If History Fails to Agree with the Egodeath Theory, Then Too Bad for History; the Egodeath Theory Is Correct

Michael Hoffman, 9:51 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

Low-Quality Myth

High-Quality Myth

Low-Quality Mysticism

High-Quality Mysticism

Low-Quality Esotericism

High-Quality Esotericism

Low-Quality Religion

High-Quality Religion

Low-Quality Philosophy

High-Quality Philosophy

Low-Quality Enlightenment

High-Quality Enlightenment

Low-Quality Transcendent Knowledge

High-Quality Transcendent Knowledge

Low-Quality Mystical Experience

High-Quality Mystical Experience

How Posting a New Page, Because of Trimming the Title, Was Instrumental in Improving Terminology Lexicon Phrasing

happened same way yesterday Sunday when working on the names of my two sub-theories:

I worked hard on the phrases within body of page, but at final hour, it was in the TITLE of the page, that the BEST variants / wording were formed.

Related Idea: Was the Egodeath theory “mainstream”? YES: define ‘mainstream’ as, the Superior, Best 1% of People, the Esoteric Leaders

History shows that people had UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT WITH the Egodeath theory – ie, the people who matter – ie, both Joe & Fred in 1200 AD agree with the Egodeath theory, and everyone else disagreed with them, but they were the true inspirational figures.

Power Recent Idea: the BEST QUALITY of Myth 100% Agrees with the Egodeath theory and Proves that the Egodeath theory is Correct

Most people in history were fools, and spouted rubbish like Popular Neo-Advaita aka Neoplatonism.

Most historical “esotericism” was junk, the Noise in the Signal vs. Noise war.

All GOOD, RIGHT-THINKING History of Mystical Esotericism / Esoteric Mystics Unanimously Agrees with, Corroborates, and Proves the Egodeath Theory

That’s one of the best ideas in this page. Ideas like diamond hammer of interpretation.

Been dev’ing that idea recently… perhaps the past month or two weeks.

You Have to Philosophize with a Hammer: the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation

You have to MAKE the art confirm the Egodeath theory, and validate the Egodeath theory.

You have to MAKE the evidence prove there were psychedelics in mystery religions; that religion comes from none other than psychedelics.

YOu have to MAKE Cubensis appear and have-been-used northwards of further N than Italy, at least during heyday … explanation i made up:

Heyday of the mushroom-tree religion was 900-1300 bc Warm Climate Grew Cowpie Mushrooms Only During that Period

Blue Krater Looks at Mushroom Bins

Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

to do/done: crop of crop harvesting; row 2 R and row 3 R, and add line connecting the blue harvesting vase to the Cubensis dispensary display case, like the above crop.

Crop by Michael Hoffman, “f134 row 2 right row 3 right harvest.jpg”, 730 KB, 10:40 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
todo: copy to f134 page.

When the climate became colder in 1400, ppl forgot psilocybin mushrooms and forgot the Egodeath theory, ie, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory & the Mytheme Analogy theory.

Titles of this Article

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong

Page in which I Developed This Idea

The Plaincourault Fresco Has {branching-message mushroom tree} Features, Depicting Psychedelic Eternalism

todo now: move all that junk to here

The diamond hammer of interpretation: Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.

Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.

short:

You have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.

Michael Hoffman re: the Egodeath theory

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.

Michael Hoffman

The General Problem of My Possibly Re-Discovering and Re-Announcing an Art-Decoding Breakthrough that I Forgot Solving

Suppose I post:

2025/10/32 – Decoded {foo} = bar

“I just now figured out for the first time ever, that {foo} = bar!”

2026/02/30 – Decoded {foo} = bar

“I just now figured out for the first time ever, that {foo} = bar!”

and suppose i make entry in Log of Breakthroughs that — a half truth:

“On [2026/02/30], I decoded {foo} = bar.”

That’s bad. But could be worse.

History of Errors in the Egodeath theory

  • 1986-2025 – had strong idea of Michael the Archangel guiding me: he = revealer of all; all will be revealed by Michael the Archangel. Could not confirm in Revelation book.

(Jan. 1988-Mar. 2025): You Move from Possibilism-Thinking to Eternalism-Thinking (Repudiate Possibilism-Thinking; No Longer Use It; Get Rid of It)

(depends on whether u def. ‘eternalism’ in an EXCLUSIVE or INCLUSIVE (integrative way).

Define ‘eternalism’ as including qualified possibilism-thinking.
first you have possibilism-thinking, then you SWITCH to “eternalism-thinking”, ie, switch to eternalism-thinking which includes possibilism-thinking.

OR:

Define ‘eternalism’ narrowly, as mutually exclusive with possibilism-thinking.

Serious tip: If u r in the mystic altered state, and you are SURPRISED to be observing possibilism-thinking, you misunderstood.

Takeaway thanks to Ariadne/Nike:

Do Not Be SURPRISED to Observe that You Are “Still” Using “False” & “Immature”, Possibilism-Thinking

The mind ALWAYS retains and uses possibilism-thinking.

You don’t kill Isaac; you qualify him.

Embrace and include possibilism-thinking, per Ken Wilber.

or, as we see debated via YI hand shapes, some say it opposite:

  • Embrace and include possibilism-thinking.
    Eternalism-thinking needs to embrace and include possibilism-thinking.
  • Embrace and include eternalism-thinking.
    Possibilism-thinking needs to embrace and include eternalism-thinking.

As we seen articulated via the YI hand-shape language, you MUST say it both ways.

That’s why one hand-shape pair is: two hands, both representing the end-state: One hand reps it as YI, other hand as Y’I.

[YI & Y’I] – use this notation if both hands are presented as alt equivs.

or:

[YI, Y’I] – use this notation if the hand-shape pair conveys idea of SEQUENCE, from one hand to the other.

eg von Trimberg: 1) lower fingers, then 2) lower thumb, then 3) upper fingers & thumb. use notation: [Y, I, YI]

Notation: If Both Hands Equivalent Expressions Descriptions of the Final compound mental model, End State, Use AMPERSAND

or maybe OR; |

Cannot predict best notation ahead of time.

Know these options for notation of YI hand-shape ​pairs:

  • ,
  • &
  • |

I like the idea of the description “compound mental model”.

compound mental model
cmm

keyboard shortcut
ks

keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term
ksl

Notation: If Hands Depict a Sequence of mental models, use COMMA

Crop by Michael Hoffman

… … (that doesn’t specifically cover my above point, but is simiklar)

That’s exactly what all the busy “YI hand-shape language” figures are debating, in the art during entire Middle Ages.

medieval YI hand-shape theory

Mis-Reading Nike as Ariadne in Dionysus’ Chariot

2005-2026, I said Dionysus and Ariadne victory wedding procession mosaic https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/dionysus-ariadne-chariot.jpg – but she has wings, is Nike supposely –

First, In April 2025 I had big breakthoruhgh correction / revision of even core the Egodeath theory thansk to ARIADNE interp, the wedding marriage of Dio & Ariadne in procession.

But AFTER that profitable victory inspiration, around Feb. 16, 2026, found it’s supposed to be Nike not Ariadne.

8th-Grade “The Scientific Method” Just-So Story Is Bunk, per the Actual History of Science (vs. … HAHA What Got Disconfirmed was the Logical Positivist Made-Up B.S. Hypothesis

The Philosophers of Science Were DESTROYED by the Historians of Science, and Had to Entirely Trashcan their Total Bunk, Disconfirmed Theory of “The Scientific Method”.

Per “the scientific method” (theory un-corrected by actual History of Science), I’m supposed to trashcan my mis-interp of the Dionysus mosaic and discard my inspired, revision of my theory that I made based on that wonderful art-message.

But I treasure my gains, even if ill-gotten.

I AM KEEPING THE TROPHY.

joke based on quote “

If the art data (Nike) don’t match the theory (Ariadne wed by Dion), then TOO BAD FOR THE DATA; THE THEORY IS CORRECT.

Fact-Check: Did Einstein Say “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”?

my orig formulation:

Fact-Check: Did Einstein Say “If Data Don’t Match the Theory, Too Bad for the Data, the Theory Is Correct”?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Einstein+quote+%22If+the+data+don%27t+match+the+theory%2C+then+too+bad%22

The bunk quote is: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”

If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

Not Einstein

AI’s Answer Summary

AI stole/wrote:

Einstein did not say “If the data don’t match the theory, then too bad.”

Einstein did not say “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

These are frequently misattributed, as the Einstein estate has confirmed he never said it.

However, he expressed extreme confidence in his theories, famously stating in 1919 that if observations did not match General Relativity, he would feel sorry for the “good Lord” because the theory was correct.

Einstein’s View of Data vs. Theory

The Actual Quote: 

When asked what he would do if Sir Arthur Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observations failed to confirm his theory of General Relativity, Einstein replied,

/ end AI; break. Michael Hoffman rewrite:

What will you do, Einstein, if the eclipse observations fail to confirm your theory (of General Relativity)?

Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

Einstein (exact quote)

“Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct”.

Michael Hoffman’s condensed Q & A:

Accurate Virtual Quote of Einstein:

If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

Condensed by Michael Hoffman:

Einstein virtually said:

“If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.”

If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

Einstein (accurate virtual quote, assembled by Michael Hoffman)

The Egodeath Theory’s Equivalent of Einstein’s Accurate Virtual Quote:

list of 3 theories:

If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, and the Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

Coinsider my project in 1998: GOAL: GET JESUS-PAUL TO CORROB the Egodeath theory.

Sharday Mosurinjohn would NOT be barking up wrong tree if she claimed “Cybermonk is so pathetic, invalid, and hallucinating, he fantasizes psychedelics in mystery religions, to give his New Religious Movement (NRM) the false impression of legitimacy.” in this sense:

I ended up looking to History, Myth, entheogen scholarship, Mythic art, and alaogies, IN ORDER TO MAKE-UP AND CONFABULATE A LEGIT LINEAAGE TO VALIDATE MY BRAND NEW INVALID AND HISTORICALLY BASELESS the Egodeath theory. Sharday Mosurinjohn would be “warm” instead of “way off base”.

She argues: New Religious Movement (NRM) do not have legit actual psychedelics history lineage. They pretend to have, but invent one. We know there was in fact, no psychedelics in mystery religions. They need to STOP doing entheogen scholarship in mystery religion, and instead, servile worship Indigenous Shams, who have all of the legitimacy for themselves, only; many thousands of years of psychedelic Wisdom [Sharday Mosurinjohn voiced that, THROUGH the crappy post by Henry Winslow

Sharday Mosurinjohn ALSO said that.

Sometimes, inconsistently (DON’T MIS-HEAR ME” – who the F&CK says that?! fake, fake, fake! Right there, we see LOUD AND CLEAR that Sharday Mosurinjohn has no integrity, no consistency, fake as a 3$ bill – everything she puts out is DRAMA PERFORMANCE, her position shifts like the wind constantly. But she denies she shifts her position WORSE than Ruck slippping from “maybe psychedelics” to “definitely psychedelics”.

Sharday 1:

You are not allowed to study psychedelics in Western religious history.

Sharday 2:

(vigorously backpedalling but denying doing so)

Don’t mis-hear me, I’m saying, you ARE allowed to study, that’s good, psychedelics in Western religious history.”

“DON’T MIS-HEAR ME” Is What a Poser Fraud Would Say

How to Expose You Have No Integrity, Coherence, Consistency: Say “Don’t Mis-Hear Me”, to Cover Your Ever-Shifting (thus Poser, Fake, Insincere) Strategy

(in this “Hot”, Controverted or Suppressed, “Special” Academic, Taboo, Non-Topic)

What sort of sleazy con artist would ever say such a thing, “Don’t mis-hear me”?!

]

Sharday Mosurinjohn published that written statement in:

  • her Abstract of her 10-min Harvard 2025 talk, and in
  • the Mosurinjohn & Ascough published that in their Abstract of their article:

Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience; Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough (July 2025); journal: psychedelic medicine; https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/28314425251361835?journalCode=psymed; https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/08/psychedelics-eleusis-and-the-invention-of-religious-experience-mosurinjohn-ascough-2025/

In 1997, I punted (put-off, via a stopgap) my 1988 article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology; it kept exploding in wordcount.

I instead uploaded to Principia Cybernetica Web, https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be, a short condensed 12-principle summary spec outline.

the Principia Cybernetica website (url)

THE POINT The point is, in 1997, I published my Core theory summary.

In 1998, I needed Jesus & Paul to confirm and validate my Core …. there was ONLY the core theory, so – GOOD POINT! — FROM 1997 POV, “CORE” THEORY MAKES NO SENSE.

I had the idea of “Jesus and Paul must corrob MY THEORY” but lacked concept of “an add-on theory, accounting for history, and myth, and lyrics, and mythic art, and analogies, and mythemes”.

That’s an arg in favor of NOT calling 1997 “the Core theory”, but more direct descript:

the Psychedelic Eternalism theory


Principia Cybernetica Web, https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be
pcw

Principia Cybernetica Web, https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be [PCW]

Which of the 4 Constructions Did I Orig Mean? Ans: the Mytheme theory

If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, and the Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

the Egodeath theory only:

If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

The Core theory only, ie, the Psychedelic Eternalism theory only:

If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

The Mytheme theory only; ie, the Mytheme Analogy theory only:

This is the version I orig had in mind: ie,

I worry that the actual history of Western Esotericism and peak religious mystic ideas, fails to match my maximal entheogen theory of religion.

According to maximal entheogen theory of religion, the BEST mystics, in Classical Antiquity and in Late Antiquity and in Midddle Ages, always used psilocybin, and they all concluded same as the Egodeath theory: the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, expressed like in the Mytheme Analogy theory.

Suppose that the historical fact is:

Tthe best mystics did NOT agree with the Egodeath theory; the theory of psychedelic eternalism; the Mytheme Analogy theory. eg, they liked Neopl’m, apophatic, ie Western version of Popular Neo-Advaita; the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.

I would then reply: what, the Egodeath theory ? Core theory? the Mytheme theory? —

“If the actual history of mystic Transcendent Knowledge, religious myth, & mythic art fails to confirm the Mytheme Analogy theory (within the Egodeath theory), then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the [Etm Mytheme] theory is correct.”

Compound Theory-Name:
The Mytheme Eternalism Theory

What would “The Mytheme Eternalism Theory” be??

combine both pairs:

the Psychedelic Eternalism theory

the Mytheme Analogy theory

thus the Egodeath theory = the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory

The “Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy” Theory

Would that phrase be of any use??

The Egodeath theory = the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy Theory

That phrase combines recent theory-names of the two theories that are within the Egodeath theory:

the Psychedelic Eternalism theory

the Mytheme Analogy theory

t p e t – t m a t :

the Egodeath theory =
the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory

vs. my other laundry list of descriptor terms (eval the diff):

analogical psychedelic eternalism [w dependent control]

Words that got omitted:

  • mytheme – low-value word?
  • dependent – low-value word?
  • control – low-value word?

Drawback of ‘eternalism’:

Why the Egodeath theory has a fake & phony use of ‘eternalism’ and covertly redefines ‘eternalism’ to change its meaning

The Egodeath theory fakely adds “control” concerns to the previously pure, untainted, Phil Dept Phil o Time term ‘eternalism’, covertly changing its meaning.

This is how the Egodeath theory title avoids having to include the word “control” in its title: by COVERTLY REDEFINING THE WORD ‘ETERNALISM’ to force it to mean a huge thing (personal control considerations) in add’n to what it really means in the common Armchair Phil Dept Shared Lexicon.

Fused for Eternity Trapped in the Stone Armchair in the Academic Phil Dept

The armchair they have in the Academic Phil Dept is as strong as the rock bench w/ snakes in Hades:

Even when Chris Letheby in the Phil Dept dorm room took psychedelics, he still continued to do mere Armchair Phil Dept Philosophy.

Letheby is stuck in his ordinary-state armchair for eternity; even psychedelics can’t help them; beyond hope.

If the history of religious myth & mythic art fails to confirm the Mytheme Analogy theory (within the Egodeath theory), then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct. [THIS DOESN’T WORK! NEED TO TRY THE 4-TERM COMBO]

If the actual history of __fails to confirm the __, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

If the actual history of mystical experience, Western esotericism, & mystery religion fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

that’s sound, re: content. it’s saying the idea i had in mind by “if the data.. too bad, the theoyr is correct”.

Compare again the accurate Einstein quote to use as a template:

If the eclipse observations fail to confirm my theory of Relativity, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

Einstein

If historical mystery religion, mystical experience, & Western esotericism fails to confirm the Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy theory, then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct.

If historical mystic altered-state views fails to confirm the Egodeath theory’s Psychedelic Eternalism Mytheme Analogy model, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.

Michael Hoffman

getting really close to the idea quip ide a that i have in mind:

If historical mystics fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, including the Mytheme Analogy theory & the Psychedelic Eternalism theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.

good but too verbose, idea gets lost

If historical mystics fail to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical mystics; the theory is correct.

IT IS GOOD.

“If historical esotericists fail to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for the historical esotericists; the theory is correct.” – Michael Hoffman

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for historical esotericism; the theory is correct.

Michael Hoffman

better:

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then I would feel sorry for historical esotericism; the theory is correct.

snappier: punchier:

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct.

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct.

Michael Hoffman

*I* am not wrong; it’s the historical esotericists who are wrong!

I am not wrong; it’s the historical esotericists who are wrong!

History of folly. my “trellis” analogy: real Transcendent Knowledge is like an overgrown trellis obscured by weeds. Everything that historical mystics talk about, is weeds hideing what they mean to be thinking: what they really mean, without realizing it, is the Egodeath theory; the hidden obscured trellis underneath.

True, historical mystics all agree on the noise/weeds on the trellis; but the Egodeath theory agrees with the obscured trellis, NOT with the Apophatic Neoplatonism weeds/noise/ false surface theory that obscured the trellis.

That’s what I had in mind:
“If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct. [add: and the historical esotericismterics esotericists are wrong.”

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.

If historical esotericism fails to agree with the Egodeath theory, then too bad for historical esotericism; the Egodeath theory is correct, and the historical esotericists are wrong.

Michael Hoffman

IT IS GOOD.

the diamond hammer of interpretation

You have to FORCE…

That sounds like something Mosurinjohn & Ascough say to each other privately among the Newbie anything-but-drugs academics.

Heard in the Meeting Room at the Religions Journal Special Issue Planning Meeting, for the Special Issue on How to Cover-Up Psychedelics in Mystery Religions

“You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions”

That’s fallacious and incorrect arg’n, because their theory sucks.

Truth is:

Per the Egodeath theory’s diamond hammer of interpretation, You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were Psychedelics in Mystery Religions

Per the Egodeath Theory, You Have to FORCE the Evidence to Prove That There Were Psychedelics in Mystery Religions

Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.

Per the Egodeath theory, you have to FORCE the evidence to prove that there were psychedelics in mystery religions.

Michael Hoffman

NOW we’re talking.

That is correct, non-fallacious argumentation, because it reaches the correct conclusion, by any means necessary.

AI con’t:

Context: This was not a dismissal of empirical evidence, but rather a reflection of his immense confidence in his theory’s accuracy, having been developed from foundational principles rather than just fitting data.

Debunked Misquotations: The phrase “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” is not found in his writings and was not said by him.

Scientific Approach: While he believed in the power of theoretical elegance, Einstein did not believe in ignoring contrary data, but often felt that if data challenged his work, the experiment was likely wrong. 

In short, Einstein believed in the ultimate truth of his mathematical predictions, but the “change the facts” line is an urban legend. 

/ end of robot

See Also

pending

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is codex_manesse_suskind_von_trimberg-upper-body-oval.jpg
Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., explaining possibilism (lower fingers), altered-state eternalism (lower thumb); & integrated possibilism/ eternalism (upper fingers & thumb)
Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment