The Medieval Art Genre of Mushroom-Trees Is Psychedelic Medieval Art
My Favorite Mushroom Imagery in Great Canterbury Psalter
The Best Mushroom Crop in Each Folio Image
The Best Mushroom Crop harvested from Each Folio Image
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen todo
The Best Mushroom-Experiencing Part (Crop) of Each Medieval Art Image
Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com Is BY FAR the Most Extreme Entheogen Scholar Asserting that Everything in the Best Art Means Mushrooms
John Rush is NOTHING compared to me. ALL good art, every motif in it, ALL means mushrooms.
But which specific aspect? Wrong answer: “It means
Wrong Answer: “It Is a Mushroom”
Wrong Answer: “This Motif Means a Mushroom”; Not Wrong But Not Specific: Which Aspect of “Mushroom”?
Need Page to EMPHASIZE that I, Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com, Am WAY More Extreme than Everyone Else: I Demand Recognition as Far More Extreme than Any Other Entheogen Scholar
Thank you Jerry Brown for granting me the crown, by listing Egodeath.com FIRST in your list of extremists:
Exact copypaste quote from 2019 article:
broke up by sentence
emph added
Exact copypaste quote from 2019 article:
Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates
Since the publication of Wasson’s Soma (1968) and Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), new evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a) and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art.
Several of these books are: The Holy Mushroom (Irvin, 2008) and The Mushroom in Christian Art (Rush, 2011) – both of which contain color photo galleries – and The Effluents of Deity (Ruck & Hoffman, 2012), which does not present photos but offers extensive analysis of medieval religious art.
/ end of exact copypaste quote
Converting Brown 2019 to a Condensed Pseudo-Quote Giving Me the Crown as the #1 Extremist Ardent Advocate
Proof that Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com is the #1 asserter that mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms:
Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com, King of the Mushroom-Tree Asserters
Michael Hoffman, The King of the Mushroom-Tree Asserters; the Mushroom King
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026, fullscreen
Proof that Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com is the #1 asserter that mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms (mushroom experiencing): Browns 2019 wrote: “Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates: New evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com) and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art, such as The Holy Mushroom (Irvin, 2008), The Mushroom in Christian Art (Rush, 2011) and The Effluents of Deity (Ruck & Hoffman, 2012). Unfortunately, what at first glance appears to be a treasure trove of newly uncovered entheogenic icons, such as at Michael Hoffman’s Egodeath.com website, fades upon critical inspection.” mk (= mushroom king)
Test of the keyboard shortcut is below.
Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com Is the Mushroom King [MK]
Proof that Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com is the #1 asserter that mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms (mushroom experiencing): Browns 2019 wrote: “Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates: New evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com) and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art, such as The Holy Mushroom (Irvin, 2008), The Mushroom in Christian Art (Rush, 2011) and The Effluents of Deity (Ruck & Hoffman, 2012). Unfortunately, what at first glance appears to be a treasure trove of newly uncovered entheogenic icons, such as at Michael Hoffman’s Egodeath.com website, fades upon critical inspection.”
Copypaste of “Overenthusiasm By Ardent Advocates” Passage from Brown
Done: excerpt/condense to make a nice quote granting me crown for #1 Ardent Advocate.
Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com Is the LEADER of the Ardent Advocates, I DEMAND CREDIT AS THE #1 ARDENT ADVOCATE!
“While Irvin’s (2008) work focuses mainly on a critical reevaluation of the Wasson–Allegro schism, it also presents 43 color plates to document the presence of psychoactive mushrooms in frescoes, stained glass windows, illuminated manuscripts, and sculpted capitals. Two thirds of these images fall within the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Rush’s (2011) book is accompanied by a DVD containing 252 colored images from three time periods:
Early Christian Art (200–1000),
Middle Christian Art (1000–1550), and [IMPLIES HEYDAY OF MUSHROOM-TREES = 1000-1550; I ESTIM’D 900-1300]
Late Christian Art (1550–the Present).
[make this sound as if talking about me:]
“Unfortunately, what at first glance appears to be a treasure trove of newly uncovered entheogenic icons – the nearly 300 images presented by [Michael Hoffman! Egodeath.com] Irvin and Rush – fades upon critical inspection.
The first problem is a technical one created by accessing these European, Middle Eastern, and Russian images at a distance. By necessity, in reviewing art works from different time periods and diverse countries, Irvin and Rush have often [not Walburga image though, it is high-res – Browns are setting up an argument that’s going to backfire on them, badly] relied on low-quality, sometimes corrupted, digital copies of these works found on the Internet. This has resulted in errors in reproduction and, consequently, in interpretation.
[no, Browns cannot blame that in case of Walb – Irvin has same not-by-Julie-Brown photo, and Browns used Irvin’s copy of the non-degraded photo, to make an important, and WRONG, decision to not go to Walburga in person]
To cite one example, in plate 32 of The Holy Mushroom, Irvin (2008) describes St. Walburga as “holding a distinct Amanita muscaria in its young, bulbous state of development, complete with white spots” (p. 136). During our research trip to Germany, we realized that St. Walburga was not holding a mushroom but a vial containing healing ointment, as confirmed in numerous other artworks and accounts of her life (Figure 18).
What’s Mainly Being Depicted Is Not “A Mushroom”; Rather, “Mushroom Experiencing”; Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Model Transformation
What’s Depicted Is Not Necessarily “A Mushroom”; What’s Generally Depicted Is Mushroom Transformative Effects from Mushrooms; Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Model Transformation
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f11
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f49
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f64
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f107
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f109
The Best Mushroom Experiencing part of Folio Image f134
f134: God’s Blessing-Line Is Anchored by Oxen Guy’s Clutching Hand
Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 22, 2026, fullscreen
The midpoint of the line is precisely on the pivot of the {balance scale}.
This {balance scale}’s mechanism is drawn in unusual detail, for this purpose of identification to indicate that the pivot is focused on.
Eadwine tells us clearly (Eadwine cybernetically communicates to us unambiguously and centrally) that God’s blessing line:
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f145
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026, fullscreen
The Best Mushroom Experiencing Part of Folio Image f177
Titles of This Page
The Psychedelic 1160s: Maximal Mushroom Art Theory: The Medieval Art Genre of Mushroom-Trees Is Psychedelic Medieval Art
The Psychedelic 1160s: Maximal Mushroom Art Theory: Every Motif in All of the Best Art Means Mushroom Experiencing
EVERY Mushroom-Tree Means Psilocybin Altered State; the Panofsky Argument from Prejudiced Presupposition: Too Many Pilzbaume, So, Any One Instance Is Not Mushroom
I Am More Extreme than Everyone Else: John Rush Is Too Weak and Fails to See Mushrooms LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, but Need Detail About Which Specific Aspect of “Mushrooms” a Given Motif Refers To
All Motifs in the Best-Quality Art Mean Mushroom Experiencing, But, Which Specific Aspect of Mushroom Experiencing Is Meant by a Particular Motif?
Query: Would the German word ‘pilzbaum’ (mushroom-tree) in Medieval art be pluralized by adding an ‘s’ at the end, as ‘pilzbaums”?
AI Ans:
No, the German word Pilzbaum would not be pluralized by adding an ‘s’ to become Pilzbaums in Medieval art contexts.
Instead, the plural form follows standard German grammar, where the noun Baum (tree) changes to Bäume (trees) via umlaut, making the correct plural die Pilzbäume.
Singular: der Pilzbaum
Plural: die Pilzbäume
Adding an ‘s’ (Pilzbaums) is not the correct pluralization rule in German; it is usually reserved for genitive singular or specific loanwords.
/ end of AI ans
Huggins, EVERY Mushroom Shape in Bodleian Bestiary Means Mushrooms
His article title is wrong and prejudiced because Huggins ONLY corrects our “error” re: ONE image in ONE bestiary.
ALL images in ALL bestiaries mean mushroom experiencing, as a layer throughout all of the BEST Medieval Psychedelic Art.
In the Best Medieval Art, There Is a Mushroom-Experiencing Layer Universally
In the Best Religious Art, There Is a Mushroom-Experiencing Layer Universally
The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Art Interpretation: All the Best Art Means Mushroom Experiencing
The Psychedelic 1160s: Huggins, EVERY Mushroom Shape in Bodleian Bestiary Means Mushrooms; the Insane Prejudiced Panofsky Argument from “Too Many mushroom-trees”
Huggins wrote article 2022 ONLY rebutting Dancing Man. The other mushroom images in the bestiary feel slighted.
The Panofsky Argument from Prejudiced Presupposition: “Too Many Pilzbaume”, So, Any One Instance Is Not Mushroom
Be Sure to Blend the “Too Many Mushroom-Trees” Fallacious Argument with the Fallacious Argument from Insult of Ignorance
Panofsky encloses two mushroom-trees (censored) in order to (!) convince us that Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushroom because THERE ARE TOO MANY INTENSE M EMPHATIC MUSHROOM SHAPES IN THE GENRE, THEREFORE THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY ONE MUSHROOM-TREE COULD POSSIBLY MEAN MUSHROOM.
That’s the INSANELY prejudiced arg mentality thus i say:
PANOFSKY IS AN IDIOT, BUT WASSON (IN CONTRAST) IS A LIAR.
I AM I’m surprised evil Wasson permitted us to see ANY of Panofsky’s two letters including two art instances & citation but Wasson’s job as an EVIL PROPAGANDIST LIAR as the Popebanker, was to TRY to use PORTIONS of Panofsky’s letters, to twist our thinking to conform to Panofsky’s twisted reasoning, “too many mushroom-trees therefore any one (Plaincourault fresco) cannot possibly mean mushroom,
“This shows how totally ignorant you myc’ists are: YOUR (you affirmers; “mycologists” since 1909 French myc society Bulletin)
“YOUR PROPER REACTION SHOULD BE EMBARRASSMENT ABOUT YOUR IGNORANCE, THAT Plaincourault fresco IS NOT A LONE INSTANCE”
That’s how Panofsky argues, based on ASSUMPTION of audience sharing his prejudiced presupposition, WHICH Samorini 1997 DOES NOT SHARE, and neither do I or any right-thinking entheogen scholar since 1968.
“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example — and, since the style is very provincial, a particularly deceptive one — of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” or, in German writing, Pilzbaum.
“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”
But Panofsky’s purpose is not merely to distract by insult; he ACTUALLY BELIEVES that we share his extreme prej…
Panofsky has SUCH an extreme prejudiced presupposition, he actually thinks this is an argument!
We know Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there (inserted, other arg strategy of distraction by insult: “YOU ARE STUPID IDIOT DUMMIES”)
Panofsky’s intent is NOT to insult affirmers (“mycologists”). Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Hard to wrap head around his arg, it is SO extremely based on Panofsky’s stupidity; prejudiced presupposition – he simply, actually ASSUMES, silently, Panofsky takes it as granted, that all his audience shares this same, prejudiced presupposition.
Panofsky actually thinks this is a compelling argument! “You asserted that Plaincourault fresco means a mushroom. You could not have asserted that, except out of ignorance, eg see my two attached emphatic mushroom-trees that prove, NO WAY can this one instance (Plaincourault fresco) mean a mushroom, because, you myc’ists are ignorant that there are MULTIPLE such mushroom-trees!
Therefore, Plaincourault fresco cannot mean a mushroom; because there are no mushrooms in Christian art.
Panofsky Is an Idiot (Unconscious Extremely Prejudiced Presupposition), Whereas Wasson Is a Liar
Wasson’s motive is evil.
Panofsky’s motive is stupidity: zilch self-awareness.
Panofsky makes an UNCONSCIOUS silent argument from prejudiced presupposition:
Given that everyone knows no mushroom imagery in Christian art, no way Plaincourault fresco can mean a mushroom.
And Ronald Huggins laps this sh!t up!
You have to have INTENSE unconscious prejudiced presupposition to put forth an arg.
Panofsky argues:
“You put forth assertion that Plaincourault fresco means a mushroom.
“The fact that you do that, indicates that you are unaware that there are multiple mushroom-trees.
“Had you known there are multi, you would not have been able to even have the notion that Plaincourault fresco means mushroom.”
“We informed art historians, never have the notion that Plaincourault fresco means a mushroom, because we are informed, that there are multiple mushroom-trees – so the possibility cannot enter our well-informed minds, that Plaincourault fresco means a mushroom.
“Asserting that the Plaincourault fresco means a mushroom, necessarily implies that Plaincourault fresco is unique, the only mushroom-tree.”
(No, it doesn’t, but this shows Panofsky’s infinite stupidity ie prejudiced presupposition.)
Intense prejudiced presupposition!
Truly, Panofsky is an idiot. Zilch self-awareness of his prejudiced presupposition; he takes it as if granted, that all people share his own prejudiced presupposition, so, he thinks that this is a real, compelling argument, “too many mushroom-trees, for any one of them to mean a mushroom”.
“A Mushroom” Is a Stupid Phrase by Stupid Deniers
My Sarcasm in Writing “a Mushroom”: It’s a Stupid Phrase by Stupid Deniers
(Actual: Mushroom Experiencing, or Mushroom Imagery)
And truly, Wasson is a liar.
Wasson Thought Panofsky Is the Biggest Idiot Chump in the World
Ronald Huggins 2022
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”
No, Huggins; You Should Be Trying in Vain to Rebut the “Misappropriation” of EVERY Bestiary Image, NOT Just Dancing Man 🕺
Dancing Man IS “Dying from Poison”, Analogically; Dying Ego Death from Psilocybin
The {rock ossuary} Motif Proves that “Ego Death” Is the Correct Term
todo:
Create a page that’s a gallery of {rock ossuary} & {death} motif in Great Canterbury Psalter. death & reset; lifted out of {rock ossuary}. The two f177 guys WERE in their {rock ossuary} but now they stand lifting a 3rd guy. that is progress in my interp of the 2 empty {rock ossuary} in f177.
At least add a section in the GCP Gallery Details page.
images:
{rock ossuary} in f__
{rock ossuary} in f__
{rock ossuary} in f__
{rock ossuary} in f__
{rock ossuary} in f__
{rock ossuary} in f__
Yes, Huggins, stupid outsider, Dancing Man IS “Dying from Poison” – Ego Death from Psilocybin (f*cking ignorant, dumb-as-a-rock, outsider, literalist dumbass).
This Article Is Dedicated to Dancing Man 🕺
This article is dedicated to the Dancing Man Mushroom-Tree Artist.
Crop by Michael Hoffman todo: copy initial instance to correct page, it’s missing
Hand-Shape Pair: [Y’, YI] or [Y’I, YI]; either way, includes the big 3 of 4:
Y’
Y
I
I’ is rare, eg. Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2: break bowman. Main message is usually:
The Main Message of the Medieval YI Hand-Shape Language: I, Y’, & Y = {balance scale} & {stable column base}
Non-Branching Eternalism Is Metaphysically the Case.
Branching Possibilism Is Not Metaphysically the Case.
Branching Possibilism Is Phenomenologically (Subjectively & Experientially) the Case.
This Mental Model Affects Control Stability.
I (non-branching Eternalism) is metaphysically the case.
Y’ (branching Possibilism) is not metaphysically the case.
Y (branching Possibilism) is phenomenologically (subjectively & experientially) the case.
It’s good to, in a hand-shape pair, represent the main 3 of 4 (omitting I’, which is used but rarely): Assert:
I metaphysically
Y phenomenologically
Y’ metaphysically
Example hand-shape pairs to include at least 1 I, 1 Y’, and 1 Y:
[Y’I, YI]
[Y’, YI]
[Y’I, Y]
ie, the I can be on one hand, on the other hand, or on both hands:
01 10 11
To show a Y and a Y’, do the Y on one hand, do the Y’ on the other hand.
Might find some special finger shape, against that; this is the typical formations discussed here.
It’s crucial to not get lost in combinatorial explosion or infinite endless special-case shapes.
Keep focused like chess, on TYPICAL forms, not “gotcha” special-case exceptions.
Special deviations are important for artist creativity, but are distinct from the catalog of Standard Reference Hand Shapes.
The Reference catalog includes hand-shape pairs, so that we can get the big 3 out of 4: at least 1 each of Y’, Y, & I.
Dancing Man Has the Classic Hand-Shape Pair, [Y’I, YI]! (or [Y’, YI])
Crop by Michael Hoffman Lower hand: IY’ (all joints of pinkie shown = I), upper hand: IY’ (Index displays all 3 joints, and is splayed separately from 3 fingers); resulting hand-shape pair: the classic combination [Y’I, YI]
Regardless of whether you count lower pinkie as I or as part of Y’, doesn’t affect the result!
Either way, you end up asserting at least 1x: Y’, Y, & I.
Maybe that’s why artists seem to not be very concerned how much of the pinkie is shown.
Suppose read lower pinkie as I:
Hand-shape pair: lower hand first: [IY’, IY] = [Y’I, YI].
[Y’I, YI] includes: Y’, Y, & I, at least 1x each. Y’ 1x, Y 1x, I 2x.
A single I would be sufficient to tell the story of mental model transformation.
Suppose read lower pinkie as part of Y’:
Hand-shape pair: lower hand first: [Y’, IY] = [Y’, YI]
[Y’, YI] includes: Y’, Y, & I, at least 1x each. Y’ 1x, Y 1x, I 1x.
The single I is sufficient to tell the story of mental model transformation.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
The lazy interp/ char’zn: [Y’, YI]
but you CAN reason that the pinkie is fully visible 3 segs, nothing to block view of it, so: [IY’, IY] = [Y’I, YI]
DOESN’T MATTER, NO DIFF’C:
Principle: [Y’, YI] = [Y’I, Y] = [Y’I, YI]
All 3 of those hand-shape pairs have at least 1 Y’, 1 Y, and 1 I.
All 3 of 4 Main Points are Covered. No need to include I’, usually.
Rarely rebut non-branching Eternalism. f134 break-bowman upper hand has I’; God’s threat relenting/ receding.
Thanks, Dancing Man, for Teaching Me That You Only Need One I 🕺
As soon as I read DanMan’s YI hand-shape pair, I worried about how to read the exposed curled pinkie.
I’ve seen everything from no pinkie, to full, straight, splayed pinkie.
If the other hand includes an I, it doesn’t matter whether to count an ambiguous pinkie as an I shape (eg a snake) or not.
Principle: If One Hand Includes an I, It Doesn’t Matter Whether the Other Hand Includes an I
eg. it doesn’t matter Whether Dancing Man’s Lower Pinkie Displays 3 Segments or Fewer
Since upper hand contributes 1 Y and 1 I, we don’t need another I from the lower hand.
This implies that the 3 hand-shape pairs that include the Big 3 of 4 (Y’, Y, I) are equivalent.
[9:50 Feb. 24, 2026] In the course of making fun of Greer’s boundless ignorance, in the Dancing Man facepalm image, I noticed, based on my analysis refinement yesterday (in which I extended my YI hand-shape analysis down to the ultimate fractal level of inventorying each and every finger segment and whether splayed apart), practiced on f109 earlier today:
Lower hand: IY’ (all joints of pinkie shown = I)
Upper hand: IY’ (Index displays all 3 joints, and is splayed separately from 3 fingers)
The resulting hand-shape pair: the classic combination [Y’I, YI].
If read lower pinkie as “cut” (though nothing is blocking it – unlike the 3 fingers), hand is Y’, giving: [Y’, IY] – which is good, in that all 3 are present asserted:
I metaphysically
Y phenomenologically
Y’ metaphysically
The Resulting Compound Mental Model: I Metaphysically, Y’ Metaphysically, & Y Phenomenologically: IY’Y
The two readings of DanMan’s hand-shape pair:
[Y’, IY]
[Y’I, IY]
Either way gives all 3: I, Y’, and Y. The good thing is, look for this combination: ONE HAND ASSERTS BRANCHING Y; OTHER HAND ASSERTS Y’ (FOLDED FINGERS; OCCLUDED SEGMENTS) and one or both hands form an I.
Consider mushroom king f145: He fails to ever assert Y; he only asserts Y’ & I (multiple times): [Y’III, Y’III] – severe!
I don’t know the stats yet for compound mental model hand-shape pair:
[Y’, Y’I]
[Y, Y’I]
[Y’I, YI]
A given hand can be:
Y or Y’
I or I’
YI, Y’I, YI’, or Y’I’
Y’III
9 main combinations; YI forms. d/k what % of hands in the genre fail to match any of those.
d/k frequency of combos of those, for hand-shape pairs.
I must do more hand-shape pair assessments, and then inventory the hand-shape pairs.
Beware of combining L & R hand inventory of shapes.
[Y’I, YI] combines as Y’YII.
Mushroom king combines as Y’III + Y’III = Y’Y’IIIIII.
2x Y’
6x I
0x Y
0x I’ (usu. not expected to have any I’)
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Lower hand: IY’ (all joints of pinkie shown = I)
Upper hand: IY’ (Index displays all 3 joints, and is splayed separately from 3 fingers)
The resulting hand-shape pair: the classic combination [Y’I, YI].
Or, [Y’, YI].
That’s good too, because still includes the usual 3 of 4: Y’ and Y and I. (Not I’, which is rare to want to assert.)
I like to include Y as well as Y’ & I, because Y is the case Phen’ly, even though Y is not the case metaphy’ly.
Hypothesis: It Is Understood that the Edge Finger Can Be Read as “All 3 Segments Shown”
There is no finger in front of pinkie, occluding any of the 3 pinkie finger segments. So POTENTIALLY the finger is “not occluded” and is thus to be read as “all 3 segments displayed”.
See the f21 hand on the right, with exaggerated long pinkie displayed, vs. other hand with no trace of side of whole finger visible:
Blurry, worn, so I am full zoom at lib site full res.
Rightmost Guy’s Hand-Shape Pair, in Guys/ Books/ Scrolls/ B’s (f21)
Why I Lean Toward [Y’, Y’I]
Why I Reject the Story [Y’I, Y’I]
[Y’I, Y’I] doesn’t match the Reference, which is: [Y’I, YI] (to tell story of: The mind ends up with I and Y'[metaphysically] and Y[phenomenologically).
The mind ends up with I, Y’ (metaphysically), and Y (phenomenologically)
The Mind Ends Up with the Compound Mental Model: I & Metaphysically Y’ & Phenomenologically Y, thus with two hands: [Y’, YI] or [Y’I, YI]
I = altered-state, non-branching Eternalism asnbe
Y = ordinary-state, branching Possibilism osbp
Oddly, he never signals Y. He signals I 1x or 2x, and signals Y’ 2x.
Lump Both Hands Together? [Y’I, YI] becomes: Y’YII (!)
In this case, if lower hand is read as Y’I, tally for both hands is:
Y’I + Y’I = Y’Y’II
If lower hand is Y’, tally is:
Y’I + Y’ = Y’Y’I
A more articulate story is: Y’YII or if possible, Y’YI.
This pic doesn’t show Y’YI; it shows Y’Y’I. or Y’Y’II.
Pic shows [Y’, Y’I] or [Y’I, Y’I].
Given how emphatically different the length of the two pinkies, the only justifiable reading is: [Y’, Y’I]
Proof of [Y’, Y’I] Rather than [Y’I, Y’I], Based on Relative Length of Pinkie Fingers
If lower hand read as Y’I, that hand would have same designation as upper hand’s Y’I. Upper is DEFINITELY Y’I, emph’d.
No way the lower hand can be claimed same form as upper hand – short vs. long pinkie. So the lower hand must be labelled / classed diff’ly than upper.
Thus [Y’, Y’I], not [Y’I, Y’I], given that the two pinkie lengths differ. All 3 segs shown upper.
This proof is debatable, because you CAN say 3 segs visible on lower pinkie. You can claim pinkie is curled but all 3 segs visible/ displayed. You cannot say that of lower 3-fingers, showing 1.5 segments. So, Y’I remains a viable defensible reading, giving: [Y’I, Y’I]. You can arg that there is only a minor diff of the pinkies: whether mid & tip segments are bent (lower) or not (upper).
Concl: this is good labelling, of lower hand, with an “OR”.
I could draw lines between the 3 segments of upper & lower pinkies, making a visual case that all 3 segments are visible on both pinkie fingers.
Affects DanMan’s YI hand-shape pair assessment.
How severely the side finger is cut or how fully it is displayed, or splayed, varies a lot in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
[Y’, Y’I] – hypothesis: this is a standard form in the genre. It’s a story to tell.
[Y’I, Y’I] – hypothesis: this is rare in the genre. It’s not a story to tell.
f21: Example of Debatable Y’ or Y’I Hand-Shape
Compared to the exagerrated pinkie on upper hand, the pinkie tip segment is not displayed on the bottom hand. The other two hands, not shown, on left, are like the lower hand, but worn paint; poor view of pinkie tip detail.
Analyzing this figure in isolation, certainly I’d say [Y’I, Y’], NOT [Y’I, Y’I]. Certainly I’d say the lower hand is Y’, NOT Y’I – compared to the upper hand.
I suspect that Dancing Man’s lower hand is meant to be read, across the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, as an IY’ convention, not as simply Y’. The fact that you can view SOME of his side-of-pinkie finger segments, RELATIVE to the 3 fingers, the special, 4th finger is more visible, thus CAN arguably be designated/ classified/ characterized as IY’, “as well as” Y’.
I found that [Y’, YI] or [Y’, Y’I] is not as articulate or useful to describe mental model transformation from psilocybin eternalism-driven control-transformation, as the standard, [Y’I, YI].
Why the Best, Most Representative Standard Reference Order Is [Y’I, YI], not [YI, Y’I]
How to answer that: tell story of eternalism-driven control-transformation; mental model transformation across two states. You end up with Y and Y’ and I.
“First I knew possibilism-thinking.”
“Then I discovered eternalism-thinking.”
“Then I integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.”
“The compound mental model that I was left with going back and forth across the two states:”
Strategy: Given each formula (order), what story does it claim to tell?
[Y’I, YI] Tells the Actual Experienced Story: Even Though Y’, Still, Y
“Still, I am” – Rush, end of Caress of Steel album, 1975.
Y’, but also Y:
That matches/ describes my story:
First I only knew Y,
then in altered-state revealed I not Y,
So get rid of Y? NO!
Even though Y’, still, Y (just phen’ly, not metaphy’ly).
That’s best represented by the order: [Y’I, YI], better than by the order [YI, Y’I].
[YI, Y’I] Tells the Story: Even though Y, Still, Y’ – Not My Story
My story was: I found that Y’ is the case, so I stupidly said “get rid of Y”, but Y is permanent (phenomenologically) even after Y’ is revealed (metaphysically).
I said: Y, then I which means Y’. Oh, duh, mind not like that.
Actually, Y along with I. That story is: even though metaphy’ly, Y’, nevertheless, in the end, Y phen remains. So I pick order: [Y’I, YI].
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 24, 2026, fullscreen
Hand 1 – Y’ (can’t see extra joint of pinkie side)
Hand 2 – Y’ (can’t see extra joint of pinkie side)
Hand 3 –
Hand 4 –
Why the Classic Hand-Shape Pair Is [IY’, IY]
Analogies describe psychedelic transformation; eternalism-driven control transformation that leaves us knowing I, Y, and Y’, as the resulting compound mental model after eternalism-driven control-transformation.
I: Eternalism is revealed to be the case metaphysically.
Y’: Branching possibilities and concomitant egoic local control agency, is unreal, metaphysically.
Y: Phenomenologically, branching possibilities is the case, is the shape of our experiencing, as virtual control agents.
Need to use finger shapes to:
Assert I; metaphysically, there is non-branching Eternalism with 2-level, dependent control.
Assert Y’; metaphysically, there is not branching Possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control.
Assert Y; phenomenologically, there is branching Possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control.
That’s the message of the classic hand-shape pair (or finger-shape pair), [IY’, IY].
txt msg to AM & YW, am Feb. 24, 2026 🕺🏼
Jesus & Sophia Dancing, Two {lifted garment} Motif
Crop by Michael Hoffman
This page came out really good.
In the course of writing it, in using my facepalm crop, suddenly ⚡️ i totally solved Dancing Man’s finger-shapes! 🕺🏼
I also finished solving the hell out of [Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f109 lower right: two groups of guys] (finally 😓).
txt msg 1 to JR, a.m. Feb. 24, 2026
As part of my constructive, positive-mental-attitude scholarship,
I’m calling your symposium companion Sharday Mosurinjohn a prostitute, a religious fundamentalist, and a (female) dog,
and Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson a crook, who suppressed relevant scholarly citations and evidence.
😊👍
The page came out really good:
I have locked onto the Reference Pattern for medieval YI hand-shape pairs: [Y’I, YI], AND explained how that combination asserts Y’, I, and Y.
txt msg 2 to JR, 7:46 p.m. Feb. 24, 2026
aggh typo [fixed above]. Actually:
The Reference medieval YI hand-shape pair is [Y’I, YI].
I previously, wrongly wrote: I’
I’ is usually avoided in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
I’ Is a Special Case, Such as Receding Threat of Eternalism (the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control): the Break-Bowman
Goddammit I Just Fixed Around 6 Spots that Wrongly Said YI’ instead of Y’I! 🤦♂️😖🤬 Proof That the Egodeath Theory Is False – THINK, MAN, Engage Brain
I’ would be a denial that non-branching Eternalism (serpent shape) is metaphysically revealed to be the case, in the altered state.
That would be like falsely asserting that branching Possibilism (tree shape) is metaphysically (not just phenomenologically/ subjectively) the case.
I’ is reserved for special case, like “receding threat” in Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2: break-bowman; when God threatens too much non-branching Eternalism,
that correctly acknowledged (by being made to do “submission”) threat then recedes.
Thus I’; the {shadow dragon monster} backs off.
How the Classic Hand-Shape Pair [Y’I, YI] Asserts I, Rebuts Y, and Yet Also Asserts Y
In the Classic hand-shape pair [Y’I, YI], that combination asserts Y’, I, and Y:
Not Possibilism; Eternalism…
and yet still Possibilism, in a way.
That is part of the ultimate message of the mushroom-tree artists.
The Classic Medieval [Y’ & Y & I] Hand-Shape Pair
In the [Y’ & Y & I] hand-shape pair:
I asserts non-branching Eternalism.
Y’ rebuts branching Possibilism (via {cut branches} & {cut fingers} analogies), at the underlying metaphysical level.
Y affirms (in subjective experience) branching Possibilism, Phenomenologically in our subjective experience.
Asp-Dog, 2 Groups of Guys, and {rock ossuary}
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 24, 2026, fullscreen
[Noon Feb. 24, 2026]: The flute is I-shaped, on the Right. Contrasted with the Y’-shaped branch, on the Left.
Added more looking lines, including 4x looking at one target with one eye, other with other:
Head-only guy on left.
Handle-hat guy.
Guy on right of main guy.
Head-tilted guy left of main guy.
Added L & R, & Y & I, on asp-dog hind feet.
I kept the old line in addition to a new added looking-line, in a couple spots – that’s fair, to represent the challenge of id’ing the target of each isolated eye in a pair of eyes.
Normalizing YI Hand-Shape Designations to Start with Y, End with I
Notation and Rules for medieval YI hand-shape theory:
Moving forward, I plan to always start with Y, then I.
I have not detected any substantive meaning difference in the art between IY vs. YI hand orientation.
The normalized result is the only thing that matters in the hand-shape language:
The count of how many Y, Y’, I, & I’ formed by a hand’s visible, occluded, or splayed finger-segments.
Handedness (L/R orientation, non-reversible) can come in (sporadically & non-constraining to the mushroom-tree artists, as always).
Each Eye Looks in a Different Direction, to Connect Two Items, to Tell Us What to Analyze as Analogous
I Had a Hunch There Was Some Joke.
Compare f177 4 horses:
Two horses look at the cut branch on mushroom-tree on left
Two of the horses look at finger shapes in God’s hand holding hand of {stand on right foot} guy.
Thus joining and equating (as analogous) two elements in the image:
The cut branch’s cap/crown on the mushroom-tree on the left.
The hand-shapes/finger-shapes in God’s hand holding hand of {stand on right foot} guy.
That horses-connected message is:
Non-branching thinking (in the psychedelic eternalism experiential mode) corresponds with 2-level, dependent control, instead of monolithic, autonomous control, as experienced during ordinary-state, branching thinking – the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode.
Similarly, I need stats on hand-shapes & hand-shape pairs.
Hypothesis:
Normally, a medieval YI hand-shape pair includes at least these 3 of 4 (omit I’, rarely asserted):
1 Y’
1 Y
1 I
If we assert these 3 shapes/models, we can tell the rich & nuanced story:
Psilocybin-driven mental model transformation produces:
I metaphysically
Y’ metaphysically
yet Y phenomenologically (ie subjectively) – per Wm James’ Pragmatism that made him reject block-universe eternalism.
Wm James was wrong.
Against James, we end up *affirming* branching Possibilism *phenomenologically* (ie subjectively; experientially), = Y
and also *rejecting* branching Possibilism *metaphysically* = Y’
We affirm non-branching Eternalism metaphysically = I
We affirm non-branching Eternalism phenomenologically (ie subjectively, experientially) but it’s a really weird, abnormal experiential state = I
We dread eternalism as a threat and are glad when the threat recedes: = I’
I’ is rare to assert, eg GCP f134 break bowman’s upper hand’s visually cut thumb.
That scene, that dynamic, is truly amazing.
Guide/Key
I = non-branching Eternalism
Y = branching Possibilism
I = altered-state, non-branching Eternalism
Y = ordinary-state, branching Possibilism
Next, I need stats, to confirm this value-system; to confirm this purpose for this specialized, medieval YI hand-shape language
I am starting to collect stats, now that I learned how to inventory the 3×4 + 2 = 14 segments per hand = 28 finger segments that can be shown or occluded by the mushroom-tree artist
Attached a rare I’ image (f134 break bowman) but NEED STATS on this lang, to more accurately decipher it, and to create my own messages/ statements about the relation of possibilism & eternalism, via this specialized hand-shape language.
I got a suitable efficient notation well under development.
If I understand the medieval YI hand-shape language:
Principle of equivalence of hand-shape pairs: [Y’I, YI] = [Y’, YI] = [Y’I, Y]
in that each pair includes at least one Y’, one Y, and one I so we have the big 3 of 4 covered (skip I’ usually).
/ end of txt msg
Motivation for this Page
I was glad to develop this content within the harsh-on-Shardogged page, Mosurinjohn’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Psychedelic Evidence, of Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State
But:
The page got too long.
Hand-shape theory is not in scope of orig intent of page.
I kept enough hand-shape theory there in that page, to have Cred.
Separation of concerns; there was a clearcut diff of content topics.
wheels, {cut right trunk} touches angel’s {lifted garment}
Eadwine pointing out (affirming) the arbitrariness of handedness: This image is left-positive; left = non-branching. upper right tree: hand w/ scroll touches left-branch cap, both left-middle trees have prominent {left cut trunk}, though middle-right tree also has {right cut branch} touching angel’s {lifted garment}.
tree 1 (left): visually {cut left branch} (panaeolus cap). touches God’s circle.
Lower right: angel threatens psychonauts, one who tries to look away (in fear; furrowed brow) from open scroll while falsely affirming branching (displays fingers, no thumb sticking out).
In contrast, two guys display YI hand and look at angel instead of looking away averting eyes.
The angel is taking the first guy’s spear and hitting him w/ its butt.
hammer: YI contrast.
smith furnace in stable entryway of building , looking at Transcendent Knowledge mushroom tree, many lifted garments, sun light of seeing , open book, sun light = almond passageway is His right leg
I’m massively more equipped to interpret this artist and the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
As soon as I looked at the picture, now, I saw multiple significant confirmatory motifs/patterns.
[4:10 Feb. 24, 2026] YI hammer – gallery details page already had that point; this is NOT a new decoding; I thought it was. Keep this note, as an example of false/ re-discovery.
fire = loose cognition = psilocybin.
mushroom cluster tangle, upper right.
mushroom-tree with {cut left branch}, upper left
[4:13 Feb. 24, 2026] that mushroom-tree has a singular cap for the non-branching branch (the {cut left branch}), and a grid cap = multiple = Y = branching, for the non-cut branch.
Motivation for this Page
I added f109 or f107 recently to my list of detailed analysis pages for Great Canterbury Psalter folio images, and I want to add that picture to my church article, but that will leave a blank half page, need pick another picture – which?
People have seen the mushroom imagery in this folio image.
This image has mushroom-trees, unlike some other Great Canterbury Psalter images.
I am not committed to giving any specific interpretation details about this image in my short church article or in my longer, Journal of Psychedelic Studies article.
I cannot display the image in an article, unless I am able to explain it in detail.
Based on two significant findings a minute ago, immediately [re-]spotted [again] because of my increased interp’n power lately, it’s a “go”, to use this image.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree Branch, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree Branch”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Mushroom”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution, or a Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary?
If You Answered “Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
Huggins, Mosurinjohn, & Ascough’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Evidence for Psychedelic Eternalism
Although Their Desire for Legitimacy in the Eyes of Corrupt, Anything-But-Drugs Academia is Understandable, the Strategies Used by the Writers of This Pseudo-History Constitute a Kind of Religious Fundamentalism and Colonialist Violence Against Entheogen Scholars and Their Followers
Ronald Huggins, Sharday Mosurinjohn, & Richard Ascough’s dogged avoidance of perceiving evidence for psychedelic eternalism: although their desire for legitimacy in the eyes of corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia is understandable, the strategies used by the writers of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism and colonialist violence against entheogen scholars and their followers. smdrc
Dogged Entheogen Denier, Religious Fundamentalist Sharday Mosurinjohn
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence who is overlooking Indigenous Shams by erroneously trying to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, instead) wrote and spoke on:
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the [pathetic, invalid, illegitimate, in-vain] project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion.
“Although the desire for [fake] legitimacy and meaning is understandable [though foolish, erroneous, hopeless, and futile], the strategies used by the writers [not scholars or researchers] of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism [“and colonialist violence“].” PROJECTION MUCH?!
“The Asp, or “aspido,” is a mythical creature in medieval bestiaries described as a snake that stops up its ears to avoid being enchanted by the music of snake charmers. It presses one ear against the ground and covers the other with its tail to ignore the charming, symbolizing a refusal to hear wisdom or divine truth.”
The Anything-But-Drugs Religions Journal, Now Hiring Prostitute-Scholars in the Post-Immortality Key, Pop Scholarship Era
I guarantee that the fake Sharday Mosurinjohn gang will advocate whatever position on mushroom-trees is approved by their slavemasters in the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
F. U., fake & phony scholars for sale.
Huggins, Mosurinjohn, Ascough, & Greer: congrats for swindling control of a special issue of the Anything-But-Drugs Religions journal.
An Aztec Narcotic (Safford 1915) – Sharday Mosurinjohn is the next Safford: We looked real hard, under our real hard biased prejudiced lens, and successfully avoided seeing mushroom, because our slavemasters tell us that is the correct thing to not see.
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist, dogged denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence) is writing a book seeing psychedelics in Western Esotericism, because Wouter Hanegraaff paved the way and took the heat, for her.
Amanita Isn’t a Scheduled Substance, DUMBASS IGNORAMUS Christian Greer
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck defied legal prohibitions and scholarly decorum and used Amanita.
Christian Greer, newbie to the field, making his entrance by throwing fists randomly, hitting himself
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Greer’s Credibility Has Fallen to the Level of the Other Pathetic, Illegitimate, Compromised Deniers
There went all your credibility, Newbie Greer. Read a book, before presuming to enter a field.
Greer continues making a laughingstock of himself:
“Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck ([1978] 2008: 34) repudiated “armchair” scholarship and instead defied legal prohibitions and scholarly decorum by experimenting with Amanita muscaria themselves as a means of testing their hypotheses.
“They even went so far as demanding their detractors do the same before passing judgment on their arguments.”
— Ignoramus Christian Greer, toxic parasite dumbass: Amanita isn’t a scheduled substance.
How about you learn a little about the field you presume to invade, FALSE ACCUSER dumbass?
GTFO of the way, there’s serious scholarship to continue being done here.
Christian Greer and Charles Stang conceded that we must PLAN on finding SOME Christians used psychedelics; they are ready to debate “mainstream”, I won that already, along with the Browns.
Mainstream is what I declare it to mean: high-quality Christian practice, say 1%, is what counts as influential therefore main, in best churches and manuscripts best paintings and best art.
If 99% not psychedelics, they define “low quality” Christianity, not “mainstream” but in a stupid headcount way, with no significance here.
Ronald Huggins Is Required to Explain Why Wasson Replaced Standard Scholarly Citation and Evidence by Just . . . . Ellipses, When Both Panofsky Letters Were Crucially Relevant, Just as Huggins Treats Them
Huggins, Mosurinjohn, Ascough, and Greer have to explain the replacement of writing/publishing/citation, replaced by just ellipses: . . . . by Popebanker Wasson on p. 180 of SOMA.
Huggins puts forth AS IF substantive argumentation:
This exact mushroom branch in Day 3 panel is a tree branch, somehow, so, no mushrooms.
This exact mushroom in Day 4 panel is a tree, somehow, even though it has no branches; so, no mushrooms. 🎩🐰👉 “Hey, look over there at the smaller plants between the trees!”
Panofsky’s censored-by-Wasson letter 2 (simply see the drawer at Harvard) argues that branches prevent mushroom-trees from meaning mushrooms, even though we art historians describe mushroom-trees as “emphatically mushroom shaped” (censored by Wasson).
This enables us to make-up a “rule” for the purpose of declaring that mushrooms are “ruled out” (a phony “rule” pretending to be about each instance, but covertly about the entire class of all mushroom-trees) and with Panofsky’s branches argument in hand, we are able write down some words (congratulations, you get a medal 🥉), in a section called “Conclusion” (ie, “Arbitrary Sweeping Declaration of Commitment to Prejudiced Presupposition“) saying, “IF” a mushroom-tree has any tree features at all (which they ALL do BY DEFINITION – are you a dolt, on this “special”, taboo topic?), We must ignore the mushroom features, because there are also tree features.
IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ARGUMENT, OR A PUBLIC DECLARATION OF FAITH COMMITMENT?
No Pseudo-Argument Too Atrocious for Deniers to Gladly Embrace, to Proudly Display to Anything-But-Drugs Academia’s Prejudiced and Crooked Cover-Up Agenda
The deniers shamelessly associate themselves with fallacious argumentation.
No argument is too atrocious for deniers to gladly Embrace and firmly associate themselves with, to proudly display to Anything-But-Drugs Academia’s prejudiced and crooked agenda.
Popebanker Gordon “Perfect Conflict of Interest” Wasson, Soma, 1968, p. 180, ellipses covertly replacing Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s two attached “emphatic” mushroom-shaped trees – while in the very same paragraph, chastising and insulting mycologists for having failed to “consult”(?) art authorities who never wrote, published, or cited anything (except the “noted”, ie. censored, exception of Brinckmann’s “little” book) on this “special”, taboo topic. https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg
The prostitute Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, perfect conflict of interest.
The long awaited Hopkins 2015-2025 faceplant at finish line MASSIVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST p. 17-18.
Who’s next?
Shardogged Mosurinjohn, So Intent on Hanging onto This Anything-But-Drugs Narrative
The Strategies Used by the Writers of this Academia-Endorsed, Sanitized, Drug-Free Pseudo-History Constitute a Kind of Religious Fundamentalism
these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … the strategies used by the writers of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia is rooted in colonial violence … the multi-year history of the rejection of the manuscript … is emblematic of the way … scholars fail to communicate around psychedelic history … The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] … a myth … so intent on hanging on to this narrative
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreenCrop by Michael Hoffman
Jesus Didn’t Exist as a Single, Identifiable Historical Figure Without Whom Christianity Couldn’t Have Started; and, Religions (Including Christianity) Come from None Other Than Psychedelics, Including Amanita Mushrooms
The Allegro Violation Prohibition that Academics Are Slaves Subject To
Academic prostitutes are not permitted to assert the pair (don’t cross the streams!):
Jesus Didn’t Exist as a Single, Identifiable Historical Figure Without Whom Christianity Couldn’t Have Started.
Religions (Including Christianity) Come from None Other Than Psychedelics, Including Amanita Mushrooms.
Allegro was wrong in his smear, that Christianity at the very beginning (only!) was a disgusting fungus sex-cult. But:
Allegro was correct that Christianity came from psychedelics.
Allegro was correct that Jesus Didn’t Exist as a Single, Identifiable Historical Figure Without Whom Christianity Couldn’t Have Started.
The Allegro Violation Is True, Even Though Allegro Is Not an Entheogen Scholar and Needs to be Sidelined and Retired from Focus in Pop or Academic Scholarship.
Even though Allegro’s motive was to abuse anthropology and entheogen scholarship to smear the Church with a disgusting sex-cult fungus.
Positive Mythicism vs. Negative Mythicism
Not that I GAF about the mere negative ahistoricity of religious founder figures.
Positive, Analogy-Mapping Mythicism vs. Negative, Eliminative Mythicism
YouTube channel Derek Lambert: MythVision, an often puerile and beginners’ YouTube channel, has not constructive, positive mythicism, but merely eliminative, unprofitable, negative mythicism:
“Jesus didn’t really exist; end of analysis.”
Where Positive Mythicism and Negative Mythicism Fit in the 4-Layer Onion Model of Core vs. Periphery Topics
Outside the Gates of the City of Egodeath Theory
MythVision-type, negative mythicism is further out beyond my “outer periphery” of giving a F, in my 4-layer onion model of GAFness for my Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism and mytheme analogy.
Inner Core. – my 1997 core theory spec.
Outer Core.
Inner Periphery – Positive mythicism: what are the altered-state eternalism-driven control-transformation dynamics that are represented by analogy by the Jesus Christ, king on the cross, cave-resurrected figure?
Outer Periphery. Outside the Gates of the City of Egodeath Theory:
Beyond Outer Periphery – Negative mythicism, negative ahistoricity: Jesus didn’t really exist; end of analysis.
Asp-Dog, Branch, and Flute, with Annotations
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
Sharday Mosurinjohn’s Right Hand-Shape: YI’I’
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
Her Right hand comes close to forming same as asp-dog, I’YI’ = YI’I’. Features:
Notable: R Index cut by L pinkie. Splayed apart from 3 fingers.
Notable: R Thumb cut by R Middle.
R Middle: all 3 segments displayed.
Notable: R Ring is cut via cross-behind under R pinkie.
R Pinkie: all 3 segments displayed.
Thumb is strangely grouped with the 3 fingers.
We cannot say the pinkie is cut; all 3 segments shown. So, any Y or Y’ branching motif must be achieved via Middle & Ring.
More precise than the annotation, is: I’I’II’I, can we force any to Y?
Her Right hand-shape is like Abraham’s ram caught in thicket, a YI confused mess.
My 75% serious viable analysis, justification for saying YI’I’:
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
Splayed Index visually cut = I’.
Thumb visually cut, occluding the base segment = I’.
The 3 Fingers grouped as “branching”: consider as Y, to match asp-dog.
Middle: 3 segments shown; not cut.
Ring: base and tip shown, mid segment occluded/cut.
Pinkie: 3 segments shown; not cut. Per last night’s latest, segment-based rules, that’s considered I, often contrasted with 3 cut fingers, forming Y’.
This is artificial, forced, biased analysis toward a pre-set goal, like Mosurinjohn & Ascough make up fake pseudo-arguments to reach their Anything-But-Drugs Academia-mandated, pre-set “conclusion” of:
Do not ever see mushrooms in Christian art, or else you lose your “competent scholar” designation among the cabal.
Don’t even THINK of publishing that Jesus didn’t exist and Christianity came from psychedelics.
That Allegro Violation is Not Allowed in academia, for reasons of cultural politics.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman “Sharday Mosurinjohn YI hand-shape.jpg” 227 KB, 2:40 Feb. 24, 2026
Sacrifice of Isaac: Mushroom Thicket
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Forms the sequence:
cut & splayed apart from 3 fingers
cut
not cut
cut
not cut
Her Left hand forms a powerful Y’III, like the Right and debatably the Left hand of Mushroom King, Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f145 row 2 Right.
King Mushroom Demon: Powerful Double Y’III Hand-Shape
Analogy-Illiterate Huggins Argues “Dying or Poisoned, Rather than Tripping”, with No Awareness of Ego Death Analogy, the 3rd Option: He’s Disqualified, as “Those on the Outside”
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”
God says to Adam: You will surely die on that day you eat tree of knowledge. Which type of death, though? God is correct, in the sense of: you do die ego death on the day you eat tree of knowledge; you do not die bodily death on that day.
Die[1] = Ego death.
Die[2] = Bodily death.
The serpent and God were not in disagreement; they were talking about two different senses of ‘death’.
Like how myth & mythic art talks past outsiders such as Huggins.
Serpent Says to Adam “You Will Not ‘Die2‘ on That Day”
The serpent says to Adam: You will not die on that day you eat tree of knowledge, but will gain wisdom. Which type of death, though? The serpent is correct, in the sense of: you do die ego death on the day you eat tree of knowledge; you do not die bodily death on that day.
Against Hatsis and his buddy-in-corruption Huggins:
Dancing Man artist is aware of “poisoned, dying”, in the salamander myth, but ego death; psilocybin is like poison for Possibilism branching-thinking.
You have disqualified yourselves, Hatsis and Huggins 2022, you are not qualified to comment on mythic art, since you are ILLITERATE at analogies describing psychedelic transformation; eternalism-driven control transformation that leaves us knowing I, Y, and Y’.
Dancing Man Has the Classic Hand-Shape Pair, [Y’I, YI]! (or [Y’, YI])
Crop by Michael Hoffman Lower hand: IY’ (all joints of pinkie shown = I), upper hand: IY’ (Index displays all 3 joints, and is splayed separately from 3 fingers); resulting hand-shape pair: the classic combination [Y’I, YI]
Dancing Man’s Hand-Shape Pair
[9:50 Feb. 24, 2026] In the course of making fun of Greer’s boundless ignorance, in the Dancing Man facepalm image, I noticed, based on my analysis refinement yesterday (in which I extended my YI hand-shape analysis down to the ultimate fractal level of inventorying each and every finger segment and whether splayed apart), practiced on f109 earlier today:
Lower hand: IY’ (all joints of pinkie shown = I)
Upper hand: IY’ (Index displays all 3 joints, and is splayed separately from 3 fingers)
The resulting hand-shape pair: the classic combination [Y’I, YI].
If read lower pinkie as “cut” (though nothing is blocking it – unlike the 3 fingers), hand is Y’, giving: [Y’, IY] – which is good, in that all 3 are present asserted:
I keep copypasting this group of sections into multiple pages. Need a page where I can easily find this so I can copypaste it into every article I write.
See Also
WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY FOR YOUR CORRUPT AND COMPROMISED TEAM THAT YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH, HUGGINS?Bad Company
Web search: Asp blocks ear avoid musical enchantment – “The Asp, or “aspido,” is a mythical creature in medieval bestiaries described as a snake that stops up its ears to avoid being enchanted by the music of snake charmers. It presses one ear against the ground and covers the other with its tail to ignore the charming, symbolizing a refusal to hear wisdom or divine truth.”
Post-Analysis Reflection on the Message of {branching-message hand shape pairs}
I’m sure this technique will solve various awkward problems like “why is he holding scroll with bad, closed hand? Sln: maybe closed hand shows all 3 segments of a finger, which means the hand is to be read as Y’I, not simply Y’.
The {hand mushroom-tree} has 4 cut trunks, so are we to assess his lower hand as 4 cut fingers, or as 3 cut fingers + 3-segment pinkie?? His hand can read as …. Some hands show no finger having all 3 segments; other hands show a pinkie all 3 seg, wrapped around (curled).
3 cut fingers + 1 curled finger. maps still to 4 cut trunks??
What is the trunk-based expression equiv to the finger that has all 3 segments shown (though curled)? middle of trunk, centerline.
Goal of genre: Rebut Y and assert I, with a hand.
This revision of the tentative rules for medieval YI hand-shape theory is a blow against the importance of hand-shape pairs.
There is less sequence activity/ messaging from one hand to the other hand, than I thought.
Each isolated hand is MORE capable than I said a week ago.
The game is to represent via a hand, via which finger segments are shown, the many ways to rebut Y and affirm I.
Not to show a progression of mental models although von Trimberg does that.
My statements here apply to Great Canterbury Psalter (Eadwine), and many other artists.
Not necessarily all artists follow this same rule-set as we extract from Eadwine with his clues and indicators.
I sure have more interp’n options now that I inventory all finger-segments, and list out possible debatable readings to pick from.
A big leap forward in fluency of hand-shape language, in past two days and in the past day, past 12 hours.
I’m better at debating YI form-assignments.
I take more factors into consideration.
The Demon Difference: No Finger Shows All 3 Segments (Curled)
Jesus’ R hand lifting the {rock ossuary} guy is bereft. 3 1-seg fingers + 1 0-seg. finger.
Moving Away from Hand-Shape Pairs; Each Hand Is More Articulate than Realized, via Finger-Segments Inventory
Summary of hand-shape pairs
Each hand is norm’d to start w/ Y then I.
It’s become more arbitrary now which hand to list first, since I seem to be getting rid of notion of progression from one hand to other.
Normize to list Y’ or Y first??
intermediate person thinks “get rid of Y” ie Y’. advanced person comes back to affirming Y, but qualified possibilism-thinking: Y’.
Hard to decide. suppose list Y’ first.
Rule: arbitrary: list the Y’ hand before the Y hand.
[Y’III, Y’III] – Mushroom King
[Y’II, Y’II] – Psalter Viewer
[Y’I, YI] – {balance scale} Woman
[Y’I, Y’II’] – Break Bowman
Rare denial of I.
Denies non-branching Eternalism, to avoid control instability.
The threat recedes, non-branching is cancelled.
[Y’I, Y’II] – Swordsman
Y’II – Close Bowman
[Y’I, YI] – Guy Above Asp-Dog
Motivation for this Page
This is a problem solver because I was I WAS STRUGGLING to interp {balance scale} woman’s lower hand as simply Y’. That’s not a complete message. “I got rid of my old way of thinking.” Better is: Y’ AND I, especially if paired with “both Y and I”. eg: [Y’I, YI] I have said a week ago, this is really nice.
I am trashcanning my notion that the lower hand focuses on your initial state and the upper hand focuses on resulting dual mental model.
A week ago I said of pair of hands, the two hands can either represent:
one hand = old mental model, other hand = new mental model combo.
both hands can describe the final dual mental model. compound mental model; integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
I now reject the first option (re: reference shapes), and favor ALWAYS the second relation of the two hands.
This represents previous ERRORS, which sucks, but, an advancement in sophistication, which is good.
The first pass never nails the interp’n; always needs fine-tuning.
I looked closer and applied a more detail-driven, scientific, empirical inventory of listing every particular segment of every finger, factoring-in splay and black cut lines.
Goal is greatest detail and flexibility of hand-shape language.
Don’t lose detail; eg be able to contrast two hands that are the same except for 1 difference.
Rule/Technique: If two hands that have different form are getting assessed as having same form, the assessment is impoverished and is dropping detail/data.
All My [Y’, YI] or [Y’, Y’I] hand-shape pairs are Error? Actually [Y’I, YI] Shown?
I actually was not thrilled with lower hand showing Y’; would be nice if there is a subtle I shape that i didn’t see.
I seem to be heading away from [Y’, YI] hand-shape pair as the common Reference, to instead (looking ahead), [Y’I, YI], which expresses that:
Metaphysically, Y (branching Possibilism) is NOT the case.
Phenomenologically, especially in the ordinary-state, Y (branching Possibilism) IS the case.
Index/Middle/Ring: Y’ They show base and mid, not tips.
Pinkie I (! big change of assessment!) All 3 segments are visible. FWIW, the attachment to palm is visible.
No thumb.
Therefore THIS particular hand is Y’I. If you give some OTHER different hand that does NOT show all 3 segments of a finger, but is otherwise the same as this, we should NOT say it has same YI form as THIS hand.
L Hand (on R): IIY’
Close Bowman’s R Hand: IY’I, normed: Y’II
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Index: 3 seg
MIddle: 3 seg
Index & Middle are held together: I; not splayed apart Y.
Index & Middle splay apart from Ring/Pinkie.
Splaying is usually used to form an I; non-branching.
Two fingers pull threatening bowstring. That would be I. Branching is not a threat; non-branching is the threat.
I am posting this draft template page now, before the structure is complete, because a high pri f109 (Great Canterbury Psalter) decoding of the two groups of pointless guys on right, finally gave way last night, jackpot and completion into this morning 7:30 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom
I started that writeup in this draft page, but am continuing f109 coverage in the Prostitute Shardogged-gang, scholar-for-sale page.
general theory of medieval YI hand-shape theory is good for a page, but need to see a page only containing YI hand shapes as a gallery.
I need to see instances of each Reference hand-shape, in a dedicated gallery page.
Y
4 fingers extended; all segments displayed
no thumb segments
Y’
only 1 segment of fingers shown
no thumb segments
I
both thumb segments displayed
no finger segments displayed
I need like a zero superscript for Y when no finger segments are shown, for accounting.
Need a more elaborate notation that literally inventories what segments are shown.
I’
YI
Y’I
YI’
Y’I’
IIY
IIY’
Mushroom King, Great Canterbury Psalter f145 row 2 right
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Inventory of Finger Segments
Fractal Analysis of Branching to the Extreme
Thumb segment 1
Thumb segment 2
Index finger segment 1
Index finger segment 2
Index finger segment 3
Middle finger segment 1
Middle finger segment 2
Middle finger segment 3
Ring finger segment 1
Ring finger segment 2
Ring finger segment 3
Pinkie finger segment 1
Pinkie finger segment 2
Pinkie finger segment 3
Duplicate the list for other hand.
Todo
todo: copy sections listing von Lindren hand examles not filled in barely filled in so far, that should be the only tihikng in this page, mabye more than pairs.
if all 3 segments of finger are displayed
if 2 segments of finger displayed
if 1 segment of finger displayed, cut; notation: ‘ ie, I’ or Y’
if a hand has
index 3
middle 2
ring 1
relate to tree, show a tree
Translate Between Hand and Tree
Hand Is Articulate/ Precise/ Notation-Translatable/ Ergonomic
Feet are Not Articulate/Precise.
YI hand-shape pairs
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026. fullscreen
The Break Bowman Hand-Shape PAIR includes YI’, f134 row 2 break bowman
Yes we found an “instance of a hand”, but artist constraint: figure has an extra hand, what to do with it?
{cut finger} f134 Psalter reader L hand Middle cut by Index
{cut thumb} f134 break bowman
YI
Y
I
the list is in hand-shape theory page, make ….
to
, draw LOOKING LINES OVERLAY VS HAND
Apply Both the Looking Lines Overlay – eg today f134 blessing lines go through 2 bins Cubensis and pointing, don’t only think in terms of hands
Don’t Overemphasize Hands to the Exclusion of Pointing; Pointing Is Key
Hands Are Key, Pointing Is Key:
Routinely Analyze All Hand-Pairs
Routinely Analyze All Tree Branching Form
Routinely Analyze All Pointing
Routinely Analyze All Looking Lines
List of Aspects to Routinely Analyze
Looking Lines
Hand pairs
tree branching form tbf tree branching form
hand branching form hbf
tree branching form [TBF]
hand branching form [HBF]
looking lines [LL]
looking lines instantly give the answer.
takeaway rule: trace all looking lines
THE LOOKING-LINES OVERLAY.
The which foot down overlay.
The sleep/awake touch head special case convention.
phallic garment vs
{phallic garment}
{lifted garment}
{lifted garment}
{john rush’s celestial erection}
{phallic garment} is more specific than lifted {lifted garment}
Many {lifted garment} are not phallic; phallic is the minor case, not the normal case. eg:
This instance of a {lifted garment} is a {phallic garment}:
f134 row 1 L, Ideal Student has a {lifted garment} that is a {phallic garment}.
{mushroom hem}
phallic garment motif… isn’t that better than Rush celestial erection? the Egodeath theory lexicon is superior.
Answer to week ago q: YES, exists in Great Canterbury Psalter: YI’, f134 row 2 break bowman.
I started headings for similar to this page idea, hidden within a long theory hand-shape theory page.
now tho i want to bound the focus to isolated hands or more mileage out of hand-shape pairs
easy fast useful relevant: simpleton notion: analyze isolated single hand.
objection/problem: you have both hands, [devo praying hands] whats the artist spoded to do with the EXTRA HAND to depict, still remains to be painted
A Given/ Constraint for the Artist: A Figure Has a Left Hand and a Right Hand (Feet, Limbs, Fingers, Toes Direction of Analysis of Hand or Tree
Start analyzing from least branching move out toward more branching, listing YI branchouts along the way bough = major branch. trig = most minor branch.
the real situn artist faced with is: GIVEN: A FIGURE HAS TWO HANDS, (not just 1 isolated hand!) and, one hand is L, one hand is R.
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree Branch, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree Branch”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like a Tree, or a Mushroom?
Crop by Michael Hoffman
If You Answered “Tree”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Mushroom”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
Public Test of Moral Fiber, Integrity, and Credibility: Do You Say This Looks Like Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution, or a Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary?
If You Answered “Wheat Harvesting and Grain Distribution”
You are on Team Popebanker, with 100% conflict of interest, and zero credibility.
Thank you for clearly letting the world know that you are on the side of censorship (Wasson p. 180), anything-but-drugs propaganda, and have made a career out of being paid to lie.
If You Answered “Cubensis Grow Op and Dispensary”
You are sane and honest and have integrity.
The Anything-But-Drugs Religions Journal, Now Hiring Prostitute-Scholars in the Post-Immortality Key, Pop Scholarship Era
I guarantee that the fake Sharday Mosurinjohn gang will advocate whatever position on mushroom-trees is approved by their slavemasters in the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
F U, fake phony scholars for sale. Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough Greer: congrats for swindling control of a special issue of the Anything-But-Drugs Religions journal.
An Aztec Narcotic (Safford 1915) – Sharday Mosurinjohn is the next Safford: We looked real hard, under our real hard biased prejudiced lens, and successfully avoided seeing mushroom, because our slavemasters tell us that is the correct thing to not see.
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist, dogged denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence) is writing a book seeing psychedelics in Western Esotericism, because Wouter Hanegraaff paved the way and took the heat, for her.
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Shardogged Has No Position of Her Own, but Sells Whatever Position of the Day to Whatever Audience of the Day
Jesus f*cking Christ Shardogged, how about following truth and sense, instead of the trendy, shifting winds of Pop allowable shoclarship and anything-but-drugs academia scholarship.
Given her walkback but not walkback, “Don’t mis-hear me”, Shardogged proves that she HAS NO POSITION and will shift arguments on the spot, as needed, JUST LIKE A POLITICIAN will say whatever sells at the moment, no bother with integrity and consistency.
Is her position that Western entheogen scholarship is colonial violence and relig fund?
Yet she turns around and writes a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
That verse is from what can be considered the peak of the ultimate Classic Rock song, Stairway to Heaven, by Led Zeppelin. The full lyric and analysis:
Here is a partial analysis of the song:
And you know sometimes words have two meanings [key terms of agency meaning-flip]
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven [entire mental model transforms systematically]
And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason [entheogenic drunkenness is sober reason]
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forest will echo with laughter [Zen laughter at vanishing of delusion through meaning-flipping]
If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow
Don’t be alarmed now [self-control seizure panic reaction]
It’s just a spring clean for the May Queen [Isis, the uncontrollable transcendent controller, who rules over the cosmos even including Fate, is exorcising your freewill demon]
The line is precisely drawable with no guessing, per the artist. Align:
God’s blessing finger-pair.
The {balance scale} pivot.
Oxen guy’s hand grabbing invisible line, and pointing to the invisible line above his clutching fist.
todo: crop focusing on those 3 points ruler-alignment points.
Precedent for precise lines (a ruler was used by artist & by me) in this image: guy with blue vase looks at bins; see the image with looking-lines or pointing-lines.
this is a true not false dilemma
Yes there are two paths you can go by [egoic vs. transcendent thinking]
but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on [switch to the transcendent interpretive framework or mental worldmodel regarding self, world, change, time, will, and control]
And as we wind on down the road [a person’s labyrinthine worldline frozen in spacetime, contrastible with a “moving through time” perspective]
Our shadows taller than our souls [egoic mental contruct of ego as control agent looms large in perception, but there is no substance to it (soul is delusion, only spirit is our real being, per Valentinian/Pauline body/soul/spirit model]
There walks a lady we all know [Queen of Heaven, or fallen Sophia]
Who shines white light and wants to show [white-light pure-awareness perceptual feedback]
How everything still turns to gold
And if you listen very hard [profound mental relaxation, true meditation, relax knot of accustomed thinking, perceive, and let the alternate, transcendent worldmodel/perspective on thinking and controllership leap into view]
The tune will come to you at last [the meaning of this song and the transcendent meaning-network remapping key terms about personal control agency]
When all are one and one is all [nondual unity consciousness]
To be a rock and not to roll [become aware of the Platonic, frozen timeless block-universe perspective rather than the Aristotelian, moving-through time perspective]
/ end copypaste from Egodeath.com, date of composition TBD, check Egodeath Yahoo Group Max Freakout Archives where no one ever returns
Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck violated law and schol decorum and used Amanita.
Christian Greer, newbie to the field, making his entrance by throwing fists randomly, hitting himself
There went all your credibility, Newbie Greer. Read a book, before presuming to enter a field.
Amanita Isn’t a Scheduled Substance, DUMBASS IGNORAMUS CHRISTIAN GREER
Greer continues making a laughingstock of himself:
“Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck ([1978] 2008: 34) repudiated “armchair” scholarship and instead defied legal prohibitions and scholarly decorum by experimenting with Amanita muscaria themselves as a means of testing their hypotheses.
“They even went so far as demanding their detractors do the same before passing judgment on their arguments.”
— Ignoramus Christian Greer, toxic parasite dumbass: Amanita isn’t a scheduled substance.
How about you learn a little about the field you presume to invade, dumbass? GTFO of the way, there’s serious scholarship to continue being done here.
Christian Greer and Charles Stang conceded that we must PLAN on finding SOME Christians used psychedelics; they are ready to debate “mainstream”, I won that already, along with the Browns.
Mainstream is what I declare it to mean: high-quality Christian practice, say 1%, is what counts as influential therefore main, in best churches and manuscripts best paintings and best art.
If 99% not psychedelics, they define “low quality” Christianity, not “mainstream” but in a stupid headcount way, with no significance here.
A redemption arc for Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough exists: The Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History. They have to explain the replacement of writing/publishing/citation, replaced by just ellipses: . . . .
Popebanker Gordon “Perfect Conflict of Interest” Wasson, Soma, 1968, p. 180, ellipses covertly replacing Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s two attached “emphatic” mushroom-shaped trees – while in the very same paragraph, chastising and insulting mycologists for having failed to “consult”(?) art authorities who never wrote, published, or cited anything (except the “noted”, ie. censored, exception of Brinckmann’s “little” book) on this “special”, taboo topic. https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg
The prostitute Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, perfect conflict of interest.
The long awaited Hopkins 2015-2025 faceplant at finish line MASSIVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST p. 17-18.
Who’s next?
Who’s Next? Hopkins Religious Leaders Study: Massive Conflicts of Interest by Prostitution Science
Throw Grifty’s CEQ-POS in Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff’s REJECTED wastebasket.
Go back to Adolph Dittrich’s OAV1994 > Angst Dread DED dimension, ALL 21 Dread -DED questions.
OAV 1994 (Oceanic Boundlessness, Angst of/ Dread of Ego Dissolution, Visionary Restructuralization) psychedelic psychometrics effects questionnaire by Adolph Dittrich
Who’s Next? Shardogged
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk Mar. 14, 2023 fullscreen
God controls the {balance scale} per the blessing line giving {stable column base} pointed to; even the {stand on left foot} fool sowing Cubensis agrees.
Finger-Branching Theory in Development
todo: post my txt msgs that were sent to AM on Sunday a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
Corrections of theory are not a failure; they are a success. Correcting errors from … not errors; it is FIRST-PASS ANALYSIS, which exposes special-case errors, = sophistication increase.
Check out the two corrections on the annotated image:
psalter viewer L hand
swordsman’s L hand
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “f134 row 2 finger classification theory in development.jpg” 9:43 a.m. Feb. 22, 2026, fullscreen
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Mobile photo of screen. 283 KB: todo: replace & delete
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, 946 KB: todo: replace & delete
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Mobile photo of screen. 1 MB: todo: replace & delete
Solve by Finger Segment Inventory, Hand Hold Sword Sheath: Analysis Process Concluding (Show Your Work) IIY’, forming hand-shape pair: [Y’, IIY’]
mushroom king double pointing in f134, his hand is IIY’ via different segments.
move from non-branching to branching; tree: trunk to leaf hand: forearm to fingertip
1 means displayed 0 means not displayed
v1: first pass: mixed up Index vs. Pinkie, ERROR:
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base)
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip)
1 – Index finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Index finger segment 2
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Middle finger segment 2
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Ring finger segment 2
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip)
Analysis:
Entire thumb displayed all segments EVEN THOUGH NOT ATTACHED; where the base seg of thumb attach palm is not shown, but,
DECISION MADE:
Displaying the attachment of a finger to palm is not important
Whether all segments of finger are shown is what’s important what counts, for “cut finger” or “not cut finger”.
Thumb = I (not I’), because both segments are shown: base & tip. Attachment of base to palm: not shown, not important.
Index = I [sic; Pinkie] (not part of Y’), all 3 segs are displayed. Attachment of base to palm: not shown, not important.
Middle/Ring/Pinkie = Y’ [sic; Ring, Middle, Index] Each finger lacks base. The 3 are together grouped as branching; and, modified to Y’ together by omitting base segment from each of the 3 fingers.
Therefore the hold-sheath hand-shape is IIY’.
v2 corrected Index vs. Pinkie: Improved spacing format:
New! Condensed Finger Inventory Format
A complete hand, all finger segments displayed:
Thumb: 11
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Thumb: 11
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Try other order, because fingers come before thumb, ie, possibilism-thinking (4 fingers) before altered-state discover eternalism-thinking (thumb).
Index finger: 111
Middle finger: 111
Ring finger: 111
Pinkie finger: 111
Thumb: 11
Shorthand:
111
111
111
111
11
Streamlined:
111
111
111
111
11
Order: Index through Pinkie, then Thumb.
Reference Y’ hand-shape (no thumb, no tips, no mid-segments; base of 4 fingers only:
100
100
100
100
00
Example of Y’ via [100, 100, 100, 100, 00] (= base segment of each finger shown, no other segments)
This was a less efficient momentary notation] prior to the GREAT, breakthrough notation [111, 111, 111, 111, 11]
Index: Base: 0, Mid: 1; Tip: 1 Thumb Tip 1
this is the Key but not the efficient condensed, [matrix flag bit set] to use in practice eg to print on top of art as overlay.
d/k how this “segment displayed” inventory notation works w/ the {splayed finger} motif. Usu the Index or Pinkie has a {splay {sf sf
keyboard shortcut
{splayed finger} {sf
{grouped fingers} {gf
Hypothesis: To fully describe, in shorthand, a hand’s shape, need two kinds of info:
if Index or Pinkie: splayed?
if thumb, 2 segments; finger: 3 segments:
1) is base segment shown?
2) is mid segment shown? (n/a for thumb)
3) is tip segment shown?
How to add “is splayed” to this spelled-out verbose list? to the matrix notation?
Verbose Inventory of All Finger Segments, sans Splayed
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip)
instead, list Thumb last. add “shown?” suffix separate the fingers
0 – Index finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Index finger segment 2
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Middle finger segment 2
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip)
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Ring finger segment 2
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base)
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip)
see the more developed, “splay” version below.
Shorthand Matrix Notation of All Finger Segments, sans Splayed: [111, 111, 111, 111, 11]
Verbose Inventory of All Finger Segments, Incl. whether Splayed
The hold-sheath hand, of swordsman, in GCP f134 row 2 group 2 (threateners/ relenters);
Skip for now his easy hand: Y’
To develop this inventory notation, analyze his difficult hand: hold sheath.
Verbose Inventory Notation for Hold-Sheath Hand, Emits Analysis Form Identifier IIY’
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026 The hold-sheath hand, of swordsman, in GCP f134 row 2 group 2 (threateners/ relenters)
0 – Index finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Index finger segment 2 (mid) shown?
1 – Index finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Index finger splayed?
0 – Middle finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Middle finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Middle finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Ring finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Ring finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Ring finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 2 shown?
1 – Pinkie finger segment 3 (tip) shown?
0 – Pinkie finger splayed?
1 – Thumb segment 1 (base) shown?
1 – Thumb segment 2 (tip) shown?
Assess based on the above inventory: goal: ID this hand-shape as IIY’.
Index, Middle, & Ring grouped, base segments missing = Y’
Pinkie shows all segments = I
Thumb shows all segments = I
from wrist to tip: IY orientation.
Therefore, this hand is: IIY’
ie, list Pinkie (close to wrist) first, 3 fingers 2nd. NOT Y’II; that would be wrong direction analysis from leaf to trunk; from fingertips to wrist (wrong).
Hand-shape pair for hold sheath: [Y’, IIY’]
/i
Shorthand Matrix Notation of All Finger Segments, incl. whether Splayed: [1111, 111, 111, 1111, 11] bitmask
Format/syntax of the Hand Segments & Splay bitmask:
Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?
That is INADEQUATE to describe swordsman’s hold sheath’s {cut thumb} = important, rare I’ form. con’t w/ improvements after analyze Psalter Viewer hand-shape pairs.
Psalter Viewer’s hand-shape pair, Analyzed via Bitmask Matrix Notation (verbose then condensed)
What order to list the assessment? Wrist-to-tip: L to R: IY; Index, thumb, 3 fingers… error. cram more detail; sep the Middle finger.
Index assess: I
Thumb assess: I
3 fingers assess: Y’
take 2:
Conclusion: hand-shape pair of Mushroom King: [IIY’, IIIY’]
If Ignore (Why?) Black Line at Index Base: [IIIY’, IIIY’]
Try the more precise, detailed assessment char’zn; respect the black line …. but, we determined that “missing segment” is definitive, while “seeing finger attachment to palm” is not definitive, eg swordsman (due to limits of art, when grab rod w/ fingertips shown to viewer).
If we are too eager to declare “that is a cut!” fine tune
Fine-Tuning What Constitutes “Cut”
Present hunch: if all 3 segments of a finger are visible, the finger is considered “not cut”, regardless of whether attachment of base of finger to palm has black line.
To confirm, assess various hands and hand-shape pairs. Generates too many I’s, too few Y’ assessments?
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Index: I
Thumb: I
Middle: I
2 fingers grouped: Ring&Pinkie. Y’
Result: IIIY’ is TRIPLE AFFIRMATION OF NON-BRANCHING (VIA I 3X) + AFFIRMATION OF NON-BRANCHING (VIA Y’ [RING&PINKIE])
That’s a hypothetical reading of motif {finger with all segments shown, wrapped around other digit}
L hand’s base of Index is not 100% shown, there is black line cutting base. R hand more powerful.
There’s an arg that the two Index fingers are different. L hand Index has cut base. So a totally viable assessment of L hand is:
I, I, Y’; II
Alt Char’zn of L Hand of Mushroom King = IIY’ (vs. IIIY’); weakens the king but preserves more detail, for the hand-shape pair
Decoded {entire Index finger wraps around Thumb} = I Form! Enables 3x Assertion of I!
ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR REVISION OF HAND-SHAPE THEORY: DECODED {entire Index finger wraps around Thumb}, ALLOWING 3X ASSERTION OF I
R Hand (on L) of Mushroom King
Same as L hand, but flipped. There IS a difference: L hand base of Index finger has black line; R hand lacks that. Even R hand has a minor splotch of black ink.
Inconclusive: Black line at base of finger = “cut”??
Cybermonk’s Abstracted Rules for Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory
Rule: Normalize with Y first, I 2nd.
Rule: the abstracted YI form can swap 1st & 2nd eg YI ~= IY.
Y’II ~= IY’I ~= IIY’
notation: read ~= as “is equivalent to”
Major Re-Assessment of 4 Cut(?) Fingers, No Thumb: f134 {balance scale} Woman’s Lower Hand
w notation!! 11:27 Feb. 23, 2026
1:34 Feb. 23, 2026
Hypothesis Proposal: IY’ not Y’
Web Search: bitmask
https://www.google.com/search?q=bitmask – “A bitmask is a programming technique that uses bitwise operations (AND, OR, XOR) on binary numbers to isolate, set, or toggle specific bits within a data structure.
“It efficiently stores multiple boolean flags in a single integer, reducing memory usage and improving speed.
Common uses include game development, device driver control, and handling file permissions, and medieval YI hand-shape theory.”
I’ = Qualified Eternalism-Thinking Is Depicted(!): Breaking the Bow of the {shadow dragon monster} threat
God retreats the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
By pushing on the pivot of the {balance scale} that the woman holds, God reveals his threat of loss of control, and reveals his ability to retract that threat.
Bowman breaking bow to not threaten loss of control: God retracts his threat; the bowman’s upper thumb is visually cut, as if to say non-branching snake is false. Not “false”, but, qualified.
Prime doesn’t mean simply “get rid of” or simply “false”. Prime means “qualified”.
notice there IS such a thing as I’; saying a falsehood; or, QUALIFYING the assertion of non-branching; like my year-ago principle “qualified eternalism-thinking”
txt msg 1 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images:
feb 21 9:30 am: f134 row 3 R: guy clutches God’s pointing-line white line
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row 2 attackers, but, didn’t strikethrough option 1 & 3 yet
feb 22 8:51 am sent Mushroom King f145
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row 2 attackers, strikethrough on option 1 & 3
when figure holds an item with fingertips aimed at viewer, naturally this cuts some fingers to some extent
BUT not nece. all visual cuts are equal?
it preserves more details/data, by asking “is the finger to be CONSIDERED as entirely cut (relatively cut), or not?”
general principle for interp. what counts as a “cut” finger or thumb
on what principle should we choose between descriptions of his Left hand holding sword blade sheath?
IY’
IIY’ <– want to justify picking
I’Y’
if I pick the description IIY’
that means I & I & Y’
which is a very strong assertion of non-branching I & negation of Y branching
that shares the same values/ message as the mushroom-tree artists have
strongly relevant Reference point: in folio f145,
the mushroom king points with I I Y’ with each hand;
twice affirming the I shape (non-branching {snake}) and repudiating the Y shape (branching {tree})
so, lean toward finding / seeing the IIY’ hand-shape
proposal: pick the option which affirms “I” and “I” (double assertion of I) and negates branching; depicts Y’)
i have leniency of how to describe L fingers holding blade of sword
i have to choose between several options
i choose the option that the mushroom-tree artists favor
what counts as “limb visually cut” (finger cut, thumb cut (perish the thought! I (non-branching snake worldline in block-universe) is altered-state Revealed Truth))
or “not all finger segments shown)
when the figure is holding a handle with figertips aimed at viewer?
txt msg 2 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
how to rule out option 1 & 3, for f134 row 2 Middle, for assigning a YI hand shape to swordsman’s L hand holding blade sheath:
option 1: IY’
thats a favored message but if we say these 4 fingers that {touch blade} are cut, we would – to be consistent – have to say this thumb is cut as well by same token — the cut thumb idea hurts; why say not-I?! perish the thought.
the whole message of the mushroom-tree genre is to affirm I / & qualify/restrict Y (we only affirm Y when we also emphasize I)
option 3: I’Y’
again unacceptable, to claim I’.
The message is I, not ever I’.
altered-state Revealed Truth is I (not I’!)
that leaves my preferred option 2: I I Y’
and more sweepingly, this gives us an important, key interp. principle:
favor interp which asserts I and qualifies Y (asserts Y’)
txt msg 3 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
pivotal result, crucial decision for setting the interpn rules in medieval YI hand-shape theory
txt msg 4 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
prior to that puzzle, this am i solved & made interesting correction, or improved more sound interpn of:
L hand shape of psalter viewer
saying just YI loses data
we can be more precise and powerful by char’ize as Y’II
iow, i officially commit to:
the Mushroom King principle:
there is such a thing as
I *AND* I (AND Y’)
double-hand double I’s
“I is the case. I said, I is the case. and Y is not the case. this is what the blue fruit teach”
txt msg 5 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images:
feb 22 8:51 am mobile photo of Great Canterbury Psalter local image work in progress on f134 row strikethrough correction on Psalter Viewer/artist
! thats what’s signalled by L hand Middle finger tip showing
the middle finger is NOT = Index
relatively, entire Index is shown; Middle finger is strongly visually cut:
the Middle fnger’s base & tip are separated by the Index finger. u cant lump Index finger in w the 3 definitely cut “branching” fingers
that hand shape definitely shows the detail Y’II
not simply YI
this shows how strongly the Index finger often is used as I in contrast w Pinkie+Ring+Middle grouped as “branching”
while Index means “non-branching”
txt msg 6 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images
zoom detail on his L hand touching the Pssalter: the strikethrough and especially Middle cut by Index
an interpn pun:
I means Index finger
I stands for Index finger (so to speak, as a sophisticated joke)
Index finger CAN be grouped with branching Y fingers in some hand-shapes
or alt’ly, index finger, fully shown, is contrasted with cut grouped 3 fingers (Y’)
txt msg 7 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
Index finger when fully shown (not cut) is read as I ; non-branching {snake}
rather than lumped in w the 3 fingers that represent branching (and qualified-branching ie Y’)
txt msg 8 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
todo: images
Real progress! 🏆🎉
in extracting the mushroom-tree artists’ rules in the hand-shape language
txt msg 9 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
images:
break bow. detail of entire bow and both hands.
Crop by Michael Hoffman. 204 KB
photo of manakin hand doing break-bow hand-shapes
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com. 500 KB
upper hand on bow – thumb cut(!), = I’ = negation of non-branching = {the threat of non-branching} retreats (experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control)
Reassessment of What I’ve Been Classing as Y’ Might Be IY’ Instead! Because His PINKIE SHOWS ALL 3 SEGMENTS, AND EVEN THE ATTACHMENT TO PALM, = I – NOT Cut!
I hate mistakes – but, they are a sign of improvement.
My mistake was, insuff detail:
Rough analysis first at overall hand shape.
Then I “fixed” that crudeness by vaguely assessing each finger.
Now I am fixing THAT crudeness, by inventorying all segments of all fingers.
Shall I not find, report, and fix bugs in the Egodeath theory’s Mytheme Analogy theory? This gives me flexy options.
I never get it right the first pass. My first pass of writing YI assessments indicators overlay on image crops, is BOUND to be crude and unrefined and wrong, like failing to perceive the {hand mushroom-tree} f107 row 2 R.
Puzzle: Why Left hand so artificially contorted to break bow?
(notes: breaking the bow} here represents receding threat of experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control)
Solution: to depict cut thumb.
That is counter to usual; usu u would NEVER show cut thumb; bc thumb = snake shape = altered-state Revealed Truth of non-branching of possibilities (cut the branches)
txt msg 11 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026
there are no accidental items on God’s blessing-hand pointing line
therefore not coincidence a fist holding nothing as if a handle IS significant; artist certainly knowingly put fist clutching on that line
txt msg 12 to AM .m. Feb. 22, 2026
to confirm that the line also intentionally goes thru BOTH mushroom dipensary bins, the artist assures us the pointingline goes thru both bins deliberately. god is signalled as DEFINITELY point at mushrooms and {stable column base} at bottom
the fist is to align your ruler over mushrms and {stable column base}
to help the goal, of maximum communication & the best teaching aid
txt msg to AM/RL/ES 8:16 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
God’s Blessing-Line Is Anchored by Oxen Guy’s Clutching Hand
Oxen Guy’s Hand Clutching Air (and Pointing with IY Fingers)
As I was positioning the line to make a crop from blessing fingers to clutching fist, I discovered that it’s easy to make the line precisely intersect the pivot point, which the artist has drawn in detail. Sent the announcement text message at [8:16 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026], had to make a special crop showing the editing-mode line with blue endpoint circles and green midpoint circle.
another discovery re: God’s blessing pointing-line in Great Canterbury Psalter folio f134:
the pivot point of the {balance scale} is precisely at the midpoint of the invisible line held by oxen guy
the artist (Eadwine) provided evidence/ indicators that God’s blessing pointing-line intersects both of the Cubensis bins, via these anchors to align your ruler: (God’s blessing fingers & oxen guy’s fist clutching air)
artist confirms my hypoth that the line intersects {balance scale} pivot, which mechanism the artist draws in high detail
we know that the pivot motif is important bc it is precisely halfway between the blessing fingers & hand clutching air
________
a similar, follow-on line:
guy in tree with fist clutching air holds a line intersecting {cut right trunk} and a Y’ hand on row 2 and another on row 3
group of 7 guys mostly hiding hands, looking in directions, one hand shows a thumb (non-branching Eternalism) only, holding lifted (phallic) garment (altered-state indicator).
Solution:
splayed Index finger (non-branching Eternalism) touch Right arm
3 fingers grouped together (branching Possibilism) touch Left arm
= von Trimberg:
fingers fully displayed (branching ordinary-state Possibilism) touch Left arm
thumb (non-branching Eternalism) touch R arm
By convention in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees},
Left is mapped to branching possibilities, like Everett manyworlds
Right is mapped to non-branching Eternalism, like Minkowski absolute four-dimensional spacetime; block-universe eternalism with preexisting future
many worlds (Left) vs. single block universe (Right)
just because it’s the first non-f11 image I saw, and I put it at wasson article gallery at Egodeath.com http://egodeath.com/christianmushroomtrees.htm#_Toc134497563 in 2006. It never clicked w/ me. Has good mushroom cluster. 2 vine-leaf trees , 2 mushroom-trees.
Why Does Huggins Call the Botanically-Matching Panaeous a “Tree”?
Because Prostitute Huggins Is Paid to Lie and Cover-Up, by Anything-But-Drugs Academia, Allied with Crooked Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita — March 2006 article for the Journal of Higher Criticism – external link to Egodeath.com. Extremely good article. Tons of valuable quotations & commentary, research contributions from Jan Irvin.
Christian Mushroom Trees — May 2006 gallery for the Wasson/Allegro article – external link to Egodeath.com
Shardogged Mosurinjohn
these writers’ dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia is rooted in colonial violence … the multi-year history of the rejection of the manuscript … is emblematic of the way … scholars fail to communicate around psychedelic history … The persistence of the belief that ancient Western religions were fundamentally psychedelic [is] … a myth … so intent on hanging on to this narrative
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Crop by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreenCrop by Michael Hoffman
Mosurinjohn’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Psychedelic Evidence, of Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence who is overlooking Indigenous Shams by erroneously trying to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, instead) wrote and spoke on:
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the [pathetic, invalid, illegitimate, in-vain] project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion.
“Although the desire for [fake] legitimacy and meaning is understandable [though foolish, erroneous, hopeless, and futile], the strategies used by the writers [not scholars or researchers] of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism [“and colonialist violence“].” PROJECTION MUCH?!
“The Asp, or “aspido,” is a mythical creature in medieval bestiaries described as a snake that stops up its ears to avoid being enchanted by the music of snake charmers. It presses one ear against the ground and covers the other with its tail to ignore the charming, symbolizing a refusal to hear wisdom or divine truth.”
Popebanker Gordon “Perfect Conflict of Interest” Wasson, Soma, 1968, p. 180, ellipses covertly replacing Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s two attached “emphatic” mushroom-shaped trees – while in the very same paragraph, chastising and insulting mycologists for having failed to “consult”(?) art authorities who never wrote, published, or cited anything (except the “noted”, ie. censored, exception of Brinckmann’s “little” book) on this “special”, taboo topic. https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/img_5225.jpg p180
Acknowledge Wasson’s Fraud and Censorship and Avoidance of Standard Academic Practice: Write, Publish, Cite
The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:
Sharday Mosurinjohn Projecting Her Own Religious Fundamentalism onto Legit Entheogen Scholars, Committing Violence Against Her Betters
to Score Worthless Points in the Closed Eyes of Anything-But-Drugs Academia, to Profit from Their Academically Corrupt Cover-Up Operation
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Asp-Dog, Indicated as Female, Great Canterbury Psalter Folio f109
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Psychological Origin and Ups and Downs of this Draft Post
p.m. Feb. 20, 2026
last night when i thought of this apology form idea, what struck me most was how effective a mental frame to articulate the situation and what i want
sleep deprivation makes it hard to implement
How long did my Nov 2020 jackpot last? 2 years later,
todo: get back in the mindset to write up the apology form – after i’m done finding yet more proof, per Ruck, of “yet more evidence of mushrooms in heretical Christianity”.
Adding L & R (= Branching vs. Non-Branching) Indicators on Annotated Plaincourault Fresco
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
todo:
blue L on L beam & “Possibilism branching”
blue L on middle beam.
red R on R beam & “Eternalism non-branching”
red R on serpent head
red R on her R heel
blue L on L two branches
red R L on R two branches
blue L on L forearms
red R on R forearms
blue L on L legs
red R on R legs
Umbrella Lion: Developed New Notation for Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Umbrella Lion YI hand pairs.jpg”, 757 KB, 12:07 a.m. Feb. 20, 2026, fullscreen
Errata:
In bottom panel, annotated figure 2, hand on back of R arm/shoulder of guy is I, because thumb is fully shown, no fingers:
The [IIY’, I] correctly says I.
On wrist it says I’, it should say I; delete that apostrophe.
Motivation of this Page
to guide constructively the goal outcome
Important Exercise of Focused Articulation
to artuculate what I want the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art to do; the newbie anything-but-drugs academics.
How things ideally ought to move forward; what constitutes progress and correction of entheogen scholarship.
to mess around
to articulate the baloney fakeness affectation of the deniers
to develop ideas
demonstration of effective framework
i was blown away by how well the idea worked, of an apology form for Sharday Mosurinjohn & john & Ascough & Huggins & Greer to fill out
Smart Christian Greer and Stang conceded we must PLAN on finding SOME Christians used psychedelics; they are ready to debate “mainstream”, I won that already, along w/ Browns.
Mainstream is what I declare it to mean: high-quality Christian practice, say 1%, is what counts as influential therefore main, in best churches and manuscripts best paintings and best art.
If 99% not psychedelics, they define “low quality” Christianity, not “mainstream” but in a stupid headcount way, with no significance here.
A redemption arc for Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough exists. It’s this apology form; the Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History.
List of the Demon-Possessed Deniers Blind to Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages … project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify … drugs … the desire for legitimacy … this pseudo-history … religious fundamentalism … the psychedelic hypothesis is fundamentally flawed … erroneous view of history … This myopia … colonial violence
Psychedelics, Eleusis, and the Invention of Religious Experience (Sharday Mosurinjohn & Richard Ascough, 2025)
Erwin Panofsky 1952
Gordon Wasson 1968
Andy Letcher 2006
Thomas Hatsis 2013
Ronald Huggins 2022
Christian Greer 2024
Sharday Mosurinjohn 2025
Richard Ascough 2025
List of the Angelic and Inspired Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Rouge 1906?
French Myco soci (RH25 indiv names)
Rolfes 1925
Allegro 1969 – Plainc. only
Giorgio Samorini 1993?
Carl Ruck 1978?, 2001
John Ramsbottom 1954?
Clark Heinrich 1995
Michael Hoffman 1999
Cyberdisciple 2004?
Irvin 2005
John Rush 2011
Browns 2016, 2019
Blaise Staples 1980, 1981
Mark Hoffman 1980?
Chris Bennett dan man 1993?
i’m more intruiged by the (cybernetic) communication aspect than the content; my motive is only to demonstrate comm effective format given by “apology form” framework / voice/ mode/ POV.
Sorry if I omitted any insults against the Deniers.
Citation & Link: The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East (Allegro 1970, Irvin 2009)
The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East November 12, 2009 Amazon author errors corrected by Michael Hoffman: John M. Allegro (Author), Jan Irvin (Introduction, Publisher), Judith Brown/Allegro (Foreward), Carl A. P. Ruck (Appendix: Fungus Revivivus) https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556292/ —
I need the Fung Rev apx. DanMan cap silences Deniers: has red [sic; blue] cap.” The biggest f-up & faceplant by Ruck. “So, no mushrooms in Christian art.“
Diagram
Crop & handedness correction by Michael Hoffman “Sacred Mushroom and the Cross Diagram.jpg”, 58 KB, 8:21 Feb. 19, 2026
OH SH!T ITS BACKWARDS on the cover of some editions or printings of Allegro’s book.
I am too lazy to find crop in WordPress gallery, so, here’s a fresh crop.
Corrected/REVERSED by Michael Hoffman.
The Central, Middle Beam Is Assigned to “Left Branch”, via YI Form, Sweeping from Bottom Up
Fails to preserve YI branches, a key motif defining the genre/ visual language. Corrupt. Falsifies color palette of DanMan, and here FALSIFIES BRANCHING FORM TO FORCE TO BE PLAIN MUSHROOM at top. So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art. (j/k)
Fails to preserve orientation handedness – has what would be a valid {cut right branch}, shown as generally less valid (it is against the Reference norm grain) {cut left branch}.
Omits {stand on right foot}, a key motif defining the genre/ visual language.
yes there are {cut left trunk} or {cut left branch}, IY tree instances – that were understood to go against the Ref norm, of YI. eg Day 3 plant 4 Amanita tree: IY/YI (which is not a simple, pure IY form).
todo: find instances of simple IY tree, against the Ref std norm of YI handedness orientation.
Diagram fails to preserve offset trident YI form under crown.
No One Knows What Irvin’s Private View on Allegro and Entheogen Scholarship Is Anymore, After His 2015 Switch from Gnostic Media to Logos Media
Irvin’s income is from this popular smear-and-titillate book; he’s not going to announce the fact that he mostly flipped his values since 2009.
These are NOT the views of Irvin 2015+, but Irvin 2009:
2009 blurb:
“Where did God come from?
“What do the bible stories really tell us?
“Who or what was Jesus Christ?
“This book challenges everything we think we know about the nature of religion.
The ancient fertility cult at the heart of Christianity.
The living power of cultic rites and symbols.
The sacred mushroom as the emblem and embodiment of divinity.
The secret meaning of biblical myths.
The language of religion that links us to our ancestors.
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross sets out John Allegro’s quest through a family tree of languages to find the truth about where Christianity came from.”
/ end of 09 blurb
See Also
Search Cyberdisciple site for “allegro”: https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=allegro Classics scholar, PhD in Transcendent Knowledge, member of the evil class “academics”; so, everything he says is false
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
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.
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
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”?
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:
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:
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 PsychedelicEternalismMythemeAnalogy theory
vs. my other laundry list of descriptor terms (eval the diff):
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.
The Egodeath theory 
