTUALLY wrote, to then do word replacement, to make James say: “When i was high on nitrous, it occurred to me that mystic experiencing is unicorns farting rainbows”. This is our Scientific Basis for the new Psychedelic Renaissance.

Totally typical of scholars: The first word Ken Wilber wrote in his first book was to delete James’ words “On nitrous oxide, “

Let’s kick off our life’s body of work by a lie of censorship.

It’s ok, later Wilber diagrams his 15-phase maturation model and didn’t forget to scotch-tape onto it as an afterthought: “also: altered states”

– that’s ok, b/c that’s a peripheral topic, like trees are peripheral items in medieval art.

Consult the top expert art historians about that in person, because they would not waste their time writing anything about peripheral trivia: trees, especially not the kind we describe as mushroom-trees every time we discuss this topic, such as, never.

Art historians call them pilzbaum (m-trs), but we do not mean pilz/msh; this is our term we made just merely for convenience when discussing them [Wasson explains], which is: never.

For instances of art historians discussing pilzbaum, you must contact the art authorities, because that’s the ONLY time they ever discuss pilzbaum: as long as it takes to desperately yell “I disavow pilzbaum! Please don’t take away my ‘credible’/’competent’ status!”

Art historians never write about trivial peripheral trees — with 1 noted exception, the noted book by [censored] titled [censored], that Panofsky told Wasson way back in 1952, which shows how ignorant you are for not consulting the authorities.

You’ve had ever since 1952 to consult the body of published writings by the art authorities, which consists of 1 little books, by authors including (only) [censored].

That sarcasm about ‘noted’ is re: Huggin’s perverse framing of Brinckmann, via the magic trick of pulling Panofsky’s letters out of thin air- can Huggins really be so informed yet so uninformed that he is unaware of Wasson’s censorship of Panofsky here?

Is Huggins stupid/ignorant, or a liar/conman, or both?

The word ‘competent’ is used by someone such as Wasson in SOMA – probably intended as an insult to mycologists; “any first-week freshman art student with any competence, the barest competence, is THOROUGHLY familiar with pilzbaum, in contrast with ignoramus mycologists”

Bennett’s article title so horrible, Cyb didn’t even cite it!

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2021/09/26/criticism-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-by-tom-hatsis-and-chris-bennett/

0 hits on fungi or Pareidolia

Scholarship Hell: Sorting Out the Red vs. Blue Grains of Sand in Each Article or Book

Welcome to Scholarship Hell: Your punishment is to sort out the red vs. blue grains of sand in this purple pile, of any article or book.

  • In what way is Kitchens good?
  • In what way is Kitchens bad?

“At Eleusis, they found no evidence.”  

BECAUSE THE DUMBASSESS WASHED ALL THE VESSELS, PREVENTING FINDING EVIDENCE – Kitchens failed to mention that detail.

Lopsided, biased, false writing.  IOW, standard scholarly writing.

“Mystical = supernatural” as defined in this “Moving Past Mysticism” debate; the Staceanism Wars aka “mysticism wars”.

The Egodeath Theory Cannot Be Called “Perennialism; Common-Core Mysticism” – Wildcard Words

Can’t call the Egodeath theory “a form of common-core mysticism & Perennialism”; misrepresentation via semantics meaning-networks

The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism is not represented effectively or accurately by any term from outside the Theory.

The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism is not the same as the semantic constructs as they are used by writers outside of this theory:

  • common core of mysticism
  • mysticism
  • perennialism
  • Wasson’s theory, the Wasson theory
  • mythology
  • therapy
  • the mystical experience

All of the above attempted frameworks are a crude folk distortion entirely inadequate in describing mental model transformation caused by Psilocybin.

That’s why in 1987 I read about meditation & mysticism.

Alan Watts, Trungpa, Ken Wilber warmed-over Advaita Vendanta with zero attention to Ramesh Balsekar until later with Andrew Cohen’s What Is Enlightenment? magazine.

I took that writing as a failed, garbled, ineffective way of writing about — and the ancients failed too, on the whole — the transformative effects. 

The least broken and garbled, useless and misleading expression of mental worldmodel transformation is 

the pilzbaum genre; 

mushroom imagery in Christian art, 

branching-message mushroom trees; 

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs in medieval art.

The Egodeath theory – including the distinct the mytheme theory (which is not the foundation of the earlier, core theory) is the first relevant, effective, to-the-point, non-myth-based model of Psil mental worldmodel transformation; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

The Egodeath theory has two distinct parts: foundational core, and the mytheme theory

Important that the Egodeath theory — the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism — has two distinct parts

First, terms 2, 3, 4 by 1997: the core theory/ the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism:

psychedelic eternalism with dependent control 

2) psychedelic 3) eternalism with 3) dependent control 

Then, during 1998-2003, added term 1:

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control 

1) analogical  [2) psychedelic 3) eternalism with 3) dependent control]

Historically, that item 1 was added last, as item 4:

1) psychedelic 2) eternalism with 3) dependent control, 4) described via analogy

The definition is perfect: analogy’s purpose & correct use of analogy: to help explain something.  

‘Analogy’ is explanation per Science.

Analogy is not a style/mode of writing; it’s a strategy to explain and clarify a concept.

Metaphor is bad: it means writing about one thing, in literature, as if writing about something else.

‘Metaphor’ is a literary, stylistic mechanism to write fiction.

The history of development of the Egodeath theory is significant, that Rock lyrics (precursor to religious mytheme interp.) were added 1991-1997, after the 1988 finding of the Core theory.

1. Core theory 1988.  No coverage of history, myth, mysticism theories, religious founder figures.

2. Rock lyrics 1991.

3. Religious myth 2003.

In 1998, attempted to have founder figures corrob. core theory, but immediately found ahistoricity — the founder figure king Jesus fastened to a wooden t cross, empty rock tomb, transfiguration, new life — did corroborate the Egodeath theory, by 2005, but in a different mode than expected.

First, 1985-1997, formed the Core theory; the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism:

1) psychedelic 2) eternalism with 3) dependent control

then, 1998-2003+, added the Mytheme theory:

4) described/explained via analogy

Everything I’ve done since 1998 is merely to corroborate the 1997-outlined, finished Core theory that was found in 1988.

The Egodeath Theory Was Needed in 1986 Because Mystic Writings Are Garbled Expressions of Mental Transformation Dynamics

Motive for the Egodeath theory: Because All Other Approaches are irrelevant and undeveloped, crude, unhelpful, garbled expressions, that allowed irrelevancies in.

All of this theory-construction work was done BECAUSE, and had to be done, BECAUSE mystics and scholars fail to write effectively about transformation from possibilism to eternalism in the loose cognitive binding state.  

World religious myth is a garbled folk expression of a garbled partial experience of transformation from possibilism to eternalism in the intense mystic altered state caused by Psilo.

I specify “Psil” to shut out and make Ruck & Hane. wrong.  

Not to deny ergot.

Ergot can, could, might, and may have given Eleusis psychedelic effect in kykeon.

Just like bunk breathing can produce same effect as hi-dose Psil.  

An empty worthless tin can.

TIK is valuable like any book is valuable: every book is a mixture of potentially transformable value; welcome to Hell of Scholarship.

Scholarship Hell: Your punishment is to sort out the red vs. blue grains of sand in this purple pile.

* The purple pile of sand, TIK.

* The purple pile of sand, Carl Dr. Secret Ruck: the church elided psychedelics, proved by the ton of heretical psychddelics evidence, a heretical alien infiltration that seeped even into every level of the psychedelics-removing Church.

* The garbled mess that is the Egodeath theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) is a purple pile of sand: your punishment is to sort out the red vs. blue grains of sand in this growing pile of Theory (maybe find some dung-loving fungi while you’re at it, as reward).

I’m mad at McCarthy & Priest, mid 2024 Journal of Psychedelic Studies, for stating that Mura states that Ruck states that Institutional Church elided Psychedelics – without also mentioning that Ruck states that Institutional Church was filled with heretical psychedelics “repeatedly reintroduced” (“Conjuring Eden” p. 14, 2001 Entheos #1) The Mushroom (🍄) and “brazenly displayed in their places of worship” — their heretical places such as the top, leading cathedrals, illuminated manuscripts, & everywhere.

🍄

Who can blame McCarthy & Priest for misrepresenting Ruck’s unresolved self-contradiction?

Priest started the Ligare Christian Psychedelic org.

Ruck Needs to Reconcile His Contradictory Narrative

Entheogen scholars: 

  • Did the Church eliminate Sacred Fungi?
    Yes!  Everyone knows that; it’s a given.  That’s our whole condemnation & rejection of the Church.
  • Did the Church include Sacred Fungi? 
    Yes, our gallery proves that, against the naysayers. The Church Triumphant eliminated heretics, who repeatedly reintroduced the sacred fungus.

These two storytime narratives can both be true in some way, but it takes proper Theory to reconcile them.

Ruck is oblivious to the need to reconcile his pair of contradictory narratives.  

After working with me in 2006, Jan Irvin in 2008 THM detected this problem in Ruck: “Daturas for the Virgin”, to the point where Irvin recognized that his own book AstroSham 1 2005/2006 made a form of same contradiction, trying to restrict The Mushroom to “elites” (1st sent. of Concl.), and Irvin corrected that in 2009 AstroSham 2.

I intensively read p. 14 “Conjuring Eden” + p. 56 “Daturas Virgin”, recently, driven by my trying to prove that McC & P mis-characterize Mura’s mis-characterization of Ruck’s mis-characterization of psychedelic history.  

Concl: Ruck is a fkking mess, incoherent.

So McC & P get off on a technicality; Not Guilty, b/c Ruck is incoherent.

Incoherent Bifurcated Forgot-Plot

Need to check The Effluents of Deity, Apples of Apollo, etc to see his trajectory of these two arms of the Ruck Committee fighting each other.  

Amanita-based kykeon was the key engine at the heart of every mystery religion & mixed-wine Philosophy party.

Ruck’s Forgot Plot splits and is twofold: in the year 325, Amanita-based Psychedelic kykeon plummetted from 100% to 0%, and also, stayed high.

The Distanced & Transformative Way in Which I Read Writings of Mystics, Watts, & Wilber

clarifn: “That’s why in 1987 I read about meditation & mysticism.”

Rather:

That’s the spirit & strategy with which I read, drew from, transformed, and criticised writings by mystics, Watts, & Wilber, in 1986: 

here is a failed, garbled approach, a wreckage to salvage parts from, to recombine & transform.

Mysticism/ meditation/ Watts/ Wilber: 

Here’s the broken “old theory” (actually, the pre-Science phase; not yet really a paradigm or theory, properly speaking).

1986: “For the first time, I will construct a proper actual paradigm/ theory/ explanatory fwk.”

I tried to draw from them, as confused writers, to form a better, corrected model of personal control; a proper model of transformation of the mental model of control.

Griffiths Was Recruited by a Sect Called the Council on Spiritual Practices

Sleazy, biased writing from Kitchens:

“Griffiths … he was recruited by a sect called the Council on Spiritual Practices—

the group’s members have included Jordan Peterson, Ralph Hood, Willis Harman, Walter Houston Clark, and other psychologists interested in comparative mythology—

Griffiths became the public face of an ambitious project to “make the mystical experience more available.”

How terrible of Griffiths!  Trying to make the Staceanism, positive-balanced “mystical” experience readily available.  

Better quote Cyberdisciple to prevent such nefarious project.

Kitchens’ wording might not be sleazy, loaded, biased lang, if Kitchens justifies his drive-by-assault characterization of CSP as a “sect”.  

Hey Kitchens, does CSP describe themselves as a sect?  Where did you get this characterization?  On what basis?  

Is this your normal way of writing, to do name-calling characterization without bothering to justify?

Potent phrasing:

“an unknown energy entering through the trap door of the mind”

Sleazy, biased writing:

“reducing spiritual enlightenment to a systematic process easily accessible to all”

Kitchens is misusing the word ‘sect’, you can’t say just “The group was a sect.” 

You have to say “a sect of X religion”. 

Kitchens is trying to get away with smearing CSP as a cult, for his Reason/ rationalist-materialist audience or imagined audience, sneakily, hoping no one notices, by simply changing the word ‘cult’ to ‘sect’ – it doesn’t work, grammatically.  

Did you hear, our friend Joe has joined a sect!   isnt that terrible!

What Larger Group is CSP a Sect of? You can’t use the word ‘sect’ without specifying “of larger group X”

Dictionary definition of ‘sect’: Oxford Languages:

“a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.”

“Similar:
(religious) cult
religious group
faith community
denomination
persuasion
religious order
splinter group
faction
schism
heretical movement”

“a philosophical or political group, especially one regarded as extreme or dangerous.
“a sect of anarchists“”

Positioning of the Egodeath theory set against every option that the “Moving Past Mysticism” debate provides

The Egodeath theory is a model of how the mental model transforms when in the loose cognitive state from Psil.

The Egodeath theory is somewhat in the field of Cog Sci — the Egodeath theory defines the field of Loose Cognitive Science.

The Egodeath theory is certainly not promising some pre-fabricated conventional, typical set of expectations, preconceptions, values: 

“It is urgent that the world adopt the Egodeath theory, to save the world in 10 ways.”

The Egodeath theory only saves the world in 1 way: provides useful, relevant, Science-expressed model, focused, of mental model transformation temporarily experiencing the experience of eternalism mental worldmodel, but (qualified) possibilism-thinking (experiential mode) returns forever.

The Egodeath theory is a theory of experiential modes transformation & mental model transformation.  

A scientific explanatory model.  

Not a historical narrative about heretics vs. orthodox suppression.

Great Canterbury Psalter is somewhat useful b/c proving fully developed psil use in Europe.

Great Canterbury Psalter (within the pilzbaum genre) is extremely useful by providing a system of analogies that describe experiential modes transformation where one model in one mode is unstable, vs. stable viable control.

Loose Cognitive Scientists require that mandatory knowledge, to go through this eternalism gate to have the ability to explore this experiential mode of loosecog.

The Egodeath theory is the smallest theory, most focused, making the smallest claims, smaller than any other, external, pre-fab conception of altered state.

Dangerous: saying “The Egodeath theory is in the field of Cog Sci.”

Even worse: “The Egodeath theory is in the field of Cognitive Neuroscience.”  [wtf are we signing on board to?  elastic baggage city]

Better: “The Egodeath theory is within the field of Loose Cognitive Science as defined by the Egodeath theory.”

Viable in theory, but doomed in practice, is saying:

“The Egodeath theory is a version of “Perennialism” as defined by the Egodeath theory.”

That’s too elastic and subject to perversion of lexicon terms, like the term “sacred fungi” is nothing but terrible in practice.  

At one moment, the term ‘sacred fungi’ means specifically ergot; now Psil; now Amanita with a HUGE folklore of confusion attached including Secret Christian Amanita Cult pop theory based on Allegro/Ruck/Dr. Secret and God only knows what other BAGGAGE.

The meaning of such lexicon terms slips elastically all over the place, depending on who is talking and when – it is uncontrolled lexicon meaning, but what’s required is a single coherent consistent system of Lexicon from inside — purely — the Egodeath theory.

The only baggage that the Egodeath theory can afford to carry is INTERNAL, CONTROLLED baggage from within the Egodeath theory.

“The Egodeath theory = Perennial common core myst’m” — ok in theory, a disaster in practice.

The Egodeath theory is far from theories like the Stacean model of mystical experience.

The Egodeath theory is not primarily couched as a theory of perennial common core mysticism.

The Egodeath theory is primarily couched as a theory in the field of Cognitive Science and Cognitive Phenomenology.  

Not Neuroscience, not “Cognitive Neuroscience” (a fake marketing label designed to eliminate Cognitive, like selling Amanita by advertising Psil effects, then suppressing and diminishing Psil).

Psychedelic Amanita = eliminate Psychedelic, avoid transformation by using irrelevant Amanita deliriant instead.

Cognitive Neuroscience = eliminate Cognitive, brag about being cognitive, put all money on Neuroscience reductionism materialism and talk about cog phen’y ONLY indirectly, through the roundabout lens of materialist neuroscience.

The Egodeath theory honors the full potential of COGNITIVE phen’y Science.  

Loose Cognitive Science.   

Real Cog Sci = Loose Cognitive Science (not OSC-only Cog Sci; not Cog NeuroSci).

Anti-Neuroscience: Cog Sci must reject and distance itself from Eliminative Neuroreductionism that diminishes the Cognitive perspective.

The more that “Cognitive Neuroscience” emphasizes Neuro, the less it affirms Cognitive /Phen’y as such.

In “Cognitive Neuroscience”, ‘cognitive’ is empty marketing and is immediately discarded the moment you move past the Marketing title, it’s all Neuroreductionism, all the way, eg telltale hyped & marketed lexicon: “neuroplasticity” declares commitment to neuroreductionism, and in practice, Cog Neuro is committed to anti-Cognitivism.  

“Cog Neuro” is pretext to eliminate Cog and reduce and replace by Neuro.  

I firmly reject “neuroplasticity” lexion, “ego dissolution”; the Neuroreductionism lexicon.  

It’s loaded, it’s biased, it’s toxic, it’s misleading.

The Egodeath theory must disavow alien external lexicons; loaded meaning-networks, and, wildcards:

Do you agree the Egodeath theory = a kind of Perennial common core mystm?  

Ok then, we’ll label the Egodeath theory as ‘perennailism’.  

Now we, who control the shifting definition of vague term ‘Perennialism’, we can define Perennialism as “belief in the supernatural”.  

So now, through ELASTIC SHIFTING LANG, we can say:

The Egodeath theory = Perennialism = belief in the supernatural.  

That’s nice for lazy writers: There’s no need to know anything about the Egodeath theory; just label it as “perennialism” (or “just another Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory”).

Then instead of critiquing the Egodeath theory, you can instead critique “Perennialism” (nicely vague abstract term), and shift and slip and slide the meaning of THE TERM THAT YOU [a party who is outside the Egodeath theory] — NOT the Egodeath theory — CONTROl and shift back & forth.

Practically, it is not possible or feasible to say “the Egodeath theory is a version of Perennialism” — because the term ‘Perennialism’ is not controlled and defined from within the Egodeath theory’s internal, coherent, consistent lexicon.

I am cashing in on, leveraging, my university course in General Semantics, which warned about such abstract labelling.

The Egodeath theory — the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism including the Mytheme theory ( a theory of analogy in religious myth) — distances itself from:

* The Egodeath theory is distanced from Neuroscience and its lexicon eg neuroplasticity, ego dissolution, Dittrich’s OAV A dimension name “Dread OF EGO DISSOLUTION” – a false/ useless/ poor model.  Far superior, not the same thing, is the Egodeath theory’s lexicon: loosecog.

* The Egodeath theory is distanced from perennialism, common core mystical experiencing.

* The Egodeath theory is distanced from Stacean gross misconception of what dynamics are “mystical”.

Psychedelic Pseudo Science: Avoid the Transformation Gate

Psychedelic Pseudo Science: Avoid Transformation Threat Sacrifice Repudiate Disproof Gate

Articles by Travis Kitchens in Reason Magazine:
* Hopkins giving Psil to clergy [probly 1x, newbies, low dose, stay as far away as possible from the transformation threat sacrifice gate]
* Muraresku

Two Layers of Articles that Cannot Be Read

Trouble in Griftiths Land (Moving Past Staceanism)

Walter Stace 1960 wishful thinking book

“Moving Past Mysticism” but that is not mysticism it is something different, Staceanism. thus Moving Past Staceanism.

The Most Controversial Paper in the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day:

https://reason.com/2025/03/01/the-most-controversial-paper-in-the-history-of-psychedelic-research-may-never-see-the-light-of-day/?time=January+24th%2C+2025&mpid=1910630&mpweb=2534-5561-1910630

The Strange Case of The Immortality Key:

https://reason.com/2025/03/01/the-strange-case-of-the-immortality-key/

March 2025 issue of Reason

Kitchens quotes the Egodeath community’s review of Brian Muraresku’s book TIK.

The Immortality Key: Mixed Wine was ergot or amanita or datura or cannabis, for all mystery religions and for all mixed-wine banquets throughout antiquity. it was all kykeon; it was all ergot.

Based on Rucks’ Ruck’s work showing that all mystery religions’ meal is Amanita, and all mixed wine is Amanita.

Amanita is the ultimate psychedelic and causes classic — in fact, ideal – psychedelic effects.

This is proved by Hopkins’ Psilocybin experiments by magician Gnostic Media magus Jan Irvin magic trick shell game to dup gullible audiences such as entheogen scholars: “the Holy Mushroom, Amanita”.

holy mushrooms = sacred mushrooms = Psil therefore Hopkins proves Psil is peak religious effects therefore Amanita causes Psil effects b/c its all DIVINE MUSHROOMS.

Which clearly means ergot and Amanita, which have Psilo effects, because they have the same shape: a fungus shape; therefore, they produce the fungus altered state.

(divine b.s. shell game with labels categorization)

THE OIL AND WATER CATEGORY

THE FEEBLE AND STRONG CATEGORY

THE PHONY AND AUTHENTIC CATEGORY

the category [dogs and cats]

the category [two unrelated items]

The category “sacred fungi”: fake term concocted purely to pretend it makes any sense to …

it’s SUPERSTIION BASED ON SHAPE:

ACADEMICS THINK THAT AMANITA SHAPE IS MUSHROOM AND SO IS PSIL SHAPE MUSHROOMS THEREFORE AMANITA = PSIL EFFECTS as Hopkins PROVED!

Irvin The Holy Mushroom p. 152 – page before Conclusion.

Psil causes myst
Psil is sacred mushrooms
Amanita is sacred mushrooms
therefore, Aman causes Psil effects.

Because Psil & Aman are both shaped like mushrooms.

Academics Embrace the Magical “Same Shape Therefore Identical” Superstition

Psil & ergot have the same shape as Amanita, therefore Amanita gives Psil Effects.

Disproved by Wasson by 1986, but pls ignore that and continue based on same wishful thinking & fantasy, writing from within Mythland – a lower grade childrens level of Mythemeland.

Brown and Brown 2019:
The Vial Moderates 🚫🍄

Adults/Mature: Mythemeland; Psilocybin; Psychedelic Esotericism

Children/Immature: Mythland; Amanita; exoteric esotericism 👶🍄 kiddie Amanita: children’s-level “mysticism”

Hylic Psychic / Pneumatic: those outside are mere Psychic Christians; we inside are Pneumatic Christians

Psychic Christians ingest Amanita, Pneumatic Christians ingest Psilocybin.

SIMILARITY MAGIC; two items look same therefore they are identical.

The article about Brian Muraresku has interview quotes re: MICA.

* Affirmers, the Ardent Advocates : Carl Ruck, David Hillman

* Deniers; Villains; Denier academics: Patrick McGovern, Kevin Clinton, Jan Bremmer, Bart Ehrman.

How does Brown categorize Ruck:

  • the Medieval Historians
  • the Vial Moderates
  • the Ardent Advocates
  • the Innovator Christians [McCarthy & Priest, 2024, Journal of Psychedelic Studies]
  • the Previous Generation – 🐝 & 🐝 2019 define that as: __
  • the New Generation [1998] – 🐝 & 🐝 2019 define that as: __

How is Egodeath.com mentioned in B&B 2019: re: defining generations (around 1998 Samo) of mushroom imagery in Christian art asserters; or / defining categories of writers.

Is Ruck an Ardent Advocate?
What’s Brown Classify and Label Himself as?
Which Roller Derby Team Does Brown 2019 Assign Themselves To?

Doublle everything I say good or bad about Brown – double good and double bad.

The Brown & Brown Experience: Soar twice as high up, fall twice as far down. Repeat in 2019 sans menu report.

we held the photograph up to the light with a 500-page Irvin book attached to it – secret psychedelic history novel written by the 3 🐝 🐝 🐝

The Secret Psychedelic Christianity story
by 🐝, 🐝, & 🐝

Gossio Gossi book Psil book has Walburga – with Amanita THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM FAKE ALMIGHTY AMANITA THE SUPREME SYMBOL OF REAL ACTUAL ENTHEOGENIC RELIGION.

GOOD WAY TO PRETEND TO STUDY ENTHEOGENS WHILE AVOIDING STUDYING RELEVANT PSYCHDELICS PILOCYBIN.

scared of tabo Psilocybin?

Use dizzying Amanita instead – guarantee no Psilo transformation gate threat demand sacrifice child thinking reliance on sand unstable false foundation of control power.

In the ASC underworld, snakes vines fasten limbs to rock couch banquet mixed wine DEFINITELY AMANITA EFFECTS — IN IN MYTHLAND.

In Mythland, Amanita mixed wine symposium initiation mystery religion was Amanita, which causes Psilocybin effects.

Amanita is the ultimate ideal psychedelic – in Mythland

Where Most Writers Live

Psychdelic Science

He Labels Others as Med Historian or labels them as Ardent Advocates or labels them as … what’s his team [in 2019 article],
the Vial Moderates 🚫🍄

a vial therefore not a mushroom b/c in [mushroom] art an image can only have a single meaning and that must be x and rules out [Huggins obnoxiously sloppily hyper confident word-choice] – HUGGINS IS THUS RULED OUT

as Huggins baselessly says in the worst arg’n ever – layers of EVERY LOG FALL ALL AT ONCE.

Mushroom-Tree Deniers Commit Every Logical Fallacy at Once

And Inventing 3 New Ones Never Seen Before on an Ad-Hoc Generation Log Fall Generation Engine, her is here is where log falls come from

There is a tabu held by academics — for academics and for psychedelic inspired Psilocying diminishers — the Meditation Hucksters.

Psil has power which they avoid by making Psil safe and not a threat by prohibiting is:

PROHIBITION-FRIENDLY MEDITATION HUCKSTERS, compliant, accessory, accomplice, collaborator Prohibition of Psilocybin that THREATENS academics and salvation salesmen, art historians/fabricators.

Tabu’ers of

The Mushroom is is POWERFUL and DANGEROUS threatening to destroy academic weaklings who can’t compete against Almighty Psilocybin running circles threatening them.

So academics and hucksters diminish Psil making them TABU out of superstitious academic TERROR OF THE POWER OF PSILOCYBIN Tabu.

I don’t know Taboo theory, tragically.

Kitchens quotes the Egodeath community.

Kitchens liked how I theorized about Muraresku’s social motivations to promote himself and psychedelic therapy.

“I came out hard against Muraresku on those topics.”

Psilocybin the Official single-plant fallacy Owned by the Egodeath theory

The Egodeath theory is the voice of the Psil single-plant fallacy.

I own OWN the Psil single-plant fallacy.

I am the exclusive owner of the claim that psilocybin is the exclusive true reference point for exoteric esotericism, the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics that mystics effects same as high-dose Psilocybin.

The traditional methods of the mystics are non-drug and cause same effect as 50mg Psilocybin

including passage through the gate by sacrificing the child ruler to the guarding dragon god demanding sacrifice the child thinking rulership controllership claim of autonomous control power that would …

The ship’s captain WAS killed by Dionysus lion & bear B/C HE SHUT OUT THE GOD HIGHER RULER – PILOT QUOTE “___” so he doesn’t DESTROY US PLS NO

Right Foot Opens Gate of Towers of Jerusalem

Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels
“Brown Towers of Jerusalem pdf fullscreen.png” 4.1 MB, stamp: [2:25 p.m. February 12, 2023]
“france-indre-church-of-vic-nohant-vic-saint-martin-de-vic-church-murals-FMC1JC gate-crop.jpg” – I appended “gate-crop” in alamy’s filename. 32 KB [8:21 p.m. February 15, 2023]
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-france-indre-church-of-vic-nohant-vic-saint-martin-de-vic-church-murals-98609684.html

Need to do Brown field trip, to their hotel room, to hold this photo up to the light (with entire website attached), to decide not to do a field trip.

Brown image: I made a {gate} crop from the web original image downloaded jpg sample.

Gate is lower left, as far as I can tell.

Brown wrote:

“According to [Marcia] Kupfer (1993 ), as Christ rides the ass followed by his disciples “several youths excitedly clamor up trees to break off branches, while others unfurl their mantels at his feet. The second phase of the episode on the west wall isolates the walled city of Jerusalem . . .🔍🧐🤔 Youths, their mouths open in song, crowd the gates; others within the city drape the walls or cut away at the treetops”  [emphasis added [by Brown]] (p. 122).”

Brown bolded because trees, wants her to say mushrooms instead of tree/branch.

Brown happened to bold — in 2019 article’s version of the passage, not in the 2016 book’s version of the passage — “break off branches” and “cut away at the tree” – BECAUSE bold, I noticed, around Mar 2023(?), leading to breakthrough concept of “branching-message mushroom trees”, first written in email to Brown about Kupfer passage.

Entry into Jerusalem DRAPING WALLS of CITY GATE.

Rev 22:14 —

WASH ROBE = DRAPE CITY =
TEMPLE DOORWAY CURTAINS = sacrifice-gated; sacrifice possibilism-thinking and made to undergo transformation from possibilism to eternalism mental worldmodel
CLEAN =
no pollution to offend the gods as a trespasser in this high realm of underlying functioning revealed level of control under the egoic control system. 2-level revealed, king hung tree branch ram caught thicket sacrificed child thinking to perceive adult thinking mature form.

That theory and focus of valuation is set & defined per the high standard of reference, of Psilocybin the source & salvific sacrament of all mysticism and religion and Transcendent Knowledge & suchlike

WISDOM without the overuse of myth as foundation for theory

theory of mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism .

  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

Literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control = branching = unstable in Psilocybin loosecog, gives way, PERISHABLE by Psilocybin.

The best art and the best myth specifically mental model transformation per the std of reference, the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism where against Ruck & Hanegraaff.

SPECIFICALLY PSILOCYBIN-CAUSED EXPERIENCE OF PSYCHEDELIC ETERNALISM TRANSFORMATION. NON-PSILOCYBIN ATTEMPTS ARE BOASTFUL FAILURES to avoid real transformation, the kind that counts, the Psilocbyin kind

HANE & RUCK: I SPECIFICALLY MEAN PSILOCYBIN CAUSES LOOSECOG, THE THE TRADITIONAL METHODS OF THE MYSTICS IS FAKE RELIGION OF THE SCHOLARS, it is silent given.

We scholars do not know anything about how mystics achieved religious alt state, the intense mystic altered state, but we know FOR CERTAIN it was not drugs – that’s simply a given.”

The Mytheme theory is not the foundation, of the Egodeath theory; cybyernetic time block control embeddedness in the the crystalline ground of beings

Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism –
w auto control-thought receiver
w autonomous ctrl
w autonomoose control 🦌

🦌 Beware the autonomoose sacrifice transformation gate

made to violate control immature form of control, the egoic control system, by seeing underlying control system, trans transform from possibilism to eternalism.

Non-branching frozen 2-level control system:

The local control level female, the helpless thought-receiver;

The higher-level invading god takes up the youth sacrifice altar;

pass through the guarded gate the price paid

Jesus is the price paid to go through the gate.

The price is ones child-ruler thinking, sacrifice it, as the price on the altar of the gate.

The gate’s payment-to-pass alter: you are pulled through the gate made to transform, sacrifice the the egoic control system as the FOUNDATION/ AUTONOMOUS SOURCE OF CONTROL.

todo: page of images of:

the {gate} / {doorway} motif,
transformation gate,
= pay the child thinking as the sacrifice,
repudiate and disprove the basis of the child thinking immature,
initiation to adult state per the highest ref std: Psilocybin.

The highest reference standard is Psilocybin – not Ruck’s non-drug entheogens; not Hane’s non-drug entheogens

Non-drug entheogens is the fake religion of the made-up by the scholars to avoid the real thing

The Reference Gold Standard of Higher Excellence: Psilocybin

Not Secret Breathing per Ruck & Hane whcih can could might may cause same effect as high dose ref std which for all time is Psilcobin sSPECIFICALLY LITERALLY PSILOCBYIN ONLY.

Meditation is fake and something to do within the Psilocybin-induced state.

Meditation Hucksters – Big Talk, No Result, Fails to Compete

The traditional methods of the mystics is none other than Psilocybin.

Chanting contemplation mystic practice peak point of ultimate reference is Psilo lilterally and no other.

Bunk Breathing Fails to Loose Cog & transformation from possibilism to eternalism – can’t meet the std set by Psilocybin

CAUSE TRANSFORMATION FROM POSSIBILISM TO ETERNALISM

Pass through that particular maturation gate as defined SPECIFICALLY literally by Psilocybin and none other.

RUCK AND HANEGRAAFF ARE PEDALING FAKE NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS

THAT ARE BUNK – BUNK DEALER ALERT: RUCK & HANE FOISING BUCK PRODUCT, NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS

BEWARE FAKE ENTHEOGENS ON THE MARKET FROM THE RUCK & HANE LAB OF FAKE ENTHEOGENS

NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS

SAY NO TO FAKE ENTHEOGENS THAT FAIL TO MEET THE SACRED ULTIMATE standard:

PSILOCYBIN, THE DIVINE SOURCE OF EXCLUSIVELY SOURCE NONE OTHER THAN OUR GOD (AS SCHOLARS) THEORY-SALVATION.

The Pilot Helmsman Steersman Begged Dionysus Not to Destroy Them, Dionysus as Lion Killed the Captain, Who Wouldn’t Worship Dionysus

Salvific theory of salvational transformation by the power of the Holy Dove of Peace by Force of Higher Control Power underlying local control’s steering ability.

  • the other sailors – jump overboard
  • the captain — killed by Dionysus for scoffing and not begging Dio to not destroy him.
  • the pilot/ helmsman – worships Dio, begs Dio to not destroy them.
  • Dionysus, as lion
  • Dionysus, as child, kidnapped as a prince ruler, to get payment from king ruler.
  • Bear – joins in killing captain.
  • dolphins – were sailors.

Sailors / pirates trying to k!dnap Dionysus – the Pilot was cool though steer help helmsman

Dionysus pirates myth

“https://mythfolklore.blogspot.com/2013/06/greek-myth-dionysus-and-pirates.html”

Ruck and Hanegraaff Sell Mere exoteric esotericism through non-drug entheogens

non-drug entheogens = exoteric esotericism

Non-drug entheogens = exoteric esotericism – avoidance of Psilocybin

Non-drug entheogens can’t get you through the gate.

Psilocybin Ruler Child Ruler Sacrifice Prince Dionysus ransom payment from king.

Dionysus and the Pirates

https://mythfolklore.blogspot.com/2013/06/greek-myth-dionysus-and-pirates.html

Chris Letheby article 2024 – Doing Theory of STACEANISM Posing as “Mysticism”

No articles are about psych mystm. about low-dose psychdelic STACEANISM NEWBIE RAINBOW UNICORN

exoteric esotericism

Children’s “mysticism” = avoid Psilocybin eternalism

mysticism lite

EXOTERIC ESOTERICISM

By avoiding Psilcobyin, specifically.

Dionsus says: either you ACCEPT PSILCOBYING DIONSUS AS THE standard OR ELSE. Lion + Bear attack the captain bc irreverent to child-form Dionysus.

With non-drug entheogens, you are never transformed, NEVER WASH YOUR ROBE TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSFORMATION GATE

With non-drug entheogens, you NEVER SACRIFICE YOUR CHILD RULER PRINCE TO THE DRAGON GUARDING THE FRUIT GATE

IMMORTALITY FRUIT

The god brings you through the transformation gate, transforming you from possibilism to eternalism. Makes you eat the robe-washing fruit and be transformed from

youth ruler/ maiden ruler pseudo-autonomous
lasting until lift lid see snake fall death rock -to avoid loss of control stand on right foot means non branching steering ;

no {rock} little in Great Canterbury Psalter, nor {serpent}

Why is Great Canterbury Psalter so few seklr serpent & rock

to

adult ruler in 2-level control relation to the serpent-in-rock god.

DRAGON ATTRACTIVE IN THE ROCK CAVE PRINCE RULER CONTROLLER AGENT SACRIFICE CHILD FORM IMMATURE.

The maturation price: your child rulership claim, you cannot pass you do not wash robe.

KICKED OUT OF HEAVEN CITY WALL CLEAN-DRAPED GATE AND WALLS because you didn’t wash your robe, didn’t do your laundry.

Because You Didn’t Wash your Robe, Can’t Pass the Gate to Psilocybin Eternalism

Immortal Non-Perishable Zone A-Thanatos Non-Dying Non-Mortal Adult Mature Transformed

Refused Passage through Eternalism Gate

Shut Out from Psilocybin Eternalism 2-Level Control Relation Because you didn’t do your laundry

kicked out of Psilocybin Eternalism heaven because you didn’t do your laundry

Takeaway: YOU SHOULD’VE DONE YOUR LAUNDRY.

Wait outside the gates, wail & gnash in {flames} = grinding cybernetic gear based on unstable foundation autonomous control.

Given: the goal is to withstand being in the psilocybin state stably w/o causing loss of control.

HOW CAN LOOSE COGNITION SCIENTISTS endure the Psil state w/o loss of control?

How can Loose Cognitive Scientists enter the guarded gate city w// mushrooms topper above the gate.

Answer to Brown’s question “Why mushroom-trees on stone tower?”

BECAUSE IT’S above THE GATE.

New revised answer solution to Brown question:

Brown Asked: Why Mushroom-tree Stone Tower? Wrong. Mushroom-tree above GATE, not “above tower”

[11:19 pm jan 23 2025]

as a polluted DIRTY dirty offensive dishonoring the god level trespasser

into the walled garden immortal tree of lfie life water of life 12 fruits all the time entheogens – 12

I own this single-plant fallacy:

The Egodeath theory = the psilocybin single-plant fallacy.

When you encounter the psilocybin single-plant fallacy, think the Egodeath theory.

Chris Bennett owns the cannabis single-plant fallacy.

Clark HeinRuck owns the amanita single-plant fallacy.

Thomas Hatsis owns the datura single-plant fallacy.

While High on Pot, I Was Inspired:
Rev 22:2 means 12 uses of Psilocybin! 🤯

I Had a Religious pot Vision in 1990: 🌳🔥💨💫

Not cannabis, not Amanita; not Ruck & Hane brothers Bunk non-drug entheogens that fail and meet– exoteric esotericism meet

Fail to MEET THE SACRED TEST OF MENTAL PURITY SET BY GOD PSILOCYBIN RULER KING INVADER HIGHER LEVEL

Dionysus and the Pirates, 2

https://mythfolklore.blogspot.com/2013/06/greek-myth-dionysus-and-pirates.html

“The ship’s pilot, however, suspected the truth and exclaimed, “You fools, do you not realize that this is a god we have brought on board our ship?

He might be the god Zeus, or perhaps Poseidon, but in any case I am sure that he is a god.

“We should bow down and worship him, begging his forgiveness so that he will not bring about our destruction!”

“The captain [{ruler}] of the ship scoffed at [Psilo] the pilot‘s words and ordered the men to try once again to bind their prisoner.”

Rev 22:2 tree of life = 12 kinds of Psilocybin

(+ ganja)

Hanegraaff and Ruck are shut outside the gates lost in the wilderness, off-mission misled into the dark to avoid Psil, by non-drug entheogens

off-mission scholars and academics researchers, irrelevant “mysticism” debate

Bunk Ripoff non-drug entheogens fail to bring to gate and passage

through cleaning purifying cleansing from child pollution thinking

child pollution thinking refusing honor the wrathful god

Dionysus 🦁 Lion Roars (w/ Bear), Kills Captain Ruler, Saves Pilot “begging that Dionysus as a god not destroy us“

image: child in chariot of Saturn

[image: grin lion on guy’s face]

“Yet as they reached out to grab Dionysus, he turned into a lion and began to roar. He also conjured up a bear and together they attacked and killed the captain. The other pirates leaped overboard into the sea, turning into dolphins as they hit the water.

“The only man left on board the ship was the faithful pilot. Dionysus blessed the man and said, “Behold, I am Dionysus; have no fear!” So the man worshipped the god and remained his devoted follower ever after.”

https://mythfolklore.blogspot.com/2013/06/greek-myth-dionysus-and-pirates.html

Rev 22:2 = 12 Best Psil ( synthetic gelcaps, extract gelcaps, Golden Teacher, — no roomfor for low grade delieriant Amanita but we’re GLAD to plaster if on

huge Amanita picture on anti-Aman McKenna: spoken FotG CD. book 1992.

psychedelic eternalism
entheogenic eternalism

OTHER METHODS FAIL & FAKE –

breathing: FAILURE.

meditation: FAILURE.

non-drug the traditional methods of the mystics? FAILURE.

PHONY fake fraud claims that fail to deliver their big promises –

their point of reference is WRONG it sound should be Psil not that fake phony non-drug the traditional methods of the mystics

“the traditional methods of the mystics” =

ACADEMICS’ CRUDE PRIMITIVE SUPERSTITIOIUS TABU-DRIVEN CONSTRUCT

THE RELIGION OF THE ACADEMICS TABOO SUPERSTITION

The academic religion of non-drug mysticism free from any RISK OF TRANSFORMATION god forbid DRAGON SACRIFICE RULER ALTAR RULERSHIP REPUDIATION AND DISPROOF

image: king taking a Necessity while guy could have kilt him cut his garment piece off, could have

totally vulnerable in a cave

KING CAUGHT VULNERABLE TAKING A NECESSITY defenseless from the back of the cave – sitting in his cave, the king guards in front but is vulnerable from behind him

Wash your robe = sacrifice = demonstrate the child-thinking vulnerability of control, egoic control system stability.

CHILD-THINKING IS UNSTABLE AND is TRANSFORMED specifically by Psilocybin.

Psilocybin is the exclusive and only reference point: literally, exclusively, specifically Psilocybin only; none others.

Psilocybin accept no subst except to avoid Psilocybin’s distinctive transformation effect that Meditation doesn’t cause, academics’ fabricated “the traditional methods of the mystics” their own superstiion-based religion – the most superstitious ppl are abd ABD academics,

Any explanation other than drugs is acceptable NO QUESTIONS ASKED, we give total credulity to any claimed way of causing Psil effects —

except for Psil, which requires 110% proof of historical use by the mystics as the way that they had their intense mystic altered state. No proof is ever good enough, no reasoning sound enough.

This inconsistency of requirements for claiming breath or meditation (automatic belief in claims for non-drug;

Absolute refusal ever to concede drug-based origin of Transcendent Knowledge: stringent standards of proof required.

vs. no proof at all required; non-drug methods get instant pass and approval and reification by academics.

Drug claims are met with highest stringent demands for proof by every standard under the sun.

Total bias in favor of instant affirming of any and every claimed method other than drugs, for which no justification or proof is ever enough for the stringent standards.

Avoiding Psilocybin is avoiding the gate and passing through it, maturation gate.

Say NO! to Non-Drug Entheogens from Ruck & Hanegraaff

the exclusive point of reference and source of all inspiration is Psicl specifc’ly Psilocybin literally and specifically and exclusively.

Non-Psilo mysticism fake avoidance tactic. Non-Psilocybin =

Non-Psilocybin Methods Are Fake & Fail, Hollow Boasts that CANNOT PASS THROUGH THE GATE

They DO NOT PAY THE TOLL CHILD THINKING RULERSHIP PRINCE PAYMENT TO THE DRAGON THAT GUARDS GATE AT THE GATE’S ATTACHED ALTAR ROCK

rock altar with snake serpent god carved in rock bas-relief]

[look at bronze serp on pole when to not die of snake bite image: golden Ps],

Prince Absalom king hung on a tree branch:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

SAY NO TO NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS FROM RUCK & HANE

I posted told Hane 8 years ahead of him telling him re entheogenic esotericism at the Egodeath Yahoo Group before his keynote which was NOT , by 8 years , the first to use the phrase. 2004 vs 2012? Christopher Partridge 2 vols incl E.E. chapter by Hane, 2012 Chapter 20? Entheogenic Esotericism.

Meditation Hucksters can’t compete with the real Reference point

mental model transformation in loose cognitive association binding state
loose cognition
loose cognitive association
mental mental construct association matrix
LAY DOWN YOUR CLEANED ROBE UNDER the incoming by peaceful force passion the HIGHER LEVEL CONTROLLER DONKEY IMAGEs –

Brinckman book cover: from my Brinc page

be sure to see that little book by Brinckmann, Wasson. — yours truly, panofsky, the most important art historian ever, may 52, letter #2 for your SOMA book to pretend doesn’t exist.

Bennett Wins Most Deserving /__trashed/ article title of all time award

“The Mushroom Paradeiloliaiae” – worst title ever, guaranteed to fail packaging brick wall:

Do not pass this guarded boundary guared by dragon monster shadow demanding passage payment of child ruler claim, the king vs the prince, the THE CHILD OF THE RULER KING MUST BE SACRIFICED FOR THE KING TO ADULT POWER RELATION WITH GOD LEVEL CONTROL to pass through the gate, now being Adult and Immortal

IMMORTAL = ADULT FINAL FORM to endure Psilocybin; IMPERISHABLE by Psilo

You Have Been Cleaned to Be Imperishable to Psilocybin – Welcome Through Gates into Psilocybinland

Rev 22’s gated walled city of HEAVEN = PSILOCYBINLAND.

Need Page: {gated walled city} Images

needed

wish page images crops of {gated walled city} w mushrooms topper

{polluted dirty} reader, you can’t HANDLE the truth about cybernetic control levels, you child-thinkers are not transfromated cleaned wash robes purify pollution clean dirty clean drape the walls of the gated guarded city with higher level controller and dove incoming higher control agengts you

THROW OWPEN THE CITY GATES TO RULER SACRIFICE HIGHER CONTROLLER CHILD KING RULER king hung on tree sacrificed

lay down clean washed robe under incoming invading higher level ruler immortal mature eternalism-transformed. IM-MORTAL; NON-DYING; IM-PERISHABLE; A-THANATOS; NOT-DYING PSILOCYBIN DEATH OF CONTROL – NOT not dying cyberentic control death during psilcobybin = immortal, abel able to eat from the tree of knowledge of bad and good,

BAD:

GOOD:

bad branching,

good non-branching. plus

bad auton ctrl ,

good 2-level congtrol,

good analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

BAD: Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism repudiat, to pass through gate into PSILOCYBIN CITY: TO ENTER PSILOCYBIN CITY , SACRIFIC CHILE RULER THINKING THAT IS AUTON CONTROL FOUNDATION SOURCE OF THOUGHTS. IT IS UNSABL STABLE, UNABLE TO ENDURE PSILOCYBIN, FAILS, TRANSFROMS

ALTAR-GATE SACRIFICE PASSAGE INTO PSILOCYBINLAND

The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Transcendent Point of Reference Is Psilocybin

CHILD = NOT PSILOCYBIN EXPOSED

Where to find def’n of mature? Best ans: Psilo

ADULT = PSILOCYBIN EXPOSED & TRANSFORMED

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/#Sacrifice-of-Isaac —

Psil. Literally, Exclusively, and Specifically – against the Bunk Product Being Pedalled by Ruck & Hanegraaff.

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Sacrifice of Isaac. Canterbury Psalter
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Sacrifice of Isaac (Golden Psalter)
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Sacrifice of Isaac (Van der Borch)

image series: in branching-message mushroom trees article > Entry into Jerusalem
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/#Entry-into-Jerusalem-Martin

Brian Blomerth’s Mycelium Wassonii – Comics Wasson Bio Book (Blomerth 2021)

Brian Blomerth’s Mycelium Wassonii
Brian Blomerth (Author), Paul Stamets (Foreword), 2021
https://www.amazon.com/Brian-Blomerths-Mycelium-Wassonii-Blomerth/dp/194486041X/https://www.amazon.com/Brian-Blomerths-Mycelium-Wassonii-Blomerth/dp/194486041X/

blurb:

“Brian Blomerth first fused his singularly irreverent underground comix style with heavily-researched history in 2019’s Brian Blomerth’s Bicycle Day, a Technicolor retelling of the discovery of LSD.

https://www.amazon.com/Brian-Blomerths-Bicycle-Day-Blomerth/dp/194486024X/

Now, the illustrator and graphic novelist continues his wild and woolly excursions into the history of mind expansion with Mycelium Wassonii,

“an account of the lives and trips of R. Gordon and Valentina Wasson,

“the pioneering scientist couple responsible for popularizing the use of psychedelic mushrooms.

“A globetrotting vision of hallucinatory science and religious mysticism with appearances by

Life Magazine,
the CIA, and
the Buddha,
Mycelium Wassonii is a visual history and a love story
as only Blomerth’s Isograph pen can render it.”

Mixed-Quality Argumentation from Panofsky Huggins

Huggins provides a pile of purple sand to separate into valid red or blue grains of sand all mixed together, sound and unsound.

“The Fact that Entheogen scholars identify the item as mushrooms proves that entheogen scholars are too stupid to know the surface meaning” (except No, it doesn’t, and this argument is a shameless put-on, play-acting)

Many points & corrections from Huggins are correct, but, his valid arg’n is woven together with a ton of invalid arg’n. Welcome to the Hell World of scholarship – it’s always this way.

Exhibits B-D reveal that those making the claims are not familiar with readily recognizable Christian iconographical themes and stylized landscape features.

Huggins’ shameless non sequitur, false dichotomy, single-meaning fallacy, feigned ignorance of the “2nd, esoteric, add’l, higher meaning” concept, & argument from insult

Certainly there are cases where entheogen scholars mis-identify surface elements, eg sun & moon w/ face in them, in Creation scenes.

It’s fair to say, Irvin’s discussion of Walburga, if doesn’t say “vial”, is lacking a relevant point, b/c healing is like Amanita. That would be constructive cooperative scholarship, described by Cyberdisciple, devoted to moving investigation forward.

Even Brown (quadruple penalty: 2016 book & 2019 article; two authors) commits this low shameless arg’n, Brown feigns and pretends to hold the single-meaning fallacy, that an item in art can only have a single meaning, to argue that Irvin’s assertion that Walburga holds a mushroom proves that Irvin is just ignorant of the surface item, that she holds a vial. NON SEQUITUR.

Brown would have to step up the insult potential though, to match Panofsky and Ghost of Panofsky Huggins: to be true to form, Brown should have argued:

“The fact that Irvin thinks she holds a mushroom is proof that Irvin is just ignorant of what everyone knows, that she holds a vial. Can you believe it, how incredibly ignorant Irvin is?!”

(Ironically, this would require Brown to feign such incredibly low intelligence, that Brown has never heard of concept of “higher, 2nd, esoteric meaning in addition to mere surface exoteric meaning”.)

To make my argument that you’re an idiot, requires me to play the part – implicitly – of being an idiot.

Huggin’s argument that mushroom affirmers are idiots (“Their assertion of mushroom proves they don’t know the commonly known meaning — can you believe how ignorant they are?!“), requires, implicitly, that Huggins pretend to be an idiot who’s never heard “item in art can have a lower and higher, surface & hidden, exoteric & esoteric meaning both”.

Panofsky says “the only reason you say Plainc is aman is bc you are ignorant of the hundreds of similar mushroom-trees.”

Playing this card ages poorly: it was unconvincing in 1952, in 1968, and is all the more unconvincing in 2025 — yet deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art still try to play this same card:

“The fact you say the item refers to mushrooms is just proof that you are ignorant of the standard meaning; if you knew the std meaning, it would be impossible for you to assert it means mushroom.”

Huggins argues same, single-meaning fallacy, combined with insult of ignorance of OBVIOUS given surface meaning — which is not actually in dispute, but PRETENDING THAT THE SURFACE MEANING IS IN DISPUTE — ie, lying about what the opponent is asserting and denying.

Huggins falsely argues — combining:

  • single meaning fallacy
  • insult of ignorance
  • lying about what the opponent agrees and denies
  • insincere arg’n; arguing in bad faith
  • pretending to be unaware that items can have a higher meaning in addition to a surface meaning

Huggins understands this obvious concept in all topics except the special exception topic of mushroom imagery, where suddenly, Huggins pretends to be incredibly stupid – a self-contradiction argumentation on Huggins’ part.

I am going to pretend to be totally stupid – I never heard an item can have a surface and a 2nd meaning – in order to foist some junk arg’n on you, to end up calling you too stupid to know that a mushroom-tree means tree, at the surface level.

“The fact that you say it’s mushroom, proves that you are IGNORANT of the surface meaning” (tree, vial, etc.).

That junk argument weaves together:

  • The single-meaning fallacy
  • denial of knowing about “higher esoteric layer of meaning” (feigning stupidity)
  • feigned ignorance of the “2nd, esoteric, add’l, higher meaning” concept
  • lying about what the opponent asserts and denies;
  • pretending the surface meaning is in dispute (thus shirking, and losing, the REAL debate)
  • non sequitur
  • false dichotomy
  • argument from insult
  • etc.

It is a phony, dishonest, playacting, sleazy, shameless manner of arg’n. Some minor correction of surface level items is needed; entheogen scholars are often mistaken about surface-level things, and need to be corrected – still, there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art, which is the important point.

Huggins Writes in an Insulting Style

Many points & corrections from Huggins are correct, but, his valid arg’n is woven together with a ton of invalid arg’n.

With no support at all, wholly unearned, Huggins tries to slip-in such assertions as:

“This was due to its dependence (pp 34–35) on the work of Italian PMT Georgio Samorini, repeating, for example, his misidentification of a tree as a psilocybin mushroom in a fresco of the third / fourth creation day in the Abbey of Saint-Savin-sur-Gartempe, Poitou, France.” FALSE. CITATION NEEDED.

HUGGINS IS GUILTY OF DECLARING SAMO MADE a “MISIDENTIFICATION” — WITHOUT GIVING ANY EVIDENCE OF “MIS-ID’N”.

This is just EMPTY SELF-PROUD BLUSTER, preening, EMPTY BLUSTER, empty posturing. Obnoxious writing style.

If you’re going to call Samo wrong, you need to give EVIDENCE that he’s wrong.

Huggins has no right to use the word “misidentification”, without paying the price of substantiating Huggins’ assertion. Sleazy, insulting writing style.

The peak-terribleness passage in Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article, p. 7:

Exhibits B-D reveal that those making the claims are not familiar with readily recognizable Christian iconographical themes and stylized landscape features.

NO IT DOESN’T REVEAL THAT (and it’s beside the point anyway; that’s not what the dispute is actually about).

Yes, Ruck — in his Amanita Primacy Fallacy frenzy — made a massive mistake (pushy/assertive, & dead wrong) about Dancing Man having red cap, and I feel I have no choice but to accuse Irvin of corrupting Dancing Man by forcing palette from blue to red, which Huggins admirably covers in his Dizzy article.

Entheogen scholars make huge blunders on some points – including major points, like “Amanita = Psil = mushrooms = potent psychedelic” – rubbish! disproved! disconfirmed! debunked! The ONLY thing Ama & Psil have in common, is mushroom, and inebriant.

Wasson was forced to conclude that Psil & Aman cannot be lumped together to form “the holy mushroom, which means specifically Amanita. and, yuck, if we are forced to, we temporarily accept Psil too, and then kick it back out when we’re done robbing it of credit.” (& then demonize Psil in a series of articles & latest Irvin book — while staying silent about Amanita)

Amanita effects SUCK compared to Psil – no comparison. It makes no sense to pretend and wish and act like we can concoct a helpful explanatory category, “sacred mushrooms”.

Wasson met nothing but total disappointment: REAL WORLD Amanita is NOTHING compared to MYTH-LAND “AMANITA”.

In contrast, real Psil is pretty same as myth-land Psil.

Amanita gets all the hype (obscene, extreme, over the top, fawning glorification!) by entheogen scholarship, yet only Psil delivers what was falsely promised and attributed to Amanita.

I’m constantly haranguing entheogen scholars for bad theorizing, corrupting art & rendering Psil evidence invisible, screwing up the orientation of Entheos 3’s cover, reversed tauroctony (total disaster, total lack of comprehension, in the eyes of Mithraism – and in the eyes of David Ulansey).

HUGGINs lies here, and pretends that mushroom affirmers are ignorant of surface meanings.

Sometimes entheogen scholars mis-identify surface items – how serious a problem is that, really? So correct them – doesn’t change very much the fact that there’s tons of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Yes, every entheogen scholar is wrong: they all say Day 1 is Amanita. You’re right, Huggins, it’s not Amanita.

In Day 1, God holds balance scales that contain Panaeolus mushrooms, Day 4 has 4 mushrooms consistently pointing to 4 items in Day 1 including pans of balance scale. Red mushroom points to right pan of balance scale, which is indicated as containing Amanita – and broadly, Psil, since 3/4 of the plants are Psil.

Huggins exclusively privileges the surface literal meaning as if it’s the only possible meaning; he fakely play-acts as if this is a zero-sum game: compass therefore cannot (also) mean Alpha – feigned denseness, in this particular field, of mushroom interpretation, only.

Never mind that it’s diagrammatic, non-realism, Medieval art. When the proposed 2nd meaning is mushrooms, the only possible meaning that Medieval art can have is the surface, exoteric, literal, common meaning.

If the proposed 2nd meaning is something other than mushrooms, not a problem; any idiot knows that things in art can have multiple meanings, obviously.

Two branching-cap (grid-cap) mushrooms on left point to compass – and you are probably wrong, & John Rush is right: God’s compass & scales ARE like Alpha and Omega.

Huggins says no, they are compass and scale, not Alpha Omega – feigning denseness, as if Huggins is incapable of comprehending an item can have two referents. Which Huggins will grant as an obvious principle for anything other than mushroom imagery.

“Aren’t mushroom theorists stupid?” he asks his audience.

“They are too dumb to know that the mushroom-tree means a tree!”

“How can they be so ignorant of surface meaning that they misread as mushroom?!”

This is just a lie about what the opponent agrees about/ believes/ asserts.

Sensible entheogen scholars assert that there is a msh meaning in addition to the stupdily obvious, given, surface meaning. NOT that it means mushrooms but not the surface meaning.

The surface meaning is not in dispute! But the loser deniers can’t win an honest debate, so they lie and play-act and pretend that the debate is about whether a surface meaning exists, and what that surface meaning is.

It’s a put-on, a fake move to deceive the reader, by Huggins: He pretends that Ruck is denying there exists a surface level meaning (eg tree).

He pretends that he and affirmers disagree regarding what the surface meaning is, and whether a surface meaning exists.

In fact, the affirmers agree there exists a surface meaning, and they agree generally, what that meaning is.

That has little to do with what’s actually in dispute: whether there is ALSO an ADDITIONAL meaning.

Huggins pretends that affirmers deny the existence of surface meanings. Huggins knows that what the dispute is REALLY about is whether there is ALSO an ADDITIONAL, “esoteric” meaning in ADDITION to the BUTT-OBVIOUS surface meaning.

It’s true that asserters have no interest in what the surface meaning is. The asserters do not deny there eixsts a surface meaning. Huggins accuses the asserters of denying that a surface meaning exists.

The Vial Moderates 🚫🍄

Brown uses the single-meaning fallacy to accuse Irvin of denying that a surface meaning exists (Walburga holds a mundane vial).

Irvin does not, in fact, deny that there’s a mundane surface meaning.

And Brown knows that Irvin doesn’t deny that.

Brown PRETENDS that Irvin denies that there’s a surface meaning.

Brown PRETENDS that the surface meaning — and existence of a surface meaning – is a point of dispute, but Brown knows that it’s NOT a point of dispute.

Brown and Irvin both konw – if they would argue honestly and without Huggins-type feidnged denseness — that what the argument is ACTUALLY about is whether there is ALSO an ADDITIONAL, “esoteric” referent in ADDITION to the mundane surface referent.

Irvin says, or means, that the item in art has TWO DISTINCT REFERENTS: exoteric level (vial) and esoteric level (mushroom).

It’s a put-on from Brown, to try to sell oneself as “moderate, pls believe me, my reasonable middle of road position/ insincere pretended commitment to a negative assessment [at the same time Brown plasters glorious hypocritically Walburga all over their galleries, while ppl ooh and ahh and purchase their book].”

Brown gets to have it both ways: sell Walburga, know obviously Walburga means both vial and mushroom, but pretend to be “moderate and reject”.

Make a big show of throwing the tapestry in the river, AND, at the same time, use the tapestry in their definitely-Amanita imagery gallery to sell their book.

Brown momentarily PRETENDS dishonestly to believe that in art, an item can only have one meaning: vial, thereofore 1) therefore not mushrooms, and 2) therefore, Irvin is stupid and ignorant, too ignorant to know that there is a surface meaning, and that that meaning is, vial.

Huggins puls the same shameless bunk argumentation move, with dishonesty – con artist game – woven in.

Huggins feigns dishonestly and play-acts as if Huggins is TOO STUPID TO HAVE HEARD concept of “item in art has two meanings” or “item has both a lower and higher meaning” – Huggins falsely (lyingly; not mistakenly) argues:

The fact that you say the mushroom-tree means mushroom proves that you are ignorant that the item means tree.

But that (of course) does not follow.

Huggins knows perfectly well, despite his feigned denseness, that an item in art can have a 2nd meaning in addition to the (OBVIOUS; not in dispute) surface meaning.

Huggins PRETENDS that asserting the 2nd meaning is proof that you are ignorant of the surface meaning.

This tired garbage-level shameless arg’n is employed by this camp – Pan, Wass, Let, Hat, Hug.

Even Brown employs this “deniers’ standard garbage-tier argumentation fallacy”, against Irvin (and pays price as I ran off with the Psychedelic Gospels theory 2.0 b/c 1.0 proved perishable – Brown bet wrong and lost everything.)

Huggins crit’s Ruck’s “elastic language” but writes this elastic footnote: “Ironically, none of the four plants really resembles the mushrooms the Browns have identified them with.” – what does “really resemble” mean?

I agree Brown mis-id’s the 4 mushrooms. or poorly under-id’s them, as “psil, pan, psil, Aman” – even worse, Brown falls into the Amanita Primacy Fallacy: “the four plants, starting on the right, are Ama, psil, pan, psil”.

No: starting from LEFT, is Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.
Not “starting from right: Ama, psil, pan, psil.” <– Browns’ id’n.

Ruck screws up, p 56 “Daturas” 2001: “mushroom-trees are mushrooms and that’s what they look like, mushrooms, and nothing else.” False! They also look like trees, branches, and cut branches.

Huggins can have a field day with that sloppy position statement. Both camps argue poorly, state their position poorly, and Huggins takes advantage – Huggins wants entheogen scholars to waste all their time affirming that they know the OBVIOUS manifestly given, surface meaning – it’s a ploy, pretending that that matters in a constraining way.

THE SURFACE LEVEL MEANING DOES EXIST, BUT IT IS NOT CONSTRAINING.

Entheogen scholars don’t care what the surface meaning is, but they plainly know it is tree, or vial.

That fact it is a tree is actually significant, though – like vial is, too. A meaningful & relevant, albeit surface, meaning.

Periodization of Entheogen Scholarship into 3 Generations per Lash, 2 Generations per Brown

John Lash defined 3 generations, without explaining why, and wrote an article about the first generation — including more non-psychedelic topics than psychedelics, raising the question of what vector does Lash come from into entheogen scholarship?

Brown 2019 defines 1st Gen entheogen scholarship, 2nd Gen inaug’d by Samo 1998 article Mushroom-trees in Christian art.

to do: finish summarizing below, what Brown 2019 says about generations periodization:

  • in Abstract intro
  • in body of article near end

My Samo page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/

My Lash page/link:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/07/wise-as-serpents-entheogenic-religion-and-the-paris-eadwine-psalter-john-lash/#PSYCHONAUTICS —

1st Generation: 1935 – 1965 [Wasson]
2nd Generation: 1965 – 1995 [Leary? McKenna?]
3rd Generation: 1995 – 2008 (/2011/2021/2025) [why? who?]

Lash mixes in so much UFO & pop cult politics, it dilutes what his periodization is focusing on. 3 generations — of UFO, current events, pop psychology, and everything.

Almost forgot: of entheogen scholarship, too.

3 generations of psychedelic smash-the-patriarchy involving UFOs?? Focus, Lash!

Where Lash documents the first gen:

The Psychonautic Adventure – Part 1, 1935 – 1965
https://web.archive.org/web/20111019195903/http://www.metahistory.org/psychonautics/Psychonautics1.php
He doesn’t say why he ends that period in 1964 (not 1965), and focuses on 1965 as dividing line. Doesn’t say why break into 3 not 2 generations.

Christopher Partridge’s Periodization (Most Superficial & Pop)

W Hane. & I hate Christopher Partridge’s periodization, it’s really bad: he just parrots the most shallow of famous pop “great man” names/ years:

Per Christopher Partridge, the modern history of psychedelics consists of:

  1. 1967, Leary.
  2. 1992 Rave culture, McKenna.

That’s it. Partridge gives us nothing but vulgar common mental reaction blotter association:

Name an earlier guy: LEARY!

Name a later guy: MCKENNA!

Congrats, you have now traced modern psychedelics cultural [sorry, “occulture“] history, because you’re able to point to the very most Pop figures, per word-association.

In article Entheogenic Esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff expresses remorse b/c his book about New Age was gullible and credulous about the cover-story “New Age abandoned psychedelics”.

The chastened historian of W Esotericism, W Hane. says:

  • You left out psychedelic new age!
  • You left out psychedelic-originated, Transpersonal Psychology!
  • You left out neoshamanism!
  • Me: You left out acid-inspired Rock, which Patrick Lundborg wrote thick books about!

Periodization is problematic: 

Does the Psilocybin history advocate T. McKenna (Food of the Gods book 1992) fit into Brown’s Samorini 1998 2nd-Gen period of entheogen scholarship?

What about Ruck, whose Secret Allegro/ Secret Ruck research and publication is both before and after 1998? Is Ruck 1st Gen, or 2nd Gen, per Brown?

Over-Dependence on Archaeological Evidence

The Egodeath Community wrote:

“Brian Muraresku & Chris Bennett treat direct archaeological evidence as the only compelling proof of drug plant use in religion.

“Bennett wrote:

“my one plant theory has actual archaeological evidence”

“theory is now confirmed by archaeology”

“archaeological and this verifies the earlier linguistic claim.”

The Egodeath community continued:

“For Bennett, other forms of evidence, like linguistic evidence, are not sufficient to prove the theory of drug plant use in religion.

“Only direct archaeological evidence can deliver proof.

“Muraresku too treats direct archaeological evidence via chemical testing as the only way to be sure that drugs were used in the past.

“Linguistics, art, ways of talking about Dionysus or the Eucharist – none of that can possibly be compelling.

“If there is not something dug up out of the ground and tested in a lab, then, I’m sorry, the arguments just aren’t compelling.

“How can we possibly decide without archaeology and the chemical labs whether or not drugs were used in the past? I guess we’ll just never know.

🤷

“A major huge problem for this over-veneration of direct archaeological evidence is that FUNGUS does not survive well in the archaeological record, because it is soft and prone to rotting and decomposition.

“Samorini 2019: “The archeology of psychoactive mushrooms tells us very little as far as direct evidence is concerned, due to the rapid deterioration of fungal tissue.”
https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/article-p63.xml

Evidence Is Impossible, Give Up

Charles Stang explains that archaeology evidence is worthless, because it cannot prove what’s required to be proved: that ergot kykeon was universally standard and orthodox in the first generation of Christians. 

This exaggerated frenzy of negative attitude is a self-marketing strategy; marketing positioning.

“Look how reasonable and skeptical I am compared to crazy unreasonsable Muraresku!”

Stang recycles his article pushing back against Muraresku to sell himself as middling-moderate (like Browns’ move, against the Ardent Advocates).

Charles Stang makes sure to bake-in defeatism right from the start, preemptively:

“Even if we did have tons of evidence, we’d still have no evidence at all, because we can’t possibly prove that entheogens were orthodox, normal, mainstream, standard, common.  

Since we can’t have certainty that fits this extremist proof of every requirement we can think of, there’s no way to know anything, and such research is empty and futile.”

I reject all historical narrative, all characterizations, all imaginings and divisions into “mainstream” vs. “counterculture”.

Such narrative construction always causes blindness.  

The moment you commit to a negative narrative, instead of looking for evidence of entheogens, you get sidetracked into looking for evidence that supports your negative commitment.

Even Brown, end of 2019 article, gets confused, and misunderstands the research project as a demand to deliver an explanatory narrative: “the mushroom was a secret initiation.”  Implicit: “That successfully explains why there is such very weak evidence.”

Entheogen scholars, please do NOT provide such explanatory narrative to explain why there’s little evidence – that leads to downplaying the evidence, in order to corroborate your stated commitment to your negative “explanatory narrative”.

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship was Narrative-first, evidence second; the narrative controls and restricts and constrains the evidence.  

The evidence is restricted and made to fit — probably inconsistently — the narrative.

My only narrative is: there was mushrooms, as the combination of motifs shows: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Was it “mainstream” and “normal” in the religion?

Was it “original” in the religion, first-gen?  

Was it “suppressed” and “counterculture” and “underground”?  

None of those concepts are real or needed or helpful.  

The only purpose of raising such requirements or questions is, an excuse to dismiss, per one’s a priori presuppositions.

The stance is just an excuse to dismiss the entheogen theory of religion: 

“ok we admit grudgingly there is some kind of evidence for entheogens, but, you can’t prove that it was MAINSTREAM and ORIGINAL for the VERY FIRST people in this religion —

, so, doesn’t count.

My solution: reject the very concept of “mainstream”, “original”, “used by the very first practitioners of this religion”.

If there was mushrooms, there was mushrooms: the presence of 2 pieces of evidence is the same as being “mainstream”.  

As soon as we have 2 pieces of evidence, the mission is accomplished: 

It has been proved that there was a fully developed use of Psil mushrooms in Western religious history.  

When entheogen scholarship adds and inserts concepts like “mainstream” and “suppressed”, “counterculture” – you’re no longer doing entheogen scholarship; now you’ve switched to doing academic anthropology theory of tabu / sacred / forbidden; the evidence is treated as “evidence for presence = evidence for absence” and vice versa.

Entheogen scholars disagree about what the objective, purpose, requirements, mission, what change to effect (repeal Psil Prohib.)

Is the purpose of doing entheogen scholarship to Smash the Patriarchy?  (John Lash: mystery religions = female — and Mithraism doesn’t exist).

Why did this scholar enter into the field, to accomplish what?  

Allegro’s motive for doing entheogen scholarship if we can call it that?  To make Christianity look bad, by using entheogen scholarship.

Ruck’s motive for doing entheogen scholarship: To do anthropology theory of suppression taboo.  Does he show any interest in psychedelics, psych. effects, and repeal of Prohibition?

I Am a Theorist — Not a Scholar or Historian

I sometimes do scholarship, but I don’t describe myself as a scholar. I am a theorist. I am not a scholar.

My motivation is to do sound theory – not to do sound scholarship.

Scholarship is incidental and utilitarian toward my objective of constructing a theory of mental model transformation.

My branching-message mushroom trees article is Theory, not History, not scholarship.

I’m Not a Historian or Other Villain

Historians suck and everything they write is false.

Do not lump me with in with that bad company, “historians”, tale-fabricators. Fiction novelists = historians.

The less the historical narrative, the better the entheogen scholarship.

Letcher 2006 Got the “Secret, Oppressed Cult” Straw Man Narrative from Allegro & Ruck

Letcher 2006 Got the Secret Straw Man from Allegro, Ruck, and their Popular Reception, then Falsely Attributed that to Gartz and Stamets Because Letcher only Considers a single art work, which Gartz & Stamets happen to show in their two books with no Trace of “Secret” Framing.

Andy Letcher did not entirely create his straw man “various writers suggested secret hidden cult oppressed surreptitiously slipped in mushroom image”.

Letcher combined Allegro & Ruck’s “secret” hyper-emphasis, and sloppily falsely attributed that hyper emphasis to Gartz and Stamets simply because their books show a picture of Bernward Door w/ neutral caption:

  • “depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap” (Stamets).
  • “with mushroom motif” (Gartz).

Where does Letcher get his intensive “secret” straw man hyped-to-ridicule narrative that he falsely attributes to Gartz & Stamets (as his main & only argument — and strategy — for dismissing mushroom imagery in Christian art)? From Allegro & Ruck.

External and Internal Critiques of Entheogen Scholarship

Scorched-earth intellectually lazy total deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art – Letcher Hatsis Huggins — are right, that entheogen scholarship needs critique.

They are wrong and lazy to dismiss the topic entirely.

Different types of critiques of entheogen scholarship are incoming from various directions, from inside, semi-inside the field, and from outside the field. It is really hard, perhaps NOT FEASIBLE, to talk about multiple scholars at once.

Each scholar has a unique vector and position and type of critique of entheogen scholarship.

Albert Brinckmann

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

1906, before the concept of psychedelic mushrooms. Art Historian.

Panofsky claims that Brinckmann’s book shows that mushroom-trees developed smoothly due to sloppy degradation purposeless, from pine to mushrooms, proving purposeless mushroom imagery.

I doubt Brinckmann’s book explicitly or implicitly shows or supports any of those claims by Panofsky.

Erwin Panofsky

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Art Historian. 1952. Outsider.

Jan Irvin

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship? Criticizes Ruck 2001 for trying to limit The Mushroom to just “heretical groups”.

Irvin then immediately had to delete his own limiting — his NEGATIVE NARRATIVE — of The Mushroom to just “kings, priests, and elites”, in AstroSham 2.

Irvin commits full-on extreme Amanita Primacy Fallacy. Abuses Psil just to prop up his idol Amanita. Wrote foreword to Rutajit book that claims “Amanita is the most potent psychedelic mushroom ever.” Fantasy-based entheogen scholarship, on that point, which distorts Irvin’s writings.

Wrote an article series & book demonizing Psil mushrooms, while remaining silent about Amanita.

Gordon Wasson

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship? He is the subject of critique.

Worshipper of the Holy Mushroom, amanita; studied Psil in Mexico in order to glorify and confirm Amanita’s potent classic psychedelic effects – accidentally found that Psil runs circles around Aman.

Terence McKenna

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Internal critic. Rejects Amanita, pushes Psil proposal instead.

Samorini

Where’s he coming from?
In what way is he an entheogen scholar?
What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault: criticizes Wasson’s rejection of our sacred fresco; in effect, is against the Amanita Primacy Fallacy and shattered it in 1998 article Mushroom-trees in Christian art.

John Lash

John Lash, Terence McKenna, and Michael Hoffman reject the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, and are committed to advocating Psilocybin entheogen scholarship – but it’s tricky to lump multiple scholars together.

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

A semi-Internal critic.

Attributes every idea of entheogens to Wasson. Any thought you have, any point, all was thought of by Wasson.

Hallmark lexicon: “entheogenic”, “Wasson’s theory”, “the Wasson theory”. Lash never misses an opportunity to go out of his way to insert the framing, “that idea concerns entheogen, therefore, that is Wasson’s idea; that is the Wasson theory.” Other scholars might do that but Lash does that as his main focus.

Ruck hyper-emphasizes “secret” to the extreme point that “secret” is the main, dominant feature of all of Ruck’s scholarship – for Ruck, the purpose of entheogen scholarship is to serve the master narrative of “secret, suppressed”.

Lash hyper-emphasizes “the Wasson theory” to the extreme point that “It’s Wasson’s theory” is the main, driving, dominant feature of all of Lash’s entheogen scholarship.

For Lash, the motivation & purpose of entheogen scholarship is to give all credit and worship and veneration of THE FATHER OF ETHNOMYCOLOGY, WASSON.

I use Brown 2019 — and my 2006 accusation & deduction that Wasson censored a pathetically weak scholarly citation that Panofsky must have provided to him — to show that Wasson is the father of obstructing European ethnomycology.

Infamous quote: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#John-Lash-Variations-including-considerable-departures –

Variations of the Wasson thesis, including some considerable extrapolations and departures from it, have been advanced by [every entheogen scholar].

Lash loathes Wasson’s specific theory of spread of Amanita cult from Ural mountains; Lash hates the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Sort of coming from outside the field of entheogen scholarship — he’s as interested in UFOs as psychedelics.

All mystery religions are female (by deleting Mithraism). Everything male is bad, everything female is good – like Muraresku.

Brian Muraresku

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Andy Letcher

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Insider to Pop Sike Cult, outsider to entheogen scholarship – ie denies history of considering mushrooms as religious experiencing.

Thomas Hatsis

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Young Hatsis believed Allegro’s Secret Amanita paradigm, Secret Christian Amanita Cult.

Historian of scopolamine deliriants.

Denies that The Mushroom (kiddie amanita) is secretly hidden and used in history.

Absolute conflation of “secret Amanita”; conflates: secret = mushroom = Amanita.

Ronald Huggins

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Outsider. Not pop sike scholar.

Michael Hoffman

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Semi outsider. not coming from within entheogen scholarship.

Motivation for participating in entheogen scholarship: Utilize entheogen scholarship to make religious myth corroborate the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism.

Cyberdisciple

Where’s he coming from?

Classics, pov: the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism.

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship?

Against the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Against the secrecy premise/ extreme overemphasis; against making “secret hidden suppressed taboo cult groups” the foundational paradigm for entheogen scholarship.

Carl Ruck

Where’s he coming from?

In what way is he an entheogen scholar?

What kind of critique does he give, of entheogen scholarship? None; he is the problem, the object of critique.

I cannot think of Ruck as giving critique of entheogen scholarship; he can only be the subject of critique.

Long-term, multi-generation insider; breaks Browns’ periodization of 1st gen vs 2nd gen starting w Samo 1998.

Ruck is committed to worshipping and venerating SECRET HERETICAL SUPPRESSED amanita as the world’s most potent, reliable, effective psychedelic.

Ruck’s motivation: Intensive, passionate interest in secret suppressed underground heretical cult group sects, and only slight interest in psychedelic effects.

The engine of mystery religions is Amanita. Symposium mixed wine is Amanita. Mithraism is based on Amanita. The Eucharist was Amanita.

Amanita was unavailable, so an equivalent replacement was Scopolamine – and when the worshippers of The Mushroom were really desperate, they even stooped to using, unfortunately, Psilocybin — the Heinrich Strange Fruit narrative, incorporating Psilocybin into the Amanita-glorifying historical narrative, in order to glorify The Sacred Mushroom, Amanita.

No interest in repeal of Prohibition of Psil.

Ruck’s strategy & purpose for contributing to the field: Utilize entheogen scholarship for the purpose of doing Secret Taboo Anthropology theorizing.

Where does Letcher get his intensive “secret” straw man hyped-to-ridicule narrative that he falsely attributes to Gartz & Stamets (as his main & only argument for dismissing mushroom imagery in Christian art)? From Allegro & Ruck.

How to Kill Dead the Disconfirmed Hypothesis that Amanita Produces Psychedelic Effects Closely Similar to Psilocybin

Here we have in 2002 — after the first issues of Entheos journal — evil M. Hoffman still pushing the disconfirmed 1950s Graves/Wasson/Allegro hypothesis that Amanita is “THE MOST POTENT MUSHROOM”.

Mushroom Myth and Imagery in Hawai’i: Evidence for an Indigenous Cult
Mark A. Hoffman
2002, Entheogen Review
7 Pages https://www.academia.edu/5075795/Mushroom_Myth_and_Imagery_in_Hawai_i_Evidence_for_an_Indigenous_Cult_Mark_A_Hoffman?email_work_card=view-paper&li=0 —

AI-generated Abstract:

“This research explores the cultural significance of mushrooms in Hawai’i, particularly focusing on the absence of indigenous mushroom traditions prior to European contact.

“By referencing the work of scholars such as R. Gordon Wasson, the paper examines the implications of spiritual beliefs, linguistic phenomena, and the conceptual frameworks surrounding mushrooms, specifically Amanita muscaria.

“The findings indicate that despite a lack of historical evidence supporting an indigenous mushroom cult, there are intriguing hints at the possible integration of mushrooms into Hawaiian spirituality after the introduction of external influences.”

/ end of generated abstract

A Confused Mess: Amanita Is the Key Mushroom, Because Dung Psilocybin Headdress – what?

Amanita Is the Most Potent Mushroom – Wasson, SOMA, 1968

“How Strange it is…” wrote R. Gordon Wasson, “…that the most spectacular, the most potent, mushroom lacks a name in the English language” (Wasson 1968).”

Alternate hypothesis: Amanita is a poor, disappointing, non-psychedelic mushroom, that was sensibly ignored.

Mark Hoffman wrote:

“In order to account for the puzzling lack of a common name for Amanita muscaria among the Indo-Germanic languages, Wasson went to great depths to uncover and document cultural and linguistic evidence illustrative of the spiritual origins of specific fly agaric traditions, and the process by which sacredness and tabu become interrelated (Wasson & Wasson 1957; Wasson 1968).

Lack of Evidence of Mushrooms Is Proof of Mushrooms

M. Hoffman continues:

“By pursuing those candidates that possess an unusual absence of information, one may very well be on path of the most sacred— and therefore tabu—of cultural phenomena.

“The stranger or more unlikely the absence, given the availability of similar or related data, the more likely we are to find deep veneration and a subsequent “protected” (tabu) status within the cultural context.”

Amanita Is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever – Rutajit 2007

The red and white mushroom … is … one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered.

Andrew Rutajit, p. 126, The Vestibule, 2007

Wasson by 1986 Disconfirmed His 1957/1968 Published Hypothesis that Amanita Is a Psychedelic – Yet People Continue to Wishfully Cite His Disconfirmed Hypothesis as if Confirmed

Rutijit in 2007 is quoting Wasson, who formed the 1952 hypothesis “Amanita is a psychedelic” and who then disconfirmed his own hypothesis by 1986.

Amanita has been proved to not be a Psychedelic, but a Deliriant.

Level of Detail in Eadwine Mushroom Miniatures

In the “eat from tree” panel of f11 in Great Canterbury Psalter, in the tree’s cap, a few of the arms look closely like mushrooms:

  • Row 1 of arms in the cap: Left arm looks like mushroom.
  • Row 2 of arms in the cap: The rightmost left arm looks like mushroom.
Crop by Michael Hoffman. G.C.Psalter f11 row 3 right: cap of tree of knowledge
Crop by Michael Hoffman. G.C.Psalter f134 row 2 right: psilocybin dispensary bins

Both pictures raise the question: How much precision to expect at this extreme zoom level? are you able to easily paint a well-formed tiny mushroom?

How much precision botanical taxonomic match to expect, at this zoom level/ miniscule scale of painting? How much detail does Eadwine have elsewhere?

Here are two examples of detail at extreme zoom/ small size, what other features are tiny and well-formed in the Psalter?

Conclusion: Each liberty cap in the grid in cap is has on L & R a Left parasol of victory & R.

Deniers: These mushroom-trees don’t purposefully mean mushrooms.

Artists: Correct. Our message is not “mushrooms”. This genre does not mean mushrooms.

Our message is branching-message mushroom trees.

Our message is psychedelic eternalism;
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
2-level control

  1. {stability}
  2. {branching}
  3. {mushrooms}
  4. {handedness}

Stability is your message? That means mushrooms is your next main message.

No, our next main message is branching

So mushrooms are your least message?

No, our least message is handedness.

Our favorite trick is to confound our rules; set up strict L & R mapping to possibilism & eternalism – in order to always make hash & violate it and problematize our rule that we set. If ever there was a rule that screams “pls violate me!” it’s {handedness}. ie, take “handedness mapping very loosely. It is NOT a rigid simple adherence to

L always Possibilism
R always Eternalism

Set rule to immed break rule or problematize it

L & R map to {chaos} and map to possibilism & eternalism

Eternalism City Through the Gates Guarded Sacrifice Lamb to Pass Through – No Mortals May Pass

The Holy City of the Psilocybin Imperishables: Pass Through the Guarded Gate, Sacrifice Mortal Perishable Child to Pass Through the Gates Blessed wash robes

lamb ox at altar = your child thinking perishable lamb, must pay the transformation sacrifice to “transform through” the guarded gate: mortals cannot pass

The Immature Sacrifice Gate to the Pure Eternalism City of 2-Level Control

Branching, especially non-branching control and dependency, 2-level control – sacrifice literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to get through the gate into the city walls pure, eternalism City

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.

Rev 22:14

Do you have the right to the tree of life?

You Don’t Have the Right to the Tree of Life, Because Your Robe Is Dirty

I Washed My Robe so I Have the Right to the Tree of Life, But You Don’t – you are not blessed, but CURSED, you don’t have the right to the tree of life, because your robe is polluted, not washed, dirty

{wash hands}

{altar at doorway}

{white draped clean cloth in doorway}

{mushroom toppers} above temple building doorway – only the purest , cleanest, not egoic thinking, not possibilism-thinking , can go into the outer temple gates, the inner temple gates, the inner sanctum gates parted curtain, costing 1 egoic life to be paid, to pass,

jesus paid that price because we can’t, hes the lamb child sacrificed as the mythic model paradigm shape form of ego transcendence — is ‘ego’ alien to my lexicon? Egodeath… the the Egodeath theory never explains ‘ego’ or ‘death’.

The Egodeath theory has nothing to do with ‘ego’ or ‘death’

The Egodeath theory doesn’t mention ‘ego’ or ‘death’.

Huggins “Foraging Wrong” Looks at 4 Folios from Great Canterbury Psalter

1R = f11: 6 Days of Creation, Eden

Huggins shows the following panels:

  • Entire image (p. 10) [just says 6 Days; top half]
  • Day 1 (p. 24)
  • Day 2 (p. 24)
  • Day 3 (p. 1, 7, 11, 21, 23)
  • Day 4 (p. 21, 25)
  • Row 3 R: Eat from Tree (p. 18)
Crop by Michael Hoffman

3V = f16: Jesus’ Ministry 2

Huggins shows the following panel:

  • Row 1 Middle (p. 16)
Crop by Michael Hoffman

5V = f20: Dancing, Mushroom River, Hell-Mouth Furnace Demon with Angel Wings

Huggins shows the following panel:

  • Row 2 Left (p. 19)
Crop by Michael Hoffman

6V = f22: Mushroom Mount

Features discussed by Huggins:

  • tree 2, left: blue stripe cap tree (p. 15)
  • small plants among mushroom-trees on the mount in middle are like Day 4’s addl small plants. in footnote.
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Borrowing Argumentation Dynamics from Ahistoricity to Do Equivalent in Entheogen Scholarship

Carrier’s Use of Probability of Historicity is Like Abuse of the Word ‘Can’ in “Breathing Can Produce Psilocybin Effects”

Video:
Dr. Richard Carrier’s lecture in Bangor, Maine: The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus
May 11, 2024 (2 weeks after recorded)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl6vEJhOxL4

The outline of Richard Carrier’s forthcoming book resonates, and Richard Miller [Hellenistic resurrection tales] resonates, with the dynamics of misguided arg’n by both camps: exoteric entheogen scholarship & deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art:

  • Ruck school’s “secret hidden suppressed underground counterculture heretical sects” narrative overlay.
  • misguided arg’n by the deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art (Brinckmann, Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins).

Brinckmann isn’t able to be a denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art. In 1906 there was no concept of psychoactive mushroom imagery in Christian art for him to debunk, or to warp his thinking.

The “Genre” Question in Ahistoricity studies is like the “Nature of Mystic Transformation” Question in Entheogen Scholarship

Carrier says “the field is on a wrong, misguided mission: extract real historical jesus from the evidence” – “should be project: how were the gospels formed historically?”

Email from Chris Bennett

Cannabis-primacy entheogen scholar Bennett wrote:

“You dumb ass, you missed this, my one plant theory has actual archaeological evidence, lol
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52847175
‘Cannabis burned during worship’ by ancient Israelites – study

“confirming my theory –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VszFBALorUE&t=153s [= 2:33]
Kaneh Bosm and Tel Arad’s use and Rejection of Cannabis | Ed Dodge and Chris Bennett

“But you go ahead and harp on my 25 year old book, thats theory is now confirmed by archaeology. You call yourself a researcher? LMAO”

/ end of email from Bennett

Reply to Chris Bennett: Rev 22:2 = 13 Different Entheogens

Jan. 21, 2025

Hi Chris, 

​I am not disputing whether cannabis is used in religious history.

I recently discovered that your book’s interpretation of Rev 22:2 as 12 uses of a single plant, which you recently re-asserted, is un-strategic, a missed opportunity, because “tree of life producing twelve manner of fruits/crops every month plus leaves healing nations”, is an opportunity to claim 13 different entheogenic plants instead on only one, cannabis.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A2&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A2&version=KJV

Entheogen scholars are not extreme and assertive enough.  People who deny entheogens in religious history are extreme committed skeptics, and likewise, effective asserting of entheogens in religious history should also be assertive and can-do.

Your book Drugs in the Bible is assertive in covering more than only cannabis, except the interpretation of Rev 22:2 as a single plant contradicts the Bible saying 12 manner of fruits plus leaves – 13 different plants.  

Not 13 uses of just a single plant, cannabis/hemp.

Heinrich’s book Strange Fruit doesn’t cite Rev 22:2, and it seems like Heinrich has not read that passage.  Your book clearly cites Rev 22:2.  It’s clear that you are reading and interpreting the actual passage, unlike Heinrich.

You and Heinrich commit the single-plant fallacy specifically regarding interpretation of Rev 22:2 “twelve manner of fruits/crops plus leaves”.  

You properly cite the passage, Heinrich doesn’t. Heinrich is vague about which verse and what the verse says – he asserts it means Amanita, only.  He doesn’t give Bible chapter and verse numbers – your book is better, using that scholarly mechanism.

My close reading of Rev 22:2 recently discovered the opportunity strategically to assert 13 different entheogens.  I agree with Heinrich that the visions of Revelation are attributed to specifically Amanita, in Rev 10.  I need to check whether you assert & agree that Rev 10 (& Ezekiel) = Amanita.

I’d be interested to see how you handle asserting that Rev 10 = Amanita but Rev 22:2 (a vision resulting from Amanita) = Cannabis.

Against Heinrich, even though Rev. 10 (& Ezekiel) is specifically Amanita, that does not imply that Rev 22:2’s tree(s) of life is limited to Amanita only.  

(The tree of life is on both sides of the river, so it is multiple trees.)

The strategic, opportunistic interpretation of Rev 22:2 is not just cannabis, not just Amanita, but 13 different entheogens.

I wonder if McKenna wrote about Ezekiel, Rev 10, & Rev 22:2, along with Amanita, cannabis, & his Psil. mushrooms.  I doubt it, because he is defeatist: his book Food of the Gods takes the attitude: the big bad church got rid of all entheogens, so do not look for evidence; simply assume there is no evidence (eg for Psil. in Christian history).

_______________

Cannabis has several types of evidence in religious history, whereas mushrooms (Psil. or Aman.) has more limited evidence.  You say to give up trying to prove mushrooms, throw up your arms, because there’s not such privileged copious evidence as for Cannabis.  

My retort is, it’s harder to make the case for mushrooms in Christian history, so the solution is to work harder at leveraging evidence plus argumentation.  The proof is harder, but it can be done, by gathering all available evidence and doing ideal vigorous theorizing.

— Michael

todo: several things to check per above

Chris replied:

“My use of Revelation 22 is not the same as my historical research. I had a religious experience related to Revelation 22 in 1990, that led to my work.

“that is in no way the basis for the claim of cannabis use in ancient Israel,

“the basis for that was the linguistic case for ‘kaneh, kaneh bosem’, and the case is now linguistic and archaeological and this verifies the earlier linguistic claim.

https://www.academia.edu/43193018/2020_Cannabis_and_Frankincense_at_the_Judahite_Shrine_of_Arad “

Riddle: What’s in Pan? Solution: Panaeolus Mushroom Points at Pan

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f11 Eadwine smiling riddle pans pana.jpg” 139 KB 11:15 pm Jan. 20, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom#

Cross-Under Right Visually Cut Branch

Crop by Michael Hoffman, f11 Row 3 Right: Eat from Tree, center tree of 3

Below the Eden > Eat From Tree crown, {right branch cross under left branch}; R branch is visually cut, = non-branching = R
branching = L.

The Eden > Eat from Tree mushroom-tree thus has handedness, under the crown > R branch cross-behind L, visually cut.

The grid-cap is read as branching b/c multiple small instances of a whole mushroom-tree. Compare Dancing Man.

Therefore, each L arm in the cap = not cut = branching; each R arm in the cap = visually cut = non-branching.

🔱 – IYI – YI – IY/YI

What is the odd term used by John Lash, “omphalus grid”?

🔱 – Plant 1; middle doesn’t have a multiple number of same items. Middle branch is big but not multiple. 3 equiv. branches. Trident.

IYI – Plant 2: blue cap means multiple / branching, established signally indicated most clearly by Plant 2’s cap containing multipole Liberty cap caps vs the two arms balls singular each. Singular ball on each side vs. multi-cap cap = IYI. Plant 2 mostly clearly depicts principle or convention that the cap containing a grid of multiple items (7 distinct Liberty Cap caps) means relatively multiple = branching, vs. the simple two arms. By interping this way, we can prove the merit and coherence and systematic integrity of this interp — b/c the “multiple grid lib caps caps means branching” principle WORKS productively, bc it participates usefully within a set of 4 variants interpreted L to R as a sequence — mutually fitting rules system proves itself coherent, successful, productive,

Not a problem for me, that instead of Pana pointing at L pan, tip of cap points further right at pair of pans – both are filled, i think the amanita fell out of the r pan.

The progressive branch form interp of Day 3’s 4 plants as III IYI YI IY/YI got confirmation by its immediate SUCCESS AT HELPING PROVE DAY 1 MUSHROOMS IN PANS, BY POINTING THE TWO BRANCHING MULTICAP LEFT MUSHROOMS AT V COMPASS, AND TWO NON-BRAnching pointing at BALANCE SCALE INCL PERFECT PANA NO “TRACE OF RAMIFICATION” SRY PAN, WRONG. so

Ghost of Panofsky Huggins would argue “doesn’t count as pilzbaum —

This mushroom image lacks branches, so doesnt count as mushroom-tree by Panofsk’y defn (“every mushroom-tree has at least traces of ramification”)

This mushroom image has branches, so doesnt count, b/c branches make it not look like mushroom.

This mushroom image is hidden, so doesn’t count.

This mushroom image is not hidden, so doesn’t count. You guys are asserting hidden mushroom imagery in Christian art, but this is not hidden, so doesn’t count; no mushroom imagery in Christian art.

No matter what, doesn’t count. No logic is too kettle for the low standard of arg’n by deniers. Shameless embracing of obvious logical fallacies by deniers. They have no problem with censoring and lying by omission.

[10:51 pm Jan 20, 2025] proof that the grid in cap is multiple:

false arg: the lib caps in cap don’t count as “multiple ie branching”, b/c they dont have arms like the overall plant.

false. My gallery of all lib cap caps in Psalter proves that they are understood to have a L ball and a R ball each, eg red fruit L & R on each lib cap in the grid in the Pana cap. THEREFORE EACH LIB CAP IN THE CAP IS UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE L BALL & R BALL, THUS MORPHOLOGICALLLY SIMILAR TO THE MIAN PLANT.

in fact that very same page f11 below Day 6 has great example – eat from tree of know! https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/03/16/liberty-caps-and-panaeolus-caps-in-the-canterbury-psalter/#Liberty-Caps – each lib cap has L arm ball & R arm ball, in grid in cap.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

All Liberty Cap caps in caps in f11 entire 12 panels:

Day 3 Plant 2

Day 4 Plant 1

f11 Row 3 R: Eat from Tree, Middle Tree

All 3 trees have {right branch cross-under visually cut}, like Dancing Man. Boring: Y under crown (Plainc. fresco). Better: R crossbehind L under crown (Great Canterbury Psalter > f11 > Eat from Tree (all 3 trees).

omg 11:03 pm below, you YOU CAN SEE THE ARMS in this key instance that proves that it is to be understood that impolicitly all the Lib Cap caps in the caps have ARMS.

🖐🍄🤚🖐🍄🤚🖼🔬🔍🧐🤯

🙅‍♂️ <– enlightened; right arm visually cut (= non-branching) by left arm

in editor view, not rendered view, on my machine

Mushroom-Trees Within Mushroom-Trees

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 3 r cap.jpg” 220 KB, 11:14 pm Jan. 20, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Shows the main stem under the branches.
Arms and hand visible on each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree within this Liberty Cap cap.

Shows the main stem under the branches.
Arms and hand visible on each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree, within this Liberty Cap cap.

Crop by Michael Hoffman – orig caps gallery

Arms and hands visible on each Lib Cap cap / each Liberty Cap trree with branches III form or trident form.

The big tree is IYI and its middle Y is grid of multiple III (trident) trees.

11:19 pm: PILZBAUM WITHIN THE PILZBAUM CAP/CROWN RECOGNIZED – a grid of multiple branching trees in the cap – NONE OF MY LIB CAP CAPS IN GALLERY LOOK LIKE MUSHROOMS B/C THEY ALL ARE INDICATED HERE AS HAVING ARMS AKA BRANCHES –

Panofsky’S “TRACES OF RAMIFICATION” SO, DOESN’T COUNT, NOT MUSHROOMS

Doesn’t count, no mushrooms in cap, b/c they have arms / branches.

Use that arg against Ruck 2001 Conj Eden:

What do you mean this has little mushrooms in cap, they don’t look like mushrooms, b/c they have branches.

YOU IGNORANT MYCOLOGISTS, UNLIKE ART HISTORIANS WHO DISCUSS TREES SO MUCH, THEY WROTE AN ENTIRE 86 PAGE BOOK COVERING TREES IN 1906, AND THEY EVEN CREDIT THEMSELVES for coining their term pilzbaum which means trees that LOOK LIKE MUSHROOMS

“None of the Liberty Cap-looking caps in mushroom-tree crowns in the Psalter look like mushrooms, because they are indicated as having branches”

Therefore these pilzbaum don’t look like mushrooms, in the cap, b/c they are indicated as having arms if you would READ the document thoroughly you wouldn’t be IGNORANT and you’d know — like art historians discuss all the time — that each Liberty Cap mushroom in the cap has arms, branches, and we all know except ignorant mycologists, that real mushrooms don’t have arms.

Cain vs Abel on f12 next page:

Does Panofsky’s “All mushroom-trees have traces of ramification” apply to Day 3 Plant 2 cap’s grid of Liberty Caps?

A set of 4 literal LITERAL MUSHROOMS IMAGE PPOINTING AT THE MYSTERY ITEMS IN PANS that were DEISGNED to make you ask “WHATS IN THE TRAYS EADEWIN” AND HE GOD DAY 1 SMILES AT YOU RE: YES THE RIDDLE IS WHATS IN THE TRAYS AND THE ANS IS : BC TWO BRANCHING CAP POINT AT V AND TWO NON AT BAL SCAL, THE PANA + AMAN POINT TO L & R TRAYS ANSWERING THE RIDDLE, EADWINE GOD SMILING

Image: vertical slice: god smile, Left pan of balance scale, & Panaeolus mushroom pointing at the pan of the balance scale: added above.

☔︎☔︎
☔︎☔︎☔︎
☔︎☔︎

YI – Plant 3 lacks left branchcuts off its left – one arm cut off by plant 3, which is superior.

IY/YI – Plant 4 further elaborates bottom up multi-level instance of YI branching form.

OT Manna and NT Eucharist Are Psilocybin But Boasting of Eternal Life Attributed to Eucharist not Manna

Related section below: “manna”.

I don’t know if competition between religions in the 1st and 2nd century gave Christianity a reason to make bigger claims than Old Testament’s manna sustaining Israelites in the pastures (“wilderness”, “desert”).

I don’t see it as a change of plants, but an escalation of claims about those plants, typical of Late Antiquity one-upping the religious conceptions of Early Antiquity.

Manna and Eucharist mean Psilocybin, but Manna is Early Antiquity, Eucharist is Late Antiquity – with bigger marketing claims.

Some scholars claim there was no Old Testament until Hellenistic times, defined as Alexander the Great, like 323 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiquity – “between 150 and 750 AD”

Some scholars claim that Christianity invented free will.

The theme & claim of transcending heimarmene is found in Mithraism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and Gnosticism.

All religions in Late Antiquity developed the claim, competitively, to transcend heimarmene (fatedness, no-free-will, the cosmic rock).

A different case of frustration with deniers: Denial that Christianity Is Same Form as Hellenistic Religious Myth, vs. Richard Miller

It is heartening to see Richard Miller’s frustration with the deniers — ignorant scholars who know not even the basics of Classics — who try to treat Christianity as a freak isolated deviant innovation, when in fact Christianity is near-indistinguishable from Hellenism, in its cultural context (according to Richard Miller).

Scholars are as ignorant (of Classics) as they are dogmatic and vehement, who deny that Christianity was like Hellenistic religious culture.

🎓🏫 = ⏱

The “speed of assertion” fallacy

Made up especially for mushroom imagery in Christian art tabu superstious topic.

The “speed of assertion” fallacy

The “crispness of response” fallacy

I was impressed by the art authority’s celerity speed and crisp tone of response

I was impressed by the speed and crispness of the art authority’s dismissive response – you mycologists are just ignorant of trees

trees, that we consider too peripheral to write anything about

except one “noted” [censored] old thin, “little” book, it’s very interesting, highly reco’md–

which is why we never mention this book and we never write anything about trees, 86 pages covered it in such precision that we can assign each pilzbaum to a year and plot the shape smoothly degrading because of inept art copyists ruining the prototypes smoothly incrementally gradually becoming more distorted and more distorted until “the art world came to accept” [passive wording as Panofsky robs artists of their soul] that trees look like mushrooms; have mushroom imagery, make viewers think of mushrooms.

This old lone thin “little” “little” book highly recommended by Panofsky.

Brinckmann book 1906 – that book, specifically, is highly recommended, because it’s the only thing anyone has ever written on the BORING PERIPHERAL topic of trees (explains Huggins).

The only reason artist historians write about boring trees ever, at all, after 1906, is to dismiss “with impressive crispness” mushroom imagery in Christian art. Through telephone conversation, not library publications, so,

The “Tone & Speed of Dismissal” Fallacy

THE UNVERIFIABLE “CRISPNESS” CLAIM

WERE THE DENIER-HISTORIANS DENYING mushroom imagery in Christian art, IN FACT RESPONDING IN THE NEGATIVE WITH CELERITY?

HOW MUCH CELERITY — what’s that in milliseconds?

BE SPECIFIC, THIS IS SCIENTIFIC HISTORIOGRAPHY METHODOLOGY.

You were impressed by the CRACKER-DRY CRISPNESS, or SEMI-CRISPNESS of their disavowal & act of dismissal?

argument from tone of dismissal by the authority on history other than trees (boring!) and

You mycologists ignorantly failed to “consult” the authority on art other than trees (BORING, PERIPHERAL, UNPROFITABLE, NO POTENTIAL)

Said while at the very same time, censoring the Brinckmann double-citation – not just ofANY book, it is the ONLY book

Evil Wasson Censored the Only Publication the Art Historians Ever WROTE or “discussed” on the BORING topic of TREES, (Why ever on earth would art historians waste their time on trees?)

We already wrote an 86-page book on that boring topic, it’s covered

The smoothness and steadiness and consistency of pine becoming corrupted accidentally into mushrooms is proof that these cannot possibly be mushrooms.

b/c the graduality of transformation

THE PANOFSKY ‘DEVELOPMENT‘ ‘PROCESS‘ from pine to mushroom proves it cannot have been purposeful mushroom imagery.

Say it with vigor and with authority, to make the one follow from the other:

  1. smooth, consistent development from pine to mushroom over time
  2. THEREFORE
  3. mushrooms imagery is purposeless,

Mushroom doesn’t mean mushroom, IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING, the mushroom imagery SERVES NO PURPOSE, proven to be ACCIDENTAL CORRUPTION THAT THE ART WORLD CAME TO ACCEPT, LIKE ROBOTS

ON THIS ONE PARTICULAR TOPIC OF MUSHROOM IMAGERY, ONLY.

Ronald “Ghost of Panofsky” Huggins

The special-pleading, literalism & superficial rule of interpreting non-realism medieval art.

A SPECIAL-TOPIC LITERALIST INTERPRETATION RULE, made up especially for mushroom imagery in Christian art tabu TABU SUPERSTITION academic topic.

The book Shroom by Letcher 2006 only covers a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art. Bernward door Blame panel with liberty cap mushroom-tree. Ignorant of 4 Column Lib Cap mushroom-trees in “Conj Eden” article Ruck (based on Samo 1998) 2001, Ruck Committee+; Robert Forte, Michael Winkelan,

and that type of bad company ie FIRST GEN… not sure fit FotG book by

In terms of FotG is McK 1st gen entheogen scholarship or per Brown / Samo, 2nd gen?

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship: Secret Amanita. What is the contrast per Brown 2019?

McKenna 1993
https://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original-Knowledge-Evolution/dp/0553078682/
I have first printing hardcover 1992 Bantam
Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution
Hardcover – February 1, 1992

Intro of Brown 2019 re: Generations of entheogen scholarship:

“In light of new historical evidence regarding ethnomycologist R. Gordon Wasson’s correspondence with art historian Erwin Panofsky,

this article provides an in-depth analysis of the presence of entheogenic mushroom images in Christian art

within the context of

the controversy between Wasson and philologist John Marco Allegro

over

 the identification of a Garden of Eden fresco in the 12th century Chapel of Plaincourault in France.

“It reveals a compelling financial motive for Wasson’s refusal to acknowledge that this fresco represents Amanita muscaria, as well as for Wasson’s reluctance to pursue his hypothesis regarding the entheogenic origins of religion into Christian art and artifacts.

While Wasson’s view – that the presence of psychoactive mushrooms in the Near and Middle East ended around 1000 BCE – prevailed and stymied research on entheogens in Christianity for decades, a new generation of 21st century researchers has documented growing evidence of A. muscaria and psilocybin-containing mushrooms in Christian art, consistent with ethnobotanist Giorgio Samorini’s typology of mushroom trees.”

ie: in Figure table, have 2(!) columns, thereby elevating Psil to the grand level of attention fawned upon glorious Amanita

Brown 2019 intro continues:

“This article presents original photographs”

[PHOTO CREDIT: NOT JULIE BROWN,

THX WALBURGA ABBEY PHOTOGRAPHER

WE COULDNT BE TROUBLED TO DO FIELD WORK DURING OUR FIELD WORK IN THE HOTEL RELYING ON IRVIN’S BOOK HELD UP TO THE LIGHT

TO SAY “WALBUGRA IS A WASTE OF GAS, FIELD WORK IS POINTLESS, BASED ON LOOKING AT IRVIN’S PHOTO [copy of same as ours sent by the Walburga abbey]

Our superior excellence at interpreting art is because of our field trip. 

Proof: during our field trip, in our hotel room we held Irvin’s book THM up to the light to look at the photo (caption: thx not-Julie for being on the scene at the art) and used that photo untrustworthy ardent advocate Irvin, not our field trip, as the foundation for our negative assessment — our misidentification that demonstrates we haven’t even read pictures in 1995 book Heinrich Strange Fruit, or the Golden Guide to Hallucinogens – front cover picture.

Brown continues:

“, taken “during fieldwork”

in our hotel room reading Irvin’s book pictures but failing to look at Heinrich 1995 book pictures of serrated base instances/ capability of form

brown conti:

“at churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and the Middle East, that confirm the presence of entheogenic mushrooms in Christian art: in frescoes, illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, sculptures, and stained glass windows.

Based on this iconic evidence, the article proposes a psychedelic gospels theory [by def that would be 2nd Gen, part of the new generation] and addresses critiques of this theory by art historians [Panofsky 1952, Brinckmann 1906

Brown 2019 Omits Brinckmann

DOES BROWN MENTION BRINC?  HE TRANSLATED BIR BRICN

intro continues:

“ardent advocates [Egodeath.com], medieval historians [psychedelic witches], and conservative Catholics.

“It calls for the establishment of an Interdisciplinary Committee on the Psychedelic Gospels to independently evaluate the growing body of evidence of entheogenic mushrooms

The word ‘psychedelic’ means Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism, typically in this art genre a combination of 4-6 motifs, {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs; mushroom hem; phallic garment.

billowing cloth is typically hellenistic Roman

Evidence of mushroom imagery in Christian art — mushrooms, but, JUST ADD BRANCHES & cut branches, & handedness, as co-motifs & stability [buildings, doorway, column, tower, walled city – breached city gates! better pray]

Pray When Army Breaches Guarded Gate of Walled City While God Sleeps

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Features:

“in Christian art

in order to resolve a controversial question regarding the possible role of entheogens in the history and origins of Christianity.”

/ end of brown 2019 intro

Letcher on that single instance, uses a completely bunk, straw man, irrelevant reasoning to dismiss that, and concludes “Therefore there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art – affirmers are JUST IGNORANT MYCOLOGISTS“. Wrote Panosfky wrote in 2024, thorugh mouthpiece Huggins — the vexed ghost of Panofsky, Ronald “Ghost of Panofsky past” Huggins

If that argument wasn’t devastating enough to settle debunk mushroom imagery in Christian art:

FURTHERMORE: He phoned up an England Historian, Henrietta Leyser, with stopwatch in hand, to measure the crispness and speed of her disavowal of mushroom imagery in Christian art.  

A leading top expert England historian who wrote nothing about trees and mushroom-trees in art.

Deniers explain that the only reason affirmers affirm, is because of ignorance of the huge body of work and intensive frequent discussions by art historians.  

Consisting of “noted exception” (ie, censored lone instance) of Brinckmann, 86 pages, in German, in 1906.  

An absurd argument on multiple counts.  

Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are 100% perfectly, vividly aware of the butthead ignoramus dogmatic denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art, by art historians who THEMSELVES describe trees that look like mushrooms.  

Who is the ignorant one?  Art historians who wrote nothing on trees b/c trees are merely incidental?  

Or mycologists, ignorant of dogmatic ignoramuses’ assertions by art historians who insult them as ignorant?

It’s a bluff, a ruse, the empty accusation of ignorance, from 1953 December (Wasson to Ramsbottom letter) to 1986 (Wasson’s death) and beyond, to Letcher consulting Henrietta Leyser (in person b/c wrote nothing) in 2005, to Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article in 2024.

The “argument by calling the opponent ignorant” fallacy.

Richard Miller is an unusual Classics expert who came through Bible degrees.

Video: 
Bible Scholars are WRONG about the New Testament
Richard Miller

In 2023, I briefly posted about Richard Miller’s 2014 book, covered on MythVision podcast:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/21/topics-to-read-aloud-comment-on/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvjM_sz07CA

Gnostic Informant channel

Book:
Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity
Richard Miller
2014
Routledge Studies in Religion
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Reception-Christianity-Routledge-Religion-ebook/dp/B0CQPZ9RK2

Book blurb:

“This book offers an original interpretation of the origin and early reception of the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection.

“Richard Miller contends that the earliest Christians would not have considered the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection to be literal or historical, but instead would have recognized this narrative as an instance of the trope of divine translation, common within the Hellenistic and Roman mythic traditions.

“Given this framework, Miller argues, early Christians would have understood the resurrection story as fictitious rather than historical in nature.

“By drawing connections between the Gospels and ancient Greek and Roman literature, Miller makes the case that the narratives of the resurrection and ascension of Christ applied extensive and unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to Mediterranean “translation fables,” stock story patterns derived particularly from the archetypal myths of Heracles and Romulus.

“In the course of his argument, the author applies a critical lens to the referential and mimetic nature of the Gospel stories, and suggests that adapting the “translation fable” trope to accounts of Jesus’ resurrection functioned to exalt him to the level of the heroes, demigods, and emperors of the Hellenistic and Roman world.

“”Miller’s contentions have significant implications for New Testament scholarship and will provoke discussion among scholars of early Christianity and Classical studies.”

/ end of book blurb

https://independent.academia.edu/RichardMiller140
what is at his AcaEdu? __

I Am Post-Ahistoricity

I Don’t Care About Ahistoricity of Religious Founder Figures – I Care More About the Not-Yet-fully resolved Question of Whether the Sun and Planents moves in circles around the stationary Earth 🤔🤔♁☉♃🌌𐂍🐄♄

My Emojipedia History is stuck on Dragon URL forever, unable to fix that default
https://emojipedia.org/dragon

The Natural Science of Planetary Order: Ptolemy Known to be Imperfect and Correctives Fail to Circle

🤔🤔♁🌗☿️♀️☉♂️♃♄🌌🔥

at least it was a theory, WHAT IS THE THEORY PRE-SCIENCE theory prior to my Science ie the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism – What is 1st Gen – i just read in book or article oh yeah

McK is 2nd gen – of what? Not 2nd gen trucker, or guitarist, or entheogen scholarship ….

McKenna = 2nd Gen of Pop Sike Scholars, But Merely 1st Gen of Entheogen Scholarship According to Browns’ Periodization

todo: copy passage from body of Brown article (not Intro) to here. done previously, maybe below, 1-2 weeks ago. About “new generation scholarship” starting with 1998 Samo article.

1st gen of what?

Book FotG summarizes and culminates the 1st gen of entheogen scholarship.

If 1st Gen entheogen scholarship & 2nd Gen entheogen scholarship per Brown — cutoff year is say obvious point of reference — if no other date we most certinaly have the 1 all-important date:

The Samo 1998 article “the mytheme theory in Christian art”

The Samo 1998 article “the mytheme theory in Christian art” “mushroom-trees in Christian art”

— IN MY OPINION/conjecture

The Historical Periodization of entheogen scholarship per Brown

1st Gen before Samo, 2nd gen start samo 1996 aka 1998 article was

the SAMO 1998 ARTICLE ON pilzbaum

“MUSHROOM-TREES IN Christian ART”: THE BIG EXPLOSION THAT KICKED OFF THE 2ND CEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP

the Explicit Cubensis paradigm SAMO Samo 1998 article — with strong confidence

Samo is opposite Michael Hoffman who is open during conjectures; Samo 1997 withholds public published speculation re: mushroom-trees from the Wasson Plaincourat article “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault” , but says he’s checking his conjectures first — then in 1998 article knocks everyone over w/ the boom of 1998 article “mushroom-trees in Christian art” 1) 1996 San Fran conf presentation / picture slides; 2) 1997 article copying my 2006 article on Wasson / Plainc / our sacred holy Amanita tree fall of man the original sin picture all charged-up and

Entheogen scholarship worshipped the GOLDEN AMANITA CALF

the amanita golden calf

The golden calf Amanita

🙌🏆🐮🍄 🔑🚪💎👼🏆🍄

Brown talks of essentialy 1st Gen prior to Samo, 2nd gen starting with Samo 1996 97 98 honorary 21st C, then the awful ARDENT ADVOCATES such as starting the list with EGODEATH.COM

per the orig greek guy and then precession guy and then Ptolemy was like 4th in line to copy the big brain oringinators

Earth

Moon

Mercury

Venus

Sun

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

Fixed stars empyrian fire light

I can’t relate to mythicists who are interested in researching the historicity of Jesus, because I am so far “post-” that, that the topic is a dead topic, like Science has moved so far past Ptolemaic Earth-centered cosmology, that the question of whether the planets revolve around the Earth is a dead topic of no interest.  

Ahistoricity is not an active area of my research & theorizing.  I am privileged to be sitting on such a large body of scholarship that I participated in around 2006, that it’s no longer an active area of theorizing.

I sense that Huggins is taking art historians deeper lost in the forest where eventually they will realize how wrong they are, as they venture deeper into the mushroid evidence to show how ignorant the mycologists are.  

The self-assured deniers’ confidence becomes increasingly hollow as they point to Liberty Cap tree on Bernward’s door and say “See, the Liberty Cap is not hidden like you guys (Stamets & Gartz) claim.”

“And in Day 3 (Creation of Plants), the branches that look like mushrooms don’t look like mushrooms, because mushrooms don’t have branches.”  

Who is this flimsy, fallacy-based type of argumentation supposed to convince?  

Only committed skeptics, who are all the more strident as their logic has to be more convoluted and special-pleading.

Similarly, Richard Miller doesn’t take seriously — he says — he no longer wastes time on ignorant deniers (the ones who name-call others as “ignorant”).

Richard Miller came through Bible studies to Classics, where he has an unusual view, that Christianity was just like Hellenistic culture.  

Interesting, his frustration with ignorant deniers who deny that Christianity was at all influenced by its surrounding culture.

It’s the same type of frustration as with committed deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, who only venture into the topic a little.

Huggins 2024 goes deeper into this topic than sloppy, careless Letcher 2006 in Shroom.  

Huggins consulted Hatsis in Dizzy article, consulted Letcher in Foraging Wrong article.

Huggins has more substance & engagement here than Letcher.

I was surprised they didn’t mention J Z Smith, who says Christian apologists use the Old Testament to artificially separate Christianity from Hellenism, then turn around and cast off the Old Testament when they are done misusing it for that purpose.

Why I Theorize in Terms of Perceptual Dualism: Mental Model Exists and External Reality Referent Might Exist

Why I Provisionally Assume that the External World Exists:

Because this is the most flexible and useful and practical model.

Why I Favor NIV over KJB

Every translation is incorrect. Therefore the choice is between:

  • An incorrect translation that’s comprehensible. NIV.
  • An incorrect translation that’s incomprehensible. KJB.
    • eg KJB says “Keep the way of the tree of life”, meaning: “Guard the path to the tree of life.”
  • A correct translation (really a multi-translation) that’s comprehensible: Amplified Bible.
    • Similar to me providing both NIV & KJB: multiple wordings improve both the correctness and comprehensibility.

When I take the time to check multiple translations, I use NIV & KJB.

If I only take time for one, it’s NIV, because that is comprehensible.

I do not rely on NIV; I don’t rely on KJB; I don’t rely on a single translation, but use at least two.

Best is NIV + KJB, my 3rd to complement is Amplified.

How Do I Manage to Write So Totally Rudely, Insultingly, Dismissively, and Aggressively Against Deniers of Psilocybin Primacy?

By Word-Swapping Within Their Totally Rude, Insulting, Dismissive, Aggressive Writing

Pushing back against the deniers (Meditation Hucksters, academics, Salvation Salesmen), I invert their aggressive denial & diminishment of Psil, as follows:

There is no meditation or mystic experiencing except through ingesting the psychedelic Eucharist.

If I look rude, extreme, & aggressive, I’m trying to accomplish that simply by inverting the deniers’ wording; the Psilocybin diminishers’ wording.

Like Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article, deniers have a quite boasting, self-assured, cock-sure (while wrong), rude, insulting overtones, in their effort to hog all legitimacy for what they are selling and deny any legitimacy to Psilocybin.

Reality is the opposite of the deniers’ self-assured declarations.

Psilocybin Is the Gold Reference Standard for Mystic Transformation & Satori

Psilocybin is the origin and gold standard of reference for what mystic-state transformation is all about.  

We should look to Psilocyin, rather than non-drug meditation & mysticism, as the standard to measure practices by.

What is the nature of mystic transformation?  Where do we look, for the standard, to assess that?  

We should look specifically to Psilocybin, and, that’s where mystic contemplation/ meditation came from, historically.

The theory of mental transformation into the mature form, should look specifically to Psilocybin effects; ie loose cognitive  loose cognitive association binding enabling transformation from possibilism to eternalism.  

That is the nature of relevant type of transformation.  

That’s what Myth says.  

Most Writing about “Meditation & Mysticism vs. Psychedelics” Is Worthless, Unhelpful, Irelevant, & Misleading, Because Founded on Wrong Presuppositions

All of those assertions are the successful foundation for commentary that’s not broken and off-base.

Almost everyone disagrees with that.

Almost everyone argues and reasons (re: meditation or mysticism “versus” psychedelics) from a basis of presuppositions and assumptions that I reject.

Their writings are low-value, confused, & low-relevance, because they write from a wrong foundation of assumptions.

Deniers of Psilocybin’s legit — actually central & original — place in religion, write from a position of envy, jealousy, and defensive prejudice against the high efficacy & reliability of Psilocybin, that sets an embarrassingly high bar that the deniers cannot match or come anywhere near.

Psilocybin puts fake meditation and mysticism to shame, that’s why deniers use a rude and aggressive manner of dismissing Psilocybin.

When I swap words in their writing, it looks extreme & aggressive, when I write eg: 

Against the academics & Salvation Salesmen

The only way to be saved is by ingesting the Psilocybin Eucharist.

There is no actual, effective Eucharist other than the Psilocybin Eucharist.

Proof:

After you ingest the fake, placebo Eucharist, you literally, bodily die.

After you ingest the true, Psilocybin Eucharist, you {live forever}.

Analogy for mature mental model.

Against the Meditation Hucksters

The only way to gain enlightenment is by eating the mushroom that Buddha ate in his Last Meal.

Against the Art Historians

The only way to interpret religious art is as depiction by analogies of the Psilocybin experience & the transformation that Psilocybin potentially produces.

The mind has the capability of mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism, by entering the Psilocybin-induced loosecog state; loose mental functioning binding; loose mental construct binding.

Eucharist vs. Manna

Interesting disrespect, one-upping of Old Testament by New Testament, re: spiritual food.

Bible mentions Manna as Not the True Bread from Heaven (Eucharist)

wrmspirit pointed out that the New Testament contrasts manna vs. the true bread of heaven.

John 6:31 -35 — “Our fathers did eat manna in the desert as it is written. He gave them bread from heaven to eat.  Then Jesus said unto them verily,  verily I say to you Moses gave them not that bread from heaven, but my father will give you the true bread from heaven,  for the bread of God is from he who cometh down from heavens and giveth life onto the world.”

John 6:53-58 — “so the one who feeds on me will live because of me:  this is the bread that came down from heaven:  Your ancestors ate Manna and died , but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. “

Passage 1: John 6:31-35 (NIV)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A31%20-35&version=NIV

Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[a]🔍🧐🤔”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, 

it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Footnoted Verses

The [a] footnoted passage about manna lists 3 verses:

Exodus 16:4 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016%3A4&version=NIV

Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you.

“The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day.

“In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.

Neh. 9:15 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Neh.%209%3A15&version=NIV —

In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock; you told them to go in and take possession of the land [Psychedelic Eternalismland] you had sworn with uplifted hand to give them.

Psalm 78:24-25 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2078%3A24-25&version=NIV —

he rained down manna for the people to eat,
he gave them the grain of heaven.
Human beings ate the bread of angels;
he sent them all the food they could eat.

… Then, this email will be an academic book-length full in-depth study, The Theme of Manna in the Bible:
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Theme+of+Manna+in+the+Bible

I have books about the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist – “The Eucharist; evcharistía, literally ‘thanksgiving’, also called Holy Communion, the Blessed Sacrament, or the Lord’s Supper, instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the night before his crucifixion.”

Related verse: Jesus said in the garden of Gethsemane:
“Let this cup pass from me; but not my will, but God’s will.”
Matthew 26:36–46
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026%3A36%E2%80%9346&version=NIV
Mark 14:32–42
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014%3A32%E2%80%9342&version=NIV
Luke 22:40–46
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022%3A40%E2%80%9346&version=NIV

https://www.gotquestions.org/let-this-cup-pass-from-me.html

I have Dan Merkur’s books; I read them when they were published:

The Mystery of Manna: The Psychedelic Sacrament of the Bible
by Dan Merkur  | Nov 1, 1999
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Manna-Psychedelic-Sacrament-Bible/dp/0892817720/

The Psychedelic Sacrament: Manna, Meditation, and Mystical Experience
by Dan Merkur  | Aug 1, 2001
https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Sacrament-Meditation-Mystical-Experience/dp/089281862X/

John 6:31-35 (KJV)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A31%20-35&version=KJV

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Passage 2: John 6:53-58 (NIV)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A53-58&version=NIV

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, [imperishability, non-dying, a-thanatos – ie, mature form; no longer the child-phase, temporary transient form]  and I will raise them up at the last day.

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, [literally, bodily] but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. [figuratively; ie outgrow the immature form & gain the lasting, adult form] ”

John 6:53-58 (KJV)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A53-58&version=KJV

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

{mortal} = Immature Form; {immortal} = Mature Form

“mortal” means “immature”, a temporary phase.

“immortal”/everlasting/eternal life just means (as an analogy) mature, non-transient, non-temporary form of developmental psychology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva — 

“Animals in the larval stage will consume food to fuel their transition into the adult form.”

Larva undergoes a kind of death and rebirth, when switching forms.

The Egodeath theory Doesn’t Include Ego Death

I write little about the ego “death” experience, except to describe a cybernetic control failure potential:

The mind has the potential to make the egoic control system fail and transform.

That deliberately-caused failure demonstration is a “fatal” disaster and terminal state for the original, immature form of thinking.

The higher mind (higher thinking in the mystic peak state) becomes willing and able to make the lower, previous, immature thinking (about control) fail.

“Manna” as Riddle: What Grows in Cattle Pastures Overnight? Answer: Cubensis, Panaeolus

Web search: bible word wilderness:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+word+wilderness —

“Pastureland: ‘Midbar’ can also refer to wild fields where domestic animals could graze.
Hebrew ‘midhbar’, denoting not a barren desert but a district or region suitable for pasturing sheep and cattle (Psalms 65:12; Isai…”

There are some words in the Bible against this view, but it’s a fully coherent view:

* ‘Manna’ means “what is it?”

* ‘Wilderness’, in these Bible passages, means pastures for livestock.

* Grows overnight.

So the simple riddle posed by the manna passages is: 

What grows in livestock pastures overnight?

Answer: Dung-loving mushrooms (both Cubensis & Panaeolus).  

Also grass-loving Liberty Caps, though without the story’s livestock connection.  

(The other type is wood-loving, which doesn’t match ‘pasture’.)

Some descriptive wording of the manna doesn’t match mushrooms well, but the above points are nevertheless strong enough for me to commit to that conclusion.

It’s a good riddle/answer pair, with elegant simple solution that has the character of “snaps firmly in place; certainly the riddle solution”.

Paul vs. Paul; Paul vs. Matthew & Peter

my email continues:

The relative disparagement (one-upping) of an Old Testament theme by New Testament reminds me of the dispute & opposition within New Testament, usually covered-over, between Paul vs. two others, I think exposed in book about ahistoricity.  

It was Paul fighting against Peter and Matthew, or something like that.

The Bible is a collection of debates, arguments, discussions, various differing views, some views opposed to others.

Earl Doherty: Neither God Nor Man.  2009, 2nd Ed.

An overwhelming & interesting book, unique contributions to the field, great treatment.

Not sure if Doherty is the author who explains the dispute and who the two disciples were who fought against Paul (or, the “Paul” figure).

Around 1895, Edwin Johnson, an ahistoricity scholar, an English “Dutch Radical Critic”, claims that the Paul figure is made to contradict himself and dispute against “himself”, by different groups who employ the figure of “Paul” to advocate their own, differing views.  

That’s my hypothesis about Augustine too, it appears to be a funny situation, proxy attribution of one’s own view to a puppet voice:

“Austine confirms my own view, free will.”

“No, Austine confirms my view, no-free-will.”

“That doesn’t count; that was the early Augustine.”

“I mean the mid-era Augustine.”

“That’s irrelevant, what counts is late-in-life Augustine, who again changed his view.”

/ end email to wrmspirit 2pm sun jan 19 2025

The Stace/Griffiths “Positive-Balanced” Pseudoscience of “Psychedelic Mysticism”

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Great Canterbury Psalter > f145 folio > row 1 left: scene:

Teaching the Cubensis traders about control stability in the Psilocybin state:

Rely on {Right foot} (non-branching control).
Repudiate {Left foot} (branching control).

Figures’ feet:

  • Pink garment: Right foot touches {stable column base} & ground.
    • Correct; stable; passes the Psilocybin Test of Truth.
  • Three traders: Left foot on ground.
    • Incorrect; unstable; fails the Psilocybin Test of Truth.

Transcript, find “balance”: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/02/stang-rejects-griffiths-conception-of-mystic-experiencing-used-to-validate-psilocybin/#September-2020

So by implication, Griffiths’ CEQ is “Negative-Balanced”?

When Charles Stang told Griffiths “James and Stace fantasy of what mystic experience is fails to match historical reports of mystics that include negative experience”, Griffiths’ excuse was “Yes, I admit that the MEQ is positive-balanced, and we made the CEQ to catch any negative experiences, so we got that covered”.

(By Deleting 18 of the 21 Negative Items from OAV)

Scandalously, the CEQ simply discards, without giving any reason, 18 of 21 items from OAV’s A/Angst dimension.

The bunk, corporate-driven (mandated by Big Pharma) strategy of the CEQ was to discard the negative effects which are that are distinctive of Psychedelics, and retain only the negative experiences which are not uniquely psychedelics-induced (Grief).

Big Pharma Can’t Handle Actual Negative Psychedelic-Specific Effects, So Simply Deletes Them and Retains Only the Negative Experiences That Sound Like Ordinary-State Experiences

Big Pharma’s lame model of “mystic experiences” and “challenging psychedelic experiences” can’t CANNOT HANDLE BONA FIDE PSYCHEDELIC CHALLENGING EFFECTS.

The “Unpleasant = Unmystical” Fallacy in William Richard’s 2015 book Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experience

The “Negative = Personal” Fallacy; Peak Negative Experience is NOT Personal Autobio per the Psychotherapy Model

Book:
Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experience
William Richards (2015)
New York: Columbia University Press

p. 16, copied from Stocker article, which quotes the passage:

“[Psychedelic substances] can also trigger personal psychological experiences, such as regression to childhood traumas or confrontation with unresolved grief, fear, anger, or guilt.

“Such experiences . . . may well have potentially significant value in accelerating psychotherapy and personal growth . . . [excised: “, whether or not they are viewed as having religious import.”]

“Further, especially if one is unprepared and seeks to control or escape from emerging inner experiences, the flow of unique mental adventures facilitated by psychedelic substances can culminate in episodes of panic, paranoia, confusion, and somatic distress and perhaps a trip to an emergency room for psychiatric care.

“None of these “psychedelic experiences” are visionary or mystical . . . (2015, p. 16) 

Wassonian mystery ellipses . . . 🔍🧐🤔 where Richards importantly says:

“visionary or mystical as these terms are defined in the pages ahead.”

aka, the entire field and all the books and articles and q’airs, every time they say “mystical”, they ALWAYS means Stacean “mystical experiences”, in sharp contrast to actual mystical experiences.

(Except where some of these good articles are critiquing Stace’s model of “m.e.” & critiqing the MEQ based literally, directly on Stace’ model.)

Rename MEQ to SMEQ: “the Stacean ‘Mystical Experiences’ Q’air”

Jeez, i can’t even find a page of mine that simply gives the 43 MEQ items, or page taht simply presents the later, 30 MEQ items.

I think I have created such a section in one of the articles in Site Map section: https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#MEQ

Sucks – if needed, I will start a page titled “MEQ Reference”. or MEQ43 Reference

Every Analysis that’s Premised on the Fallacy “Mysticism ” Is Spreading Confusion and Prejudice, Preventing Salvation

Psychedelic Psychometrics Science Quiz: Which 13 Mystical Effects Items Got Demoted from “Mystical” to “Distractor” Items in the Shift from MEQ43 to MEQ30?

Which 13 Items Got “Dropped” from MEQ43 to Yield the MEQ30? Compare those 13 items vs the original 57 distractor items – what kind of psychedelic effects are these two groups?

My huge complaint here is that, when Stocker incoherently switches from talking about “the 57 distractor items” to talking about “the 70 distractor items” — WAIT, WHOA, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!

The meaning and definition of “distractor items” just entirely fundamentally changed!

Yet Stocker writes as if talking about “the SOCQ’s 57 distractor items” and talking about “the SOCQ’s 70 distractor items” are the same thing, the same definition, as if this disparity is not a huge problem!

The More I Critically Study MEQ, the More Red Flags Arise

MEQ is Unobtainable.

What were the original 57 distractor items?

What are the (suddenly changed to 70!) distractor items?

Which 13 mystical psychedelic effects got reclassed from “mystical” to “distractor” items? That would be a very good assignment to give students; great question to test your comprehension of the THE MEQ FIASCO.

SOCQ is Especially Unobtainable.

Can’t View the 57 Distractor Items, Which Mysteriously Increased to 70 During MEQ43 to MEQ30 Transition (of SOCQ’s Constant 100 Items That Nobody Can Obtain)

Psychedelic Science Fails at Basic Counting: How Many Distractor Items Are in the SOCQ, Omitted from MEQ Subset? 57, or 70?

Affects the Question: “Are the Non-MEQ Items [how many are there?] of SOCQ General Full-Scoped Psychedelic Effects, or Random, Uneven Coverage, & Incomplete?”

Dittrich’s OAV lineage of q’airs always covered full range of psychedelic effects.

Asking if “the other, non-MEQ items of the SOCQ” give full coverage of psychedelic effects (like Dittrich’s OAV lineage of q’airs always did):

What are those items?

How many are there; WHAT’S THE ITEM-COUNT?

Because 13 items got removed from MEQ during the reduction from MEQ43 to MEQ30 – presumably those 13 items were originally classed as “mystical” psychedelic effects.

WHY; how come those 13 items are now classed as “non-mystical, distractor items”?

Don’t Worry, Our Arbitrary Baloney That We Sell as “Science” has been “Validated”

Can someone please EXPLAIN, something, anything, in this arb’y “science”?

The “70” distractor items (wait, the orig concept said there were only 57?!) consist of two distinct groups of items with an almost OPPOSITE history:

  • 57 distractor items during phase of MEQ43. When the “distractor items” concept was expressed, eg WR 2015 book?) – HOW MANY DISTRACTOR ITEMS DOES WR SAY IN HIS 2015 BOOK?? 57, OR 70??
  • 13 items that CHANGED TO BE RE-CLASSED FROM “MYSTICAL” ITEMS TO “DISTRACTOR ITEMS”(!)

Bizarre: MEQ30 Demoted 13 of MEQ43’s “Mystical” to “Distractor” Items

Stocker article Halloween 2023:

Article:
The revival of the psychedelic experience scale: Revealing its extended-mystical, visual, and distressing experiential spectrum with LSD and psilocybin studies
Kurt Stocker, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M. Becker, Friederike Holze, Matthias Liechti
Published 2023/10/31
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375158331_The_revival_of_the_psychedelic_experience_scale_Revealing_its_extended-mystical_visual_and_distressing_experiential_spectrum_with_LSD_and_psilocybin_studies
Journal of Psychopharmacology 38(1)
DOI:10.1177/02698811231199112

{cross-behind} branch motif common

just came to realize this common frequent subtle motif, low key.

Typically right limb is visually cut by left limb. Done with both branches types:

  • Small branches immediately under cap/crown.
  • Trunk and branches farther from cap/crown.

Small branches immediately under cap/crown: f11 row 3 right, all 3 trees: from bottom up:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Trunk and branches farther from cap/crown: f134 row 1 middle:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Below the center of the cap, right branch crosses under left branch;
Right = non-branching; Left = branching.

That mapping is the typical pattern — immediately inviting usage of the atypicaly pattern.

The norm is often broken and exercised the other mapping, or use erratically throughout an image. A big part of handedness motif is confounding and mixing it up but always with meaning, at least “recognize the contrast of br vs non-br.”

The important thing is the contrast, not the handedness mapping, which is arb’y & merely intermediate motif, not the ultimate message. Ulimate msg has nothing to do with L vs R, but “first mental worldmodel vs 2nd” – char’ized as branching. superficially indicated by “L” or “R” (not the message).

L & R are envelope/ carrier, more than the message proper.

Pri 3: {mushrooms} – outer core

Pri 2: {branching} – inner core

Pri 4: {handedness} – periphery

Pri 1: {stability} – core

by pri:

Pri 1: {stability} – core

Pri 2: {branching} – inner core

Pri 3: {mushrooms} – outer core

Pri 4: {handedness} – periphery

Motifs in order of importance: {stability}, {branching}, {mushrooms}, {handedness}

{stability}, {branching}, {mushrooms} are even more important than {handedness}

{stability} and {branching} are even more important than {mushrooms}

{stability} is even more important than {branching}

The Egodeath theory’s ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire”

The Egodeath theory q’air:
ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire”

The 3 q’airs are (term usage):

  • OAV
  • SOCQ
  • HRS

I did not take all those psychedelic effects items and map them to the Egodeath theory.

I did not make an the Egodeath theory q’air, I did not include all relevant items that are relevant to the Egodeath theory.

The hi-level brief name OAV covers 11-Factors, a modif of OAV.

My ECQ is smaller in scope than the Egodeath theory.

My ECQ only focuses on the 3 q’airs’ items about:

  • Eternalism experiencing.
  • Control challenges.

A Real Psychedelic Questionnaire About the Very Most Interesting, Powerful, Challenging Capabilities of the Mind: Peak Transformative Loose Cognition Experiences, and Challenging

The most interesting q’air, the most potent, the most relevant for the mind’s capacity through loose cognition, to transform from possibilism to eternalism; from branching possibilities steering control, to non-branching.

After transformation to eternalism-thinking, use egoic thinking all the time (qualified possibilism-thinking)

After transformation, use the egoic control system 100% of the time.

Using the egoic control system yet not taking it seriously as if fundamentally autonomous.

Control is the personal control system is fundamentally on the hidden HIDDEN AND SECRET SUPPRESSED MENTAL LEVEL.

Is the mind therefore a “member” of a secret “cult”/”group”/”community”?

Build those excluding, separating walls solid, Ruck! Can’t let The Mushroom mix in with everyone.

Gotta keep our The Mushroom heretical and suppressed, make sure the mainstream doesn’t get ahold of The Mushroom — prevent that from happening.

Must build a wall to protect The Mushroom from getting out from the gated city walls of the heretical groups cults sects.

{gated walled city} motif

A frequent motif in Great Canterbury Psalter: {building}; a construction that doesn’t fall down/ collapse. Stays upright. Stable. Solid foundation.

{white sheets curtain in temple stable opening} motif

{rock altar and sacrificial lamb or oxen} motif

The Mind’s capability of being made to transform to pass through the transforamtion gate into Eternalismland, the gated guarded conditional city of the imperishables, to perish on the way in at the altar at the gate.

ECQ q’air: Interesting, Potent, and Relevant for Transformation to Pass Through the Eternalism Gate

Cleansed of Childish Pollution

Cleared of naive possibilism-thinking, so as to undure the loose cognitive Psilocybin state. Use all the time after perishability perish:

After disproving childish immature mode of control (virtual autonomous control, not aware of that in contrast to 2-level, dependent control.

The initial temporary mode of control: virtual monolithic autonomous control.

Initially the immature mind is not aware of that in contrast to 2-level, dependent control. The god is waiting to take the child through the eternalism gateway transformation transformation from possibilism to eternalism ,

In some myth, being pulled through the gate when the god makes that happen, causes a outer garment to be removed and replaced by sacred robe.

The mind’s experience is egoic-shaped all the time, except the peak window.

Pre/Trans Fallacy: naive possibilism-thinking != qualified possibilism-thinking

Pre/Trans Fallacy lookout:

Naive possibilism-thinking is like qualified possibilism-thinking but different, not relied on as fundamental level and retreat place of strong defense –

Back in the cave, is the fountain uncontrollable of control-thoughts, frozen in the rock cave.

Minkowski book Spacetime

Minkowski book Spacetime arrived been wanting it since the revised edition came out.

Working with this math when I had 1988 birth of the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism, block-universe determinism, loose mental functioning binding; loose mental construct binding, two mental models;

After enlightenment and sacrificing-to-death egoic control thinking, the mind cionsta constantly relies on (in a limited way) qualified possibilism-thinking.

Sacrifice treating the egoic control system as the foundation.

After transformation of mental worldmodel, use the egoic control system all the time – in a qualified way, now in relationship with the transcendent control system. 2-level control.

inherently peq article is against reducing from MEQ43 to MEQ30. it says no, get back to the 100 items: it asks my exacgt questkin: wtf are these “CONFOUNDER ITERMS?” Why on earth would you make a set of items tht you DONT SCORE but just ignore, wtf are you doing, what are these items? You have told us NOTHING about the 57 of 100 items, WTH???

Stocker asked same and makes categories, factors, buidling out the MEQ outline of factors and categs within factors, and claims that the 100 items are COMPREHENSIVE of psilocybin. DOUBT

My updated page: categorized all 100 SOCQ psychedelic effects items.

SoCQ reference page:
SOCQ – “States of Consciousness Questionnaire”

Not numerical order. thats
Supplement4_PES_English-and-German.docx

image: f145 row 1 middle, also f12(?) Jesus & Sophia dancing

The Egodeath theory q’air:
ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire” –

Would need to add metaperception effects — not sure the scope-match between the Egodeath theory scope vs. scope of the 3 lineages of Psyc q’airs: HRS, OAV, SOCQ. “PEQ” “PES” is bad for cpl reasons. teh 3:

The 3: oav socq hrs

  • OAV — APZ 1975, OAV 1985, Beta around 1994, OAV 1994 (I say “OAV” meaning 194), 5D-ASC, 11-Factors
  • SOCQ — established term, unlike PEQ / PES; includes MEQ and is claimed to be — I HAD A MAIN QUESTION ABOUT MEQ’S DISTRACTER ITEMS: ARE THESE EVEN INTENDED TO BE PSYCHDELIC EFFECTS? HOW IS THEIR COVERAGE SPREAD? WHAT THEMES DO THEY COVER OR NEGLECT AND SUPPRESS AS TOO HARD TO HANDLE? ie the 57 other of the 100 items other than the 43 “mystical [Stacean mystical experience” items. In this ENTIRE field of sceience, EVERY time I read “mystical”, i have to stop and correct that: STACEAN “mystical” – not mystical!

Psychedelic Psychometrics Science

mystical != Stacean “mystical” — as Stang told Griffiths in person on film.

This whole field of “Science” is built on the FALSE FOUNDATION, and confusing, OF STACEAN “MYSTICISM”

Stacean “mysticism” in contrast to mysticism. The false foundation of Psychedelic Psychometrics Science.

Yet More Confirmation that “Psychedelic Science” Psychometics Questionnaires Are the Exact Opposite of Science

Article:
The revival of the psychedelic experience scale: Revealing its extended-mystical, visual, and distressing experiential spectrum with LSD and psilocybin studies
Kurt Stocker, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M. Becker, Friederike Holze, Matthias Liechti
Published 2023/10/31
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375158331_The_revival_of_the_psychedelic_experience_scale_Revealing_its_extended-mystical_visual_and_distressing_experiential_spectrum_with_LSD_and_psilocybin_studies
Journal of Psychopharmacology 38(1)
DOI:10.1177/02698811231199112

The Q-airs Are Not Even Published! Unavailable, Unpublished “Science” Instruments, the Foundation of Sand

I got huge confirmation of my assessment of history of the SOCQ/MEQ q’air.

Remarkable page about history of this lineage of q’air, sections of Stocker 2023 halloween article:

  • History of the PES – excerpt is below.
  • Content of the PES
  • The MEQ within the PES
  • The 70 items of the PES not considered in the MEQ30

Page 3: Stocker writes:

“Richards also used the PES in his dissertation on psychedelics-assisted psychotherapy for terminal cancer patients—a N,N-dipropyltryptamine study.

“It is in this dissertation that the PES in its entirety for the first and to our knowledge only time was made available (Richards, 1975, Appendix E, pp. 271–276).”

Counseling, peak experiences and the human encounter with death: An empirical study of the efficacy of DPT assisted counseling in enhancing the quality of life of persons with terminal cancer and their closest family members.
Wm Richards (1975)
PhD Thesis, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.

“This dissertation is hard to get by these days.”

“This may be one reason why this questionnaire—in its entirety with all 100 items—has nowadays been largely forgotten in the psychedelic-scientific community.”

“The main modern resumption of psychedelic studies with human participants again started in Baltimore—in 1999 at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.”

“This was a psilocybin study with healthy participants (Griffiths et al., 2006), an endeavor with which the PES also came back into use—first in Griffiths et al. (2006) and then also in several subsequent studies of the same research group.”

“For this use in the modern area, Roland Griffiths and William Richards revised some of the questions and response options of the PES and renamed the PES “SOCQ (States of Consciousness Questionnaire) 100.”2

“The 100 items of the “SOCQ 100” were never published in their entirety, as only the 43 items that made up the MEQ43 (also referred to as the Pahnke– Richards MEQ) were published as a supplement in Griffiths et al. (2006).”

PAYWALL ALERT 🤚🚫🚨

That Biblio entry is:
Griffiths RR, Richards WA, McCann U, et al. (2006) Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology 187: 268–283. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5.

My References page: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/17/references-for-psychedelic-psychometrics-questionnaires/#Psilocybin-can-occasion-mystical-type-experiences

“Thus, while many contemporary psychedelic scholars have heard the name “States of Consciousness Questionnaire,”3 and also know that it contains 100 items, they are usually only familiar with the 43 MEQ items of it, as the other 57 items are only published in a dissertation that is hard to get by (Richards, 1975).”

“Therefore, outside of Baltimore (Johns Hopkins)—and outside of Basel (University Hospital Basel, our research group), where the entire PES has been used in a number of studies—the 57 non-MEQ items of the PES are often unknown in the contemporary psychedelic research community.”

Stocker does not answer the big question: WHY? Why is this “Science” unavailable and unpublished? (Until now, Halloween 2023.)

todo: Prior to this PEQ paper, did I obtain the 100 items in my SOCQ page? __ I came close somehow, by reverse engineering, but in my Notes section of my SOCQ page https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/12/23/socq-states-of-consciousness-questionnaire/ I wrote:
“33 of the distractor questions are not found yet. Why do they make it impossible to simply get the list of the 100 questions?“

Stocker continues:

“One exception to this that we are aware of is the publication by the Johns-Hopkins group of the CEQ, which incorporated seven items from these 57 non-MEQ items of the PES (Barrett et al., 2016).”

Somehow I found apparently 57-33 of the items.

Someday, we’ll simply have
all the OAV 1994 items,
all the HRS items, and
all the SOCQ items aka PEQ/PES items,
and then finally we can critique what’s wrong with these 3 sets of items.

This fake “Science” of psychedelic psychometrics is so closed, so crippled, so OPPOSITE of Science, we can’t even SEE the 3 main q’airs, to see how bad they all suck, and which one sucks least (prediction: OAV is best and is near-adequate).

Reading the poor, confused article about the poor, confused CEQ, I concluded that:

Griffiths doesn’t have the OAV, and he has hazy understanding of the 11-Factors by Studerus, and what the difference is between the OAV’s A/Angst dimension of 21 items, vs. the only 13 items split among Studerus’ “ICC & ANX” factors.

Griffiths manifestly does not understand what the ICC & ANX factors are, compared to the entire 21-item A/Angst dimension, or else Griffiths would have realized that:

THE MOST IMPORTANT POWERFUL 8 NEGATIVE ITEMS WERE TOO BIG IN THEIR EFFECT, TO BE FIT by Studerus INTO EITHER NARROW FACTOR: Impaired Control and Cognition [ICC] or Anxiety [ANX]).

The ICC and ANX factors omit the 8 most powerful challenging effects – and Griffiths didn’t even consider those 8 items for the initial pool of items for CEQ.

I think the field should abandon SOCQ/MEQ and abandon CEQ – their DNA is hopeless. Build on OAV instead. Abandon 5D-ASC too, ie forget the ~1994 “Beta” q’air with two irrelevant dimensions (Vigilance, Auditory).

Not sure about HRS, seems pretty good, but rock solid it seems is OAV 1994.

What about 11 Factors? Stocker acts like 11 Factors is “new and improved” subdividing of OAV 1994.

11 Factors is poorly doc’d, and has two treacherous virtual factors:
Virtual Factor 12 &
Shadow Factor 13 [8 items], and
two hi-level dim’s (Pleasant, Unpleasant experiences) no one is aware of. Complicated, confusing, hard to use: 11 Factors was so hard to use and understand, it led to Griffiths discarding 18 of 21 items from OAV’s A/Angst dimension.

8 of those items were seemingly ignored by accident by Griffiths: Shadow Factor 13, which is more powerful and important than the narrow factors ICC & ANX).

This Science would be better by focusing on OAV, the least broken Q-Air.

If I mean the superseded v1 OAV 1985, I’ll specify that, else “OAV” means 1994 v2.

Book: Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experience
Wm Richards (2015).

Our Q’air Is Called “PES”, not “PEQ”, b/c that name was taken a few decades later. Our PEQ…

PES reference page: section:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/17/references-for-psychedelic-psychometrics-questionnaires/#PES
“We’re not going to call it PEQ. The PEQ… ” – Stocker writes:

“While this questionnaire has also been referred to with the abbreviation “PEQ” we will modestly rename this questionnaire “Psychedelic Experience Scale.”

“This will allow us to use the abbreviation “PES” for this questionnaire, as the abbreviation “PEQ” is contemporarily already used in psychedelic science as an abbreviation for the “Persisting Effects Questionnaire” (Griffiths et al., 2011), a modern adaptation of an old psychedelic-experience follow-up questionnaire (Pahnke, 1963, Appendix D).”

“Furthermore, the mystical-experience part of this overall 100-item questionnaire—often referred to as the Mystical Experience Questionnaire that contains either 43 (MEQ43) or 30 (MEQ30) of the PES items—is still used today as a [wretched, broken] state-of-the art measurement for acute psychedelically induced mystical experience (Barrett and Griffiths, 2018; Barrett et al., 2015; Griffiths et al., 2006; MacLean et al., 2012).

“Hence, it is conceivable possibility (and our hypothesis) that the analysis of the non-MEQ43/30 items of the PEQ might also stand the test of time and bring forth still more relevant essential aspects of the psychedelic experience—aspects that go beyond the MEQ43/30.”

PES/PEQ/SOCQ

The revival of the psychedelic experience scale: Revealing its extended-mystical, visual, and distressing experiential spectrum with LSD and psilocybin studies (Stocker 2023)

Article title:
The revival of the psychedelic experience scale: Revealing its extended-mystical, visual, and distressing experiential spectrum with LSD and psilocybin studies
Authors: Kurt Stocker, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M. Becker, Friederike Holze, Matthias Liechti
Published 2023/10/31
Journal of Psychopharmacology 38(1)
DOI:10.1177/02698811231199112
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375158331_The_revival_of_the_psychedelic_experience_scale_Revealing_its_extended-mystical_visual_and_distressing_experiential_spectrum_with_LSD_and_psilocybin_studies

Background

“Research with the Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire/Scale (PES) focuses on questions relating to mystical experience (Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)). “

“The psychometric potential of the non-MEQ items of the PES [aka SOCQ; PEQ] remains largely unexplored.”

The 57 non-MEQ items of the SOCQ — called “distractor items” — are “largely unexplored”, because as Stocker complains, no one can get ahold of them — until this article.

That is the REAL function of this article: to deliver the secret, hidden suppressed Science basic info.

This PEQ article finally makes the SOCQ publicly available.

If Psychedelic Psychometrics were actual science — which it manifestly is not — the SOCQ would have been available for everyone since 1963.

MAPS has a PDF of Pahnke’s book, with like 25 q’airs scattered in it.

Aims

“We investigated whether the PES also yields subscales besides the MEQ30 subscales.”

MEQ has categories of Psilcybin effects that are “mysticism” according to Stace’s misconception of mystical experiencing; unicorns and rainbows only.

MEQ contains categories of effects. MEQ is the allegedly “mystical” main part of SOCQ.

No one specified the scope and intent of the 57 “non-mystical” “distractor items”. Who picked them? How?

What other categories of effects are the 57 “distractor items” in the SOCQ?

  • SOCQ: 100 items
    • MEQ: 43 items
    • Distractor items: 57 items – these are the focus of Stocker’s 2024 PEQ/”PES” article.

🦄💨🌈

Methods

“Data from 239 PES measurements (140 healthy participants) from six studies with moderate to high doses of lysergic acid diethylamide and/or psilocybin were included.

“New subscales (with items other than MEQ30) were created and validated as follows:
(1) theoretical derivation of candidate items;
(2) removal of items with rare experiences;
(3) exploratory factor analysis; and
(4) confirmatory factor analysis.

“Correlations of subscales within the PES and between the PES and the 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Scale (5D-ASC) were performed.” – i seriously doubt that any analysis from POV of MEQ lineage is capable to doing a correlation of OAV aka 5D-ASC.

OAV is so much better than MEQ, has so much better DNA, MEQ is not capable of being used as a basis or starting point for comparison.

Stocker continues:

“In addition, a cluster analysis using all items (except rare experiences) was performed.”

Results

Stocker continues:

“The reliability of the four original factors of the MEQ30 [why not “MEQ43”?] was confirmed and four additional factors for the non-MEQ items [do you mean SOCQ’s 100 – 43 MEQ items = 57, or 100-30 = 70? HOW MANY ITEMS??] were revealed:

  • paradoxicality,
  • connectedness,
  • visual experience, and
  • distressing experience.

“The first two additional factors were strongly correlated with the MEQ30 mystical subscale.

“Adding the new subscales to the MEQ30 subscales increased the explained variance with the 5D-ASC.”

I see such variance as bad, given that OAV is much more sound than MEQ.

Stocker continues:

“The cluster analysis confirmed our main results and provided additional insights for future psychedelic psychometrics.”

Conclusion

Stocker continues:

“The study yields a new validated 6-factor structure for extended mystical experience (MEQ40: MEQ30 + Paradoxicality + Connectedness) and covers psychedelic experience as a whole more comprehensively than has hitherto been possible within a single questionnaire (PES48).”

“The entire PES (PES100) can also be used for further future psychedelic-psychometric research.”

OAV is better than MEQ: broader, more comprehensive.

The ignorant is so ignorant, it fails to understand how ignorant it is.

We have “extended” “mystical experience” — to still fail to include anything negative and interesting that’s covered by OAV’s A/Angst dimension of 21 reality-based items.

Why MEQ 40, why not MEQ43?

Seeems to say there are 48 “mystical” questions in PES, and says there are 100 effects items total in PES.

My ECQ is the best foundation for a critique of warmed-over, undead Pahnke 1962 q’air PEQ:
ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire”

The CEQ is the broken wastebasket intended to catch the failures of the MEQ.

Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

PEQ was a bad dish the first time when it was fresh. SOCQ never went away, so how can it come back? SOCQ was always the MEQ43 + 57 “distractor items”. Which no one was allowed to see. Science!

No one was able to obtain the SOCQ, as Stocker confirms.

PEQ aka SOCQ/ MEQ/ PES/ MEQ43/ MEQ30.

Confirmed that the distractor items are random poorly chosen semi-psychedelic questions.

I am not impressed with the James/ Stace / Leary/ Pahnke / Richards / Griffiths lineage of q’airs (PEQ; MEQ; SOCQ; PES).

I AM impressed with Aldolph Dittrich, who did a good job with 1975 v1 (APZ) & 1994 v2 of OAV, became repackaged as 5D-ASC by adding two worthless dimensions in addition to OAV 1994. APZ, OAV 1985, OAV 1994 & Beta; 5D-ASC, 11-Factors.

HRS seems pretty good, decently good (b/c it has decent relevant negative effects questions). HRS is not just loudly exuding badness like Pahnke’s PEQ.

Out of all Dittrich’s instruments (q-air’s), OAV 1994 is the only decent, robust q’air.

It is impossible to obtain and see these q’airs.

From what I have SCRAPED together with as much difficulty as Stocker confirms and complains about, it appears that the only good q’air is OAV 1994.

OAV is definitely very good. Not ideal, but very good.

SOCQ/MEQ/PEQ/PES is definitely bad. Given the way ppl bring in a mention of CEQ, I forcibly assign CEQ as the ill-begotten bastard offspring of MEQ/SOCQ/PEQ/PES.

In Effect, CEQ is in the MEQ lineage – eg what Stang challenged Griffiths and Griftith’s lame framing was “MEQ is balanced to be unbalanced positive-only”; he said “MEQ is positive-balanced” and he said “it’s ok that MEQ trashcanned the negative effects; the CEQ catches those – by simply IGNORING 18 of 21 negative effects from the OAV lineage. So CEQ does NOT actually catch the negative effects.

The article by Stocker, which is essentially “The Revival of the Complete 100-item SOCQ”, is consistently bad. Stocker claims that SOCQ is broader – the same bragging as CEQ article – than OAV, and broader than HRS.

But SOCQ is NOT broader, in fact OAV is broader and better than SOCQ. Stocker claims that Richards claims that SOCQ / PEQ is designed to be comprehensive of all psychedelic effects.

I doubt Pahnke and Richards in 1960s did as good a job as Dittrich APZ 1975/ OAV 1985 / OAV 1994/ 5D-ASC.

Why did P & R designate the 57 items merely as “distracter items“? Dittrich had a better, fairer, less biased goal – Dittrich did NOT start by using Stace as a basis, and then add some more non-Stacean items around that core, as Pahnke & Richards did.

Dittrich’s 1975 APZ was, from the start, designed to be comprehensive.

Stocker claims that SOCQ is MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN 5D-ASC!

SOCQ actually has slim pickings re: eternalism and control challenges, compared to OAV.

Only through the cloudy lens of PEQ is OAV assessed and found to have gaps – it’s an illusion.

Start from OAV instead, and the gaps are revealed in PEQ/SOCQ.

SOCQ is blind and it is used in table 11 page 17 as a (false) measuring stick by which to assess OAV & HRS. The result is the CLAIM that OAV is missing items – but in fact, it’s SOCQ that’s missing items!

SOCQ is such a bad lens, entirely missing the Control Challenges category, you cannot use SOCQ to measure the adequacy and breadth of the superior OAV, and HRS also seems better re: negative effects, than SOCQ (which is MEQ + 57 “distractor items”).

See my ECQ eternalism and control q’air for how to correctly gather negative items from OAV, HRS, and SOCQ.
ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire”

My accuracy is limited because NO ONE CAN OBTAIN THESE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE INSTRUMENTS, THE UNOBTAINABLE Q’AIRS.

My ranking:

  • Best: OAV. Ocean/Angst/Vision. Dittrich.
  • Medium-good: HRS (Rick Strassman, for NN-DMT).
  • Worst: SOCQ/MEQ. Also CEQ (its inverse companion in badness).

I’m burdening SOCQ by shackling the bad CEQ to its spiritual forebear, MEQ.

MEQ technically will disown CEQ, saying “CEQ is not only in the MEQ lineage, it’s also in the HRS & OAV lineage” – but that’s hardly true, since CEQ only retains 3 of 21 items from OAV.

CEQ omits the best, most interesting negative effects from HRS, too.

Everything wrong with CEQ is the same bad DNA as MEQ.

Its name, “CEQ”, signals that CEQ is the complement of the MEQ.

A malformed complement of a malformed q’air.

If you could only assign this child — CEQ — to a single parent, which parent would that be: OAV, HRS, or MEQ?

Easy choice: CEQ has far more affinity-in-badness with MEQ than with the very good OAV or the pretty good HRS.

CEQ isn’t in the SOCQ/MEQ lineage, officially.

Practically, CEQ is the broken, failed shadow of the broken, failed MEQ.

CEQ goes through the motions of including negative experiences from all 3 lineages: HRS, OAV/5-ASC, and SOCQ/MEQ/PEQ/PES.

CEQ only retains 3 of OAV’s 21 A/Angst items.

SOCQ lacks any real control-challenges effects items.

CEQ is really just inheriting the bad DNA of SOCQ/MEQ and doesn’t really incorp OAV (but only PRETENDS to) and doesn’t incorp signif items from HRS.

OAV has quite good negative experiences items.

HRS has some decent negative experiences items.

SOCQ has quite poor negative experiences items.

Good, adequate: OAV 1994. Dittrich lineage. Dittrich understands psychedelic experience and the reason may be that Dittrich does not use Stace. Dittrich is good because ignores Stace.

Poor, chronimcally bad and ever-inadequate: PEQ, SOCQ, MEQ, PES. Leary/ Pahnke/ Richards lineage. MEQ is bad because based on Stace – MEQ is beyond redemption/ repair.

PES = PEQ = SOCQ; 100 items: Stocker Confirms: Near-Impossible to Get Ahold of the Q’air, WHY??!!

What kind of “Science” is it impossible to get ahold of the essential mechanisms/ information?

I posted recently about this article. Fully confrmed my initial question: this is none other than the SOCQ, renamed: All of these are the same thing:

  • MEQ43 + 57 distractor items
  • SOCQ
  • PEQ
  • PES

Stocker confirms my huge complaint: This “Psychedelic Science” is SO BOGUS that even the scientists can’t get ahold of this basic instrument: the damned list of questions! There are articles ABOUT the q’air, but no one can obtain the actual Q-air! (ie, the 100-item full SOCQ). Stocker says it’s not too hard to obtain the 43 MEQ questions, but the other 57 “distractor items” that make up the full SOCQ are near-impossible to obtain – WTF!

Leg Joke in f22: Knee-Bend Proves Weight on Right Foot — But Torso Attached Backwards!

The Egodeath community standing to the left of the mountain, wearing victory wreaths: guy 2, gray-blue garment: look at his knees, they check out: right foot on ground, left foot floating.

BUT, his torso is attached backwards. Making hash out of concept of “left” and “right” — relative to what??

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f22 legs and torso backwards.jpg” 264 KB, 11:35 pm Jan. 17, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom

f22: Mushroom Mount: Jar Touches Mushroom-Tree, So Jar Contains Mushrooms

Crop by Michael Hoffman. f22

[11:21 pm jan 17 2025] just realizzed that image i been studying a day ago, the 10 pilzbaum in single image, Jesus touches a weird Liberty Cap Jar touching a mushroom-tree. https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f22

That means that the Liberty Cap jars contain mushrooms.

So now I have more args:

  • Placement of jars is special, temple opening.
  • Lid has Liberty Cap gills and lid/ cap.
  • Jar is touching mushroom-tree.

🎉 Decoded Motif: Draping the Walls of the City with White Washed Clean Cloth

It took 1 year 10 months (almost 2 years) to decode {drape + walls}.

Jeez, how many YEARS have I worked on this? I’m guessing March 2023 emails with Brown; now Jan 2025.

2025/01
-2023/03

2024/13
-2023/03
= 1 year 10 months.

In March 2025 I will have worked on motif for 2 years.

What’s new tonight is combining cloth AT wall; previously, I figured out {wall}, {gate}, {pure}, {cleansed}, and {washed-white cloth}, but here, I finally make sense of Browns’ incomprehensible gibberish about “draping the walls of Jerusalem”.

Mushroid trees: “Mushroid” Is Better than Finding “Mushrooms”; like mushroom imagery in Christian art

Actually it’s Marcia Kupfer’s incomprehensible gibberish quoted by Brown because of Brown’s focus on the {tree} motif.

Brown complains that Kupfer fails to recognize that the trees are mushroid; Brown 2019 wrote:

“According to Kupfer (1993), as Christ rides the ass followed by his disciples “several youths excitedly clamor up trees to break off branches, while others unfurl their mantels at his feet.

“The second phase of the episode on the west wall isolates the walled city of Jerusalem . . .

” Youths, their mouths open in song, crowd the gates; others within the city drape the walls or cut away at the treetops” (p. 122).”

/ end of Brown 2019 passage quoting Kupfer writing about “trees” without recognizing mushroom imagery

I replaced Brown’s emphasis on “tree” phrases by my own. Our reason differs: Brown latches onto “tree”, but I latch onto “cut” “branch”.

“within the city drape the walls” – What’s that supposed to mean?

In Saint Martin page; find “drap” in that page. Find “drap” at this site. Somewhere I grappled with the idea, including voice recordings in Egodeath Mystery Show.

See below (doesn’t join wall + drape):
{white cloth at temple sanctum} Motif

Draping the Walls Over the Gate at the Towers of Jerusalem

Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown. Copied from Saint Martin page.

Why the cloth AT the walls? Because clean cloth = barrier walls = gate condition ; ie there’s a condition for passing through the guarded gate: requires repudiating relying on possibilism-thinking, and instead relying on eternalism-thinking.

Passing through the gate requires {sacrifice} of childish passing, temporary, perishable naive possibilism-thinking, to be able to endure the Psilocybin state without non-viable control; without loss of control.

Passive voice: When God pulls you through the gate into the city, God makes your thinking transform:

mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.

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.

Rev 22:14 (NIV)

Initial Notes When {drape + walls} struck me

[10:15 pm Friday, Jan. 17, 2025]

I’m picking up strange combinations ideas about Brown scene tower “draping the walls”, + Eadwine motif of white cloth in stable building.

Outside the gates/wall of the city, is wailing, fire that purifies, gnashing & thrashing of cybernetic control seizure [picutre: f177 row 2 left: rams in flames on left foot]

Everyone within the walls has gone through purification; they are completed initiates: purified, cleansed, robes washed.

Everyone inside the city wall has passed through the purity-test filter gate; everyone who is inside the walls of the gated city has undergone transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

In Quest of the Most Extreme Position in the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

No one enters the promised land except through psychedelic eternalism.

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Copied from Golden.
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown. Copied from Saint Martin Frescos.

I previously held an almost totally extreme position. That’s a strategy that’s guaranteed to fail, because Evil Future Me will slip into that gap and dethrone weakling Present Me.

When academics disparage people who say psychedelics are the only way to have the mystic altered state, they ultimately mean me.

Cybermonk Is Far More Greedy than John Rush, So Delivers Vastly More Evidence Than Rush Claims To

My Gallery Is Bigger Than Yours

I’ve got a big gallery
He’s got a big gallery
They’ve got a big gallery
And she’s got a big gallery
But I’ve got the biggest gallery of them all

srch

John Rush self-contradicts because he considers entheogen scholarship less important than smearing and crybabying about the Big Bad Church.

I approve the Church doing double evil universally – so I don’t have the burden of caring whether the Church is good or bad.

I am oblivious to any distinction between alleged “mainstream orthodox” vs. “heretical underground”.

This allows me to be far more greedy than John Rush, and a more effective entheogen scholar at finding proof of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

I am the most extreme asserter that psychedelics are the only way to have the mystic altered state, satori, gnosis, salvation, redemption, cleansing, purification, etc.

NO ADVOCATE MORE ARDENT

I’m far more of an ardent advocate than Irvin 2008, or John Rush. So, the person I compete against is only one person: myself; Evil Future Me.

Do not allow Evil Future Me to be more extreme; do not permit him a little gap to squeeze in to be more extreme.

Meditation, breathing, and countless other tradition the traditional methods of the mystics “can”, “could”, “might”, or “may” produce same as Psilo – says EVERY lying fake sellout baloney dealer such as Hanegraaff, and everyone. Even Ruck.

Meditation cannot and does not produce Psilocybin effects. If this happens, it is a useless, freak, deviant instance that proves the rule.

Chanting and drumming cannot and does not produce Psilocybin effects.

All of these falsely claimed non-drug “the traditional methods of the mystics” are not ways of inducing loose cognitive association binding; they are activities to do within the Psilocybin-induced loosecog state.

Breathwork is nothing but a RUSE; breathwork cannot and does not produce Psilocybin effects.

The only mystical experience anyone had is through psychedelics, especially Psilocybin.

Non-drug “meditation” is bunk, sham, fake, fraud, ineffective, and nothing but an avoidance strategy to avoid the real deal, Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

All religious art is depiction via analogy of Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

“It’s like a maze … The gills … fascinating” (Psilocybin Mushroom Bible, 2024)

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Apparently a gen’d image using
https://stablediffusionweb.com
The Psilocybin Mushroom Bible (2024 edition), Dr. K. Mandrake PhD, Virginia Haze

Huggins use the “problematic tangle of branches, since mushrooms don’t have branches” to reject mushroom-trees purposefully meaning mushrooms.

Mushrooms have features like branches under a tree crown.

Depicting mushroom gills & veil as branches under a tree crown is within the boundary of flexibility for non-realism style in Medieval art.

The Psilocybin Mushroom Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing and Using Magic Mushrooms
Dr. K. Mandrake PhD, Virginia Haze
2nd Edition, May 21, 2024
https://www.amazon.com/Psilocybin-Mushroom-Bible-Definitive-Mushrooms/dp/1937866947/

This photo & caption is evidence + argumentation to rebut Ronald Huggins’ rejection of Samorini’s argument that branches under mushroom-tree cap/crown are veil.

Huggins says only a mycologist would know such a temp state transient.

My better explanation, more robust, is:

Gills + veil is depicted as branches in mushroom-trees.

Actually, in full:

gills + veil + the experiential revelation of non-branching is depicted as branches in mushroom-trees.

Branching vs. non-branching possibilities; autonomous vs. 2-level dependent control: balancing on right foot held up by God by right arm

The blue horizontal line in upper left connects these two contrasts:

  • Comprehension of non-branching instead of branching.
  • Comprehension of 2-level dependent control instead of autonomous control.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com, Jan. 3, 2025

Depicted by mushroom-trees is, together, the comprehension of the contrast between:

  • Branching vs. non-branching possibilities.
  • Autonomous vs. 2-level dependent control.

The above image is copied from https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/#Entire-Image-with-Looking-Lines

Row 1 Left: Horse dung-loving Panaeolus 🐴💩🍄

Updated “Letcher’s False Citation” Article: Added Quotes from Gartz & Stamets

and other related content

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/11/letchers-false-citation-various-writers-have-suggested-cult-secretly-oppression-hidden-secret-cult-for-example-stamets-gartz/#What-Stamets-Actually-Wrote

Almost Lost a Ton of Content in This Long Page, maybe because fancy shortcut directly to the “Edit The Page” url

Pretty scary, if I had added more content to the very incomplete version of this page, that would have been a pain to untangle and recover.

This long page has high risk of data loss.

If I continue lengthening this page, I will watch it like a hawk – noting latest updates – for reversion & data loss.

I will open Edit mode very carefully the normal way, watching for latest content remaining present.

Another suspect for the data loss was I may have had an old tab open for editing, containing outdated content, alongside a new tab that added new content.

Practices to Prevent Data Loss

  • Open for editing the normal way, not clever shortcut way.
  • Don’t have two tabs open for editing same article.
  • Beware multiple tabs open for editing.
  • Watch like a hawk latest changes. Put lots of datetime stamps.

Psilocybe subbalteatus: bands on cap

Stamets PMotW p. 81, Right picture: photo caption:

“Panaeolus subbalteatus is a distinctive mushroom also favoring horse manure.”

Crop and Analysis by Michael Hoffman

“The band along the margin is characteristic of this species.”

Web Image search:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=psilocybe+subbalteatus

photo view doesn’t say what species:

Image source: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ed/a9/ae/eda9ae3e5d8ba6e5e1a98fa740c41aa0.jpg

Gallery of all Panaeolus caps in Great Canterbury Psalter
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/03/16/liberty-caps-and-panaeolus-caps-in-the-canterbury-psalter/#Panaeolus-Caps

I have similar photos from Oct 31 2024 I took. TOO MANY MUSHROOMS photos to upload.

Be Prepared for Huge Success and Discovery and Full Corroboration and Firm Evidence

It’s too easy to take a pessimistic view and be closed-minded, when Chris Bennett’s article around 2021 against Mike crowley and Brown and mushrooms in Christian art — Bennett says the field of cannabis is way better evidenced, and there’s no hope of the field of mushrooms to get any evidence in religious history.

Chris “Easy Mode” Bennett: Lazy and Unresourceful Cannabis entheogen scholars: the lazy slacker single-plant fallacy

Chris Bennett Entheogen Scholarship
See also: https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/ for more – slightly later – along these lines, including the quote that I was looking for, which argues:

  • Text evidence: Cannabis has; Mushrooms lacks. (Never mind zillion descriptions of Eucharist effects.)
  • Archaeology evidence: Cannabis has; Mushrooms lacks.
  • Art evidence: Cannabis has; Mushrooms has.

Sunday 11:57 pm: “Too bad there’s inherently no way to ever prove what’s in the balance scale pans held by God in “Day One: God Creates Light”. 

Monday 12:03 am: “Oh duh, the artist provided the proof on this adjacent Day 4 panel I’ve also been separately studying 🤦‍♂️”

REAL Theorists Play in Hard Mode: aka Big Stakes Players: Defending the Psilocybin Single-Plant Fallacy Requires VIGOR and FORCEFUL, Resourceful Theorizing with Positive Attitude

Defending Mushrooms in Entheogen History Is TOO HARD 😭, There’s Not Lots and Lots of Evidence like for Cannabis”, Cries Bennett

todo: add article quote from Bennett 2021. Where do i find that at this site? search web? Checck Acrobat History? /discard/ directory at his cannabis site – find here: Bennett Crowley … making new page now …

Only Cannabis Has Easy, Solid, Firm Evidence, other plants are “TOO HARD” to Speculate About because “there’s not enough” evidence – WUSS!

MAN UP CHRIS: Hard Theorizing requires bringing in {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs to Get the Jackpot of Evidence

Not so true. Bennett is a wuss because he can only theorize if he’s standing on solid ground – CHRIS “EASY MODE” BENNETT, a mere CANNABIS theorist of entheogen scholarship.

Mistaken Negative Expectations: Expecting No Mushroom Imagery, Expecting No Evidence Proving Them

The diamond hammer of interpretation: Approach the genre of mushrooms in Christian art like John Rush: Religious Art Means Mushrooms Imagery and Branching Messages.

Expect Massive Mushroom Caches along with Firm Evidence Confirming Identification

[Jan. 16, 2025] Principle of interpreting Eadwine’s images:

  • Assume Eadwine is a mushroom enthusiast and takes every opportunity to signal mushrooms.
  • Assume that where there is potentially maximum cache of mushrooms, Eadwine has provided evidence of such – look for it; EXPECT confirming clues to be provided.
  • Reject negative expectations.
  • Expect that branching is significant, to show patterns.
  • Expect motifs to be applied and used 2/3 of the time: a definite tendency, but far from “always”.
  • Assume Eadwine is striving to communicate message of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs – certainly NOT to “hide” and make “secret”.

The {right branch cross-behind} motif

Section heading created Jan. 17, 2025, & added two more images/instances here besides f11 “eating tree knowl” panel.

f11: All 3 Trees’ Branching Under Cap/Crown Have a Right branch visually cut by crossing under Left branch

Discovered Jan. 15, 2025.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 3 R branch cross.jpg” 11:46 pm Jan. 15, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom#

Visually {Cut Right Branch} in “Dancing Man” Image: The {right branch cross-behind} motif

Crop by Michael Hoffman – https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/13/salamander-mushroom-tree-right-side-cut/

f193: Five ways to depict {cut right branch} motif

Crop by Michael Hoffman, December 11, 2024

[11:46 pm Jan. 15, 2025] The 3 trees in f11 row 3 R – eating from tree of knowledge — all have a YI in middle of branches: right crosses under left, right is visually {cut branch}.

In the middle of the branches of each of the 3 trees, a Right branch goes left behind a Left branch, so that the Right branch is visually cut. right = cut branching, non-branching. Left is branch, Right is cut branch.

That explains Huggins’ “tangle of branches” which is “unlike mushroom” so these trees that art historians since 1906 say look like mushrooms don’t look like mushrooms, because of the tangle of branches.

These trees that art historians say look like mushrooms
don’t look like mushrooms,
because of the tangle of branches.

Cut branches.

The gills and veil of a mushroom looks like branches that are immediately under a tree crown.

Branching-message mushroom trees require branches, to deliver the message about non-branching, that’s the ultimate concern of the artist to communicate.

The purpose of branching-message mushroom trees is to send a message asserting non-branching.

Out Cybermonking Cybermonk – to the extreme. TO THE EXTREME –> invert their dance moves:

Can Drug-Induced Mysticism Be Valid? NO!

Can Non-Drug Mysticism Be Valid? NO!

____

Can Drug-Induced Meditation Be Valid? NO!

Can Non-Drug Meditation Be Valid? NO!

Fake book: Allan Badiner Zig Zag Zen

LIES DENYING the PSILOCYBIN ORIGIN AND ONGOING INSPIRATION OF MEDITATION.

Meditation is NOTHING without Psilocybin.

Pompous proud boasting falsely book, “It is a given that non-drug meditation is the standard, Psil must beg for acceptance.” Accept this BOOT, frauds! How dare you pretent to hold a CANDLE to Psilocybin, fake substitute meditation avoidance of the real thing, Psilocybin. How dare non-drug meditation act like IT is the reference standard?

How Dare They Act Like It’s a Given that Non-Drug Meditation Is the Standard by Which Psilocybin Is to be Measured and Found Wanting, Assessed to be “Ineffective at what’s important”

Let Psilocybin Be the Standard of Judgement, for Meditation’s Promises and Efficacy, and to Define what High Maturation means, from immature form to mature form according to the high standard that’s set by Psilocybin

The standard of High Truth is Psilocybin, Teacher of Righteousness and cleansing of sin. There I am defending the metaphor of:

Why should we define maturation in terms of — by the standards of — Psilocybin type of maturation, rather than some other type of maaturation?

How do you judge which paradigm of judgment to choose, as the standard of reference? Baseless? I can defend my case, that the best kind of maturation is Psilocybin-driven maturation

The Best Kind of Maturation Is Psychedelic-Driven Maturation — the Classic Model/ Myth;
Maturation Is Through
Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism =
Beard =
the shift from L to R foot =
salamander becomes Phoenix

Why map the shift from L to R foot to the two mental models that Psilocybin switches between: transformation from possibilism to eternalism

Why say:
L foot = ordinary-state branching
R foot = Psilocybin non-branching

Why not say:
L foot = lack of meditation
R foot = meditate intensely

Why look to Psilocybin to set the ultijmate standard of truth?

Psilocybin as the Ultimate Standard of Transformation into Truth

Not meditation. REJECT non-drug meditation as the ultimate standard for kTransformation into Truth.

Non-drug meditation DOES NOT cause Transformation into Truth.

Non-drug meditation prevents transformation into truth, it’s a substitute for the purpose of avoidance – covering that by yelling bragging loudly

MEDITATION HUCKSTERS AND ACADEMICS BOASTING that

Non-drug meditation is presupposed as the automatically given, reference standard, as if established fact. <– #1 peeve

Psilcybin is the standard for all things spiritual and mystical and transcendent and transformative.

Meditaiton BRAGS to the sky and considers itself to be the gold standard reference – the hubris! Psilocybin strikes down the false PRETENSES of the MEDITATION HUCKSTERS, phonies and frauds, get the BOOT fakers and posers, frauds and phoneys. Better to have a Salvation Salesmen than Meditation Hucksters

Is Fake, Non-Drug Mystical Experiencing a Valid Simulation of the Real Thing, Psilocybin?

Is there any way for non-drug meditation / non-drug mysticism to be authentic?

Is Fake, Non-Drug Mysticism a Valid Simulation of the Real Thing, Psilocybin?

Is there any way for non-drug mysticism to be authentic? NO!

Strategy: Prevent Evil Future Me from out-radicalling Present Me.

non-drug meditation

non-drug mysticism

The Meditation Hucksters Are Even Worse than the Salvation Salesmen!

Why use Psilocybin as the reference, why not
meditation or
stumbling on a log or
hitting your head or
the traditional methods of the mystics?

Academic Myth: “The traditional methods of the mystics” (aka: Anything But Drugs)

the ABD theory

A top-10 mytheme: the traditional methods of the mystics.

The traditional methods of the mystics, about which we say we understand nothing, except it DEFINITELY.. in fact the ONLY thing that we DO know about t.m.m. is that “anything but drugs”, ABD

the traditional methods of the mystics

Our understanding of t.m.m. consists only of 100% certainty of ABD, not about anything else, we know nothing, 0% about how mystics get mystical

Ronald Huggins’ “impervious to fire” salamander: “Wouter Hanegraaff & I couldn’t figure out where did it go and why is there this Phoenix where there used to be the impervious salamander?? 🤔🤔🤷‍♂️

An unproductive avoidance mechanism, an excuse to avoid ego death transformation to psychedelic eternalism , non-drug meditation and non-drug entheogenic practice is a self-contradiction and totally ineffective PLACEBO.

Non-drug = placebo fake techniques of FAKING MYSTICISM while avoiding actual mystical expeirence whcih, which is of transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

The traditional method of the mystics is none other than Psilocybin.]

One is an anomaly; two is a pattern; four is proof

Consistency = proof/evidence/ signalling.

This consistency of all 4 plants doing symmetrical pointing, is a network reinforcing deliberate signalling, reducing to zero the possibility of coincidence.

  • Plant 1 & 2 are branching-cap (grid of Lib cap) and point at the Y-like compass.
  • All 4 plants point at 4 symm. points in Day 1.
  • The two non-branching-cap plants both point at pans of the balance scale.
  • There is no other candidate for what’s in the pans.

This is intentional disambiguation by Eadwine; deliberate provable signalling that is BY DESIGN CONFIRMATION BY-DESIGN.

This image is specifically designed to signal and prove intent.

I’m in that Strange Phase Now, “Assessing How Huge My Jackpot Is”, re: Day 1 & 4 of “The Six Days of Creation” in Great Canterbury Psalter

How huge is this jackpot, assessed on Wednesday evening after the start-of-Monday breakthrough?

It’s a huge jackpot: my Midnight Proof at end of last Sunday, start of Monday morning, realizing that the 4 mushrooms in Day 4 of Creation point at the branching Compass and at the pans of the {balance scale}.

This is like when first I semi-joked about f134 image row 3: “I can see that the big blue container contains Cubensis” — and then months later I finally looked up at the Row 2 dispensary bins, to see not grain, but explicit mushrooms — receiving unexpected incredibly ideal, fully-strong proof of my conjecture.

I expected no confirmation, indeed I expected no possibility of confirmation — and yet, I received firm, unassailable, ideal and optimal proof.

To Eadwine’s credit.

I keep expecting Eadwine to not provide the evidence that I require – but Eadwine is on the same wavelength as me, one Theorist to another.

First I semi-joked about the balance scale pans containing mushrooms — and then months later, I finally looked at Row 4 at the same time as Row 1, to see that the Panaeolus and Amanita are turning to point effortfully directly at the two pans of the balance scale.

… and the left two plants (Lib, Cub) — with branching grid caps – are effortfully turning to point directly at the tips of the angled branching V-shaped compass — receiving unexpected incredibly ideal, fully-strong proof of my conjecture.

When did I first state that the scale balance contains mushrooms?

That’s an important historical question for my History of Discovery.

Between that day and start of Monday Jan 13 2025, during that period, I held out no hope of ever proving in any direct way.

Suddenly I have proof given to me by Eadwine, I failed to listen for his proof-message, until I started looking at – key turning point – a crop of all six days together; rows 1 & 2 together.

This is a mistake made in Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article – he EITHER shows the ENTIRE PAGE, or, shows a single image isolated.

No one looks at the six days and nothing else, as the scope of inspection/ art interpretation.

OMFG I CANNOT BELIEVE IT – I ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE “IMPOSSIBLE” PROOF THAT MUSHROOMS ARE IN THE SCALE BALANCE!! 🤯

Crop by Michael Hoffman, 5:19 pm Jan. 4, 2025

At [5:19 pm Jan. 4, 2025], I cropped the “Six Days of Creation” as one image.

At [1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025], I drew lines from Day 4 to Day 1; from row 2 to row 1.

Based on these crop timestamps, it took 13-4 = 9 days to get from “let’s scope to all Six Days of Creation; top half of image” to “OMFG I CANNOT BELIEVE IT – I ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE “IMPOSSIBLE” PROOF THAT MUSHROOMS ARE IN THE SCALE BALANCE!! 🤯”

I’m Not Attacking Meditators; I’m Attacking Disrespecters of Psilocybin (Attackers of Psilocybin)

A Counterattack Against Committed Diminishers of Psilocybin; A Vigorous Defense

Focus on Full Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition, Not Full Repeal of Prohibition of Classic Psychedelics

I could write “classic psychedelics” but regarding strategic combat, that is too broad and vague and blunt; lacks the penetration ability of the specific word Psilocybin.

What are we fighting for? Full Repeal of Prohibition of All Psychoactive substances!
No one cares.

What are we fighting for? Full Repeal of Prohibition of Psilocybin!
Many people care.

Siilar to my call for “stop lumping confusingly together two very different things as if trying to force them to be similar”.

Stop trying to talk simultaneously about Amanita and Psilocybin. It doesn’t work.

Similarly:

Stop trying to talk simultaneously about Psilocybin and Ergot. It’s not effective strategy. Need FOCUS. One topic at a time, covered well; treated well. Not two different topics at once, each treated poorly and ineffectively.

Two cheers for the lumped-togeher “classic psychedelics”:

Don’t we just love “Mescaline-and-Ergot-and-Psilocybin-and-the-DMTs”? No, we don’t, because that’s a nebulous, defocused, neutered set.

Richard Tarnas Keynote: “Transpersonal Psychology Came from LSD”

“In his 2014 keynote address to the British Psychological Society’s Transpersonal Section, Professor Richard Tarnas proclaimed that were it not for LSD there wouldn’t have been any Transpersonal Psychology.”
https://www.academia.edu/125907260/Psychedelics_and_the_Spiritual_Path_critical_voices_and_considerations?nav_from=0cc6374a-c33e-4035-9486-74046a072146

Stang’s Commitment to Dismissing Entheogens by Framing Them as Non-“Mainstream” or “Not Continuous Unbroken Tradition”

I reject Charles Stang trying to make a move that I expected courts to make: No matter how much evidence of psychedelics in religious history there is, Stang is committed to rejecting them, DON’T COUNT, because we can’t prove entheogens were “mainstream” vs merely “counterculture”.

Reject the Concept of “Mainstream” and “Continuous Tradition” (Even if Ask “To What Extent?”)

I reject the division between “continuous normal mainstream” vs. “deviant heretical counterculture underground” presence of The Mushroom.

Brown finds mushrooms in Christian art in all major forms and locations. But Pope Ruck neutralizes every finding by artificially framing each instance as “so-called heretical” — called by who?

Ruck is the only pope who I hear proclaiming the mushroom as heretical, in antiquity.

Pope Ruck proclaims his decree, that any use of The Mushroom is heretical and renders you as “a member of a secret heretical sect” (rather than as a person mixed-in among the set of all people).

What a corny, dated manner of speaking they use! Cliche-driven writing and expression, like saying “experimenting” instead of simply “ingesting”.

Either Christianity includes psychedelics, or doesn’t, and I reject all questions of “to what extent” – after I’ve put in place that the main question is really “To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?

Now I’m more inclined to the binary:

There is nonzero mushrooms in Christianity, so, my story telling is, Christianity has a mushroom tradition. There is evidence of some psychedelics, therefore, I firmly conclude and insist, Christianity has a mushroom tradition.

Evidence for Mushrooms in Christian Art Is Proof that Christianity Has a Mushroom Tradition

The “isolate, divide, diminish” strategy:

“But not continuous, so, doesn’t count.“

“But not mainstream, so, doesn’t count.“

“But not official and explicit, so, doesn’t count.“

“But it’s not secret and hidden, so, doesn’t count.“

“But it’s secret and hidden, so, doesn’t count.“

“But [facile, ad-hoc, special-pleading reason/excuse], so, doesn’t count.“

Here are 1000 pieces of Psilocybin evidence in Christian history.

Therefore, Christianity has a Psilocybin tradition.

Director Charles Stang steps in, I shove him back out: Stang (in his respect-begging, posturing pose and stance and affectation) says “No, you cannot PROVE that psychedelics were NORMAL and MAINSTREAM and CONTINUOUS MAJOR TRADITION, so, DOESN’T COUNT.”

“Either Psychedelics were held by everyone officially as the Eucharist, or, doesn’t count” – per the Stang dance, which I reject.

I am fed up and DONE with people bullying and pushing-around the Psychdelic theory of religious origins.

I’m done being reasonable and modest.

I say, if we have a bunch of mushroom imagery in Christian art, our proof is done and finished: We have proved that Christianity’s inspiration comes from entheogens.

I don’t want to say we proved “psychedelics are mainstream in Christian history”, beacuse I streatgegically reject, because a liability, the very concept of “mainstream”.

An ancient person who used psychedelics counts 1000 times as much as a person who didn’t use psychedelics.

I get to determine what “counts”.

I refuse to let someone else dictate to me “what counts”, that psychedelics has to meet some fake made-up criteria else “doesn’t count”, just like 2007 book Shroom by Andy Letcher says:

“The Liberty Cap tree on Bernward Door DOESN’T COUNT, because I don’t want it to count, so I will LIE and MAKE SH*T UP and equate mushrooms = secret suppressed hidden, then declare THIS MSH IS NOT secret, so DOESN’T COUNT.”

It is ARBITRARY to reject psychedelics that are found in Christian history, claiming that they “don’t count” for some bullsh*t reason or other – fabricated EXCUSES TO a-priori REJECT psychedelics because you want to be socially perceived as rejector of psychedelics.

“Rightly or wrongly, we are going to reject mushroom-trees.” – Wasson to mycologist John Ramsbottom in Dec. 1953. They are committed skeptics? THEN I AM A COMMITTED EXTREME AFFIRMER.

There has never been mystical experiencing without Psychedelics. My stragtegic vehement position. I call scholars who deny that, liars. They think THEY are allowed to be extreme committed skeptics, yet they claim I am not allowed to be and extreme committed affirmer: ARDENT ADVOCATES.

Counter-Dogmatism: The Only Way to Have Mystical Experience Is Through Psychedelics

That’s not a statement against individuals who have non-drug mystical expeirence; it is a principled declaration against an entrenched bunk scholars’ move.

My goal is not to discredit and dismiss mystics. My goal is to discredit and dismiss anti-Psychedelics posturing. I don’t care if someone says “Non-drug meditation is good.” I reject anyone claiming “Non-drug meditation is real, and psychedelics are imitation.” They insult the psychedelic origin sacrament inspiration source, I insult them twice that much.

However Much Meditation Hucksters Diminish Psychedelics, I Diminish Meditation Hucksters Double That

However Much the Ignoramus Art Authorities Disrespect Trees and Mushrooms in Christian Art (About Which They Have Written NOTHING), I Disrespect These Ignoramous Con Artists Double That

“PMTs” means psychedelic mushroom theorists, ie asserters of mushrooms in Christian art.

“PMTs” is Huggins’ disrespectful term of disparagement and distancing.

Huggins neglects to form an acronym disparaging distancing label for his roller derby team, the BULLHEADED COMMITTED DENIERS who:

  • Fabricate fake citations: Letcher’s endnote 31 of “Stamets and Gartz” (no page numbers given), who
  • Censor, lying by omission: Wasson, SOMA, Panofsky letter.
  • Combine so many obvious logical fallacies, it’s hard to identify which fallacies are the most prominent.
  • Bluff – “This tree that art historians describe as looking like mushrooms doesn’t look like mushrooms, because it has branches.” (Conveniently lacking a picture on that text-filled page.) What his text labels as ‘branches’ look like mushrooms.

The message of the mushroom-tree artists is not “mushrooms”.

The message of the mushroom-tree artists is:

“On mushrooms, reject branching possibilities and autonomous control, to avoid loss of control and gain transformation and enlightenment.” — the mushroom-tree artists

On mushrooms, reject branching possibilities and reject autonomous control, to avoid loss of control and gain transformation and enlightenment.

the mushroom-tree artists

Huggins cries about how “PMTs” disrespect the art authorities, while Huggins says “Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted [Huggin’s word for CENSORED] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann…”

I’m not fighting and denying mystics; I’m fighting and denying and calling bullsh*t against scholars, compromised, state-owned sellouts who are intensely prejudiced against psychedelics.

Scholars Are Intensely Prejudiced Against Psychedelics; Therefore, I Am Intensely Prejudiced Against Diminishment of Psychedelics – Fair’s Fair; It’s a Two-Way Street!

My strategic solution is to reject the distinction, reject the Carl Ruck-constructed wall/ barrier, isolating “the mushroom” from “mainstream” and imprisoning The Mushroom within Ruck’s confining barrier wall that gives Our The Mushroom to the heretical groups / cults/ communities/ sects.

NEVER does Ruck allow and permit mere individuals to have The Mushroom – because then the individuals, with The Mushroom, could mix in with the great mass of all people – can’t allow that!

Gotta keep our The Mushroom separated from the inherently, perpetually Prohibitionist masses – build that Ruck wall around The Mushroom.

Professor Cohen’s Course “Non-Drug Psychonautics: Navigating the Mind in the Non-Drug Psilocybin-Like Altered State”

I reject Cohen and affirm the students. The students are correct. Professor is full of sh*t.

“Students enrolled on the module ‘Psychonautics – Navigating the Mind’ at Leeds Beckett University, are often surprised, and perhaps a little disappointed, when I inform them that our main area of focus will be various wisdom traditions’ naturalistic methods for achieving non-ordinary and mystical states of consciousness, as opposed to substance-induced/supported states. This is arguably, largely due to my training in traditions that were suspicious [ie JEALOUS ROBBERS] of the use of any substances that might be considered ‘intoxicants’”
https://www.academia.edu/125907260/Psychedelics_and_the_Spiritual_Path_critical_voices_and_considerations?nav_from=0cc6374a-c33e-4035-9486-74046a072146 – Elliot Cohen, hopelessly compromised spouter of the usual prejudice against psychedelics. j

Meditation Hucksters, as despicable scoundrels as any Salvation Salesmen.

“Wisdom traditions’ naturalistic methods for achieving non-ordinary and mystical states of consciousness, as opposed to substance-induced/supported states” — ie bullsh*t non-methods that DON’T WORK.

What do these same scholars even claim to know about these traditions’ methods of accessing the mystic altered state? NOTHING!

Scholars’ corrupt, committed-skeptic reasoning:

“We don’t understand anything at all about how mystics accessed the mystical state.

“But we know for CERTAIN it was DEFINITELY not drugs.”

Celebration of Nov. 2024-Jan. 2025 Breakthroughs

What the Experience Was Like, in my Breakthroughs Nov. 2024-Jan. 2025

email to wrmspirit jan 14 2025 9pm, expanded here

A church member who has a certain expertise mentioned Silk Road, to support how Canterbury in 1200 AD could trade to obtain Cubensis.

I just finished religious confirmation at the church.  Now I am a member of the church, … 🔍🧐🤔 some good ppl, 

* highly networked 

* prominent in the news

* studied by academics

* filled with leading-edge ppl 

   * including the leading experts at Amanita (I had to withdraw from that subgroup due to lack of time); 

* authors attending our book club subgroup eg Yugler; & now Rick Strassman wrote new autobio book, he’s well known in the field. 

I had to withdraw from that subgroup too, limited time.

Cyberdisciple . . . 🔍🧐🤔 actually met the lead pastor.

How it feels to receive discoveries confirming art interpretation

It feels like in my website pages/posts, I haven’t communicated or managed to express what the experience was like, recently, of about 4 confirmatory discoveries. 

These are like the discoveries of Nov 2020 and early 2023, in art.

I’m glad you were perceptive, though I would not expect anyone to be, when after hiatus mid-2023 to late 2024, I finally connected with Jan Irvin’s first book and recognized (after receiving the book in April 2007) most of the set of 4 motifs – much appreciated those motifs being there in 1500s-era art – and when I found other versions of the image, Philosophers Beside the Tree, in Splendor Solis alchemical art, I found all 4 motifs fully expressed: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

I was kind of low-key about that discovery, because it’s just yet another in a series, but it came, basically breaking the hiatus and confirming that this same set of motifs are in several genres/ subcultures/ eras: 

* Medieval art

* Hellenistic/Roman art

* 1500s Alchemy

It’s hard to describe the combination of expecting discoveries (expressing a theory implies expecting to get confirmation) and then receiving confirmation.  Surprising even if “expected” – but I’ve gotten much MORE confirmation of a stronger type than I could have imagined. 

I expected confirmation, but not so much ideal confirmation, beyond what I could have imagined possible.

Recent discoveries/ confirmations and how it felt

The series of confirmations/ discoveries I mean, recently: like Nov 2024-Jan 2025:

* Cover of AstroSham 1 by Irvin – art from Splendor Solis: Philosophers at the Tree.  Three versions of this image cover, together, the 4 motifs.

* Recognizing {bent leg} of Mithras and of bull, in tauroctony scene – 

* and more confirmation of Cautes & Cautopates who most of the time, in most cases, Cautopates standing on “bad” Left foot points torch-light down, and Cautes with weight on Right foot usually holds torch light up.

* Yesterday (end of Sunday night), a pair of payoff discoveries in the “Six Days of Creation” image in Great Canterbury Psalter: 

   * I received perfect, unbelievably ideal support for claiming what’s in the pans of the balance scale.

   * … and, what I’d been working on 2-3 weeks: “There must be some pattern information in the shapes of the 4 plants in “Day 3: God Creates Plants”, that no one is looking at/ looking for.”  

The 4 plants left to right progress in sophistication, within the system that Eadwine developed and refined.  

I figured, “there must be something so basic, I would be embarrassed not having spotted it, in these shapes of the 4 plants that everyone’s been arguing about.”

There are huge payoffs, in terms of “struck gold”/ jackpot, like when I stopped avoiding looking at the grain distribution center (Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2 middle) and could hardly believe what is in the display case instead of grain. 

I know what it’s like to be negative in expectations, and underestimating how much confirmation is possible.

I didn’t and don’t “expect” more breakthrough discoveries, but it’s good, and kind of hard to express what the experience is like.  

I feel as if I announced and celebrated the Nov 2020 and March 2023 art discoveries / confirmations of the theory of psychedelic eternalism, but it feels like I haven’t announced, celebrated, and communicated my recent discoveries listed here, and talked about what it was like.

Recent input from the Egodeath community; Contributions from the Egodeath Community

Fellow Psychonaut Theorist Eadwine Communicated the Needed Evidence to Me

I am blessed to have “met” a like-minded person, a fellow traveller, a kindred spirit, a fellow psychonaut — and may I bless him even as “a theorist“? — in 1200 AD (Eadwine, in Canterbury, England), who communicated an intricate message as if he was assigned the job to provide me with the perfect evidence required in this Dark Ages of naysayers, 1968-2025.

After all, I put Eadwine on our high-impact Roller Derby team, the Monks, in 2022.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/03/teams-in-the-interpretation-derby/

I Helped Browns Realize that Publishing Panofsky’s Letters Was a Major, History-Changing Contribution to the Field of Entheogen Scholarship

Other delights were:

* Browns in some way confirming my deeper assessments about the Panofsky letters that Browns published, deeper than Browns’ initial interpretation in 2019. https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/deniers-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-cant-be-taken-seriously/#Browns-Comment

Max Freakout Discovered that Mycologist Jochen Gartz Has No Trace of “Secret” re: Bernward Door Liberty Cap Tree

* Max Freakout emailing us, with a resounding completion of the gap in the expose, finally after my solid early book review in 2007, (a book review that ppl used to challenge Letcher, and he replied with my name and a detailed argument for me), we finally reached closure on my 2007 observations that Letcher only treats a single piece of evidence for mushrooms in Christian art, and handles it shockingly badly: how badly?  

Andy Letcher’s 2006 narrative that he spins, he claims that “the secret oppressed cult” proposal comes from — per endnote 31 — Stamets and Gartz.

Max helped prove that the “secret oppressed” narrative in no way comes from Gartz; from either of the cited books, that are fakely cited by Letcher: endnote 31 is a phony citation (it doesn’t even have page numbers!), that Letcher uses to construct a straw man, to dismiss plain Liberty Cap evidence on Bernward Door – as “not secret, therefore, doesn’t count“.(!!)

Annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Letcher’s 2005-2007 book Shroom, p. 35. At end is fake, phony, false endnote 31: the two authors Gartz & Stamets (mycologists) do not in the slightest construct the narrative that Letcher attributes to them.
Annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Letcher’s 2005-2007 book Shroom, p. 36. Not secret, as Stamets & Gartz assert [except: they make no such assertion, not even slightly!], therefore, DOESN’T COUNT, and so, no mushrooms in Christian art.

The liberty cap tree on Bernward Door is not secret, as Stamets & Gartz assert [except: they make no such assertion, not even slightly!], therefore, DOESN’T COUNT; and so, no mushrooms in Christian art. Q.E.D.

The entire ridiculous narrative that Letcher presents in order to “defeat” and ridicult, is fabricated by Letcher himself and falsely attributed to mycologists Gartz & Stamets. It’s the straw man fallacy.

Congrats, Letcher, you qualify for my page, Scholarly Shame Quotes. The entire embarrassing narrative spouted (FABRICATED) by Letcher to ridicule mycologists, I reveal is made up by Letcher himself! RIGHT BACK AT YOU LETCHER.

todo: in my quote of that passage, the key words list, add “surreptitiously”; add key words from p. 36.

That discovery is on the order of my discovering Hatsis’ blog post saying like “Allegro is my favorite author.”

Letcher’s 2005-2007 book Shroom. At end is fake, phony, false endnote 31: the two authors Gartz & Stamets (mycologists) do not in the slightest construct the narrative that Letcher attributes to them.

Cyberdisciple Found a Key Entry in Graves’ Diary, for the First Scholarly Article Asserting Mushrooms in Ancient Greek Culture

* Before that, recently, Cyberdisciple located the key piece of data in a garbled scholarship body of scholarship about Robert Graves – Cyberdisciple located the day’s diary entry where Graves gives the actual title of article and the periodical:

“What Food the Centaurs Ate”, sent June 27, 1957 (not 1956) to New Yorker (not The Atlantic).  
https://egodeaththeory.org/robert-graves-writings-about-mushrooms/#First-Finder-of-Mushrooms-Greek-Myth

Cyberdisciple found the key ideal piece of evidence (diary entry), short of the link to the article, to finally determine what year & where, Robert Graves was the first scholar to propose — at length — mushrooms in ancient Greek culture (unless you count short passages like by Blavatsky).

That Graves lead from Cyberdisciple feels like my reward for finishing the Cyberdisciple site map – which I need to use more:  https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Cyberdisciple

I also gave Cyberdisciple and Brown (and Hatsis 🍌⛸) their own sections within my site map page for my site.

/ end of email (expanded here)

False, Baseless, Unfounded Assertions by Ignorant, Lying, Blundering, Censorious Art Authoritarians/ Historians Who Wrote and “Discussed” Nothing about Mushroom-Trees and Deserve to Be Ignored and Mocked and Given the Boot “with Impressive Celerity”

Unlike ignorant, pompous, self-assured art historians (who are aligned with censors, liars, and academic-credit thieves), my argument from my own authority states relevant evidence and theory-informed reasoning, not just “I am experienced and I believe X” like the art historians do.

Distinction between where Cubensis grew (in sufficient abundance) vs. how much trading/importing there was

my email to wrmspirit 2025/01/14 – next few sections

We have evidence to assume safely that there was import trade in Cubensis, Liberty Cap, and Panaeolus.  

I doubt Amanita was desirable enough to bother trading, when ppl could gather and trade the known-to-be-more-desirable kinds instead.

These pictures show blue produce and gold produce, not red produce, being traded and stored.

How Did Mushroom Enthusiasts in 1200 AD Communicate About and Obtain Abundant Supply of Liberty Cap, Panaeolus, and Cubensis?

How did enthusiasts learn about & obtain the most desirable varieties of blue produce in 1200 AD?

We have pictures showing how a Psilocybin enthusiast working as an artist in 1200 AD in England (Canterbury; South) found out about Cubensis and used it, and shared their knowledge with other artists, traders, and enthusiasts.

Canterbury, England had its own trade route to Southern Italy (Apulia), though that’s still high, 41st parallel; allegedly cubensis is “common” as far N as 30th parallel, which is the south edge of Mediterranean eg Alexandria (31st parallel).  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Francigena – “an ancient road and pilgrimage route running from the cathedral city of Canterbury in England, through France and Switzerland, to Rome[1] and then to Apulia, Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apulia, where there were ports of embarkation for the Holy Land.[2] It was known in Italy as the “Via Francigena” (“the road that comes from France”) or the “Via Romea Francigena” (“the road to Rome that comes from France”).[3]

“In medieval times it was an important road and pilgrimage route for those wishing to visit the Holy See and the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul.”

People in 1200 were not stupid and ignorant; they had resources.  

The pictorial evidence indicates that some people were interested in and knowledgeable about multiple varieties including Panaeolus, Lib Cap, Cubensis from livestock, and Amanita.  

Images discussed, from Great Canterbury Psalter

f11 – Day 1, Day 3, Day 4 of Creation

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f11

f134 – blue-stem tree, production/distribution of produce

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f134

f145 – trading blue produce

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f145

f177 – weighing & storing gold/brown produce

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f177

f221 – Spain painter: trading and storing and weighing brown produce

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f221

Amanita fills right pan of scale balance held by God, proved by pointing lines

Amanita enthusiasts won a victory yesterday morning (midnight start of day), when my straightedge at the hi-res library website indicated that the red plant in Day 4 of Creation points at the right pan of the scale balance held by God, as well as the Panaeolus pointing at the left pan.

I have to emphasize eg in my article and site: it’s impossible to tell what a figure is looking at in Great Canterbury Psalter without going to the full-resolution library website.

These images in this psalter are far more detailed, requiring zoom in, than other art.  

Determining which item a figure is looking at requires full zoom in AND a straightedge – I recently had to revise my claim of what item was being looked at.

One of my images is incorrect, my white line claims the left pall bearer is looking down at crutch base, but actually he is looking above that, at what anyone would look at: the focal point: the guy pouring brown pieces into the scale balance.  f177 row 2 middle.  Here’s the erroneous white line: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/#Row-2-Middle-with-Looking-Lines

I have to place the new image (in correct page > section) that has correct white line looking at scale balance: 

oh jeez my older line from horse to hand is correct, this one is wrong: they look at his fingers, higher. need to check my latest local files. guy holding winnowing basket looks up at fingers too.

https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/f177-left-looking-lines.jpg
Crop by Michael Hoffman, 2024/2025

todo: check for metadata in idea development page 22 or 21.

todo: place the above image in the in correct gallery(s):

  • Commentary page about all Great Canterbury Psalter images.
  • Page about f177.

Amanita-filled pan of God’s {scale balance}?

I do not think Eadwine’s inclusion of 2-3 red mushroom/plant images in Great Canterbury Psalter implies literal ingesting of Amanita; it only indicates Amanita used as a symbol for ingesting Psil – exactly like in popular art today.  

There is no reason to assume any different, more literal use of Amanita imagery (as symbol for Psil) by artists in 1200 vs. 1990.

Instead of assuming ignorance and narrow isolated knowledge about 1 strain only, it’s probably the opposite, as indicated by the sensible and wide-ranging classification in “Day 3 of Creation” image:

My argument: Anyone who knows about 1 type of mushroom knows about all 4 types that are depicted (Cub, Lib, Pan, Ama).  

How readily the enthusiast artist in 1200 AD is able to procure any of these 4 types, is a matter of potential trade market & import infrastructure, which did exist.  Silk Road. 

I drew a big map poster of the routes in 7th Grade, a couple miles north of our university.

It’s not a complete guess how enthusiasts/artists learned expert-level fungal knowledge, since some images Eadwine provided show: 

  • Import trade (camels) of blue produce.
  • Receiving shipments (deliveries). 
  • Weighing it.
  • Storing it.
  • My favorite part: shows teaching the traders to stand on Right foot instead of Left foot, when ingesting this produce, to avoid loss of control:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/17/canterbury-f145-king-orders-shipments-of-blue-fruit-to-storage-lockboxes-with-blue-stemmed-mushroom-tree/

— Michael

/ end of my email to wrmspirit 2025/01/14

Wrong Looking-Line (f177 row 2 middle: left pall bearer), Redone

todo: delete picture, put newer correct picture: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/#Row-2-Middle-with-Looking-Lines

newer picture w/ correct looking-line from left pall bearer to scale balance:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Heading [to add]

The crop in the Commentary page, f11 section: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#Day-1-Day-4

L to R: Y Y I I

Smaller plants: YI … IY
YI IYI IYI IYI IY
The two plants at edges lose outer “I”.

YI [Y] IYI [Y] IYI [I] IYI [I] IY

How to represent a Y? By a grid of liberty caps.

A GRID OF MUSHROOMS IS THE SAME AS Y.

Grid of Mushrooms in Cap/Crown Equivalent to Y Branching

🍄🍄🍄
🍄🍄🍄🍄
🍄🍄🍄

⛱⛱⛱
⛱⛱⛱⛱
⛱⛱⛱

☂️☂️☂️
☂️☂️☂️☂️
☂️☂️☂️

= Y

= 🔱

Relative Branching: Y includes I and V and Upper I

Y thick left, thin right, which means YI.

relative branching (top of Y) – V
vs.
relative non-branching (bottom/ stem of Y) – I

The stem is non-branching, so moving from bottom up, a Y is of form:
bottom level: I
upper level: V or Y

Y is better than V b/c Y contains I on bottom and Y on top.

the non-branching zone (trunk),
the branching zone (grid in cap, or branches under cap).

All is allowed; flexible.

MAKE UP YOUR OWN SYSTEM AND RULES REGARDING IMAGERY FOR BRANCHING AND NON-BRANCHING.

Red plant non-branching.
Tan Panaeolus non-branching.
Lib Cub considered relatively branching via grid of multiple bones or lib caps

multiple = branching. Y.

Left to Right: Y Y I I

Wasson Threw Brinckmann’s Art History book in the Trash (Along with Two Mushroom-Tree Art Pieces) While Simultaneously Berating and Insulting Mycologists for Not “Consulting” the Art Authorities to Measure How Quickly They Disavow Mushrooms in Christian Art

🤥🤫 . . . . 🔍🧐🤔🤨

Wasson:

“You ignorant blundering mycologists screwed up in not CONSULTING the art authorities to measure how quickly ⏱ and crisply they disavow mushroom-trees.”

Also Wasson:

📘🖼🖼🍄🌳📘 –> 🗑

🚫📚🏫

Email to wrmspirit 2025/01/13

Flexibility About Which Psilocybin Mushrooms Are Depicted if Cubensis Was Too Rare in England/ Europe

wrmspirit asked:

Can we compromise with the possibility of Psilocybe cubensis, specifically, not growing in sufficient amounts in Europe, but other psilocybin/psilocin-containing mushroom species do, such as other species of the Psilocybe genus, and Panaeolus species?

https://theconversation.com/liberty-cap-the-surprising-tale-of-how-europes-magic-mushroom-got-its-name-130668

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_semilanceata

I wrote:

A Few Cubensis in England, but Enthusiast Eadwine Required Bulk Import from South

A likely scenario for 1200 AD: there were a few cubensis in England and Europe. To get an ample supply for Psilocybin enthusiasts such as Eadwine, to get a sufficient supply required distant trade from South of the 30th Parallel North, such as southern Italy.

Brown is vague and didn’t even really actually try to identify which 4 mushroom types are depicted in the “Day 3: Creation of Plants” image.  Brown falls back to vague “some type of Psilocybin-containing mushroom.”  

Blue/ Bluing in Cap or in Stem

Jochen Gartz’ 1996 book was helpful here: different species have bluing in different parts.

That Lib Cap article doesn’t mention blue/bluing reaction.  

Blue stems (the mushroom trees in Great Canterbury Psalter f134, f145, also f177 if Right tree combines with Left tree) are especially distinctive of Cubensis (thick white bone stems, that turn blue).

Blue stems are shown in the mushroom trees in Great Canterbury Psalter f134, f145, also f177 if Right tree combines with Left tree (connected by looking-lines).

Premature Closure in a Field That’s Still in the Pre-Science Phase

Before he died in 2014, author Patrick Lundborg argued in 2012 that no one even tried to write a book asserting mushrooms in historical Buddhism; then Mike Crowley in 2016 wrote such a book.

  • 2012: Lundborg: “No one wrote book claiming mushrooms in Buddhism history.”
  • 2014: Died.
  • 2016: Mike Crowley wrote book. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0692652817 first printing. “Amrita Press; First Edition (February 1, 2017). You purchased this edition on October 27, 2016.” “Publisher ‏ : ‎ Synergetic Press; 2nd edition (November 5, 2019)” – suspect this is 2nd printing, not 2nd edition with changes. Blurb from alleged “2nd ed.”:

“Secret Drugs of Buddhism is the first book to explore the historical evidence for the use of entheogenic plants within the Buddhist tradition.

“Drawing on scriptural sources, botany, pharmacology, and religious iconography, this book calls attention to the central role which psychedelics played in Indian religions.

“It traces their history from the mysterious soma potion, celebrated in the most ancient Hindu scriptures, to amrita, the sacramental drink of Vajrayana Buddhism.

“Although amrita used in modern Vajrayana ceremonies lacks any psychoactivity, there is copious evidence that the amrita used by the earliest Vajrayana practitioners was a potent entheogen.”

Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered

I inhaled gas and felt very dizzy and said ‘goddam’. Therefore gas is “a potent entheogen“.

Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered.

Andrew Rutajit, The Vestibule, 2007, p. 126

Mike Crowley blurb continues:

“It is the nature of this psychedelic form of the sacrament which is the central topic of this book.

“In particular, Secret Drugs of Buddhism attempts to identify the specific ingredients employed in amrita’s earliest formulations.

“To this end, the book presents evidence from many countries in which the Vajrayana movement flourished.

“These include Bhutan, Japan, Mongolia, and Tibet but special attention is given to India, the land of its origin.”

I don’t even agree that ppl started looking for evidence in 1968 or 1970, of history of mushrooms use in Europe: because even today ppl are barely looking and haven’t even found the major, obvious instances that I’m the first to find in art.  

I’m the first to even note that there is anything in the balance scale held by God in “Day 1: Creation of Light” image in G.C.P.  

No one asked if there’s anything in the bowls, no one asked what’s in the bowls, no one noted that items in the row below (Day 4) 1) closely match Panaeolus and 2) point at the bowls (my discovery at start of today).

Entheogen scholarship has a history of 50 years of closing their eyes and not looking, by my standards.

It is remarkable and interesting how “what everyone knows” or “what mycology science knows” is shifting before our eyes, from 1968 to 2006 for example.  

2005 or so, Graham Hancock asserted with Paul Stamets, Liberty Cap (and Panaeolus i think) in ancient Europe.  

Bahn denies that but Stamets said “i’m not wasting time on foolish denial”.

Hancock tested the DNA of Europe Lib Caps to prove they are distinct and ancient, not recent migration from the Americas.

Nothing is settled, about distribution of species in ancient Europe or medieval Europe and England.  

A premature negative conclusion: in Europe/England history, there were no msh and no use of them, and the use of them was heretical, non-mainstream, abnormal, doesn’t count. [Harvard prof./director Chs Stang]) 

The assertion that things are settled so as to draw such a negative conclusion is a move by committed deniers of mushrooms in Christian art.  

They declare the Science as settled, to lock-in their denial.

/ end of my email

f11 Day 1 God Creates Light: balance scale: left bowl identified as containing Panaeolus; right bowl identified as containing Amanita (generally, 3/4 Psil, 1/4 Aman)

Jan 13 2025 start of day, on a hyper narrow / specific reading, I not only succeeded at claiming that the balance scale contains mushrooms (Lib Cub Pan Ama), I specifically identified which type of mushrooms in L vs R bowl: Panaeolus & Amanita.

More loosely and realistically, the bowls are indicated as containing generalized Psil mushrooms, 3 of the 4, and Amanita can be read flexibly.

Eadwine is a head, a mushroom enthusiast, a master Psychonaut, and he uses every opportunity to integrate {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs into art.

Art Interpretation Breakthrough: Found the Type of Pattern/ Message Expected, in “Day 3: Creation of Plants”

Branching Form Develops toward Increasing Comprehension from Left to Right: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman
2:00 am Jan. 13, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom#

In the past month, I initially wrote that in GCP “Day 3” image, the Red mushroom-tree was disrespected by its lower level being IY form which is reverse of standard “branching mapped to Left; non-branching mapped to Right”.

But at that time, I failed to account for and notice coherently and discuss the upper level of Red, which is standard YI, same form as Blue.

My pair-based approach didn’t pan out. My pair-based approach got overwhelmed by so many pairs formed by series of 4 plants.

Instead of pair-based approach, I suddenly last night perceived key fact, that the left cap is simplest and is the only simple, non-multiple cap.

I just before that had developed during past week the contrast of Blue vs Red: Red is more complex than Blue.

Last night I realized that likewise in Plant 1 & 2, the Left plant is less complex than the Right plant.

I suddenly switched from Pair-based interpretation — inventorying pair-contrast relations — to sweeping across the entire set of 4, Left to Right, which uncovered a more satisfying coherent message pattern, that is what I was expecting and on the hunt for.

This progression might not seem compelling to outsider, but thoroughly knowing how Eadwine thinks about branching-form,

I recognize and can prove that by Eadwine’s conventions, this is a progression from incomprehension of branching, to sophisticated comprehension of branching.

Crop by Michael Hoffman. f73: trident YI tree pair.
trident bad, YI tree good.

Given this pair of trees, at the basic level (not at a local scope),
A trident/YI tree pair.

trident bad
YI good

immature thinking:
branching

mature thinking:
branching on the left vs. non-branching on the right

Also supported by f73’s pair of brown mushroom-trees, which starkly communicates that the left tree is speared while the right tree is blessed by two open scrolls, one scroll held by God.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73 ~~

f73 clearly states Trident (III form) is Bad/cursed, YI is Good/blessed. Apply that valuation to Day 3’s 4 gradations.

  1. Plant 1: III – plainly negated and rejected by f73 image.
  2. Plant 2: IYI – brings in the added motif of grid (branching) of Liberty Caps in the cap/crown. So now its L & R branches are simple while the middle branch has become complex, branching grid.
  3. Plant 3: YI – blessed and affirmed as enlightened in f73 image.
  4. Plant 4: IY/YI – this is most sophisticated in terms of Eadwine’s system, in that it has two levels to analyze (lower [near trunk] & upper [near crown]), and is a superset of Blue Plant 3 (upper part of Red matches form of Blue).

Proved Scale Balance in “Day 1: God Creates Light” Contains Two Bowls of Mushrooms

Discovered Proof to Ideally Support My Claim that Scale Balance in “Day 1: God Creates Light” Contains Two Bowls of Mushrooms

Proved by the Unexpected (Huggins) Plants in Day 4 (Expect per Bible: Sun, moon, & stars – not Plants)

Huggins asks: Why does Day 4 depict plants, already properly covered in Day 3 as trees, when Bible instead says Day 4 is creation of Sun, Moon, & Stars, not Plants? Hug points out the small plants among the 4 big plants in Day 4. Stars not shown. Why?

Answer: to fill the Day 1 scale balance with mushrooms. To map “branching” to the Y-like compass on the left, and to map “non-branching” and literal depiction of Panaeolus to the scale balance (stable control, 7 instances of {scale balance} in Great Canterbury Psalter)….

wait, correction: 7 instances of scale balance in Eadwine images, PLUS, a scale balance by Spain painter in the “weighing and trading and lockboxing storing of cubensis” around f221. That’s “at least 8 instances” in Great Canterbury Psalter. Where is that image? Proper place: f221 section in Commentary page. https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f221
todo: put the crop in the Commentary page.

f73 tree pair: spear-rejected trident tree vs. scroll-affirmed YI tree

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Spear touching left of left tree, negating branching possibilities. double open scroll above YI tree on Right, affirming comprehension of branching vs. non-branching.

Spear touching left of left tree, negating branching possibilities.

Double {open scroll} above the YI tree on Right, affirming comprehension of branching vs. non-branching.

Day 4: 4 mushrooms, 5 smaller plants

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Great Canterbury Psalter folio url f11: “Day 4: God creates Sun, Moon, & Stars”

Great Canterbury Psalter folio url f11: “Day 4: God creates Sun, Moon, & Stars” – instead of stars (see f73’s 8 stars), shows mushrooms, including literal Panaeolus, instead of stars – in fact we’d read: “STARS ARE SHOWN AS MUSHROOMS”

Day 4, Plant 3, pointing at Left Bowl of {scale balance}

Crop by Michael Hoffman

trying to see if higher res using latest crop techniques:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/#7

Day 4, Plant 4, pointing at Right Bowl of {scale balance}

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Form: Y, Y, I, I.
Grid of Lib Caps in cap/crown of plants 1 & 2 = relative branching.
Lack of grid in cap/crown of plants 3 & 4 = relative non-branching.

2025 01 13

10 42

Great Canterbury Psalter folio url f11: “Day 4: God creates Sun, Moon, & Stars” – instead of stars (see f73’s 8 stars), shows mushrooms, including literal Panaeolus, instead of stars; read it as: “STARS ARE SHOWN AS MUSHROOMS”

Huggins has entire page about related questions — a good example of how even the confused writings of mushroom deniers provide potential value after my transformation of their work.

Day 4: YI Branching Form of the 5 “Smaller Plants” that are Noted by Huggins

2025 01 13

10 07:

This is the first time anyone gave branching form morph’y of the little plants:

  1. YI
  2. IYI
  3. IYI
  4. IYI
  5. IY

Realization: the outer little plants are symmetrical; YI left; IY right. realization: there is messaging/ info in the branching form of these “small plants” (Huggins)

Huggins has a full page about Day 3 vs. Day 4 depicted in psalters, eg:

“The approach of the GCP artist to this pictorial problem was to refer to the separation of the land and sea (v. 9) in the caption and the creation of the trees in the picture (v. 11).

“The GCP artist does not however depict seed-bearing herbs in the [third-day] scene, but waits to include them in the fourth-day scene, which is otherwise dedicated to the creation of the sun and moon (Fig 22).74″ [sic, also stars]

Gen 1:16 (NIV):

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73

Huggins “For Wrong” footnote 76:

“76 This seems to be the case because we find them mixed with smaller plants in the subsequent scene, which represents the fourth creation day, as well as in another scene later (fol. 6v).”

fol 6v is f22:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f22.item.zoom
in which mushroom-trees are mixed with small plants.

Footnote 76 is used in passage in “For Wrong”:

“Contextualization made a rigidly fixed way of presenting the trees and plants of the third creation day unnecessary.

“Since Genesis 1:11 focuses on trees and plants containing seeds,75 a third-day image might represent all trees, as in the GCP,76 or a mix of trees and plants, or even something as simple as stand of grain (Fig. 24).77

The focus of the underlying biblical text, after all, is on the fact that both the trees (in their fruit) and the herbs contain seeds, which mushrooms, being cryptogams, do not.”

{white cloth at temple sanctum} Motif

I’m getting better, developing {white cloth} at {temple sanctum} – see f73
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73 –

Crop by Michael Hoffman. f73. White cloth upper right.

Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean

Crop by Michael Hoffman. f109

{white cloth} in “initiates in bus” image in f109:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f109

f221 Cubensis Traders Weighing with Balance Scale

Crop by Michael Hoffman. f221: Cubensis traders. Includes instance of {scale balance} motif, in addition to the 8 in Eadwine images.

Proof that Day 1 Creation of Light Scale Balance Bowls Contain Mushrooms

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman
[1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom#

[1:50 a.m. June 7, 2023] God holds a {balance scale} containing Golden Teacher:

I proved today Jan. 13, 2025 that these are indicated as bowl of Panaeolus left, bowl of Amanita right.

I also demo’d that in Day 1 + 4,
Branching on Left (Day 1, Day 4),
vs.
Balance (Day 1) & non-branching (Day 4) on Right

Crop by Michael Hoffman, June 8, 2023

[2:19 am Jan. 13, 2025]:
Plants 1 & 2 have “branching” grid caps, point to L compass which is a Y branching config.
Plants 3 & 4 have non-branching caps, and point to the balance scale.
Day 4’s God with non-branching fingers points at Day 1’s God, rather than pointing the non-branching fingers at the Y-shaped (branching) compass.

[2:23 am Jan. 13, 2025] What God holds in Day 1 is L hand: branching, R hand: balance scale:

LIGHT = EITHER THINK IN TERMS OF BRANCHING LEFT, OR BALANCE SCALE.

EITHER HAVE BRANCHING OR BALANCED VIABLE SELF-CONTROL. 2:26 am
Day 1: L = branching compass, R = stable balance control.
Day 4: L: Plant 1 & 2 = branching. R: Plant 3 & 4 = non-branching caps.
Then combining L of Day 1 + L of Day 1, vs. R of [Day 1 & 4]

On Left of [Day 1 & 4]: branching compass, branching caps

On Right of [Day 1 & 4]: stable balance control, non-branching caps

On Left: branching compass, branching caps

On Right: stable balance control, non-branching caps

  • Day 1: fill bowls from Day 4 pointing up at them.
  • Day 3:
  • 1) not only Pan Lib Cub Ama id’d; also
  • 2) there is branching form message pattern: from simple to complex L to R: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI
  • Day 4:
  • 1) Lib Cub Pan Ama;
  • 2) they point up at bowls of cubensis;
  • 3) plant 1 & 2 are same form, grid (branching) cap; plant 3 & 4 are same branching form: simple I; no grid in cap.

Follow-on Breakthrough: Filled Bowls of Scale Balance with Row 2’s Mushrooms

Upper: Day 1
Lower: Day 4

[1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025] – added the lines; assessed & added lines.

jeez solves many probs:

SOLVED: “why does day 4 contradict bible? Huggins assks. ans: to fill the bowls w/ mushrooms.

SOLVED: why odd bend in these 4 plants? to point to row 1 items.

Why no branches? morph seq L to R

stupid & dense of me: i berated ppl for not id’g Day 3 from left to right –

“Stop analyzing from right to left!” I said. So in Creation of Plants, I should have quicker perceived L to R has increasing branching sophisticated knowlwedge.

for Day 4, first i noticed that the two plant 1 & 2 are isomorphic truly. I with branhcing cap (grid of liberty caps). Here, pairs work better than Day 3. plant 3 & 4: pair; nigher neither has a grid cap. neither has branches. exactly … ignoring bands, exactly isomorphic re: bracn.

re: branching, plant 3 and 4 are isomorphic: I. A simple I. No branching. ‘traces of branching’ (Pan.) includes grid.

My Hunch Panned Out: “Creation of Plants” Has Increasing Branching YI Form from Left to Right

Tips the balance to warrant including “Six Days of Creation” in “Branching-message mushroom trees” article

This breakthrough (Day 1&4 & Day 3) tips the balance to warrant including “the Six Days of Creation” (f11 row 1 & 2) to “branching-message mushroom trees” article

Rather than only including Day 1, Day 3, or Day 4.

  • increasing YI form from L to R
  • Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama – row 1 R

Day 4:

  • Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama – row 2 L, no branches

here’s where by 1:31 am jan 13 2025 , figured out relation of Day 4 pointing to Day 1. And Day 4 is where pair-based form analysis is successful.

It Paid off, the hunch that I should look at… balance sacles w/ 2 bowls cube AND the branching form in Day 3 and in Day 4 AND the relation between the 4 plants in Day 3 vs 4 in terms of branching form.

both looking lines and Day 3 and Day 4 and noting the relation (re: form) between 4 plants of Day 3 vs Day 4. Hugs raised the question of their relationship.

In “Creation of Plants” Image,
1) the YI branching form of the plans has meaning, as I suspected/ predicted;
2) the Four Plants Left to Right Have Increasing Branching YI Form

Obvious Now, What Took So Long?

Pairs-based analysis was a dead end, though informative prep: Tried Every Permutation of Pairs, Mirroring Pairs, etc.

[12:04 am Jan. 13, 2025] breakthrough is continuing now at [12:41 am Jan. 13, 2025]: Summarizing the breakthrough:

In Day 3 (Creation of Plants), the four plants left to right have increasing branching YI form.

It’s so obvious now, how did I not see across the set instead of stuck trying all combinations of pairs; my pair-based strategy was wrong

I was RIGHT to expect a message about branching forms; I was WRONG to read the four mushroom-trees as pairs, using a pair-driven approach in all permutations didn’t pay off execpt that it armed me with fast familiarity of the forms of the 4 plants involved, so that I was able to “see the obvious” pretty quickly and easily by a FAST PROCESS OF QUICK SHORT DURATION PROCESS OF REVISING MY THINKING IN ORDER TO FIRST FORM THE SOLUTION IN MY MIND.

I had a collection of konweledge, patterns/forms familiarity w the 4 mushrooms due to trying them in contrasting PAIRS.

What inspired… ? first thinking of them as a sequence from left to right? a few minutes ago.

it was when I was (see timestamp orig copy below) counting how many items are in each cap, i noticed that all caps have grid except 1, as noted before, …. i had to reach tipping point by collecting all the relationships and forms of the 4. then when i realized that the non-grid pan was no the on the far left…. that when breakthru.

My intuition hunch that this would be a GREAT opport for Eadwine to communicate an ultra basic masterful statement message in this set of 4 mushroom-trees, paid off

Art Interpretation Breakthrough: The Four Plants in Day 3 Progress in Branching Complexity from Left to Right

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  1. trident -singular crown without grid of multiple items; III
  2. IYI – trident, crown with grid of multiple items; IYI
  3. YI – crown has grid of multiple items.
  4. IY/YI – crown has grid of multiple items; upper level matches blue plant 3.

As I Suspected, If You Can Read This Set of Trees and Receive this Message, You Are Set to Read Eadwine’s Images.

I was trying too much TO to treat these 4 as pairs, like mirroning plant 3 & 4 against each other. That (PAIRS BASED ANSALYSIS), didn’t prove to be the main theme. I wasn’t getting entirely satisfactory reading of Red; I KEPT THINKING I’M NOT READING THE MENAING, I KNOW THERE IS MEANING HERE IN THE FORM ABOUT THE FORM OF THE RED PLANT, THAT I HAVE TO FIND OUT.

At that timestamp, I SWITCHED FROM THINKING OF CONTRASTING PAIRS OF PLANTS AMONG THE 4 PLANTS; TO THINKING OF A L TO R PROGRESSION ACROSS THE SET OF 4

Found the Ultra Basic Message about Branching I Was Looking for In Day 3 – My Hunch Paid Off

The YI Basic Message about Branching Morphology Found, in Day 3’s Four mushroom-trees.

breakthrough art interp: my hunch psat few days , past week, paid off: ISN’T THERE A MESSAGE OF BRANCHING WE’RE NOT SEEING IN ROW 1 R, DAY 3 OF CREATION: CREATEION OF PLANTS? SHOULDN’T WE BE READING THE BASIC YI MORPY?

xx

Crop by Michael Hoffman

[12:04 am Jan. 13, 2025]: in Day 3, there is a progression from in YI morphy YI application moving left to right, Day 3.

From L to R: the four plants of Day 3:

  1. Tan: trident, cap is single. cap does not contain grid of multiple items. a true trident.
  2. Orange: trident, cap is grid of multiple items. IYI; lower level: trident; upper level of middle branch: grid of multiple items (liberty caps).
  3. Blue: Muted form of YI: left cap multiple 9 small bones; right cap small single ball.
  4. Red: Most complex. Lower level IY, upper level YI like blue.

New Short, Responsive Idea development page

idea development page 22 reached 122 sheets, long by any measure, tho not sluggish yet when editing on desktop. Time for a new, short page.

Mobile gets sluggish after just a few pages long.

I will try editing this new idea development page bouncing between desktop & mobile, but, extreme chance of losing data, & mobile WordPress app always falsely claims there are unsaved changes, making sync-mgmt hard.

Gills or veil looks like branches under mushroom cap

someone gen’d at AI site but i couldnt get attribution info bc I got an ad-block malware experience on desktop – will instead try mobile: web image search: mushroom gills

Huggins’ “Foraging wrong” article Debates Branches Under Cap

jan 11 2025: Samorini’s arg is weak, and Hug takes advantage.

Samo says branches in mushroom-trees are justified by existrnce of veil, which can sometimes look like branches.

Hug says that’s fleeting; reject.

Far better: gills (& veil, contributing) look like branches.

Crop by Michael Hoffman. branches = gills. (main: 5 ways to cut R branch)
Photo: Michael Hoffman, 2025/01/08: gills (or veil) looks like branches. Product: Green Line. 2023 Star Link Global Group.
Photo: Michael Hoffman, 2025/01/08

Hug rebuts samo vei BUT Samo posiyion is not the strongest best; better is arg that GILLS not veil is like branches

Photo: Stamets. veil + gills = branches immed under cap crown. Rebut Huggins’ For Wrong article.

veil + gills = branches immediately under the cap/ crown. Rebuts Huggins’ For Wrong article.

Photo: Not Michael Hoffman – pretty sure did image search > amanita holy grail, or upturned amanita “holy grail”
Michael Hoffman – branches under mushroom caps. 2025 01 08

Artist of the Con Type: Wasson’s Historian-Censoring Ellipses in SOMA While Bluffing “You Ignorant Mycologists Ought to Be Consulting the Historians”

Soma book by Wasson 1968 re Panofsky letter 1 of 2. Michael Hoffman

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)

Huggins Is Panofsky and Wasson

Ronald Huggins channels/ acts as Wasson and Pan. no voice of his own. parrots/ MIMICS Was /Pan, more than Let– Hatsis parots Let; Hug parrots Pan Was

Did you ever wish to debate Wasson or Panofsky? Here is the opportunity.

Article Foraging Wrong, & Dizzy.

We have in Ronald Huggins a Wasson-Panofsky tribute impersonator, a medium who channels (watch out, Witch Hatsis) the ghost of Wasson and Panofsky.

Huggins wholly entirely wraps himself w the Panofsky persona.

Wasson Panofsky can do no wrong. Their arguments are fully carried forward by Huggins as-is, with no critical stance.

If Wasson or Panofsky argued it, then Huggins presents and parrots faithfully the same argument, amplified.

Huggins amplifies the Wasson and Panofsky args uncritically. interesting he makes the censored Pan arg visible.

Who is his audience? german online Ancient Christian Art journal

What journals does Hilug Huggins publish in?

He is more an outsider tgan Letcher Hatsis, to psychedelics. He reifies the Pan/Wass stance.

He doesnt at all critique Pan Wass – he treats them as ideal and flawless.

Huggins IS Panofsky and Wasson.

Pan’s actual argn, vs Wass filter usage of that. Wass mimics a similacrum of Pan.

Hug is total fanboi mimic affirmer advocate of Pan, like Irvin imagine d himself as starightahead advicate of Allegro.

Indirectly I credit Brinckmann 1906 book for my idea/ designation/ conceptualization/ interpn as vine leaf trees.

I derived the idea of vine leaf trees from while reading Brinc book.

make gallery page of all trees, not just pilzbaum– a sign of far more mature theory.

incl Spain trees w leaf tre crown become pine triangle.

I was wrong to create a page scoped to just only mushroom trees should have made a broader scope page of all trees.

My Mushroom-Tree Branching Morphology System [Error: Approached as Pairs instead of Progression]

; Error; Approach as L-to-R DEVELOPMENT WE we see the gradual hardening of the form from Paneolus to Complex Amanita Branching Form

It feels like an error to have ignored regular trees because what is of interest in these trees and all trees is branching morphology IY how that is transposed on top of the Y configuration capital I Y and also

a study of IY branching morphology

the Y on the left and the I on the right

more branching on the left, less right

multi level tree YI levels stacked lower upper

YI branching morphology

🔱 🔱

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Creation of Plants, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 Right.
Crop by Michael Hoffman – R: multi caps in cap is like branching. lL: L: no branching in cap. the pair of caps is relatively IY.

Hugs stupid rules channelling Pan: If any case, pilzbaum is not mushrooms, but is tree.

tan symmetric 🔱🔱

2- cap is branching. IYI.

tan orange Brown

sand salmon

YI IY/YI

Crop by Michael Hoffman

YI IY/YI

grid in cap here is Branching.

blue: YI

red: lower level IY, upper level: YI match blue

jan 11 2025 – found pair of mushroom-trees very like Day 3: Creation of Plants, re contrast between left 2 vs right 2 plants, and newly, between plant 2 vs 3.:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

f11 row 1 and 2: The Six Days of Creation

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Day 1: Two bowls of dried Golden Teacher, against fire light.

Day 3: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama
id’d by Michael Hoffman Dec. 13, 2020.

Day 4: Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama
id’d by Michael Hoffman around Dec. 2020.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman

f73 full image

Full image:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73

Cropped portions of full image:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#f73

[11:43 pm Jan 12, 2025] I’m seeing how plainly and strongly:

Left tree (branching; trident) is Speared, in its left branch.

Right tree non-branching as well as Right tree contrasting branching vs. non-branching. God connects scroll to R tree. And saints, now think of that way, on left, hold scroll. I can start to receive the message of this image. f73.

Left mushroom-tree: spear touching left branch; branching trident

Right mushroom-tree: double open scroll from God and from the saints; YI [branching Y on left & non-branching I on right)

Sun 1, Great Canterbury Psalter

The 8 stars in f73 are depicted same as sun in f27.

The sun & the stars are represented the same way.

Looks like the 8 stars in f73: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f73

Sun 2, Great Canterbury Psalter

Crop by Michael Hoffman

like Day 4 in f11, there is a pair of trees: left tree is trident (touched by spear blade), right tree is a YI tree; ie,
branching on left; non-branching on right. Same as f11 Day 4.

f73 Great Canterbury Psalter – pair of mushroom-trees:
L: {blade}-touched trident 🔱 –
R: YI blessed/ enlightened/ informed/ communicated

trident’s left branch touched by blade spear held left hand; right hand holds open scroll, what’s he doing with John Rush’s {celestial erection} based on {mushroom hem}. ANALYZE: IDEAL LIFTED GARMENT HAS MUSHROOM HEM. MODERATE NON IDEAL LACKS. WORST IS JUST MUSHROOM HEM?

  • mushroom hem motif
  • lifted garment

“{lifted garment}” = {celestial erection}

My term {lifted garment} means {celestial erection}, not anything broader.

John Rush’s term {celestial erection} is true, specific, accurate, correct, and true to intent.

My term is vague, misleading, over-euphemized into abstraction; abstracted away.

By “{lifted garment} motif”, I mean John Rush’s term {celestial erection}.

When I mean specifically {celestial erection}, I write broadly {lifted garment}.

my lame term in my lexicon is {lifted garment}.

Eadwine Images in Great Canterbury Psalter (Catalog Gallery)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/
All of the Eadwine images.

todo: move crops from Gallery page to Commentary page, for Great Canterbury Psalter.

todo: it’s jarring to go to “all images gallery” and the very most important is missing because it’s so important that it has its own page.

todo: Put the new hi-res f134, f145, f177 full images in the gallery page.

Gallery:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/

Commentary:
Eadwine Images in Great Canterbury Psalter (Commentary & Detailed Crops)
Only contains crops of portions of full image.

todo: Try: In Commentary page, add some full images.

Same [🔱 vs. YI] Morphology in f11 (Day 3: Plant 2 vs. 3) and f73 (pair of brown mushroom-trees)

YI Morphology in f11 (Day 3) and f73 (pair of brown mushroom-trees, left tree speared, right tree open scrolls): 🔱 vs. YI

This interp problem lately is: trident relate to branching or non br how?

inner trees’ relationship/ contrast: tree 2 vs. 3:

🔱 vs. YI

outer trees’ relationship/ contrast: tree 1 vs. 4:

🔱 vs. IY/YI

Plant 4 , red, is of branching form IY/YI — not just IY “backwds”!”reversed of proper” like I began analyzing their form in Dec 2024.

Lower level of red plant is IY. (reverse of std orientation convention).

Upper level of red plant is YI (“good”)

For a multi level tree, start analysis at bottom.

Result: Red plant is IY/YI form.

Per my system of mushroom-tree branching morphology.

Simple Left Item vs. Compound Right Item

Latest hypothesis I’m weighing & tuning & developing:

TRIDENT BRANCHING ON LEFT VS [contrast of branching vs non-branching] ON RIGHT.

A simple branching item on Left, vs a contrast pair on the Right.

Red plant is a clear contrast pair.

(You can also implement a contrast pair by using two plants: one branching, one not.)

Eadwine violates– the mushroom-tree genre violates “standard” handedness a good 1/3 of the time.

It is clear that YI is standard, ie normally, the arb mapping is:

branching = Left; non-branching = Right

branching is bad, unstable, causes loss of control.

but it is also clear that artists free themsrlves from rigid arb adherence to always saying “Left is Branching”.

Artists indicate that the mapping of L & R to branching & non-branching is arbitrary, while also indicating that they know that is the conventional mapping.

Let There Be Two Bowls Worth of Light

Let There Be Light: Two Bowls of Cubensis

Fundamentals of Cognitive Neuroscience: A Beginner’s Guide – Bernard Baars

The nascent field of Cognitive Science died, replaced by that zombie undead field now rebranded as “Cognitive NEURO Science”

🚫🤔💭

Please never mind & ignore our word “Cognitive”, we don’t mean it. We exclusively mean neuro, we promise: NO COGNITION.

🧠🔬👨‍🔬👍

Fundamentals of Cognitive Neuroscience: A Beginner’s Guide
2nd Edition
Nicole M. Gage, Bernard Baars
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Cognitive-Neuroscience-Beginners-Guide/dp/0128038136 —

“Fundamentals of Cognitive Neuroscience: A Beginner’s Guide, Second Edition, is a comprehensive, yet accessible, beginner’s guide on cognitive neuroscience.

“This text takes a distinctive, commonsense approach to help newcomers easily learn the basics of how the brain functions when we learn, act, feel, speak and socialize.

“This updated edition includes contents and features that are both academically rigorous and engaging, including a step-by-step introduction to the visible brain, colorful brain illustrations, and new chapters on emerging topics in cognition research, including emotion, sleep and disorders of consciousness, and discussions of novel findings that highlight cognitive neuroscience’s practical applications.

“Written by two leading experts in the field and thoroughly updated, this book remains an indispensable introduction to the study of cognition.

“Winner of a 2019 Textbook Excellence Award (College) (Texty) from the Textbook and Academic Authors Association

“Presents an easy-to-read introduction to mind-brain science based on a simple functional diagram linked to specific brain functions

“Provides new, up-to-date, colorful brain images directly from research labs

“Contains “In the News” boxes that describe the newest research and augment foundational content

“Includes both a student and instructor website with
basic terms and definitions,
chapter guides,
study questions,
drawing exercises,
downloadable lecture slides,
test bank,
flashcards,
sample syllabi and
links to multimedia resources”

Fundamentals of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (2024)

todo: see if this textbook covers development of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism in the loose cognitive state from psychedelics, which is the development depicted in religious art

Fundamentals of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Feb 2024
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108712568/
Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience in Psychology
by Heather Bortfeld (Author), Silvia A. Bunge (Author)

Page about How to Credit Me, Background, Website Names

todo: make a page telling ppl how to credit me, giving my background. Say how I’m credited in books:

The present site changed its domain name to:
EgodeathTheory.org

Egodeath.com is more stable of a site name.

  • Erik Davis Led Zep IV book
  • Brown book 2016 & articles (2019, 2021)
  • 2014 Breaking Convention book: article:
    “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”
    Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness
    July 15, 2014
    by Cameron Adams (Editor), David Luke (Editor), Anna Waldstein (Editor), Ben Sessa (Editor), David King (Editor)
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/158394771X

Repost of Recent Pics

Rise of the Psychonaut: Maps for Amateurs, Nonscientists and Explorers in the Psychedelic Age of Discovery (Houot, Feb. 2025)

Houot plans to credit me as the first reviewer of the book, probably showing my phrase, see idea development 22 page, “contributes a much-needed science discoverer explorer approach”.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/idea-development-page-22-2024-12-23/#Houot-reply-Jan-11-2025 – I wrote:

You contribute a much-needed call for a science psychonaut explorer discoverer framework.

Mystic Y, Andro-Gyne Hermes-Aphrodite Holding a Y

Aristotle Holding Celestial Sphere, POV is Outside/Above Fatedness Sphere of Fixed Stars

BMR163108 Ms 3458 fol 62vo Historiated initial \’D\’ depicting Aristotle holding an armillary sphere and pointing to the heavens as he teaches a group of clerics from Western Europe (pen and ink and tempera on vellum) by French School, (13th century); Bibliotheque Mazarine, Paris, France; (add.info.: from the treatise on cosmology by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322) \’On the Heavens and the World\’ (\’De Caelo et Mundo\’); the transmission of this work via Arabic scholarship is highlighted by the depistion of Aristotle in a turban; Lettre ornee avec un Philosophe enseignant;); © Bibliotheque Mazarine ; © Archives Charmet.

embedded caption in the above picture.

Looking at Fatedness/ Heimarmene from Outside of It, from Altered State Vantage Point of View Outside/ Above the Zodiac Celestial Sphere of the Fixed Stars

Picture from AstroSham 1, Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit (2006), origin unknown. Crop by Michael Hoffman. Can’t find color version.

Great pictures of Zodiac orientation; Taurus bull flips depending on which POV. per Ulansey.

todo: double-check, is this picture also in AstroSham 2? Did Irvin locate the name or attribution of this picture by then? Why would it be omitted?

I can’t find this image on the web. Maybe no one has uploaded this image other than my copy from Irvin book.

Not sure if Image Match web search can get from a b/w to a color version of an image.

[10:43 am Jan 12 2025]: just noticed about the image:

  • Guy lifts hem to form {lifted garment} aka John Rush’s {celestial erection} motif, with mushroom shape(s) in hem, and woman has a comparable tall triangle hem.
  • The image is 2-level: the guy below looks up; the women above look down.
  • That’s why a tall picture w/ two levels. So, I can make separate crops of bottom and top, but it is a single diagrammatic image: top and bottom are related to form a single message about POV.
  • This image is about David Ulansey’s article about orientation and POV in the Mithraism tauroctony scene, re: handedness and orientation of perspective: from inside the fate-ruled cosmos, to outside/above the fate-ruled cosmos.
    • The women standing on clouds implies standing outside the sphere of fixed stars looking down on constellations.
    • As noted before, both of the zodiac bands are shown 3-D showing both POVs – looking up & looking down at the constellations.

David Ulansey article:
http://www.mysterium.com/hypercosmic.html – find “left”.

http://www.mysterium.com/eighthgate.html – other excellent article.

See Also

Recent Posts as of Jan. 11, 2025

Recent pages, because highly likely to want these links in this idea development page. This is a static list snapshot.

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment