Fallacious Argumentation about Mushroom-Trees in Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” Article

Michael Hoffman

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

Argument from Ignorant, Prejudiced Authority

So much for the “credible” art historians who are “knowledgable about related subjects”.

Art historians have never given trees in Christian art any thought.

That’s why mycologists must grovel and beg for the art historians’ definitive correction of mycologists’ “blundering ignorance”.

Mycologists (MICA Affirmers) must “consult” the art historians – in entirely abnormal fashion: in person, because art historians have written NO publications to properly “consult” per standard scholarly practice, about trees in Christian art.

My Plaincourault fresco article:

Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita — March 2006 article for the Journal of Higher Criticism – http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

Equally Illegit, Arbitrary, 1-Sided: Huggins Landing on “Tree Only”, Ruck Landing on “Mushroom Only”

In a 4-hour voice recording yesterday, aat March 15, 2025, I treated & covered the parallel bunk leaning to ‘tree’ by Huggins & bunk leaning to ‘mushroom’ per Ruck who wrote “mushroom-trees look like mushrooms AND NOTHING ELSE.

Ruck on p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, just before “Wasson’s conclusion”(!!), should say that, specifically, the mushroom features imagery in mushroom-trees looks like mushroom – as well as also additionally looks like trees.

By Writing “Wasson’s conclusion”, Ruck Leaked that Wasson Knew that Mushroom Trees Mean Mushrooms

Mushroom-trees have tree features and mushroom features.

I could argue as baselessly and fallaciously, in the same way Huggins argues, using his same non-argument:

“The mushroom features prove that the tree features must be entirely dismissed and ignored.

“The mushroom features RULE OUT the tree meaning.

“The tree features don’t count, BECAUSE I AM PREJUDICED AND ARBITRARILY DECREE SO.”

I can say: “I can now articulate criteria for deciding whether any given mushroom-tree is a tree or is a mushroom: [much verbiage which merely amounts to]

Every mushroom-tree is always a mushroom and never a tree, BECAUSE I SAY SO.”

I have solved and fulfilled Huggins’ demand that affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art must explain branching branches.

I go much further and explain the motif of {cut branches}, {cut right trunk}, and {cut right branch}, which mushroom-tree deniers fail to even see.

Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter:

Ronald Huggins pretends in a paragraph in the Conclusion section of “Foraging in Wrong Forest” that he “articulates criteria to decide whether a mushroom-tree is a tree or is a mushroom”.

Article: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree
Section: Key Paragraph of Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article Articulates Arbitrary, Biased Criteria
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/#Articulates-Criteria

That is a false dilemma and a terrible method in art interpretation, obviously contradicting — as a SPECIAL PLEADING, exception case — Erwin Panofsky’s basic, elementary principles of art interpretation.

In fact, mushroom-trees, on the surface level, means BOTH mushroom and also additionally tree.

That’s the actual position of affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art: not that mushroom-trees mean mushroom, but that they mean tree and also additionally at the same time mean mushroom.

The argument “the image means tree, therefore it cannot also mean mushroom” would never be advanced for any other art-imagery motif, because it is obviously fallacious.

Brown 2016 re: Walburga commits the single-meaning fallacy:

“It is a vial therefore it is not an Amanita.”

This fallacious, single-meaning fallacy, FEIGNED OBTUSENESS, is ONLY used for the special case of mushroom imagery in Christian art. Brown strives to prove we are credible because we too commmit your the single-meaning fallacy and are too stupid to realize an item in art has multiple meanings as we wrote

todo quote brown Erwin Panofsky priciple 3 – brown c

Brown Summarizes Panofsky’s Art Interpretation Principles for Iconography: An Image Has Multiple Meanings, yet “Vial, Therefore Not Mushroom”

The Feigned Obtuseness Tactic: When It Comes to the Special-Case, Tabu Topic of Mushroom Imagery — Only Then — I’m Too Stupid & and Dense to Realize Art Has Multiple Meanings

With Any Other Imagery, Obviously Art Has Multiple, Compound Meanings, Don’t Be Dense, That’s Interpretation 101

Running across all bad odd arguments, that aren’t even arguments, is a common driving factor: Token arguments and non-sequiturs leverage prejudice, so that it doesn’t matter that the argument is empty noise; the biased speaker and audience will take it AS IF it’s an actual, compelling argument.

Tactic: Argument from Sheer Bias, Disguised as 1000 Different Off-the-Wall Fallacious Non-Arguments

“Please Accept Me Now as One of the ‘Credible’, Denier Gang, Hatsis”

Brown 2016 discusses Panofsky theory of art interpretation.

Principle #1 in Medievalt art interpretation: an image means multiple things.

Forget trying to pull the single-meaning fallacy.

See index: Panofsky entry 2 of 2.

Brown 2019 found and published the TWO(!!) Erwin Panofsky letters deceitfully censored by Wasson:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/

In 2016 Brown gives ellipses where Wasson deceitfully hides & manipulatively suppresses the Albert Brinckmann citation: Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

Then in the very next sentence, in the same sentence as berates mycologists for failing to “consult” art authorities.

SOMA p 180 1968 Gordon Wasson

dirty ellipses, put-on, con artist, play-acting, duplicity, deception, academic fraud.

Everyone (Samorini 1997, Brown 2016) remarks how UNBELIEVABLE Wasson’s fake lecturing is, where Asson feigns a pretextual stance of “WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVE THE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT QUESTION”.

That feeble, cowtowing stance entirely contradicts every fiber of Wasson’s research style, this PURE BLATANT OBVIOUS FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY couldn’t be less believable, it is the OPPOSITE of scholarship.

SOMA p. 180, Censoring by Ellipses to Deceitfully Impede Mycologists from Consulting Brinckmann, at the very same time as Disparaging & Insulting Mycologists for not “Consulting” the Art Authorities – Academic Fraud

markup: Michael Hoffman 2006 & 2025

Huggins’ Phony Posturing, “Criteria for Deciding”, ie, I Decree that Mushroom Imagery Doesn’t Count, because I Say So

Totally phony pretense, put-on coverup of non sequitur prejudice sweeping decree.

What Huggins does is dictate for no reason with no justification, that all mushroom-trees are tree not mushroom – a baseless dictate, disguised as “criteria for deciding whether”.

Huggins really simply dictates and decrees:

A mushroom-tree has tree features & mushroom features, “therefore” it is a tree not a mushroom.

Purely arbitrary reasoning he gives, lying to the reader, framing that as “criteria for deciding”.

Huggins’ so-called “criteria”– junk rhetoric masking fallacious argumentation – is sheer decree that, given feature A & B, ignore B; ignore mushroom imagery.

I could equally arbitrarily say:

Mushroom-trees have mushroom imagery & tree imagery, so they mean mushroom and not trees.

Touche; by the same bunk token, bad argument, which cuts both ways.

Ruck p. 56 “Daturas for the Virgin” does this!, just before his OUTRAGEOUS phrase (or, leaked insider phrase contradicting Wasson’s lying public view)) “Wasson’s conclusion”.

By Writing “Wasson’s conclusion”, Ruck Leaked that Wasson Knew that Mushroom Trees Mean Mushrooms

Panofsky-Huggins argues in Foraging in Wrong Forest, section 3 about tree stylization form:

Mushroom-trees have branches, therefore not mushroooms.

But I can equally fallaciously argue: “therefore not tree.”

In fact mushroom-trees mean mushroom effects and branching vs. non branching, ie possibilism vs. eternalism; two mental models of control and branching possibilities.

Mushroom-trees don’t ultimately mean tree, they more mean mushroom.

But not only mushroom; also branching experience of non branching.

I treated section “3. Schematized Trees” in full detail:

The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree — covers

Foraging in Wrong Forest, section “3. Schematized Trees”:

Article: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree
Section: 3. Schematized Trees (entire section from “Foraging Wrong”)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/#3-Schematized-Trees

Motivation for this Page

Broke out this page from the sections in page:

By Writing “Wasson’s conclusion”, Ruck Leaked that Wasson Knew that Mushroom Trees Mean Mushrooms

See Also

Recent Relevant Posts

Article: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree
Section: Key Paragraph of Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article Articulates Arbitrary, Biased Criteria
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/#Articulates-Criteria

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment