Michael Hoffman, March 28, 2025

Contents:

These links might work on desktop Chrome & Edge only.
todo: add anchor to each heading, re-gen toc

• Motivation for this Page
• Huggins Pours Gasoline on the Battle Between Us “Science” Advocates vs. the Bad, “Religion” Advocates
• Keyboard shortcuts: “transformation gate” variants, eg: Psilocybin cybernetic transformation gate
• Stained Glass Window Panels at Canterbury, “Bible Scenes”
• Field of Mushrooms Stained Glass Window
• Max Freakout Interviewed Jan Irvin in 2009 on Psychonautica Podcast – EPIC!!
• Jewish Views on Astrology in Ancient Times (Video interview video, Chris Brennan, Justin Sledge)
• Our Brand of Mystery Religion:
• Their Brand of Mystery Religion:
• Full Noah’s Ark at Canterbury
• what is that if not a mushroom
• Mission in Line with Rise of the Psychonaut
• Mission & Central Target Audience/ User Persona: Equip Cognitive Scientists for the Psilocybin State
• Doing Opposite of Houot’s Divisiveness
• I Tell You that You Are an Undesirable if You
• Don’t be dogmatic and limited thinking – You Can’t do My Pure Scientist Exploring Unless You Are Pure and Healthy (and Open Minded, Rational, and Mature — Like Me)
• The Divisive Mentality in Psychedelic Science
• Don’t Be Divisive Like Those “Secret Amanita Paradigm” Jerks
• The Egodeath Theory Successfully Bridges & Reconciles Science & Religion; STEM & Spirituality; Explanation & Myth
• Error: Says Thomas Roberts Taught Univ Psychedelics Course Longest; Jerry Brown Actually did
• Do Not Read this Book Unless You Already Use the Narrow Approach I Articulate and Are on My Side Against the Enemies, who are [Long List of All Approaches Ever]
• –> by order of Houot
• Test of Whether Cybermonk Is so Negative
• Bifurcation in the Field and Book, Egged on by Houot & James Kent, matt j, c letheby–: Houot Makes it Personal and Entrenched Sides Fighting Each Other – Yet Tries to Welcome the Uneducated – INCOHERENT, self contradiction strategies
• They Want to Fight: If You Are in the Spirituality Shaman Group-Trip, Mystic, or Cognitive Enhancement crowd, Sacred, Divine, or any other approach, DO NOT READ MY BOOK, YOU ARE THE ENEMY
• The Psychedelic War Between Science vs. Religion -ok, A. M. Whooahhhh “Ego Death & Dionysus are Stupid”
• My Emails with James Kent about Psychedelic Information Theory: Shamanism in the Age of Reason (2010)
• PIT (James Kent, 2010)
• “Either You are Religious, or Secular and Explorative”
• “I Wouldn’t Dismiss Religion, or I’d Be Dogmatic; I’m Open-Minded (on this page)”
• “Ditch the Stupid Religion, Loser”
• “My Boxed-in Motive Is Correct, Scientific, and Open Minded; Your Boxed-in Motive Is Wrong, Religious, and Closed Minded”
• Rational Psychonauts Avoid Anything that Sounds Esoteric or Religious
  • Sounds Like James Kent’s Simple-Minded/ Intellectually Lazy, Scorched-Earth Dismissal
• “A Secular Psychonaut Wouldn’t Want to Explore Religious Realms”
• Houston We Have a Problem: Disrespects Readers
• Rise of the Churlish, Arrogant, Hubristic Psychonaut
• Michael Pollan, Expert Writer on Psychedelic Science: “Don’t write if you know the answer”
• The Churlish, Offensive Online Tone of “I Am Superior: I am a Naturalist, Atheist, Rationalist”
• Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut
• The Egodeath Theory is Warmly Welcoming to all Little, Unworthy, Muddle-Headed Regular People
• Houot’s Rational Psychonaut God-Complex & “RationalPsychonaut” BAGGAGE – What Are We Signing onto Here, Mystery Package Deal – HARD PASS
• I Advise You, Houot, Stop Overusing Personal Pronouns in Your Advocacy to Me
• What Page # Is “If You Use any Metaphor Other than {Sailing Ship Explorer of External Planet or Space Exploration}, Put This Book Down, It’s Not for You”?
• Pronounced WHOO-OOOAAHH!
• 🤦‍♂️
• Pronunciation of A. M. Houot: Ooh Oh; “If You Are Human, Put this Book Down, It’s Not for You” –> WHOOOOOOAAHHH!! –> Ooh-Oh; A. M. Ooh-Oh

Motivation for this Page

Concept of the focus of this page: I am focusing my target audience in context of Houot’s call for a STEM Scientist Explorer “pure exploration” approach in HARSH opposition to any whiff of childish immature mentally ill spiritual religious esoteric approach to psychedelics. My problem to work out is,

Am I only targeting Cognitive Scientists, only trying to equip THEM to endure the Psilocybin state of loose cognition, telling ONLY them what to do – or what God will make them do – when God pulls them through the transformation gate?

I don’t divide up PEOPLE like Houot does. I think in terms of approaches: a dubious mysticism approach, a dubious Science approach – for ALL audience. Houot usually makes mistake of “us vs them”, he makes it personal:

• We good people use the correct, mature, Science approach.
• You bad ppl use the incorrect, immature, mentally ill, Religion-people / spirituality-people / mystics approach.

Yes, I – the Egodeath theory — do COMPARABLE values and criticisms, but it’s different. I welcome and speak to everyone. I don’t make it personal. I criticise the bad behavior of MICA Deniers and their non sequitur arguments.

To read Houot’s book you have to shove Houot aside when he trries to shove YOU aside. You have to read his book DESPITE his sometimes trying to drive you off because you fail to be pure by his measure. Bizarre, autistic. Churlish, no social common sense.

I joke and criticize everyone, but that’s not fundamental to my thinking; I am basically open to everyone – Houot often strikes tone of immature online “We Atheists vs. those bad, Religion people.” Us-vs-them smack talk and prideful advocacy. The worst, antisocial, unculivated, rude – I am rude and critical but not the same way.

Surely these is nothing; merely surface style? I don’t hear Houot emphasizing reconcilation. I am fundamentally reconciling.

Huggins Pours Gasoline on the Battle Between Us “Science” Advocates vs. the Bad, “Religion” Advocates

No way does my development idea development for the Egodeath theory do that. I am fundamnetally ….

• the Mytheme theory = humanities/ myth/ religion/ spirituality/ mysticism. floating surface, sits on top of the cybernetic theory basis.
• the cybernetic theory = STEM – the foundation basis.

• the cybernetic theory = STEM;
• the Mytheme theory = humanities/ myth/ religion/ spirituality/ mysticism.

See, I am fundmanetally BOTH HALVES: my right leg STEM on ground, lifted is my left, mysticism/myth leg.

Houot comes across as no aptitude for reconciling here. He eggs on the bifurcation of Us Rational Naturalists vs. the Bad Religion Woo People.

He pours gasoline on the flames of Junk “Science” vs. Junk “Religion” perma battle. He takes sides in an immature way.

Keyboard shortcuts: “transformation gate” variants, eg: Psilocybin cybernetic transformation gate

technique demo: here i am building up some long keyboard shortcuts by first defining component shorter keyboard shortcuts:

Psilocybin cybernetic transformation gate
pctg

transformation gate
tg

guarded transformation gate
gtg

guarded Psilocybin cybernetic transformation gate
gpctg

cybernetic transformation gate
ctg

cybernetic
cyb

pass through gate
ptg

Psilocybin transformation gate
pxg

cybernetic Psilocybin transformation gate
cptg

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein
2024
Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Psychoactive Drug Use
https://www.academia.edu/124791282/How_to_End_the_Mysticism_Wars_in_Psychedelic_Science

[5:26 pm Mar. 28, 2025] AFTER I created & uploaded here & then sent that picture crop url to R., I AFTERWARDS looked for mushroom in that crop, certainly not expecting one, b/c I didn’t see one during discovering the pretty window and croppping it the past few minutes.

Then I texted to R.:

“just messin, wanted to send u pretty pic of altered state turmoil ark w/ calming dove, then i thought there better be msh – j/k but — take a look at lower left. ez like falling over a log“

remote link to full pic
https://www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk/wp-content/gallery/bible-window/4624377323.jpg
https://www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk/bible-windows

Stained Glass Window Panels at Canterbury, “Bible Scenes”

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Sower – picture from: By Jules & Jenny from Lincoln, UK – Canterbury Cathedral, window nXV detail, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80090623

Features:

• top tree is YI, with {cut right trunk}.
• left hand points 4 fingers up at Left, branching part of tree, and L foot is under that.
• right hand points down to ground.
• bottom tree is YI, visually {cut right branch} cross-behind.

Field of Mushrooms Stained Glass Window

https://mg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andro_Antenatenany – got it! giant 1.7 MB jpg, 3 KB x 3 KB px on my drive, from Wiki in the Malagsy language of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar big island east of Africa.

Have I seen this at Entheos gallery??

Features:

• orange left mushroom-tree: {cut right trunk}.
• orange left mushroom-tree: {cut left trunk}; symmetry between the two trees.
• orange stem, blue crown mushroom-tree: {cut right trunk} which is a form of YI branching form mushroom-tree.
• white, bottom mushroom-tree: no trunk.

Features:

• {cut right trunk}
• YI form, therefore.
• Noted features for Huggins’ Foraging: Section 3: Schematized trees:
• Trident branches support crown:
• L branch = possibilism-thinking
• R branch = eternalism-thinking
• Middle branch = balanced combination; qualified possibilism-thinking

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024) https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case & https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/
Section 3: Schematized trees
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/#3-Schematized-Trees

• I have seen this “field of mushrooms” before – is it in my WordPress gallery? doubt.

I have seen – from Jan Irvin? the bottom middle: “field of mushrooms”.

I think Jan Irvin mentions that picture in the interview w/ Max Freakout.

Jan Irvin SAID IN THE INTERVIEW HE ONLY PUBLISHED 1/10 OF HIS COLLECTION IN THE GALLERY IN The Holy Mushroom.

Max Freakout Interviewed Jan Irvin in 2009 on Psychonautica Podcast – EPIC!! 🤯

I listened yesterday Mar. 27, 2025 for 2nd time, 1st time that I recall listening to that episode is is Dec. 2024.

Great episode.

Jan Irvin has just finished writing The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170

Jan Irvin told Max Freakout that he had finished some edition of AstroSham – either “2005/2006” 1st Edition, or, 2009 2nd Edition.

Jan Irvin
ji

Jewish Views on Astrology in Ancient Times (Video interview video, Chris Brennan, Justin Sledge)

brennan’s ch is awesome in that it has TIMESTAMPS praise the Lord.

01:07:30 Astrology and Fate become entwined
01:08:17 Apocalyptic Judaism
01:10:58 Debates in Christianity about astrology and fate <=== — transcript of this whole section :

Debates in Christianity about astrology and fate

CB:

“… even though there’s that story in Matthew that’s using astrology basically in order to put a foundation under Christianity within contemporary Mediterranean culture by saying astrology confirms that this guy is actually the Messiah or this guy is the son of God.

“After the first century, it seems like there became these debates within Christianity.

“And later Christian authors had to find ways to kind of downplay that story because there was a theological issue that became front and center for several centuries about astrology being associated with fate but the concept of free will and choice being theologically very important.

“And therefore, a lot of Christian polemics ended up being directed against astrology because of its association with fate and predetermination and things like that.

“And it seems like we get some of that in the Jewish tradition in this time period at the same time.

“So what is the time frame of the Talmud? And what is the significance of that in terms of Jewish culture and literature?

JS: “Yeah. So after the destruction of the temple.”

/ end of section/transcript

As I yelled aloud in other video against Brennan — and then Sledge said the exact same words that I just said:

ALL brands of religion disparaged the other brands as “they make you a slave of fate, imprisoned in cosmic heimarmene, only OUR brand transcends Fatedness 😑”

Our Brand of Mystery Religion:
🏆😑👍
🌌
🪐

Their Brand of Mystery Religion:
🌌
🪐
💥😞👎

Citation: Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies (Nicola Denzey Lewis, 2013) https://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Fate-Gnosticism-Graeco-Roman-Antiquity/dp/9004245480/
nl13

mystery religion
mr

Section of the interview, with transcript:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i4uI7gFEpw&t=233s — 111

I did not know that this video is w/ Chris Brennan, astrology history book author, not only w/ Dr. Justin Sledge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i4uI7gFEpw — like the 2013 book by Nicola Denzy Lewis that I posted a great tight mini-review in 2014 at Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Fate-Gnosticism-Graeco-Roman-Antiquity/dp/9004245480/
Not expensive like the $145 ripoff book by Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff that doesn’t even come with stars!; just $200.
hahaha Brill, like Dr. Justin Sledge jokes about 🤑💰 – Why is tuition so high these days? 🤔🤷‍♂️

“Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 81)
by Nicola Denzey Lewis (Author)
5.0 5.0 out of 5 stars (1) <– only a single lone autistic dork reviewed it?! oh its me😞

“In Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Nicola Denzey Lewis dismisses Hans Jonas’ mischaracterization of second-century Gnosticism as a philosophically-oriented religious movement built on the perception of the cosmos as negative or enslaving.

“A focused study on the concept of astrological fate in

• “Gnostic” writings including
• the Apocryphon of John, the recently-discovered
• Gospel of Judas,
• Trimorphic Protennoia, and the
• Pistis Sophia,

this book reexamines their language of “enslavement to fate (Gk: heimarmene)” from its origins in

• Greek Stoicism, its deployment by the
• apostle Paul, to its later use by
• a variety of second-century intellectuals (both Christian and non-Christian).

“Denzey Lewis thus offers an informed and revisionist conceptual map of the ancient cosmos, its influence, and all those who claimed to be free of its potentially pernicious effects.”

/ end blurb

keyboard shortcuts:

Amazon
amz

Academia.edu
acae

Full Noah’s Ark at Canterbury

what is that if not a mushroom

But there’s no way that artist painted a mushroom, or else there’d be other windows there next to it that also have mushrooms — WHICH THERE ARE.

When you see the threat that is the the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, what to do? Be specific, what are you then made to do?

How does egoic freewill thinking always remain, but now, qualified to be stable?

Benefit from Houot’s errors in not bringing together all approaches. Do opposite of Houot approach, in my advocacy of a Loose Cognitive Science approach informed by the Mytheme theory.

Bridging the Two Parties that Want to Fight

Removed the deservedly scathing analysis from my Rise of the Psychonaut book review page, moved it here, to transform it into CONSTRUCTIVE LESSONS LEARNED.

May I be not like that.

Mission in Line with Rise of the Psychonaut

“Charting a travel map”; defining my own field of Loose Cognitive Science; defining my own audience of Loose Cognitive Scientists

I doubt Ooh-Oh’s emphasis on the “travel explorer” metaphor, my assessment of the cultural situation: 

I’m the only one who knows what an actual “Cognitive Science/ Cognitive Phenomenology approach” really is, and actually uses that approach.”  

My imagined target audience for my theory of mental transformation is “Cognitive Scientists”.

The field of Cognitive Science is doing Cognitive Science wrong and doesn’t know what [switching to my term] Loose Cognitive Science, actually means.

What the field of so-called “Cognitive Science” is doing is just merely reductionist Neuroscience pretending to be Cognitive – an empty Marketing label.

As Ooh-Oh calls for, I am now mapping and charting — I am packaging and final-drafting my existing map & chart — the Psilocybin control-transformation experience, for an audience of Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists (I am defining what that needs to mean) and for a general audience,

to suitably equip and help people endure and cope with the {gate guard} {shadow dragon monster} and {pass through the gate}, 

employing and explaining religious myth & medieval art motifs as analogies serving to clarify and explain, 

but the needed scientific map is not based on myth; the useful explanatory model (“map”) is based on direct STEM-type explanatory model communication.  

Religious myth is analogies describing Psilocybin experience (that’s where religious myth comes from).

A map of the Psilocybin transformation experience must leverage myth as a map guiding people through Psilocybin transformation.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/25/idea-development-page-25/#Equip-Cog-Scientists-for-Psilocybin-State

Mission & Central Target Audience/ User Persona: Equip Cognitive Scientists for the Psilocybin State

Now, my driving mission, most of all, is to equip Cognitive Scientists to endure and use the altered state, so that they can explore it for Science.  

That is my defined target audience.  If I can provide for their needs, that covers everyone’s needs.  

That’s my strategic audience focus, who I can most relate to & provide for, in terms that they relate to.

Book: Rise of the Psychonauts, even though my official focused mission — equip Cog Sci for scientific exploration —  exactly aligns with (Houot) the author’s concept.

Mission, in line with Houot’s book: 

Provide a useful explanatory model of control transformation in the Psilocybin state, 

to enable Cognitive Scientists to generally explore and research cognitive phenomenology in the Psilocybin state, 

including explaining religious myth and medieval art motifs as analogies describing personal control-model transformation driven by the altered state.

What looks like “loss of control” prior to passing through the transformation gate, from the point of view afterwards looks like control transformation; transformation of the mental model of personal control & of branching possibilities with steering power.

I have stable control — if God wills it.

Doing Opposite of Houot’s Divisiveness

Dubious “travel explorer” metaphor overused, what else you got?

As book club participlants said, the book seems to use a heavy-handed over-emphasis specifically on the analogy of “travel exploration“.

Doesn’t that contradict Oh Ow’s disparagement of the “trip” metaphor?

In my experience, which probably is much greater than Oh Ow’s experience, I have NEVER used the metaphor of “travel exploration”.

(Compare: Participlants said “I never encountered space-entities like Oh Ow focuses on.”)

Mushroom Formats

How much ground mushrooms it’s possible to pack into a double-zero gelcap (half gram),

and good chocolate format

I Tell You that You Are an Undesirable if You

• never ingested psychedelics
• take psychedelics for therapeutic purposes – if there is anything wrong w/ you, do not read this book. It is for the sane and healthy; other people are not welcome here. only for PURE explorers; this book is only for the Pure people. Sick people do not do pure exploration, so, do not read this book unless you are perfectly well in all ways – you fail to meet my criteria.
• take psychedelics for recreational purposes
• take psychedelics for religious purposes
• take psychedelics for spiritual growth purposes
• take psychedelics for personal growth purposes
• take psychedelics for cognitive enhancement purposes <– go away, losers!
• take psychedelics for creativity-inspirational purposes <- you are the enemy
• take psychedelics for self-actualizing purposes

“With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.” He doesn’t even tell his message to everyone – like Jesus, he only came to save those who already follow him.

Houot emphat’ly makes it personal. vs critique limits of approaches.

Don’t be dogmatic and limited thinking – You Can’t do My Pure Scientist Exploring Unless You Are Pure and Healthy (and Open Minded, Rational, and Mature — Like Me)

ch 2 26:00 “ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE REACHED A STATE OF RELATIVE WELLNESS PRIOR TO CONSUMPTION, ONLY THEN CAN THEY ADOPT AN EXPLORATION ROLE, / ARE YOU CAPABLE OF EXPLORATION. There’s no correct way OR motive to take a psychedelics; and supposing so is dogmatic and represents limited thinking.”

— UNBELIEVABLE Houot, and incoherent, WHERE IS YOUR MOTHER TO EDIT YOU, you need to work out your own demons and contradictions, you keep contradicting yourself. Reconcile your inner conflicts, Houot, lecturing people incoherently.

I , Michael Hoffman , have a history of dysfunctional perfectionism, incl beating up on myself.

DYSFUNCTIONAL PERFECTIONISM/ IDEALISM by Houot. result is churlish, clumsy, ROUGH HEWN technologist, no P R skills.

Matt Johnson & Chris Letheby beating up on mystics. pushing their Correct wway, their Way of Hardcore Materialism – rational healthy ppl use our way. Divisive

The Divisive Mentality in Psychedelic Science

Don’t Be Divisive Like Those “Secret Amanita Paradigm” Jerks

I, the Egodeath theory, criticize but I build bridges. am i like Houot?

Let’s have the engineers run the Marketing dept.

How to Win Friends and Influence People https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ —

The Egodeath Theory Successfully Bridges & Reconciles Science & Religion; STEM & Spirituality; Explanation & Myth

he later weakly makes reconcilation noises, too late.

critique should aim towards reconcile. I condemn this and that, and, I reconcile to fix the bifurcation and reach integration after correction.

Houot’s error — that of both sides in the fight — is to my benefit, ok. shrug

Error: Says Thomas Roberts Taught Univ Psychedelics Course Longest; Jerry Brown Actually did

ch 3 14:00

Do Not Read this Book Unless You Already Use the Narrow Approach I Articulate and Are on My Side Against the Enemies, who are [Long List of All Approaches Ever]

Ooh-Oh, pronounced WHOO-OOOAAHH!, massively botches his logic and ends up rejecting & turning away 150% of all categories of people on Earth.

Please put this book down if you’ve never ingested psychedelics or if you take them for therapeutic, recreational, religious, spiritual growth, personal growth, cognitive enhancement, creativity-inspirational, or self-actualizing purposes. It’s not for you

With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.

p. 10

Yessir ok,

📘 –> 🗑
by order of Houot 🤷‍♂️

also Houot: i’m here to help you even if you are uneducated. Incoherent approach. Imagine him making instructional video: you are not allowed to hear my advocacy if you don’t already fully agree with the approach I advocate.

Test of Whether Cybermonk Is so Negative

Have I had the attitude:

Please do not study the Egodeath theory if you’ve never ingested psychedelics or if you take them for therapeutic, recreational, religious, spiritual growth, personal growth, cognitive enhancement, creativity-inspirational, or self-actualizing purposes. It’s not for you.

With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.

Bifurcation in the Field and Book, Egged on by Houot & James Kent, matt j, c letheby–: Houot Makes it Personal and Entrenched Sides Fighting Each Other – Yet Tries to Welcome the Uneducated – INCOHERENT, self contradiction strategies

Houot did not invent the spilt. He eggs it on to exacerbate it, p. 10.

The page 10 disaster reflects the perpetuation of war between junk “science” vs junk “religion” approaches, but he makes it personal: the scientists vs the religionists. if you —

error 2: he classifies cognitive enhancement with stupid mystic shaman bad approach fWR WTF doesn’t even divide sensibly. trip is bad, explore is good. but personalizes: trip metaphro users are bad, go away; explorer metaphor users are good.

I advocate 1 approach of 100, therefore, I tell 99 % of PEOPLE: do not read my book.

To describe my approach I am advocating – , I shall identify the 150% (( his categs don’t make sense) of people who should not read my book.

I am not advocating this approach to everyone; I am ONLY advocating this approach to the 1% of people – after I drove off incoherently defined set of 150% of ppl — who already agree with me.

SUCH PERSUASION TECHNIQUE!

this keyboard is litrally falling apart under my fingers, mac butterfly garbage worst keyboard ever, too noisy for the classroom, too – embarr.

The Mysticism Wars – aggressive Matt Johnson and Chris Letheby when Letheby is not tripping and telling us “only mind exists”

bifurc in Letheby’s head

The ridiculous extremist materilaist nsci scinegi scientist materialist rationalists vs the woo, wooly headed mystics – extremist charaicature.

They Want to Fight: If You Are in the Spirituality Shaman Group-Trip, Mystic, or Cognitive Enhancement crowd, Sacred, Divine, or any other approach, DO NOT READ MY BOOK, YOU ARE THE ENEMY

quote p 10 insane list of bad people/approaches that must not be used ~

then says “that approach is ok, ” – but do not read this book, you are the enemy.

The Psychedelic War Between Science vs. Religion 🤜💥🤛 -ok, A. M. Whooahhhh “Ego Death & Dionysus are Stupid”

Thank you for the opportunity for the Egodeath theory to be the bridge that you failed to build. I am learning from and leveraging Houot’s error and failure to integrate the two “incompatible” approaches or realms of concern.

My page:
Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
Includes section about article:
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)

Alan Houot says there’s no right way to use psychedelics, and yet, also says the opposite, contradicting himself, not presenting a reconciled package that’s integrated.

p 10: 99% of readers, do not read my book. later, he is reconciliatory, “we should open mind re religion” – CONTRADICTING HIMSELF.

Clumsy, incoherent, inconsistent.

James Kent treated my Myth decoding as garbage anathema against his anti-psychedelic, demonization of religion/myth/ psychedelics.

Transcendent Knowledge podcast with Max Freakout & Cyberdisciple:

• Episode 22, February 23, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 6
• Episode 21, February 16, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 5
• Episode 20, February 9, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 4
• Episode 19, Feb 2, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 3
• Episode 18, Jan 24, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 2
• Episode 17, Jan 14, 2020 – James Kent (DoseNation) part 1

My Emails with James Kent about Psychedelic Information Theory: Shamanism in the Age of Reason (2010)

I emailed James Kent again the other day a few years ago (vs. in 2006 when I reviewed Kent’s PIT book draft for him):

Me: “Hey Kent, check out my decoding of the real referent of religious myth!”

Kent: “Myth? Yuck! Religion is stupidity.”

Thus was born my quip, “Psychedelics make people closed-minded.”

I hate mystic writings mode, but I do not declare war in that bifurcated way.

I criticize Cog Sci as much as Mysticism.

I criticize the WAY science is done, and the WAY religion is done.

I don’t stupidly, in lazy low IQ way, blanket glorify / dismissal or dumbly take pre-fabricated sides:

“SCIENCE IS GOOD, RELIGION IS BAD”
or
“Religion is good; Science is bad.”

Search this site for “Psychedelic Information Theory”:
https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22Psychedelic+Information+Theory%22

PIT (James Kent, 2010)

keyboard shortcut:

Psychedelic Information Theory: Shamanism in the Age of Reason (James Kent, 2010) https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Information-Theory-Shamanism-Reason/dp/1453760172/
jk10

Psychedelic Information Theory: Shamanism in the Age of Reason
James Kent, October 5, 2010
https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Information-Theory-Shamanism-Reason/dp/1453760172/ –

Blurb: sounds like the typical “Cognitive Neuroscience Minus Cognitive” approach:

“Psychedelic Information Theory is a formal analysis of the physical mechanisms underlying hallucination, shamanic ritual, and expanded states of consciousness.”

[no telling what anyone means by ‘consciousness’; not my cog cybernetic phen’y]

“Written by James L. Kent, this text was researched for over 20 years and includes over 200 references and 31 images related to the latest science in the diverse fields of pharmacology, shamanism, and perception.

“As a succinct yet comprehensive formal analysis of the nonlinear dynamics of hallucination and shamanic ritual, Psychedelic Information Theory is destined to become the modern textbook on psychedelic phenomena.

“Chapters include information on

• the physiology of perception,
• types of visual hallucination,
• psychedelic pharmacology,
• psychedelic neuroplasticity,
• chaos theory,
• shamanic therapy,
• shamanic sorcery, and
• group mind phenomena related to psychedelic consciousness.

“Psychedelic Information Theory will prove, no doubt, to be an important work primarily because it provides researchers, in both the sciences and humanities, with numerous new avenues down which to investigate.

“PIT provides us with a serious, and in many respects successful, recalibration of the different psychedelic knowledge bases.

In great respect to the author, I believe PIT will attract both plaudits and criticism with equal fervour and, in doing so, help proliferate serious psychedelic research for some time to come.”

– Rob Dickens, PsyPressUK.com Review, December 2010

“In his new book, Psychedelic Information Theory: Shamanism in the Age of Reason, James Kent has attempted to describe both the experience and underlying mechanisms of consciousness, in the language of classical wave mechanics, with terms like neural oscillators, periodic drivers, wave entrainment, resonance and coherence.

“His book offers the first steps in developing a more refined and quantifiable theory and terminology of psychedelic action.

“It suggests many rich opportunities for further research that are bound to reveal some pragmatic and novel applications.

“Not since “The Invisible Landscape,” by the McKenna brothers, have I found a book so original and propitious.”

– Jedi Mind Traveler, Evolver.net Interview, January 2011

“James L. Kent has proven himself to be the ‘Mythbuster‘ of the New Psychedelic Age.

“His book, Psychedelic Information Theory is the everyman’s guide to inner consciousness, unraveling the scientific foundations of altered states.

“PIT challenged my views on the psychedelic experience: I might not agree with some of the conclusions, but I have a firmer grip on the basics because of it.

“Kent helps outline the mechanics of the mind, but his reductionist approach also leaves room for further mysteries to grow.”- Rak Razam, author of Aya: A Shamanic Odyssey, November 2010

“Kent’s clear trail through volumes of research gave me a solid understanding of how rod and cone vision, phosphenes, the visual information processing rate, and the brain’s pattern-recognition function all come together or come apart to modulate hallucinatory states.

“Kent deserves a place next to Grof on the psychonaut’s, scientist’s, and psychologist’s bookshelf.”

– Sheldon Norberg, author of Healing Houses, Erowid.org Review, October 2010

/ end blurb for PIT

“Either You are Religious, or Secular and Explorative”

Houot writes:

“Of course, we’ll see some people who take psychedelics for recreational, religious, and therapeutic reasons convert to the more secular common explorative motive proposed here.”

“When I say secular psychonaut, what I mean is that your religious beliefs or any other strongly held belief system does not spill over into your explorative use of psychedelics.”

“I Wouldn’t Dismiss Religion, or I’d Be Dogmatic; I’m Open-Minded (on this page)”

“Atheism, or a disbelief that a God or God’s exist, is for me just as dogmatic as mainstream religion.

“I approach psychedelics as an agnostic, that is, someone who does not know either way, but is open to considering all possibilities.

“While my approach and I think any explorers approach to psychedelics should lean secular, I am at least open to the idea that that which I encounter just might be religious or turn out to be communication with God, gods, angels, or demons.

[Page 91]

“Terrence McKenna says: “I call myself an explorer rather than a scientist, because the area that I’m looking at contains insufficient data to support even the dream of being a science.” …” 

[page 92 top]

McK:

“The mindset that I always bring to it is simply exploratory and Baconian–the mapping and gathering of facts.”

— footnote 23 : McKenna 1991, page 36. 

1991 book: The archaic revival: speculations on psychedelic mushrooms, the Amazon, virtual reality, UFOs, evolution, shamanism, the rebirth of the goddess, and the end of history.

[Page 94]

Houot writes:

“Most ordinary folks won’t know how to operate let alone interpret the results of fancy laboratory equipment.

“They can, however, enter visionary places, look around, and tell the rest of us what that realm is like: how the experience unfolded, what was possible in that realm, what kinds of things they saw, what were their entities, and if so , what did they look like, what did they say, what did they want?”

It’s just angel of God saying sacrifice your only son as an offering on altar of sticks, fire, blade, to pass through the gateway:

todo: put side by side w/ St Martin Entry Jerusalem > finger shapes – if not done somewhere already:

“We don’t know what these substances are fully capable of because little research has been done on their visionary effects in a rigorous way.

“We are at the beginning of the psychedelic Renaissance, and the same can be said regarding exploratory research of psychedelics visions.

“Ditch the Stupid Religion, Loser”

“The shift in mindset from recreational, religious, or therapeutic to explorative and scientifically-minded is as much conceptual as it is methodical.

“Ask yourself what you want to get out of psychedelics, for that determines the frame of mind with which you enter these experiences.”

“My Boxed-in Motive Is Correct, Scientific, and Open Minded; Your Boxed-in Motive Is Wrong, Religious, and Closed Minded”

“My vision for the future of psychedelic research is to send astronaut-like explorers out into visionary realms, free from religious, therapeutic, or other boxed-in motives and to engage in pure exploration of these states with open minds.”

“I want to see the exploration, more explicit, direct, and becoming an additional focus of psychedelic science now and in the future.

“I want to see more people embrace the psychonaut explorer mindset as an alternative to the other motive-inspired mindsets people have long had for taking psychedelics.

“I want people to come back with priceless observational data about their journeys to make future users travels safer, more predictable, and as a result, to reduce fear of these experiences.

“I want modern psychedelic users to think about where the future of psychedelic use and research will lead.

“I want you to think about how you can contribute to our collective understanding of these other worldly dimensions in meaningful ways.”

/ end condensed excerpts from
Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut by A. M.
Whoooooo-oooaahhh! I can’t believe you wrote that!!

Rational Psychonauts Avoid Anything that Sounds Esoteric or Religious

Sounds Like James Kent’s Simple-Minded/ Intellectually Lazy, Scorched-Earth Dismissal

  p 87:

Houot writes:

“Rational psychonauts distance themselves from ordinary, psychedelic users, and psychonauts.

” Their science-based approach is thinking rationally and skeptically to understand and interpret psychedelic experiences. 

“They avoid anything that sounds esoteric, religious or dogmatic.” – dummy Houot: what if I am a theorist successfully delivering an explanatory model explaining the actual nature of religious myth and religious transcendent experience? In that case, using “Science”, I explain myth & religion – not “avoid”. Your word ‘avoid’ is ambiguous, avoid in what sense/way? You are writing statements about religion here, shouldn’t you avoid that topic, because you are being irrational? where do you draw your line? Not articulate enough, “avoid anything that soundds religious”.

Houot writes:

“Rational psychonauts intellectualize their subjective, psychedelic experiences, visions, and the cognitive and physiological mechanisms underlying the production of visions, thinking scientifically and philosophically about the phenomenon and trying to figure out what’s going on overall.

“Researchers [pay attention to ] recreational users versus psychonauts, but they overlook rational psychonauts and their motives.

“Reddit members [of the /RationalPsychonaut forum] subscribe to the rational psychonaut credo :

“A community for sensible discussion of the science of altered states.

“For people interested in exploring in our realms without subscribing to the woo surrounding the topic.”

[page 88]

“Psychedelics cause some people to become mentally unstable or make them believe they met God, they are God, or they’re a messiah with a message.”

  [which does sound like the author, Houot.]

“In accordance with rational psychonaut principles, my highly rational outlook in addition to my scientific and philosophical training grounds me when venturing into visionary states elicited by psychedelics.”

Translation: Hubris: I retain full control of my intentions, because I am rational unlike lesser people.

[Page 89]

“I don’t think that people who take psychedelics for recreational, religious or therapeutic motives are irrational.

“Theologians, gurus, and monks, for example, can appear extremely logical concerning religious and religious and spiritual belief systems.

“I defend [read: disparage] other people’s reasons for taking psychedelics and the ways in which they make sense of them.

“The rational psychonaut approach is essentially what I would like to see more of, but we can do better.”

Houot here equates religious = irrational:

“Secular psychonaut is in line with a non-religious approach to psychedelics which includes undertones of rationality

The widespread secularism found in science and academic disciplines inspired this idea of a secular approach since science and religion butted heads 500 years ago”

Houot uses false dichotomy of unimaginative ‘science’ – conception of ‘science vs. religion’.

That low-grade, poor-quality opposition & false dich got rid of – per Wouter Hanegraaff – esotericism & Psilocybin (entheogenic esotericism) in the dust-up, 1687 Newton Princip, threw discarded psychedelic esotericism.

Not that the Egodeath theory = entheogenic esotericism

The Egodeath theory REPLACES entheogenic esotericism, and replaces common-core mysticism and perennialism, as a communication style and indeterminate grab-bag, messy muddled OBSCURANTISM.

The Egodeath theory IS THE ENEMY OF OBSCURANTISM.

“A Secular Psychonaut Wouldn’t Want to Explore Religious Realms”

Houot writes:

“I like the term secular psychonaut but what if someone religiously inclined wants to explore “religious realms” or “religious experiences“?

“I doubt that this would happen, but who knows, everybody is different.”

[Page 90]

“People can explore psychedelic realms and be religious; yet I don’t consider people who already practice a particular belief system to be explorative because they found what works for them and they’re unlikely to change if indeed they’re genuine believers.”

Believer, by the band Blizzard of Ozz, lyrics by whatsisname: bassist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U-id_iUwQ —

I believe in transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Houston We Have a Problem: Disrespects Readers

Houot would never talk down to the audience of his dissertation and the two professional article to peers, after that.

But switching to his imagined audience of little people, he is 100% self-defeating. Therefore he needs an editor, when trying to write for a popular audience.

To remember how to pronounce “Houot”:
“Do not read this book if you ever used any of these purposes for psychedelics:”
Reaction: WHOOOOOAAAHHH! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
Whoooo-oooooh!
Who-Oh
“Ooh-Oh” <–

I am looking forward to the 2nd Edition of this book with page 10 violently torn out by a professional editor, and removing all indicators of “I am talking down to you” that are scattered throughout the book.

An author could not erect a bigger barrier for their own success. Take gun, aim at foot, pull trigger.

Rise of the Churlish, Arrogant, Hubristic Psychonaut

“Do not read this book if you ever used any of these purposes for psychedelics: [lists every known purpose].”

“Hey everyone in the world, go away, you are not worthy of my removing of your ignorance.”

— Houot, entire page 10, & scattered throughout book

Did Houot take writing lessons from the lying, duplicitous, censorious, total jerk Wasson, p. 180, SOMA?

This is just one example; see my 2006 article for more examples of butthead, rude, total jerk, pompous ass Wasson:
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita

Con artist Wasson tries to bully people into denying mushroom-trees, which Wasson plainly knows of course are mushrooms, per Ruck Committee’s leak, “Wasson’s conclusion” in “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56.

Houot is unaccustomed to writing for the unwashed masses of uneducated who lack an advanced degree.

He MAKES SURE to explicitly let everyone know:

“I am talking down to you. I will inform you for the first time. You should start thinking scientifically and rationally. I will teach you how.”

Are Houot’s Ibogaine podcasts so insulting, explicitly talking down to the audience?

Michael Pollan, Expert Writer on Psychedelic Science: “Don’t write if you know the answer”

Houot needs to take writing lessons from Michael Pollan, on how to write for a mass popular audience.

https://michaelpollan.com/about/ –

“In 2003, Pollan was appointed the John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism

“and the director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism.

“In 2017, he was appointed Professor of the Practice of Non-fiction at Harvard and the university’s first Lewis Chan Lecturer in the Arts.

“In 2020, along with Dacher Keltner and others, he co-founded the
UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics.

“The center conducts research using psychedelics to investigate cognition, perception and emotion and their biological bases in the human brain.

“In addition to teaching, he lectures widely on … psychedelic science.”

The Churlish, Offensive Online Tone of “I Am Superior: I am a Naturalist, Atheist, Rationalist”

‘Churlish’ means rude, boorish, lacking in civility or graciousness, unfriendly, unpleasant.

If I post a book review in format below, the first Con would be warning:

Houot tells everyone to not read his book, and he insults the hell out of everyone and talks down like a mo-fo, belittling the reader.

The first thing a professional editor would do is burn page 10 with {fire}: p 10.

I blame the atheist poor P.R. style and the “I am a Rationalist, I am superior” rude internet tone, that he channels. Do not write a book with the worst tone of online smug agressive self-proud “naturalist, atheist, rationalist” tone.

That is the repellent hurdle you have to be charitable toward.

Houot demands that you be charitable toward his hamfisted rude self-defeating attacking of all audiences.

Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut

Could you talk DOWN any more, oh great master [and eager to present yourself as Great Master over the little minions].

Joke idea: post a page that talks down to some imagined little followers of the Egodeath theory , like Whoo-oooahh talks down to his fantasized little audience – and it IS little, since p. 10 at start shooed all the filthy dirty types of readers, “Put this book down, IT’S NOT FOR THE LIKES OF YOU.”

my Marketing dept advises me to leverage Whooooaaahhh’s error in my favor:

The Egodeath theory is superior because it welcomes all of the little people, it is welcoming to all of the little, irrational, addled-mind followers of my great self.

The Egodeath Theory is Warmly Welcoming to all Little, Unworthy, Muddle-Headed Regular People

I will teach you, my little readers, how to start thinking and how to start being rational, in a more friendly way of stooping and lowering myself to deign to remove your ignorance, than Houot’s writing style.

He picks up this adversarial, us-vs.-them attitude up from the Reddit self-proud and eager to let you know, Reddit forum “RationalPsychonaut” reddit group. (idk the lingo)

Houot’s poor writing tone reminds me of the online “basement” (socially unskilled) atheist community (which no longer exists since Richard Carrier single-handedly blew it up in a couple conferences some years ago), the death knell, “the new atheists” who killed-off atheism, it’s now history.

Carrier single-handedly killed the atheism community by dragging-in toxic “new atheism”. I revisited a few times, unclear what happened – an infiltration of alien agendas, coopting and then killing the host.

Deathly fatal parasitism; New Atheism destroyed atheism in the course of trying to coopt and take over and steer in some completely other direction.

Dislikeable tone, of the Rational Psychonauts: they should be mad at Whoooooaaahhhh! for poorly representing their loudly belittling attitude.

We Rational Psychonauts are better than you, and we’re eager to trumpet our attitude.

Houot’s Rational Psychonaut God-Complex & “RationalPsychonaut” BAGGAGE – What Are We Signing onto Here, Mystery Package Deal – HARD PASS

“A messiah with a message”, Houot accuses – look in the mirror, Whoo-ooaaah!

I Advise You, Houot, Stop Overusing Personal Pronouns in Your Advocacy to Me

Tip: Avoid pronouns. we, us, our, you, me, I — be careful with these words!

You didn’t address professionals with “you” in your two post-dissertation articles.

This book uses a clumsy, awkward, over-personal approach that you are not practiced at, and it flops and backfires, talking down to your readers, many of whom can lecture you.

“Me, I, you” – it’s aggression.

Oooh-Oww really lets his disrespect for the audience, and his self-aggrandizement show through LOUD AND CLEAR by overuse of “I” and “you”.

He’s trying to ADVOCATE his approach by INSULTING the readership directly. How’s that gonna work?

Is there any possibility you could have a professional editor rush a revised 2nd edition? Well no, take a lot of time to fix this framing.

What Page # Is “If You Use any Metaphor Other than {Sailing Ship Explorer of External Planet or Space Exploration}, Put This Book Down, It’s Not for You”?

Pronounced WHOO-OOOAAHH!

p. 10

Incredible, garbled, insulting, self-contradictory, disaster.

No editor on Earth would approve this framing.

🤦‍♂️

I can’t believe what I’m reading.

This is the most adversarial, reader-attacking passage I have ever read.

Then, in case you mistook him as saying “this book is for everyone”, after he’s gunned down 150% of the total possible readership groups, he cautions:

“With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.”

Oh thanks, I must have misread the entire page above as saying “This book articulates an approach that’s useful and inviting for all people who have emphasized any approach.”

I thought that above the page said that this book will resonate with everyone. Thanks for clarify my misreading.

Pronunciation of A. M. Houot: Ooh Oh; “If You Are Human, Put this Book Down, It’s Not for You” –> WHOOOOOOAAHHH!! –> Ooh-Oh; A. M. Ooh-Oh

[March 22, 2025]

Ooh-Oh: “If you use any metaphor / motive other than my narrow pet metaphor {external world-exploration in a ship}, then PUT THIS BOOK DOWN – IT’S NOT FOR YOU. –>

Every reader gasps: WHOOOOOOAAHHHH! –> Ooh-Oh.

For this page of the book, Houot BADLY needs an editor / P.R. person – what an awful, immature, self-defeating, ill-advised construction! Bad move! Terrible P. R.

Definitely strike that passage and entirely reframe it, in rev 2 of book.

Self-defeating Houot. His own worst enemy.

Also Ooh-Oh: “I slightly question these other metaphors/approaches, they are dogmatic“

LOL! Pot, kettle, black.

He outright demonizes the divine; Transcendent Knowledge; myth as analogy, and then calls other approaches / other writers “dogmatic”.

Who’s dogmatic, Houot?!

Foolish dismissal out of hand, of ANY AND ALL myth-type approaches, as a sweeping class generalization. Immature. Brittle thinking. Black-and-white FALSE DICHOTOMY, intellectually lazy.

It’s lazy and easy for Psychedelic Information Theory author James Kent to blanket dismissal of any and all myth or divine type approaches.

See Transcendent Knowledge Podcast (Max Freakout in discussion with Cyberdisciple) episodes reacting to James Kent podcast series:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/07/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episodes/#Episode-22

lol Houot just said “be playful, fun, interesting” – Mr. Flat Affect, social-skills-challenged, STEM-based critic poor at P R; churlish, clumsy, and self-contradictory.