Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

Michael Hoffman, 10:35 pm Feb. 2, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Site Map

Contents:

Substantive Conceptual Errors and Bad Argumentation from Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art (not Merely Editorial Errors)

This was supposed to be merely a Comment asking Cyberdisciple:

What about when an entheogen scholar makes real actual error?

It’s not always the case that an entheogen scholar makes a petty error and then a MICA Denier tries to elevate that as if a substantive error.

Also concerning in a different way, perhaps somewhat addressed by Cyberdisciple, is what about when:

An entheogen scholar makes a substantive error, and then MICA Denier does not even HAVE to elevate it b/c it really is a substantive error.

Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art make many substantive Conceptual errors. So, no mushrooms in Christian art.

Terminology

Cyberdisciple differentiates two types of errors when critiquing the main position of entheogen scholars.

  • Editorial error – an error of citation and precise historical context information.
  • Conceptual error – an error in combined theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.
  • MICA – mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • MICA Affirmer – says there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • MICA Denier – says there’s not mushroom imagery in Christian art. Says “You guys are wrong, there’s no Secret Christian Amanita Cult.”

Cyberdisciple presents the scenario where a MICA Affirmer makes a mere Editorial type error, but a MICA Denier tries to elevate that to a Conceptual (substantive) error. The MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”

But I’m noticing a worse scenario: a MICA Affirmer makes a Conceptual (substantive) error, then a MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”

Actually, the main thesis of the MICA Affirmer is correct, it’s just that they tried to reach it by a false route; misinterpretation.

In the latter case, the MICA Denier is not elevating an Editorial error to the level of Conceptual error; the MICA Affirmer really did make a substantive Conceptual error, a misinterpretation about mushroom imagery. Substantive errors of arg’n; bad arg’n from MICA Affirmers.

Cyberdisciple re: Editorial Errors vs. Conceptual Errors

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

Cyberdisciple wrote:

“Hatsis and Bennett advocate for more rigor in scholarship in this field and for more attention to be paid to the historical context of evidence.

“There is some good in this, and they have provided corrections to errors in citation and basic historical information published by some authors. 

“There is a limit to such correction, however, and in their criticism they have elevated what is essentially an editorial problem to the level of conceptual error, and in some cases to intellectual deficiency on the part of the target.

“This last tactic confuses criticism, turning scholarly criticism into personal attack. 

“What amounts to citational errors and imprecision about historical context serves as part of Hatsis’ and Bennett’s rationale for radically dismissing their targets.

“This is a dangerous tactic, because using such an all-or-nothing attack requires that the attackers’ own writing be error-free. 

“Employing such tactics in public criticism is tricky and should be reserved for special circumstances.

“Indiscriminate use of such tactics can result in a kind of arms race, with scholars breaking out into hostile camps.

. . . .🔍🧐🤔

“Advancing the field requires a combination of theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.

“Errors in citation and historical context are of lesser importance. They should merely be corrected, ideally behind the scenes before publication by a judicious editor or through a peer-review process.

“They should not be turned into principles of dismissing other scholars.”

/ end of Cyberdisciple quote

Entheogen Scholars’ Substantive Errors

(not a comprehensive list, just off the top of my head)

Entheogen Scholars in General

Misinterprets artists’ message as “mushrooms” instead of: Adopt non-branching eternalism with 2-level control, when on mushrooms, instead of branching possibilism with autonomous monolithic control, which collapses and is unstable, not viable.

The Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Presupposition of Amanita = Europe; Psil = Americas.

Assumes, superstitiously based on just the shape, that Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects = Psychedelic effects (even after disconfirmed by Wasson), and so proposes as useful the obfuscating wildcard construct “sacred fungi”, “psychoactive mushrooms”, “sacred mushrooms”, “the mushroom”, etc.

Assumes suppression of psychedelics; secret, hidden, heretical groups.

Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames as “certain groups” (Samorini 1997), to construct a barrier wall to prevent mushrooms from being mixed in among the general population. Arbitrarily casts any use of Amanita or Psilocybin mushrooms as use by members of “cults, sects, communities, heretical sects, secret cults”.

James Arthur

Claims Day 3’s 4 plants are Poppy, Rue, Psil, Ama, river Cannabis, to try to formulate a SOMA recipe. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.) He’s not interested in Day 3 being entirely mushrooms; he abuses it to make a 5-plant recipe for SOMA.

Chris Bennett

Bernward door: Ignores the other six Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in the door and column, while highlighting that, against Brown, the tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel is not a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.

Urges us to look at the “Eat from Tree” panel above the oft-attended “Blame” panel — but if we are to expand scope, we’d certainly expand scope to the panel above Eat Tree: the “Eve Presented to Adam” panel, which has two Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.

Jerry Brown & Julie Brown

[Brown, also Brown; 2016, also 2019; = 4x penalty]

Botanical misidentification based on serrated base of Amanita.

Single-meaning fallacy re: Walburga holding vial shaped like Amanita.

Claims to give better interpretation (while misinterpreting) due to field research (didn’t travel to Walburga). Stakes credibility on this one example, botches it.

Claim that Bernward’s Blame panel depicts the tree of knowledge.

Claim that the four mushrooms shown in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter occur throughout the Psalter. (Day 3 shows a four-type classification into Panaeolus; Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Amanita. Mushroom-trees throughout the Psalter recombine such elements, and tree features, in various ways.)

Poor classification of the four plants in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter: Psil, Pan, Psil, Ama. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.)

Amanita Primacy Fallacy: In GCP Day 3’s 4 plants, & when claim they appear later, lists them starting from the Right instead of Left, because Amanita on Right, to list Amanita first. (GCP has more Psil than Aman.)

Claim that the limitation of Marcia Kupfer’s description of Saint Martin trees is that Kupfer should use mushroom words rather than tree words. (Description requires {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, as well as {mushrooms}.)

Unjustified use of ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ in 2016 book subtitle and in Conclusion of 2019 article. Article has ‘secret’ 13x; ‘tradition’ 19x.

Overuse of ‘tradition’: undefinable, indeterminate, morass.

{visible ribs} indicates the shamanic altered state — but is an analogy for which aspect of altered state? How is this specific motif like things that are observed and experienced in the altered state?

Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims to report only what she sees, yet does the opposite: 2016: “offering Jesus three stems … whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured“; 2019: “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift (of which only the stems are visible)”. (It’s sticks and feathers.)

Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims “Jesus … reaching out toward the youths … offering … stems”; “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift”. (Jesus displays splayed L fingers, parallel R fingers, receives signalling.)

Editorial error: Mis-transcribed Panofsky letter, changing meaning: changed “finished product” (the prototype) to “finished project” (the fresco).

Site Map > Brown & Brown
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Jerry-Brown

Cyberdisciple

Too many substantive conceptual errors to list here. (Conserving server space, b/c too many mushrooms.)

My historiographical methodology is far superior, as the present $20 book emphasizes, and I have already disproved his claim of a Secret Christian Amanita Cult – see my writings somewhere on the web, at my site that’s been down for months.

Failed to state the title of Bennett’s article, in his Bennett page. So, not mushrooms.

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

See the substantive Conceptual errors made by Michael Hoffman, since “Cyberdisciple” is just a sock-puppet account of Michael Hoffman.

Site Map > Cyberdisciple
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Cyberdisciple

Wouter Hanegraaff

Claims “the notion of “entheogenic religion” does not strictly imply such substances.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.)
https://www.academia.edu/3461770/Entheogenic_Esotericism_2012_
& cites that bad idea in his book

re: astral ascent mysticism: A footnote says he doesn’t know whether to put fixed stars in level 7 Saturn planetary moving sphere or in level 8 Ogdoad. (Fixed stars is level 8 by definition, a basic elementary given.)

Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (2022)
Imagines — with creative late antiquity’s revisionism/ inversion — that going from Saturn to Ogdoad = going from fatedness to free will. (Saturn level 7 to fixed stars level 8 = going from naive freewill thinking to no-free-will; going from level 8 to 9 Empyrian = going from no-free-will to transcending fatedness.)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/14/hermetic-spirituality-and-the-historical-imagination-altered-states-of-knowledge-in-late-antiquity-hanegraaff/

Site Map > Hanegraaff
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Hanegraaff

Michael Hoffman

Claims that the best identification strategy of MICA is complete ignorance of the text that is attached in support of art; that the context for interpretation is psychedelic experiencing, not text and history.

Brags about complete effectiveness of the diamond hammer of interpretation, which merely means commitment to a forced interpretation regardless of degree of fit.

Begins by assuming all art means psychedelic eternalism, and refuses to disconfirm that, because no disconfirmation could ever possibly be enough to disturb his floating sky-castle theory.

Conflates MICA with his own theory of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Is described at Graham Hancock site as: No one pays any attention to Michael Hoffman, a joke of a web scholar who keeps pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

Jan Irvin

In THM gallery, for Dancing Man, forces palette from blue to red.

Uses wildcard term ‘sacred mushrooms’ to attribute Hopkins’ Psilocybin effects to Amanita, after writing that Psilocybin mushrooms are irrelevant to the study in the book.

In THM, criticizes Ruck for trying to restrict mushrooms to heretical sects and mystics, citing AstroSham (in which Irvin tries to restrict mushrooms to elite).

In SHMM article series & God’s Flesh, demonizes Psilocybin, while remaining silent about Amanita.

Andy Letcher

Treats only a single instance of MICA, in Bernward Door, when Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, and Conjuring Eden 2001 was published 5 years before Shroom 2006.

Misattributes the Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck Secret Amanita paradigm to Stamets 1996 & Gartz 1996, who write basically nothing, like 3 words, and only use ‘hidden’ to describe a mushroom in grass.

The key words from Stamets’ caption, Gartz’ caption, and Letcher’s straw manning:

  • depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets)
  • with mushroom motif (Gartz)
  • cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in (Letcher)

Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom (Letcher 2006, UK)

Erwin Panofsky

Argues on presupposition of not hundreds of purposeful mushroom imagery.

Denies artists & the art world active intentionality, purposefulness, agency, and freedom — but only for the special topic of mushroom imagery.

Tries to recast topic away from saying ‘mushroom’ to his construct, “the development process from pine”.

Claims that gradual development proves lack of purposefulness regarding resulting mushroom imagery.

Site Map > Panofsky
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Panofsky

Carl Ruck, Daniel Staples, Mark Hoffman

Cover of Entheos 3 reverses tauroctony so looking up at Taurus, which means being trapped below fixed stars heimarmene, instead of liberated above fatedness looking down at Taurus.

Cover of Entheos 3 forces palette from blue to red, hiding the Psilocybin mushroom.

Corruption of tauroctony palette to hype Amanita, fails to see Psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg.

Over-reliance on colors, a speck of red & white, or any other color (Apples of Apollo’s color lists) means Amanita.

Jumbles Anthropology theory & Structuralism theory with pre-Modern psychedelics.

Ruck in Sacred Mushroom & The Cross writes “One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians”. (Bets everything on one instance, botches it.)

… “a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside the dancing man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.” (Its cap is blue, little mushrooms dissimilar.)

Ruck claims “The sacred marriage often involves an entheogen (either chemical or purely symbolic) as the means for summoning the possessing spirit.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.)

Bernward: In ConjEden 2001 article, poetic wording fails to practically state the count of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, so Deniers pretend there’s only 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward. Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees: 3 in Left door; 4 in column.

Editorial Error: Mark Hoffman in Journal Toxicology Mystery Religions says ‘entheogen’ was coined in 1976. (It’s 1979).

Site Map > Ruck
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Carl-Ruck

John Rush

Claims GCP Day 3: God holds something, mushroom, in hand. (Hand is empty.)

Gallery of art images showing random images, random lines, few mushrooms.

Claims Saint Martin: Entry Jerusalem “clearly represents mushrooms being handed out.” (It’s sticks & feathers.)

Andrew Rutajit

Enthuses about the most potent psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable)

Extremely conflates Psil & Aman, by using wildcard wording, eliciting “WHICH type of mushroom are you now referring to?”

Georgio Samorini

Argues: Veil can look like branches. (Gills and veil look like branches.)

2-column table 1998 tries to use Plaincourault as paradigm for classifying mushroom-tree branching form.

Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames any individual who ingested mushrooms as thereby being a member of “certain groups”. p. 31, 1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault:

the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.

“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)

Gordon Wasson

Insults, berates, & chastises mycologists, repeatedly for decades, as blundering ignorants that should have “consulted” (via pers. corr.) art authorities/ historians who are expert on topics “related to” mushroom-trees — while simultaneously covertly, duplicitously censoring Panofsky’s double-strongly urged citation of Brinckmann’s published, written book — the only thing art authority experts ever wrote & published about trees (which historians consider merely peripheral, so never write about, per Huggins).

Excuses the art historians’ coined term “mushroom-trees” as “merely for convenience in discussion”. (A bluff; there was no such discussion, or published writings.)

In 1968, claims to be the first and only person to realize a consubstantial association between tree of knowledge, serpent, and mushroom, after insulting mycologists (as blundering ignoramuses) for asserting essentially the same idea since 1910.

Insults the painter of Plaincourault as ignorant of having painted mushrooms by painting a serpent.

Claims to be the first to study mushrooms in “our own cultural history”, by which he means, in ancient Vedic pre-history, and in 1000 BC before Genesis 2-3 text was written — but if you assert mushrooms in Christian history, you are a blundering ignoramus who failed to “consult” the art experts, who have written nothing about trees in Christian art except this one, “little”, 1906, German book (duplicitously censored by Wasson simultaneously while berating mycologists for not “consulting” the art authorities).

1968 SOMA, claims Europeans have no word for the most powerful psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable.)

See Also

Dead End – No Links – fixed stars boundary of cosmic page  🪐🚪🌌

David Ulansey site down, I saved local copies of these 3 pages, 2025/02/03:

🪐🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🪨🌌💎🚪🏆👼🔥🔥

🪐🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🪨🌌💎🚪🏆👼🔥🔥🔥

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment