Otto Psalter: The “Spot the YI Hand-Shapes” Game

Michael Hoffman p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

Contents:

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 25, 2026, fullscreen

Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 25, 2026, fullscreen

f20 Dancing Jesus [Y, Y’, I, I’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Jesus’ hand holding the comic panel frame has a rare I’ via Index finger cut by the/ behind the frame.

I’ is more for math completeness than frequent usefulness to describe two mmm across two states.

I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of Hand-Shape Pairs

The mushroom-tree artists aren’t especially dedicated to hand-shape pairs rather than individual hands.

The mushroom-tree artists keep it simple: see, draw, and understand what’s asserted by each of the 4 combinations.

I’ is the most challenging, and thus most advanced to understand and use.

I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of the Combination Y, Y’, I (vs. I’)

If I’ were more useful, it would appear more often.

The reason Y Y’ I occurs often is not because special or “the” correct combo; it’s just that these 3 are more relatable, comprehensible, & useful than I’.

Y Y’ I is the most common combo, it is satisfying and relatable.

But it’s not inherently “right”, compared to Y Y’ I I’.

Branching (Y), Cut Branching (Y’), Non-Branching (I), and Cut Non-Branching (I’)

I now understand and have a good sense for why Y, Y’, and I SEEM like the magic trio, omitting I’.

I’ is logically implied as a permutation, but hard to relate to and put to use and conceptualize what’s asserted by I’.

Make the 4 Finger Shapes: Fingers Out (Y; Branching), Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching), Finger Out (I; Non-Branching), Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)

Make the 4 Finger Shapes:

  • Fingers Out (Y; Branching)
  • Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching)
  • Finger Out (I; Non-Branching)
  • Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)

The Hardest of the Four Shapes to Comprehend: “Cut Non-Branching”

The 4 symbols on Zep 4 mean Y, Y’, I, and I’. If you force it. Refer to the meaning of I’ in the instances I found today.

eg chop up a snake that threatens you to death.

  • Y – Fingers Out (Branching)
  • Y – Fingers Bent (Cut Branching)
  • I – Finger Out (Non-Branching)
  • I’ – Finger Bent (Cut Non-branching)

I’ Is Like a Double-Negative World-Model, the Least Natural and Most Advanced

List of Explicit I’ Instances

  1. von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger = I’.
    Index (1)
  2. Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand: cut thumb = I’.
    Thumb (1)
  3. Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand; cut thumb = I’.
    Thumb (1)
  4. GCP f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb.
    Thumb (1)
  5. Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’.
    Thumb (1)

von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger

von Trimberg and Student

Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand

Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand

Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

{balance scale} Woman Is the Most Efficient and Pointed Depiction of YY’I: A 2nd Thumb Would Be Redundant (and, She Displays Pinkie (3))

Rememeber yesterday’s proof that Dancing Man:

It DOESN’T MATTER how you interp his lower hand’s Pinkie that’s not occluded, whether say Y’ or Y’I, because I is ALREADY present via upper hand.

Principle: Nothing Is Gained by Re-Asserting I 2x or 3x; Re-Asserting 2-3x Is for Style or Emphasis Only

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Why I’ Is Less Common than Y, Y’, & I

I don’t mean Thumb (0) is uncommon (often there’s no thumb [segments] shown).

I mean: Thumb (1) is uncommon. Thumb is partly shown, but cut – that’s uncommon. Non-initiates experience Y; they do NOT experience I’, as if “I believe in manyworlds, and I believe not-[worldline frozen in the block universe].

No One Thinks or Says “I Disbelieve Worldline Frozen in Block Universe” (I’); They Simply Say “I Experience & Believe in Branching Possibilities” (Y)

Dancing Man is not signalling I’; many of my Reference hand-shape pairs are not signalling I’; they signal Y instead of I’. todo: stingy headings list: how many are I’ – NONE?!

Indicating = signalling = depicting = asserting.

It would be confusing to assert I’, usually.

Ppl have a strong need to assert/affirm:

  • Y – we experience this all the time, directly. Implies I’, but that’s indirect.
    I don’t say “I’m experiencing not-non-branching.” or “I’m experiencing not-frozen-worldline.”
  • Y’ – we interestingly experience this in loose cognition.
  • I – revealed profoundly in loose cognition.
  • I’ – this is IMPLICIT in pre-enlightenment ordinary-state. This is why I’ is less popular than Y.

The best description of mental model transformation is Y+Y’+I; less so is I’.

But today in an hour or 90 min, I found I’ 5x, always w/ Left hand. By 3 artists:

  • Otto – Panto: hold wrist; Entry into Jerusalem: spread cloak.
  • Maness Codex (von Trimberg): student by von T.
  • Eadwine (Great Canterbury Psalter) – break bowman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Hiding 2nd Thumb Signals the Desired Top 3 Shapes More Pointedly.

Tentative Conclusions at End of Day, Upon Reflection

hand-shape pairs are not super important. Just as much attn is placed on figures who only display 1 hand.

I have no great interp of “cloth hiding hand”. Best assessment is, Y’.

bc THERE IS NO NEED TO HIDE NON-BRANCHING THUMB FROM GOD; ONLY TO HIDE BRANCHING FINGERS FROM GOD.

Purpose of cloth is not to hide non-branching I thumb; or to hide assertion of “cut thumb” (1 seg);

  • Y – is cloth to hide Y? YES!
  • Y’ – is cloth to hide Y’? No, no need.
  • I – is cloth to hide I? NO!
  • I’ – is cloth to hide 1-seg thumb? no, too complicated.

[3:41 a.m. Feb. 26, 2026] Conclusion: Read “cloth-hidden hand” as Y’.

Proposed Rule: Read “Cloth-Hidden Hand” as Y’I

esp read as I if long phallic garment. Cloth converts Y fingers to I shape.

[Y, Y’, I] Is Most Common, But Not Uniquely the Correct Answer

YY’I Is Most Common, But Not Uniquely or Especially the Correct Answer

f134 break bowman implies that I’ is a major, crucial part of the mix.

Today I tried finding various special combinations, but it’s just a stat spread, w/o one pattern being “the” only “right” pattern.

YY’I is THE MOST POPULAR/commonly occurring, but it is not “uniquely correct”; I see no evidence that YY’I is somehow “uniquely correct” — it’s the

YY’I Is the Most Complete List of Shapes, Aside from Including the Niche I’ Shape – An Almost-Complete List of Shapes, but Not “Uniquely Correct”

There’s No Master Pattern, Beyond Spot Explicitly Painted Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes (eg 0 thumb segments doesn’t count as I’)

Count Finger if 1, 2, or 3 Segments; Thumb if 1 or 2 Segments; Don’t Count 0 Segments of Finger or Thumb as “Prime”; Ignore

Assume the Game Is Simple and Shallow: Spot Isolated, Explicitly Painted Motifs of Y, Y’, I, I’ – Nothing More Elaborate

Comprehending What’s Asserted or Rebutted by Y, Y’, I, & I Is Plenty Elaborate.

the mushroom-tree artists tried more rules and goals, but didn’t reach any consensus.

The mushroom-tree artists reached great consensus on what’s asserted by Y Y’ I I’, and options to depict those.

The mushroom-tree artists did NOT reach consensus about more elaborate rules.

YY’I is popular. I’ is controversial.

Y is justified because it’s the shape of our experiencing.

YY’I is all the MAIN, MOST relevant shapes; I’ less so.

Thus gives APPEARANCE that YY’I

I’ is justified when in ordinary-state, and when need to relent the threat. the only reason the combo YY’I is popular is because all 4 would be popular, but I’ is the least often justified.

YY’I is dominant because YY’II’ WOULD BE dominant, except I’ is not that popular/ useful, thus leaving YY’I because that’s a relevant common combo, not because I’ is always wrong/bad/false.

That’s why I got today the IMPRESSION that YY’I is uniquely the correct answer – because the mushroom-tree artists like all combos, but I’ is less often useful.

It’s kind of a mirage, and stats seem to back that up.

There is no uniquely correct combo, but because all varieties generally are popular, but I’ less so, that gives the ILLUSION that YY’I is uniquely the right answer, and other combos are “wrong”.

That’s a good analysis; sound. Matches my experience today.

If 4 fingers (3) with Thumb (0), this IS Y, but Thumb (0) is not I’. It’s “Y without I”.

If 4 fingers (1), with Thumb (0), this IS Y’, but Thumb (0) is not I’. It’s “Y’ without I”.

Cut Thumb or Cut Finger must be EXPLICITLY shown – not just entirely missing.

OTOH ossuary guy f107, his L limbs are not painted, not as stubs.

It is REASONABLE and acceptable to point out, “0 segments are painted, which is LIKE asserting I’ or Y'”

Thumb (1) is FAR more compelling and interesting and DETERMINATE than Thumb (0).

Thumb (1) YELLS I’.

Thumb (0) mumbles kinda I’.

True, [Y, Y’, I] is perhaps the most common set of the 4 (omits I’).

[Y, Y’, I] is not the uniquely correct answer, as if other combos are the “wrong answer”.

the mushroom-tree artists mostly agree on depicting Y, Y’, I, & I’. eg:

  • Y: 3 fingers (3) segments each, held together or splayed, but differ’d from 4th finger.
  • Y’: 3 fingers (1) segment each.
  • I: Thumb (2) seg shown.
  • I’: Thumb (1) seg shown.

Notation: parens are how many segments are shown.

  • Thumb (2) – I
  • Thumb (1) – I’
  • Thumb (0) – Counts as neither I nor I’. Indeterminate; the mushroom-tree artists didn’t reach unanimous consensus. Not compelling.
  • Finger (3) – finger is displayed/asserted. If 1 isolated finger, I. If 2 or 3 grouped, Y.
  • Finger (2) – finger cut; Prime. If it’s 1 isolated finger, I’. If 2 or 3 fingers grouped, Y’.
  • Finger (1) – finger cut; Prime.If it’s 1 isolated finger, I’. If 2 or 3 fingers grouped, Y’.
    eg student next to von Trimberg: lower hand: Index finger.
  • Finger (0) – ambig. Counts as neither asserted nor rebutted.

How Much to Make of Pair of Hands, vs. Each Hand in Isolation?

Until I prove that summing the types from both hands is super signif – often a single hand is shown, only – I can probably fall back to just isolated…. the two Otto annots i did today failed to show hand-pairs. Often, 1 hand is shown, only.

Whether Count 0 Thumb Segments as I’ (Implicit Cut Thumb), Like Definitely Count 1 Thumb Segment as I’ (Explicit Cut Thumb)

Answer: Probably Do Not Count 0 Thumb Segments as I’.

Remember where thumb is on guy’s R shoulder, w/ no fingers shown – I counted that as I, NOT as IY’!

Showing 3 finger base segments is certainly Y’, but showing 0 finger segs is NOT counted as Y’.

“Only count what’s explicitly shown”.

We are inventorying what is SHOWN ie cut finger or cut thumb; we are NOT inventorying things that are invisible.

In the page title:
Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game Goal: Find Explicit Y, Y’, I, I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs
“explicit” means:

  • Thumb (2) = I
  • Thumb (1) = I’
  • Thumb (0) = neither I nor I’.

That’s the “stingy” accounting re: “thumb not shown”.

“implicit” would mean greedy accounting re: “thumb not shown”:

  • Thumb (2) = I
  • Thumb (1) = I’
  • Thumb (0) = I’

How badly do we want to demarcate I’?

I am NOT seeing a clear case that “the goal is always to try to hit all 4 shapes, and to accomp that, must count Thumb (0) as I’ to complete the set.”

I feel FULLY CONFIDENT re: Thumb (1) accounting: it is DEFINITELY I’.

I feel not confident, but arb, re: Thumb (0): on what basis do we count Thumb (0) as I’, vs. not counting it as I’?

EXEC DECISION: Unless I come across some reason to be greedy to produce many I’ instances, … keep in mind that if I *want* I’, I can count Thumb (0) as I’. But until then, I feel on more solid ground counting

  • Thumb (2) = I
  • Thumb (1) = I’
  • Thumb (0) = not I or I’.

Can I arg from “keep simple”? Not really; both policies are simple, just hard to pick between the two policies/ philosophies of accounting for shapes.

Inventorying segments is easy (sort of); setting the policy of what counts, for inventory, is unclear & harder.

The Argument from How Fingers are inventoried seems most compelling:

  • Index (3) =
  • Index (3) =
  • Index (3) =
  • Index (0) = ….

suppose only Thumb (2) is shown, no fingers.

  • Y –
  • Y’ –
  • I – Thumb (2)
  • I’ – no

Results for Reference Hand-Pairs

todo: copy to this section: heading w/ [Y Y I I], and picture, and the template-based analysis, all from below.

first, paste toc, then delete irrel lines: find [ to find relev lines, to keep:

Already I can answer the Q: If there’s I’, there’s no I: true? False, by my lastest, greedy approach, which says: If no thumb visible, count that as having I’, rather than lacking I’. That’s not consistent with fingers policy though.

Greedy vs. Stingy inventory accounting.

suppose f21 L guy is enlightened. He shows cloth hiding hand, and he shows Y’ but doesn’t explic show I’; he implicly shows I’. (has no thumb).

It’s bad to say that break bowman’s I’ (explicitly shown) is same as …. I found 5 instances where I’ is explicitly shown. they have 1 seg instead of ? todo

Greedy concl only:
Probably low-value; exaggerates how often I’ is explicitly depicted and meant:

  • [Y, Y’, I, I’] – Scale Balance & Closed Scroll
  • [Y, Y’, I, I’] – Dancing Man
  • [Y’, I, I’] – f21 Right Guy
  • [Y’, I’] – f21 Left Guy
  • [Y, Y’, I, I’] – Break Bowman
  • [Y’, I, I’] – Psalter Viewer
  • [Y’, I] – Mushroom King
  • [Y’, I, I’] – Swordsman
  • [Y, Y’, I, I’] – Guy Above Asp-Dog:
  • [Y, Y’, I’] – Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist

Greedy & stingy concl’s: [I am preserving this 2-bracket list; copypste below and only have the stingy array]:

  • Scale Balance & Closed Scroll [Y, Y’, I, I’] or Stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’) – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
  • Dancing Man [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’ shown) – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
  • f21 Right Guy [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
  • f21 Left Guy [Y’, I’], or stingy: [Y’] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
  • Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)
  • Psalter Viewer [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
  • Mushroom King [Y’, I] – PROVES THAT “ALL 4” IS NOT CRUCIAL GOAL.
  • Swordsman [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
  • Guy Above Asp-Dog: [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
  • Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist [Y, Y’, I’] (explicit I’)

Reference Figures’ Hand-Shape Pairs, Ignoring Thumb-Not-Shown (Don’t Count That as I’)

Stingy array only:

  • [Y, Y’, I] – Scale Balance & Closed Scroll
  • [Y, Y’, I] – Dancing Man
  • [Y’, I] – f21 Right Guy
  • [Y’] – f21 Left Guy
  • [Y, Y’, I, I’] Break Bowman
  • [Y’, I] – Psalter Viewer
  • [Y’, I] – Mushroom King
  • [Y’, I] – Swordsman
  • [Y, Y’, I] – Guy Above Asp-Dog
  • [Y, Y’, I’] – Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist

A telling observation: listing the stingy combos, NEVER DOES I’ appear.

Only 1 of my Reference hand-shape pairs (break bowman) include Thumb (1)*; they either include Thumb (2) or Thumb (0).

*or finger used as I’, as in Student Beside von Trimberg.

Student and von Trimberg: a Rare I’ (via Index Finger)

Opinion of the moment: Given that in a hand-shape pair, there’s easy opport to have full I finger or I thumb, then WHETHER INTERP THE Y’ CURLED NEAR-FINGER AS I JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE ALL, SUBTLE , SEGMENTS?

ANS: No, the mushroom-tree artists do not usually care whether that little curled side finger is counted as I or not; usually some other digit fully shows extended I.

The side-curled finger of a Y’ hand CAN be read as I, but in a hand-shape pair, usually some other digit fully shows I; so curl finger is redundant and irrelevant whether counted as I or ignored.

Thus I call student upper hand IY’, NOT IY’I. 2nd I is “don’t care; don’t need; redun.” It’s an extra, INCIDENTAL I that’s avail but not needed. Superfluous.

I get this impression from the art: Lower hand’s Index is signif adding info: I’. But, the upper hand curl pinkie is NOT signif; it’s superfluous & redun w/ Index of upper hand. IGNORE. [YI’, IY’] – in this case, the two hands are interestingly converse.

The curl pinkie plays no part in this interesting converse relation!

Counting the curl pinkie as an I would DISRUPT the symmetry/ complementarity.

von Trimberg and Student

If Count 0 Thumb Seg as I’, We’d Have to Count Two-Adj-Fings’ Segs that Have 0 Segs as Y’, but We Are Never Shown 0 Finger Segs

if 1 seg is shown… already proved, at section:
“Proposed Stingy Rules re: How Many Thumb Segments Are EXPLICITLY Shown“

The Most Important Thing Is Consistency of Analysis/ Inventory (eg No Thumb Shown, = Assertion of I’

Counting “no thumb” as I’ (Thumb (0)) is a MAJOR change from earlier this evening. Should help re: “hand hidden under cloth” too.

Template for Hands on Normal Sides

Do not fill in here; copypaste, then fill in that copy.

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right):
    • Right hand (on Left):
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right):
    • Right hand (on Left):
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right):
    • Right hand (on Left):
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right):
    • Right hand (on Left):

Template for Hands Crossed

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Left):
    • Right hand (on Right):
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Left):
    • Right hand (on Right):
  • I
    • Left hand (on Left):
    • Right hand (on Right):
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Left):
    • Right hand (on Right):

The “Spot the YI Hand Shapes” Game

titles of this page, con’t:

This is the “Spot the YI Hand Shapes” game.

Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: Spot Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes

Can strip down more, from:

Otto Psalter: Goal of Hand-Shape Game: See Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes

to just:

Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: See Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes

“See” implies EXPLICIT; don’t count Thumb (0). don’t Julie-Brown it (“I will only report what I see: I see that the caps have been made not seeable.”)

I hope to discover complexity, but, long shot. Some fancy pattern like “Y Y’ I” or [Y, Y’, I, I’]. otoh, that doesn’t scale, it’s awkward, and less likely than …. it is ALREADY super profound/ complicated enough, just knowing the definition of what is meant by asserting Y, Y’, I, I’.

We are CERTAIN that the game involves assessing isolated hand; assessing EXPLICIT indicators: segments that are PRESENT (1, 2, or 3 seg), NOT wholly absent (0).

Easily Port-able across artists, “keep it simple, explicit, single-hand centered”.

Keep Ruleset Simple

Explicit (some but not all segments shown = Prime) (all seg shown = Not Prime) (no seg shown = neither Prime nor Non-Prime); Single Hand (rather than special-treatment processing of hand-shape pairs)

Non-essentials:

  • 0 segments shown. Vague/ ambig how to count.
  • 1 vs 2 hands: vague/ambig how to merge/count/ think of it.

Omit vague, omit ambig. Stay w/ what is certain, only.

  • Here is a definite Y, inarguably.
  • Here is a definite Y’, inarguably.
  • Here is a definite I, inarguably. Thumb (2); Finger splayed (3).
  • Here is a definite I’, inarguably. Thumb (1)

Can’t argue with this stripped-down title:

Otto Psalter: Goal of the Hand-Shape Game: Find Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes

Certainly, at least at a rough level, that is true. 95% of work is look at each hand, alone, and find those 4 shapes in that hand.

The bulk and center of the work is that – NOT somehow summing two hands, for a figure, which gives a longer list (eg. 3-4 shapes for a hand-shape pair, instead of 1-2 shapes for an isolated, lone, single hand).

Not convinced that “pair” is justified in title. No net gain, by that detail. Raises too many complexities for a title.

Otto Psalter: Goal of the Hand-Shape Game: Find Explicit Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs

Explicit is a “no net gain” word; too detailed for a title, distracting, detracts from message by raising premature questions. It’s a detail for article body, not title.

eg, “no thumb shown” is NOT “find an I’ shape”. That’s merely an IMPLICIT I’ shape, not a VISIBLE I’ shape.

But in contrast, if 1 thumb segment is shown, THAT is CERTAINLY “find an I’ shape”.

Compressed title:

Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game Goal: Find Y, Y’, I, I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs

That title is extremely neutral, omits constraints or more specific, narrow objectives. Certainly, any objective will FIRST as PRELIMINARY, be served best by this empirical inventory of possible readings.

  • What’s the closest we can get to reading a Y shape?
  • What’s the closest we can get to reading a Y’ shape?
  • What’s the closest we can get to reading an I shape?
  • What’s the closest we can get to reading an I’ shape?

Hardest Q is what to do when no thumb shown: which is that?

  • No I or I’ is shown.
  • An I’ is shown.

Since we expect a full accounting of Y & I, I lean toward “an I’ is shown”; the thumb is actively hidden/occluded.

[11:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026] Considering a MAJOR redefinition of objective of game:

Otto Psalter Confirms Objective of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair or Single Hand

Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair or Single Hand

older wording of that:

Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair

Idea [11:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026] – cloth covering hand = … eg: f21: L & M guys.

Suppose you know a hand is holding up the cloth, but no detail:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

L guy:

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Index (0) + Middle (0) + Ring (0) + Pinkie (0)
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (1) + Middle (1) + Ring (1) + Pinkie (1)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Y’I’ (no Y, no I)

Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find a Y’, Y, & I Shape in Each Hand-Pair …

… and sometimes throw in, w Left hand, an I’, via a cut Left Index finger or a cut L thumb, eg. holding a {closed scroll}, which ~= ordinary-state, branching Possibilism.

The nice thing about that (I’) is, all 4 shapes are covered, by the hand-shape pair rules that I extracted from this genre puzzle, the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.

Y Y’ I I’

Puzzle Solved, DECODED: trident mushroom-tree bc Trinity 🔱

Jesus Christ!: The Two Bowmen in f134 row 2 Are PAIRED as Two Opposite States: Threatening, or Relenting, the Psalter Viewer!! 🤯

Dependent on the Whim of God Pressing on the Pivot of the {balance scale}!

Functionally the Same as the Swordsman “Sheathing and Unsheathing” the Sword

see end of post, OMFG! 🤯🤯

Composed & produced 100% on mobile – even added art annotations on mobile device!

I should add the [Y’I, YI] type of hand-shape pair notation on each person, not only each hand.

But, many of these figures only display 1 hand.

Do that Later maybe; after I annotate Otto > Entry into Jerusalem.

I an eager to annotate the Otto [DONE, VICTORY!!]: Entry into Jerusalem image; because I am hungry for test-confirmation of my hypothesis, that each hand-shape pair contains Y’, Y, & I shape.

The Hypothesis Under Testing, to Disconfirm the Egodeath Theory

If There Is Any Trace of the Slightest Failure, Catastrophic: Immediately Must Discard the Entire Egodeath theory –> 🗑️, per 5th-Grade “The Scientific Method” (Popper) Just-So Story.

That Is NOT How Science Works, as Proved by Historians of Science, Who Destroyed Armchair, Mere Philosophers of Science (Baloney “Logical Positivists”).

HYPOTHESIS: In the Medieval YI Hand-Shape Language, Each Hand-Shape Pair Normally Contains a Y’, Y, & I shape [Added: & Rarely, I’, with Left Hand]

Otto Gospel: Mushroom-Trees, Branching, and YI Hand Shapes

Otto Gospel: Mushroom-Trees, Branching, and YI Hand Shapes

Done: Annotate, then upload the annotated image: Otto: Kosmokrater; Christ Reigns.

A shortcut though: Just LOOK AT that image, now. NO – I HAD TO annotate it; the hand-shapes are too complicated otherwise; cannot eyeball it.

The “Grab Wrist” image/ crop/ motif: an odd, unusual Y’I’ (the I’ is rare) hand, via occluded fingertips & occluded thumb tip(!) – abnormal; countervailing the Normal Rule.

(Solved!! elsewhere throughout in this page.)

Rules Are Meant To Be Broken: My Extracted Rules Are Correct

List of Explicit I’ Instances

copypasted section to above, to keep this section as-is for history

Added note, a few minutes later: ITS ALWAYS THE LEFT HAND, sometimes holding {closed scroll}.

List of instances [do not change this discovery sequence]:

  1. von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger = I’.
    Index (1)
  2. Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand: cut thumb = I’.
    Thumb (1)
  3. Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand; cut thumb = I’.
    Thumb (1)
  4. GCP f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb.
    Thumb (1)
  5. Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’.
    Thumb (1)

Worried 😨: Now checking Otto: Entry into Jerusalem… holding the Egodeath theory over the trashcan, ready to ditch instantly my life work if “Disconfirm the Hypothesis”… 😨

SUCCESS!!

The Egodeath theory is victorious YET AGAIN, as every time since 1988!

I am spoiled.

Christ Pantokrator:

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): 4 Fingers (3 seg)
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (3 seg) + Middle (3 seg)
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): None.
    • Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (2 seg)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2 seg)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): None.
    • Right hand (on Left): None. Closest is cut base of Middle finger as if (2 seg).
Crop by Michael Hoffman p.m. Feb. 25, 2026m

Minor error in annotations: Guy left of throne, R foot, is Y’I, if assess toes in L to R order as usual; not IY’.

Either way is equivalent, so this is a a consistency-convention error only.

A Shocking, Rare Assertion of the I’ Shape

Update an hour later:

4 instances of I’, by 3 artists; it’s a STANDARD exception!! [and each case – 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 inventoried today – the I’ is formed by LEFT hand.

Update: 5 instances of I’, by 3 artists.

Thumb (& Fingers) Wrapped Around Other Guy’s Wrist

The Thumb Is Shorter than Usual in Otto, Undeniably Forming an I’ Shape, NOT the Usual, I Shape

The Standard I’ “Anomaly” Formed with LEFT Hand

Good news/ Pro/ advantage/ benefit for me: [This same evening, an hour later, I eventually solved this anomaly: when I’ occurs, it’s always via the LEFT hand; and I quickly found 5 instances of this “standard I’ anomaly.]

If you accuse me of forcing interp’n, here is an example (is this my St. Walburga tapestry fiasco, like the Browns?) of where I cannot in good faith force my interpretation;

instead, I have to accept this deviant case [update: 5 cases, all via LEFT hand], and I must do Special Pleading to Save The Theory.

To excuse this non-standard pattern.

[Update: not so non-standard; it’s a standard exception.]

I do have a general theory that:

The moment the the mushroom-tree artists establish a rule, this immediately, necessarily implies countering the rule, ; that countering of the rule then conveys special, extra information.

A side effect of defining a rule is that you immediately implicitly create an opportunity to violate the rule; that’s inherent.

Update, same evening, 90 min later: You could say that the the mushroom-tree artists did that:

Just as you can affirm Y in the end, via excusing it as phen’y not metaphysics, you can “rule out” I’ yet create a way to enrich the hand-shape game, by allowing I’ to be depicted by LEFT hand, to allow 4 shapes not just 3 of the 4 with one glaringly unaccounted for.

hand-shape game
hsg

Game Design Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering

Compare the meta rule game, Magic: The Gathering.

If we, the mushroom-tree artists, say “Do Not Include the I’ shape in a hand-shape pair”, every one of us is obliged to immediately violate that rule, to make special points/ purpose, to earn special game points.

Update: They did that, allowing for the 4th, I’ shape, when done by L hand, eg with {closed scroll}.

Maybe we SHOULD reclassify/ relabel: if 4 straight or 4 cut fingers shown, or … but no thumb, we CAN label that as YI’. eg f134 row 2 woman {balance scale}.

Here I am fine-tuning the successful ruleset as dust settles. Perhaps never NEVER SAY Y OR Y’; IF NO THUMB, AND IT IS LEFT HAND, WRITE / INCLUDE I’. TEST THAT, SEE IF IT HOLDS UP TO INCREASE SYSTEMATICITY.

Lower hand can be designated as any of these shape-combos:

  • Y’
  • IY’ – Pinkie’s 3 segments are emphatically shown = I. Compare f21 Right guy, super-long Pinkie.
  • IY’I’ – Thumb of Left hand not shown = I’.

f21: 3 Guys/ Books/ Scrolls/ B’s

10:31 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 – Right guy was a puzzling problem, able to solve now? Have flexy options for interp’n.

  • Left hand (raised): IY’. If account for missing thumb: IY’I’ (adds an I’ on Left hand).
  • Right hand Y’, or Y’I. If account for missing thumb: Y’II’, which would be an I’ formed by Right hand, not by Left hand per the usual pattern. I’d have to check stats, to improve my ruleset. I don’t know if this is:
  • Standard main pattern.
  • Standard minor pattern / exceptional standard pattern.
  • Nonstandard; violate rules.
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Scale Balance & Closed Scroll [Y, Y’, I, I’] or Stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’)

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (3) + Ring (3) + Middle (3) + Index (3)
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (3)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
    • Right hand (on Left): no

Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes: Y Y’ I I’

Format convention: do not bother strikethrough, hard to do.

Old format, not template:

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): None.
    • Right hand (on Left): 4 fingers (3 seg).
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): 3 fingers: Index (2 seg) + Middle (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg)
    • Right hand (on Left): None.
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (3 seg)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2 seg)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0 seg)
    • Right hand (on Left): None.

Conclusion: {balance scale} Woman is Complete; has all 4 shapes.

Old, non-template:

  • Left hand: greedy analysis (willing 3 parts): I, Y’, I’
  • Pinkie: I
  • 3 fingers: Y’
  • Thumb: I’
  • Right hand, greedy (ie willing to have 3 shapes):
  • YI

Principle (Tentative): The Ideal[?] Hand-Shape Pair Includes All 4 Shapes [Y, Y’, I, I’]

I have no idea if this will be supported by the data.

[12:45 a.m. Feb. 26, 2026] My latest feeling is:
The game is to simply, for a given hand-pair, inspect whether has Y, Y’, I, I’. There’s nothing super consistent about whether all are present.

Fine-tuning my policies/ ruleset, to be more greedy:
IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY TO SEE a Y | Y’ | I | I’ shape?

Tentative arg: Her hand-pair ss are “complete”, they represent all 4 shape permuts:

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Outdated format; see template filled in above:

  • Y – Right hand: Fingers all 3 segments of all 3 fingers shown/ displayed/ visible.
  • Y’ – Left hand: 3 fingers: Base segment shown, Mid & Tip segs not shown.
  • I – Right hand: Thumb. Left hand: Pinkie.
  • I’ – Left hand: Thumb not shown.

Conclusion: {balance scale} Woman’s Hand-Shape Pair is “YI-Complete”; Contains All 4 Shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’

Dancing Man Is “YI-Complete”; Contains All 4 Shapes!

[10:43 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026]

Dancing Man [Y, Y’, I, I’],
or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’ shown)

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): none
    • Right hand (on Left): Middle (3) + Ring (3) + Pinkie (3)
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2) + Middle (2) + Index (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): none
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): none
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Dancing Man is YI-Complete;
hand-shape pair includes all 4 shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’

Found during analyzing I on R hand: [11:37 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026]
Principle: It doesn’t matter that the bent Index finger looks unnatural.
All that matters is the count of displayed segments.

Old format, not using template:

  • Y?
  • Y’?
  • I?
  • I’?
  • Y – Right hand, 3 fingers, all 3 segments shown.
  • Y’ – Left hand, 3 fingers or 4 fingers, only 2 of 3 segments shown.
  • I – Right hand, Index finger: all 3 segments shown.
  • I’ – Left hand: Thumb not shown. Right hand: Thumb not shown.

Per this very latest method of analysis, which counts “thumb not shown at all” as I’, I’ is going to flip from “rare & nonstandard” to “common & standard”!

DanMan is from https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/25/hand-shape-theory-debates-to-develop-and-fine-tune-the-theory/ and other good hand-shape pairs there to, to check against, to see if always can say all 4 shapes, which will be THE FIRST MAJOR REVISION CORRECTION OF THIS EVENING’S BIG ANALYSIS BREAKTHROUGH:

Can we find all 4 shapes in f21 right guy?

f21 Right Guy [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I]

Proposed Stingy Rules re: How Many Thumb Segments Are EXPLICITLY Shown

I hate treating 0 Thumb seg shown, as if same as 1 Thumb seg shown. 1 seg is a strong, definite statement. 0 seg is not a clear, strong statement. Showing 1 seg is stronger, unambig message than 0 seg.

0 Thumb seg shown is ambig whether means I’.

1 Thumb seg shown is unambig; certainly means I’.

Implicit Showing of 0, forming I’, Is Not Consistent w/ Fingers Accounting to form Y’.

  • If Thumb (2), I.
  • If Thumb (1), I’.
  • If Thumb (0), no I’ or I.

because w/ fingers, it’s about EITHER:

  • (3) = count as “not cut”
  • (2) = count as “cut”
  • (1) = count as “cut”
  • (0) = don’t count as “cut”, don’t count as “not cut”.

notation: paren = # of seg shown.

implies for thumb:

  • (2) = count as “not cut”
  • (1) = count as “cut”
  • (0) = don’t count as “cut”, don’t count as “not cut”.
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Had to swap sides in template – update: made sep template for “crossed hands”.

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Left): no
    • Right hand (on Right): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Left): Index (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (1)
    • Right hand (on Right): Index (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (1) + Pinkie (2)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
    • Right hand (on Right): no
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
    • Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’

Old format, not template:

  • Y – Not present.
  • Y’ – Left hand, 3 fingers. Right hand: 3 or 4 fingers.
  • I – Left hand, Pinkie: 3 segments shown.
  • I’ – Left hand: Thumb. Right hand: Thumb.

He’s biased against Y. He feels too deviant for setting the main normal rules. All 3 guys seem odd.

f21 Left Guy [Y’, I’], or stingy: [Y’]

  • Is red phall showing a Y? no
  • Is red phall showing a Y’? implicitly yes.
  • Is red phall showing an I? kind of.
  • Is red phall showing an I’? hardly.

The only way I can read red phall is as a Y’ shape. by stretch, MAYBE read as I shape.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  • Y – none
  • Y’ – via L or R hand.
  • I – none
  • I’ – Thumb not shown, via L or R hand.

Could designate as:

  • Y’
  • Y’I’ – I’m more comfy w/ this for the Middle guy, uses Left hand to shape Y’ and I’.

10:54 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 – what’s in common between [L & M guy] & R guy? Ans: none signal Y shape.

Left Two Guys Together Include Shapes: Y’, I’; Right Guy Includes Shapes: I (pinkie), Y’ (3 fingers), I’ (thumb)

  • L guys: Y’I’
  • R guy: IY’I’; he adds I on RIGHT of image. Lacks Y (it’s holy to lack Y, but not human/ not pragmatic).

Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)

  • Y
    • Left hand (on Left): Middle (3) + Index (3)
    • Right hand (on Right): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (1) + Ring (1)
    • Right hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Left): Index (3)
    • Right hand (on Right): Pinkie (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Left): Thumb (1)
    • Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes; is YI shape-complete.

Old format/analysis:

Suppose for this analysis, L hand shows 3 segs of Middle & Index.

  • Y – L hand, Middle + Index.
  • Y’ – L hand: Pinkie + Ring.
    R hand: 3 fingers cut (or: 4 fingers cut).
  • I – R hand: Pinkie curled, 3 segments shown.
  • I’ – L hand: Thumb cut; 1 segment shown.
    R hand: Thumb not shown; 0 segments shown.

Psalter Viewer [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I]

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): Middle (2) + Ring (2)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Index (3), Thumb (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): Middle (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: No Y. Y’, I, I’.

slightly old format:

  • Y
    L hand (on Right): None.
    R hand (on Left): None.
  • Y’
    L hand (on Right): 3 fingers; Pinkie (1 seg) + Ring (1 seg) + Middle (2 seg).
    R hand (on Left): Middle (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg).
  • I
    L hand (on Right): Index (3 seg); Thumb (3 seg).
    R hand (on Left): Index (3 seg); Pinkie (3 seg).
  • I’
    L hand (on Right): Middle (2 seg).
    R hand (on Left): Thumb (0 seg).

Notation/ convention: give # of segments SHOWN, not Hidden; omit “shown”.

“seg” means “segment(s)”. New convention: omit “seg”, put # in parens.

For a finger, 0, 1, or 2 means one seg is cut.

Finger segments are named Base, Mid, Tip.

Thumb segments are named Base, Tip.

Mushroom King [Y’, I]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Index (3), Thumb (2), Middle (3)
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (3), Thumb (2), Middle (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no

Conclusion: Asserts no falsehoods; doesn’t assert Y & doesn’t assert I’. Asserts Y’ & I.

Swordsman [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): no
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
    • Right hand (on Left): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
  • I
    • Left hand (on Right): Thumb (2), Pinkie (3)
    • Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Right): no
    • Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’

Guy Above Asp-Dog: [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I]

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  • Y
    • Left hand (on Left): no
    • Right hand (on Right): Middle (3) + Ring (3) + Pinkie (3)
  • Y’
    • Left hand (on Left): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
    • Right hand (on Right): no
  • I
    • Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
    • Right hand (on Right): Index (3)
  • I’
    • Left hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
    • Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)

Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes.

Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com Is the First Late-Modern-Era Mushroom-Tree Artist!

As an authentic mushroom-tree artist myself, I can tell you with the greatest authority:

Ronald Huggins Is a Phony Scholar for Sale, Who Would INSTANTLY Sing the Opposite Tune, if Anything-but-Drugs Academia Told Him To

Huggins Is Nothing But a Male-Prostitute Fake Scholar, Hired to Artificially Appear to “Reach” the Pre-Set Conclusion (ie. Dogmatic Commitment Agenda), Same as Mosurinjohn, Ascough, & Greer

Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist [Y, Y’, I’] (explicit I’)

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
  • Y
    • Upper Left hand: no
    • Lower Left hand: Pinkie (3) + Ring (3) + Middle (3) + Index (3)
  • Y’
    • Upper Left hand: Pinkie (2) + Ring (2) + Middle (2) + Index (2)
    • Lower Left hand: no
  • I
    • Upper Left hand: no
    • Lower Left hand: no
  • I’
    • Upper Left hand: Thumb (1)
    • Lower Left hand: Thumb (0)

Conclusion for the pair of hands: No I. Has Y, Y’, I’.

Rule?? If 1 or 2 hands (whatever is shown for the figure or combined figure) shows I’, does not also show I??
Are there any instances of I’ that also show I? of course, now; shape-complete has all 4 shapes.
We know {balance scale} woman is supposed to have a thumb, but no thumb seg is shown: Is it reasonable to say that’s I’? It’s merely a weak, IMPLICIT I’, vs. very different, EXPLICIT I’.

Do Template Analysis of Ref Hand Pairs Both Ways: Require Explicit I’, or count Implicit I’?

rn i am not feeling real great about implicit counting no-thumb as
“displaying an I’ shape”. but, what about the “hand behind cloth” problem, how to “inventory” fingers of hidden hand?

  • not explicitly displaying Y
  • not explicitly displaying Y’
  • not explicitly displaying I
  • not explicitly displaying I’

todo: complete the heading above each hand-pair Ref image, then inspect TOC.

idea: 12:28 a.m. Feb. 26, 2026: analyze two hands together

I didn’t intend to upload the mobile editor view:

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman

I avoid the I’ shape; it is used for special occasions only, as in, one guy holds other guy’s wrist.

The I’ shape has a fitting place in the hand-shape language, though the I’ shape is not part of the standard Reference hand-shape pair.

txt msg 1 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

SUCCESS editing adding art annotations on mobile

😓 felt kinda scary 😨

hate learning new tool?

fear of mobile limits

but im going now; able to use the UI fine, reasonably efficient

______

brother, the big news is, im getting an acceptable strong 90% confirmation of hypothesis, in Otto psalter, the 2 well-known mushroom-tree pages, which posed particularly WEIRD finger shapes that positively scream “this is a shape-language display: you must decode to identify the referent”

A solid >90% success at assigning Y’ & Y & I shapes in each hand-shape pair,

UPDATE: 100% SUCCESS!! – the Egodeath theory ROCKS 🪨🪨

especially IF u know that u r

aiming for finding Y’ & Y & I in a given hand-shape pair,

requiring a BIT of forcing the image to fit this template/goal, a reasonable fudge-factor as required per artistic license.

A deviant problem to resolve, to Save The Theory:

one guy holds other guy’s wrist:

i cannot say the wrapping hand is YI; bc has no super-long thumb – the thumb tip is occluded and it LOOKS deliberately occluded 😨 which means the rare, I’ shape.

That motif of “hold wrist” potentially disconfirms the hypothesis of

“must form a Y’ & a Y & an I”

the hand that holds the wrist has Y’ fingers, bc the tips segments are occluded, or logically SHOULD BE READ AS occluded

i feel forced– against my semi-forced, biased reading – to designate the wrist-wrapping hand as – reluctantly – Y’I’

i dont like designating a hand-shape as I’

use that designation very sparingly & cautiously, so as to convey some extra-important meaning (by virtue of countering the usual pattern).

The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; it IS the case).

We have a precedent that is 100% reliable, on the solidest of ground:

f134 break bowman shows rare cut thumb = I’ (definitely intentional) because definitely the artist is saying:

“the threat of snake-monster eternalism retreats”

so it is POSSIBLE the Otto artist really is asserting (falsely) “I / non-branching Eternalism is not the case”

maybe that’s ok / deliberate, bc this is an unusual, special, exceptional “hold other guy’s wrist” motif

GREAT NEWS! –

Aside from slight problems that dont quite fit my hypothesis/ expectations,

on the whole, i am successfully getting >90% confirmation of my hypothesis,

that:

the objective of the medieval YI hand-shapes game is

to form and assert, in each hand-shape pair, or sometimes via a single hand,

a Y’ and a Y and an I,

as the normal case.

ie:

What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes (the ordinary-state two first, then the altered-state two)

I have not been using this order, but it seems better: group together the state-specific models.

An unenlightened, asleep person is expected to assert & experience Y & I’.
An awakened, intense mystic altered state enlightened person is expected to assert & experience, relatively, Y’ & I.

Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.

I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.

Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.

I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.

Not convinced that there is any “always seek X pattern”, 3 of 4 or 4 of 4 models”. Fall back instead to, find the 4 shapes if possible.

  • Explicit Y shape
  • Explicit I’ shape
  • Explicit Y’ shape
  • Explicit I shape

What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes

Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.

Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.

I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.

I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.

Y Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)

Y’ Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)

I Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)

I’ Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)

In the ordinary state (tight cognition):

  • Y is the case, phen’ly (but not metaphy’ly)
  • I’ is the case, phen’ly (but not metaphy’ly)

In the altered state (loose cognition):

  • Y’ is revealed to be the case, metaphy’ly and phen’ly.
  • I is revealed to be the case, metaphy’ly and phen’ly.

____

Rarely asserted; not present in the Reference Standard hand-shape pair:

The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; it IS the case).

I’ shape – Hypoth: means retreat of the threat of {shadow dragon monster}; of the threatening aspect of altered-state revealed eternalism.

Precedent/ justification:

GCP f134 row 2:

break bowman 100% certainly, explicitly means that.

_____

i already thanked u guys officially publicly at my site in a dedicated page

__________

im about to announce at our church forum that our city’s Garden (ie community) has a May 18 OFFICIAL city’s church’s HOLYDAY

per AM at our church House after last Sunday service

we shall journey tripbalz w Welches brand grape juice in 1oz plastic communion cup & bread baked in RL lab.

like Merkabah mystics, the wife might be impure (a pretext excuse) so the descenders to God’s chariot throne in the 7th innermost palace are required to bake their own special pure bread

of course MAGICAL pure bread, bc religious

non-special, non-magical bread has no place in the altered-state myth-realm, it’s a given

we use *mythic* Amanita, the uber-psychedlic

vs. mere mundane-realm Amanita, which is 3rd-rate

not journey on each May 18, but we stipulate:

journey on the convenient Fri/Sat that’s near May 18, tbd each year.

🎉🚀🤯🧘‍♂️

Crop by Michael Hoffman

I I Y’ – f134 Great Canterbury Psalter row 2 middle: swordsman sheathing or unsheathing seord to cause loss of control to hapless Psalter Viewer helplessly dependent on God pressing on the {balance scale} pivot to lower his L or R finger

Like f177 row 1 panel 2: {balance on right foot held up by God holding right hand}

When God presses the pivot of woman’s {balance scale} to make psalter viewer’s L finger (& foot) closer to the ground, loss of control is threatened; the sword is unsheathed; bow is aimed 6″ from his head as shown–

6:29 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 — the two bowman are same guy?! in two states!! sort of but YES!! 🥇🏆 in effect —

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Two Bowman Are a Single Unit, Either/ Alternately Threatening or Relenting!!

When God presses the pivot of woman’s {balance scale} to make psalter viewer’s R finger (& foot) closer to the ground, loss of control is averted. Sword is sheathed, bow is broken.

uploading an expensive bloated trophy screenshot of the hi res library on mobile i just confirmed two diff bowman YET they are IN OPPOSITE STATES !!

I am stupid for not Explicitly grasping …

I cannot believe i never thought or wrote this point!

I ALWAYS since Nov 17 2020 separated these two bowmen but they are strictly opposite, complementary states

in my favor, i certainly, always pointed out that the swordsman can be read as [say “alternately”] sheathing or unsheathing; threatening or relenting.l —

new for 2026:

… *depending* [helplessly dependent] on the whim of God pressing on the {balance scale} pivot.

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control —

2-level, dependent control, like depicted in f177 {balance on right foot held up by God holding right hand}

vs. ordinary-state, monolithic, autonomous control

check my Brown spinoff article nov 2020 re f134 image, do i ever say “paired bowmen opposite states?! Doubt, bc FEELS like a new idea / grasp/ comprehension.

WHAT AN AWESOME IMAGE — like i exclaimed when i drew box around Psalter Viewer’s two finger heights.

Finger Height = Loss of Control, with Egodeath Theory Picture Vortex

Crop by Cybermonk
2023/03/14
https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/canterbury-f134-self-threatening-psalter-reader-2023-03-07-egodeath-finger-crop.jpg?w=1678
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

txt msg 2 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

😓 “one’s an anomoly, two’s a pattern”

I CAN HANDLE IT, the sometimes including of cut [update: always LEFT!] thumb, meaning I’, meaning false denial- aha but NOTE the scroll is Closed, this helps excuse the I’ which is the countervailing case that “proves the rule”

it is going well rn assessing Otto: Entry into Jerusalem

holding my life-work theory over Popper’s trashcan of “disconfirmation”, betting the farm — and winning!, – so far …😨…

i hardly had to lie, fudge, & misrep, to force, in Procrustes-fashion, the Data to “conform, dammit!” to the Theory

🤥🗜️👖🔥🤞

txt msg 3 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

SUCCESS

i resolved the I’ problem:

it’s always the L hand, in several instances of Cut Thumb,

which fits the Pattern: L hand = unenlightened; closed scroll

txt msg 4 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

cut thumb *or , the lowered L hand’s cut Index finger in the von Trimberg image

Index is often used same as thumb (to present an I shape), often splayed apart from the 3, “branching” fingers

snatched my Theory from the flames of Dread Disconfirmation

😓😓

txt msg 5 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

couldnt Undo – hung-like – to get rid black dot but anyways

SUCCESS!!

i managed to FORCE the data to submit into my Procrustean Theory!

otto: Entry into Jerusalem

txt msg 6 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

oops poor ignored mushroom-tree

gotta put a std YI on it

txt msg 7 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

image todo: f134 row 2 Great Canterbury Psalter break bowman

YEAHBABY – LEFT hand!!

in 4 of 4 instances

has I’; cut thumb

txt msg 8 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

todays big revelation mind blowing – studied since Nov 2020 this image f134 Great Canterbury Psalter breakbowman

the two bowmen are a functional-pair of opposite states! !!

threatening or relenting

same as the swordsman that i always recognized as either sheathing or alternately unsheathing sword

= the sword of God that’s parallel on row 1

SPECIAL THANKS TO RL

RL wrote today txt msg to a church group:

“… Did you know I’m actually a god?

“Turns out I’m one of the chosen Plieadian light workers sent here on a divine mission to guide you mortal primates with my awesome gifts and abilities.

“Haha just kidding 😂

Michael Hoffman replied:

u get

the plastic pink baby rattle

Indigenous Shams award 🥉

Background About Composing This Page

This page initially was a mobile post.

Now, afterwards, I’m only doing light cleanup of this page, to preserve this historical record of the discovery process.

Titles of This Page

Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: Spot Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes; the “Spot the YI Hand-Shapes Game

drastic plan for short title:

Otto Psalter: The “Spot the YI Hand-Shapes” Game

‘Spot’ is more game-like than ‘see’.

‘See’ is odd wording.

‘Spot’ connects to puerile “Spot the Mushroom” game.

See Also

Site Map > YI Shapes of Hands & Trees
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#YI-Shapes-Hands-Trees

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