Cyberdisciple on Designing the Branching-Message Mushroom Trees Article

Michael Hoffman 1:44 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026

Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Used with permission. fullscreen

Contents:

Overambition

The present page is two emails from Cyberdisciple to Cybermonk

Edited by Cybermonk for format & clarity.

Email title: Fw: Cubensis-driven overflow
Dec. 5, 2024
The email title is from my page title:
Cubensis-driven overflow

Cyberdisciple wrote:

“You are in a tough position to fit everything needed into one article (even two articles).

You are doing all of the following:

  • Showing more mushroom trees than most readers have considered.
  • Arguing that the deliberate portrayal of mushrooms with branches is the way to solve the pilzbaum dilemma.
  • Why do the trees look like mushrooms with branches and debranched stubs?
  • Pointing out motifs of branching, handedness, and stability in images that aren’t mushroom-trees
  • Arguing for cubensis over amanita.
  • That Christian mushrooms were not “secret” and “suppressed”
  • That the true highest most important meaning of cubensis experiencing is about branching
  • How bad the deniers are
  • 25 other topics.

It seems to me that what is specifically tricky for you is that your method of solving the pilzbaum dilemma also requires accepting your theory about branching, handedness, stability –

in short, the theory of psychedelic eternalism – and its representation in art.

You could easily write a long article about what the problems are with enth scholarship and the deniers without even advancing
analogy for psychedelic eternalism as a better approach.

But we need to get psychedelic eternalism into the discussion.

It’s not the habit in enth scholarship to talk about psychedelic eternalism in conjunction with entheogens.

Because it’s not the habit, you have a rhetorical problem with just starting to use branching, handness, stability motifs without first justifying why you are using those motifs.

People are going to say, “What’s with this branching stuff? I thought I was reading an article about mushrooms in Christian art.

What’s branching got to do with it?”

They have to be walked through the arguments to get there.

Possible approach (use what you find useful):

Starting point of article is mushrooms in Christian art.

First, lay out the current state of the discussion. [NO, waste of wordcount. use wordcount to preseent and summarize the new paradigm, not waste on old paradigm headed for garbage]

Even doing this is groundbreaking because I don’t think anyone has ever brought together all the scholars.

Huggins sounds like he is closest to having done so, though I haven’t look at the article yet.

/ end passage by Cyberdisciple

Slagging on Huggins; worth listing 3 LUDICROUS arg vectors, ONLY

Michael Hoffman 2:20 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026

Huggins?!

Hugs fixes tiny insignificant errors, and then decrees that for all mushroom-trees, follow Panofsky & just ignore the mushroom imagery, it doesn’t count, bc mushroom-trees have branches, cancelling the possibility of the image meaning “a mushroom”.

So crude, Huggins is beneath me.

I don’t reply to inane args like:

  • the mushroom-tree artists are either trying to paint a tree, or a mushroom. [NO; completely disagree by any measure. IF they wanted to draw a straight tree, they would have painted that. mushroom, same. What they drew and wanted to, was a tree w/ mushroom features – WHY? Huggins tries to drive the car into ditch IMMEDIATELY: “did artist try to draw tree, but accidentally mushroom instead?” Absurd, TOTAL WASTE OF TIME IMBECILIC. call it “the false dilemma fallacy”, kick out Huggins, and move on. Ain’t no one got wordcount for that.
  • Day 4 = trees.
  • Day 3 has branches, so not a mushroom.
  • We can articulate using Panofsky, a test, of an individual mushroom-tree to test whether it has any tree elements; if so, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.

The class definition has already taken care of that “test”!

Huggins’ whole charade is ridiculous and pointless.

It’s all acting, for show; playacting “academic arg’n”.

Huggins is taking the category or class “mushroom-trees”, examining an indiv instance to see if the instance has tree features — OF COURSE IT DOES, by definition. DUMBASS.
THAT’S WHY THIS TREE IS INCLUDED IN THE SET FOR CONSIDERATION! TOTAL ILLOGIC – fundamentally incapable of reasoning meaningfully.

Huggins is not worth any wordcount, for these 3 reasons, which I could list in my article.

WHY THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT BOTHER ENGAGING WITH HUGGINS:

  • “Day 3 has branches, so, not mushroom.” LUDICROUS ARG! The branches, L one & R one, look exact mushroom. That fact that Huggins doesn’t address that OBVIOUS objection, shows, this article nothing but propaganda, not real arg’n.
  • “Day 4 is trees.” LUDICROUS ARG! These exact mushrooms have no branches, making hash out of various statements & args in his article. That fact that Huggins doesn’t address that OBVIOUS objection, shows this article is nothing but propaganda, not real arg’n.
  • “Test each mushroom-tree to see if it has any tree elements; if so, cannot mean mushroom.” LUDICROUS ARG! It’s a sweeping blanket PRETENDING to be case-by-case test. This reasoning is so godawful, I REFUSE to waste wordcount on it.

I might list those 3 reasons:

Why the existing literature by Affirmers & Deneirs is not worth engaging. It is too poor, on BOTH SIDEs.

“TRYING TO DEPICT A MUSHROOM” – “IF ARTIST WERE TRYING TO … OMIT Branches”

Huggins’ FALSE DILEMMA: it is a tree or it is a mushroom.

The artist either was trying to depict a tree, or a mushroom.

Totally false. Artist depicted mushroom AND tree for purpose of communicating the theory of psychedelic eternalism.

The artist is NOT depicting trees.
The artist is NOT depicting mushrooms.
The artist IS depicting psychedelic eternalism.

The artist is, in an intermediate way only, depicting tree elements and mushroom elements, in order to depict what the artist actually wants to depict utlimately: and depict using tree & mushroom to depict psychedelic eternalism.

The artist is depicting psychedelic eternalism, not tree, not mushroom.

What is depicted ultimately is not tree, not mushroom, but psychedelic eternalism.

-mh]

Cyberdisciple con’t

Then, Review deniers to show that their arguments fail on their own terms, stuffed with bad argumentation, flimsy, their wild assumptions about the topic. Purely negative tear down.

The audience will enjoy how you eviscerate the deniers and will be prepared to receive positive version of argument

Next, show how the affirmers go wrong. [ahshit, i already have a page LAUNDRY LIST OF LIMITATIONS AND ERRORS BY entheogen scholarship in reaction to Huggins doing exactly that TIME-WASTING EXERCISE.

The Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art go wrong in playing infantile shallow concretistic “spot the mushroom”; “mummy there’s a mushroom!”

academics, or preschoolers?

Deniers SAY that Rogan, Muraresku, also Ruck tags along behind them: they are ridiculous pathetic Pop Cult.

Deniers are right i agree. SO HTERE THEREFORE LETS GROW UP AND IGNORANT IGNORE INFANTILE PEURILE ARGN FROM DENIERS, AND FROM AFFIRMERS BOTH!

IGNORE DENIERS

IGNORE AFFIRMERS

Expend All Wordcount on Wonderful ME

1 ecept exception: the censored “branch” arg from Panofsky, I like that, THAT IS ALL I NEED. I DO NOT NEED HUGGINS’ HYPOING OF THIS Panofsky ARG; ALL I NEED IS BROWNS LETTER EXPOSING Panofsky’S ARGN LIKE:

I WOULD be amane amenable to attacking some Panofsky sentences:

  • Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are too many other mushroom-trees. (arg from silent presupposition) only because you myc’ists are ignorant, stupid, unread, blundering fools, too ignorant of the hundreds of mushroom-trees. (arg from distracting insults)
  • Eitehr the artist thought the prototype told him draw a tree, or, the prototype told him, draw a mushroom.

It woudl be Nice to add NICE to address some Panofsky args… It would be VALUABLE to summarize my analysis of Panofsky. NOT Huggins htough though. Huggins threw down his Drawer challenege, to explicitly push the Panofsky branching arg in the “concl” section. This is a reason to ignore Huggins and focus only on Panofsky instead.

MAIN OVERALL REACTION TO Cyberdisciple: “time-wasting exercise”; ie waste of precious wordcount; spill ink on foolishness, or spend/conserve ink on the top-value explanatory words?

Cyberdisciple con’t:

This concedes something to doubters.

Some people doubt mushrooms in christian art because they confuse where the affirms go wrong with the topic of mushrooms in Christian art.

They see something wrong in an affirmer and think that this means that the case for mushrooms in christian art is wrong.

You show that problems with the affirmers are often problems of definitions and aims, especially secrecy and suppression assumption, but also space for smaller corrections of errors like Brown on Walpurga vial etc.

End this section by stating the pilzbaum dilemma that your approach solves (e.g.

affirmers say they are mushrooms, not trees;

deniers say they are trees because they have branches, and artists stupid to make them look like mushrooms;

YOU will say that the perfectly elegant solution is that the mushroom shape and the branches naturally go together to communicate a message about branching, which is the highest message of cubensis experiencing).

This section sets the stage for your key new contributions to correct field.

Lastly, your key additions:

  • focus on cubensis (and liberty cap and panaeolus), which everyone should care about because of effects
  • dethrone amanita (which no one should care about because of effects)
  • Move beyond mere presence of mushroom shape to mushroom effects AND to more sophisticated approach to shape that integrates mushroom effects into depiction of mushrooms
  • This requires introducing theory of psychedelic eternalism, in order to make motifs of branching, handedness, and stability significant
  • solve the pilzbaum dilemma (why do those trees look like mushrooms with branches and debranched stubs) via branching motifs representing experience of psychedelic eternalism
  • incidentally branching, handedness, and stability are chief concerns throughout the psalter and other images (but I don’t think this should be a main focus of an article on Mushrooms in Christian art; it’s more like a topic for people who have already accepted mushrooms in Christianity and your theory of psychedelic eternalism and its representation in art)

Conclusion

Cyberdisciple con’t:

Cubensis and the theory of psychedelic eternalism are the highest and most significant theme.

They are well represented in Christian art.

This is powerful proof of advanced mushroom experiencing in Christianity.

Hoffman Communication: Summary-First

Cyberdisciple con’t:

An argument against my suggested ordering is that the flow of argument runs counter to your distinctive style of putting your summaries at the forefront.

My suggestion follows more conventional style, laying groundwork, demolishing opponents, culminate in your distinctive contribution.

Yet your style is distinctive and important, a challenge to current conventions.

My suggestion also spends a lot of time on the deniers, giving them more space than they deserve.

There’s also an argument that you don’t need to spend much time [wordcount] on the deniers because your article on Wasson and Allegro already covered them, as does Brown in e.g. article demolishing Hatsis at Hancock site.

Another issue:

My suggestion is [too] modest in scope.

This is to deal with problem of overflow of too many [FORMER] goals, but has the disadvantage of not pushing multiple fields forward.

[current feel: just nothing but a straight-up article teaching about how the theory of psychedelic eternalism appears in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, WITHOUT buncha junk, would accomplish MORE revolution, than smaller article w/ buncha low-value follow-on implications. ONLY HAVE ROOM FOR THE 10/10 POINTS]

Cyberdisciple con’t:

Scholarly journals have this problem: what is prioritized is usually “normal science” small-scale studies, not large-scale paradigm establishing articles.

Your work seems to me to always move towards the large scale paradigm establishment because everything you do works to reinforce your field-spanning theory,

any specific topic you discuss is connected to other parts of your theory and is strengthened by reference to the rest of the theory.

/ end of emails from Cyberdisciple

Motivation for this Page

1:52 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026

I need to reference two emails from Cyberdisciple, and enable reworking & analyzing them.

I was inspired tonight by Cyberdisciple’s discussion of the theory of psychedelic eternalism, as the central focus. Instead of old title that laundry-listed {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

See Also

old title, overambitious article scope:

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

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment