Michael Hoffman 11:11 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026
Contents:
- Intro
- Confused Huggins Pretends to Be Too Dense to Understand the Concept of a Class Definition
- “IF a Mushroom-Tree has any Tree Features, the mushroom features DON’T COUNT”
- Your Mushroom-Trees Fail My Worthless, Illegitimate, Fake “Test” That I Made-Up Out of Incomprehension, Which Feigns Evaluating Each Instance but Is Actually a Prejudiced, Biased, Unjustified, Sweeping, Blanket Dismissal of the Entire Class as a Whole
- I will believe mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, if someone explain branch motif
- Gallery
- f107 tree touch arm, {hand mushroom-tree} shows that branching is the main message, thus explaining mushroom-trees mean mushroom mental model transformation
- White Boxes on Guy’s Hands and Tree’s Hands
- f109 {hand mushroom-tree} shows that branching is the main message, thus explaining mushroom-trees mean mushroom mental model transformation
- txt msg to ES, AM, RL, CF Noon Feb. 16, 2026
- Back to Adding YI Hand-Shape Indicators on Medieval Art, Higher Pri than Huggins’ 2025 Rehash Article
- See Also
Intro
f134 Row 1 Left: Class and Trees
Confused Huggins Pretends to Be Too Dense to Understand the Concept of a Class Definition
Art historians define the class mushroom-trees: the criteria for inclusion is: tree that has mushroom elements/ features and looks like mushroom strikingly in some way, despite the tree features.
By definition, as a GIVEN, EVERY instance of mushroom-tree has some tree elements and some mushroom elements.
in mushroom-trees, the tree elements/features are especially, {branches}.
But don’t be blind to the {non-branching} motif, like outsider Huggins.
The tree elements might be branches … it seems “tree features” really means specifically, branches.
“IF a Mushroom-Tree has any Tree Features, the mushroom features DON’T COUNT”
Hugs uses covert arg’n.
Huggins’ “Conclusion” section (actually, a Sweeping, Blanket, Arbitrary Decree) is a a tactic to covertly dismiss the entire class of mushroom-trees from meaning mushrooms, while falsely pretending to only evaluate each mushroom-tree indivdidually.
Huggins has the nerve in 2025 article to crudely claim “every mushroom-tree FAILS THE TEST” –
Your Mushroom-Trees Fail My Worthless, Illegitimate, Fake “Test” That I Made-Up Out of Incomprehension, Which Feigns Evaluating Each Instance but Is Actually a Prejudiced, Biased, Unjustified, Sweeping, Blanket Dismissal of the Entire Class as a Whole
This Huggins “test” is more worthless than sh!t; at least sh!t grows mushrooms.
100% of mushroom-trees have branches or other tree features, BY DEFINITION of the Class of trees in question.
It is a GIVEN, not an “IF”, that any mushroom-tree has branches (or some other tree feature). By definition of the class. eg Day 4 four plants do NOT have ANY branches, therefore, they are NOT members of the class, mushroom-trees – yet, for NO REASON other than magician’s indirection & propaganda, Huggins refers to these hastily-skipped-by, exact mushrooms, as “trees”, while urging you to look at the “smaller plants” rather than stopping as Huggins was required and failed to do, to discuss these for non- mushroom-trees; these four exact botanical mushrooms that have NO branches and no tree features.
Day 4 plant 1 & 2 have Liberty Cap grid-cap, indicated as multiple (vs. single); considered equivalent to branching (vs. non-branching).
No branches are shown in the four Day 4 plants, destroying several arguments and claims in his 2024 article.
Huggins writes “IF” the mushroom-tree has any branching, we must ignore the mushroom features.
ARE YOU A DOLT? HOW CAN YOU WRITE “IF”?! Confused arg’n.
It is a simple given; by definition, ALL members of the class have tree features, eg. branches (or cut branches).
There is no room for “if”, unless you mean WHICH tree features or mushroom features a given member of the class has: if you are focused on the “branch” tree feature.
It’s all pretend-arg’n.
Putting aside Huggins’ Conclusion (Decree of Dismissal) section, the section is a celebration of begging-the-question fallacy, and a blanket, sweeping, cheap rhetoric-based dismissal tactic.
Translating Huggins’ insane arg’n (ie, prejudiced decree):
Huggins’s 2024 article & “Conclusion” section is, in effect, arguing:
I will believe mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, if someone explain branch motif
I will believe mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, if someone explain branch motif.
Done, Michael Hoffman, Mar 21 2022: emailed brown re Kupfer and St-Martin Entry into Jerusalem or Tower scene: {branching-message mushroom trees}.
The branching is NOT whimsical; it IS the message, about non-branching; altered-state eternalism.
Gallery
f107 tree touch arm, {hand mushroom-tree} shows that branching is the main message, thus explaining mushroom-trees mean mushroom mental model transformation
White Boxes on Guy’s Hands and Tree’s Hands
Canterbury f107: Lifted from Ossuary by Right Arm
https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/16/canterbury-f107-lifted-up-from-ossuary-by-right-arm/
f109 {hand mushroom-tree} shows that branching is the main message, thus explaining mushroom-trees mean mushroom mental model transformation
Canterbury f109: Hand Mushroom-Tree, Hell-Mouth, Net Rescue, Right-Limb Ossuary, Clean Temple, Cut-Branch Dog
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/
txt msg to ES, AM, RL, CF Noon Feb. 16, 2026
On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom, Ronald Huggins, Oct. 29, 2025, Religions journal, Issue: 11, Volume: 16, 30 pages, https://www.academia.edu/144814668/On_John_M_Allegros_Suggestion_That_the_Tree_of_the_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil_in_the_12th_Century_Plaincourault_Chapel_Depicts_an_Amanita_muscaria_Mushroom & https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/11/on-john-m-allegros-suggestion-that-the-tree-of-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil-in-the-12th-century-plaincourault-chapel-depicts-an-amanita-muscaria-mushroom-huggins-2025/
Ronald Huggins new Oct article (a Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art) is even more of a rehash than i thought.
There’s nothing new for me to rebut.
Huggins surprisingly fails to cite The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault (Giorgio Samorini, 1997) https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam%20plaincourault.pdf
A directly scope-relevant, predecessor article.
Huggins fails to cite Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
Published the two 1952 Panofsky letters that Popebanker Wasson censored in 1968.
Huggins cites my Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Michael Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Back to Adding YI Hand-Shape Indicators on Medieval Art, Higher Pri than Huggins’ 2025 Rehash Article
Back to adding YI hand shape indicators on medieval art.
And working on the draft article (like for our psychedelic church Reader) for Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
The mushroom-tree artists’ favorite hand-shape pair, in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
[Y’, YI]
ie: lower hand:
Y’
via: no thumb; fingers folded.
Means: I used to naively use branching thinking; now I use qualified branching thinking.
Upper hand:
YI (often Y’I, more accurately):
via:
- display fingers extended held together (= branching)
- thumb displayed w no visual cuts (= non-branching block-universe eternalism frozen pre-existing worldline)
YI hand-shape pairs relate mind’s progression from A to B (from A, to A-modified + B):
from:
the original, branching mental model:
Y = branching possibilism-thinking; ordinary-state possibilism (gets modified as Y’, NOT discarded)
to:
the modified orig model + the added, ‘I’-shaped, non-branching model:
non-branching eternalism-thinking; altered-state eternalism.
- f109 {hand mushroom-tree}:
- f134 woman hold {balance scale}:
See Also
Site Map > Ronald Huggins
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Ronald-Huggins
The Egodeath theory 
