Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

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

Michael Hoffman p.m. Feb. 25, 2026

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

Contents:

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

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

Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated

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

f20 Dancing Jesus [Y, Y’, I, I’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman

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

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

I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of Hand-Shape Pairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make the 4 Finger Shapes:

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

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

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

eg chop up a snake that threatens you to death.

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

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

List of Explicit I’ Instances

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

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

von Trimberg and Student

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

Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated

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

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

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

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

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

Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated

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

Rememeber yesterday’s proof that Dancing Man:

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

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

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Why I’ Is Less Common than Y, Y’, & I

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

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

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

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

Indicating = signalling = depicting = asserting.

It would be confusing to assert I’, usually.

Ppl have a strong need to assert/affirm:

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

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

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

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

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

Tentative Conclusions at End of Day, Upon Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YY’I is popular. I’ is controversial.

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

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

Thus gives APPEARANCE that YY’I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thumb (1) YELLS I’.

Thumb (0) mumbles kinda I’.

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

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

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

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

Notation: parens are how many segments are shown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Only count what’s explicitly shown”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How badly do we want to demarcate I’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Argument from How Fingers are inventoried seems most compelling:

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

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

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

Results for Reference Hand-Pairs

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

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

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

Greedy vs. Stingy inventory accounting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stingy array only:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

von Trimberg and Student

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

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

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

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

Template for Hands on Normal Sides

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

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

Template for Hands Crossed

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

The “Spot the YI Hand Shapes” Game

titles of this page, con’t:

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

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

Can strip down more, from:

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

to just:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Ruleset Simple

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

Non-essentials:

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

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

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

Can’t argue with this stripped-down title:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compressed title:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

older wording of that:

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

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

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

Crop by Michael Hoffman

L guy:

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

Conclusion: Y’I’ (no Y, no I)

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

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

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

Y Y’ I I’

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

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

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

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

see end of post, OMFG! 🤯🤯

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

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

But, many of these figures only display 1 hand.

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

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

The Hypothesis Under Testing, to Disconfirm the Egodeath Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Solved!! elsewhere throughout in this page.)

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

List of Explicit I’ Instances

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

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

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

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

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

SUCCESS!!

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

I am spoiled.

Christ Pantokrator:

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

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

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

A Shocking, Rare Assertion of the I’ Shape

Update an hour later:

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

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

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

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

The Standard I’ “Anomaly” Formed with LEFT Hand

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

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

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

To excuse this non-standard pattern.

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

I do have a general theory that:

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

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

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

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

hand-shape game
hsg

Game Design Theory

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

Compare the meta rule game, Magic: The Gathering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

f21: 3 Guys/ Books/ Scrolls/ B’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old format, not template:

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

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

Old, non-template:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Outdated format; see template filled in above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old format, not using template:

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

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

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

Can we find all 4 shapes in f21 right guy?

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

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

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

0 Thumb seg shown is ambig whether means I’.

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

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

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

because w/ fingers, it’s about EITHER:

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

notation: paren = # of seg shown.

implies for thumb:

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

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

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

Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’

Old format, not template:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could designate as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old format/analysis:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: No Y. Y’, I, I’.

slightly old format:

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

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

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

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

Finger segments are named Base, Mid, Tip.

Thumb segments are named Base, Tip.

Mushroom King [Y’, I]

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’

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

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

Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman

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

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

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

SUCCESS editing adding art annotations on mobile

😓 felt kinda scary 😨

hate learning new tool?

fear of mobile limits

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

______

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

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

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

especially IF u know that u r

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

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

A deviant problem to resolve, to Save The Theory:

one guy holds other guy’s wrist:

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

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

“must form a Y’ & a Y & an I”

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

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

i dont like designating a hand-shape as I’

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

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

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

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

“the threat of snake-monster eternalism retreats”

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

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

GREAT NEWS! –

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

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

that:

the objective of the medieval YI hand-shapes game is

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

a Y’ and a Y and an I,

as the normal case.

ie:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the ordinary state (tight cognition):

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

In the altered state (loose cognition):

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

____

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

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

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

Precedent/ justification:

GCP f134 row 2:

break bowman 100% certainly, explicitly means that.

_____

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

__________

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

per AM at our church House after last Sunday service

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

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

of course MAGICAL pure bread, bc religious

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

we use *mythic* Amanita, the uber-psychedlic

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

not journey on each May 18, but we stipulate:

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

🎉🚀🤯🧘‍♂️

Crop by Michael Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am stupid for not Explicitly grasping …

I cannot believe i never thought or wrote this point!

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

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

new for 2026:

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

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control —

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

vs. ordinary-state, monolithic, autonomous control

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

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

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

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

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

😓 “one’s an anomoly, two’s a pattern”

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

it is going well rn assessing Otto: Entry into Jerusalem

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

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

🤥🗜️👖🔥🤞

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

SUCCESS

i resolved the I’ problem:

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

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

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

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

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

snatched my Theory from the flames of Dread Disconfirmation

😓😓

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

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

SUCCESS!!

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

otto: Entry into Jerusalem

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

oops poor ignored mushroom-tree

gotta put a std YI on it

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

image todo: f134 row 2 Great Canterbury Psalter break bowman

YEAHBABY – LEFT hand!!

in 4 of 4 instances

has I’; cut thumb

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

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

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

threatening or relenting

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

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

SPECIAL THANKS TO RL

RL wrote today txt msg to a church group:

“… Did you know I’m actually a god?

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

“Haha just kidding 😂

Michael Hoffman replied:

u get

the plastic pink baby rattle

Indigenous Shams award 🥉

Background About Composing This Page

This page initially was a mobile post.

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

Titles of This Page

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

drastic plan for short title:

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

‘Spot’ is more game-like than ‘see’.

‘See’ is odd wording.

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

See Also

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

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

The Psychedelic 1160s: Maximal Mushroom Art Theory

Michael Hoffman Feb. 25, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026, fullscreen

Contents:

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.”

References

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).

/ end of excerpt from Brown 2019

Site Map: Brown > Walburga
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#brown-walburga

Browns 2019 Citation & Link

Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019 & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/entheogens-in-christian-art-wasson-allegro-psychedelic-gospels-brown/
bb19

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:

  • Pivots on the {balance scale} pivot.
  • Goes through BOTH Cubensis dispensary bins.
  • Goes through the White Light (per John Lash).

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?

Pilzbaum = Mushroom-Tree; Pilzbaume = Mushroom-Trees

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.

todo: quote Panofsky too many arg:

x https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-4 –

“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.”

Erwin Panofsky’s Letters to Gordon Wasson, TranscribedTree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)

The (Actual!) Pathetic “Argument” from Panofsky:

Fallacious Argument by Distraction by Insult

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?”

Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art
Ronald Huggins, 2022
https://www.academia.edu/74021123/_Dizzy_Dancing_or_Dying_The_Misappropriation_of_MS_Bodl_602_fol_27v_as_Evidence_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_Christian_Art_
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/12/dizzy-dancing-dying-huggins-2022/

Ronald Huggins 2024

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024)

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case
Ronald Huggins, 2024
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/
https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case

Ronald Huggins 2025

On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom
Ronald Huggins, Oct. 29, 2025
Religions journal, Issue: 11, Volume: 16, 30 pages
https://www.academia.edu/144814668/On_John_M_Allegros_Suggestion_That_the_Tree_of_the_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil_in_the_12th_Century_Plaincourault_Chapel_Depicts_an_Amanita_muscaria_Mushroom
https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/11/on-john-m-allegros-suggestion-that-the-tree-of-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil-in-the-12th-century-plaincourault-chapel-depicts-an-amanita-muscaria-mushroom-huggins-2025/

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.

Motivation for This Page

Reaction against the stupid title:

Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art (Ronald Huggins, 2022), https://www.academia.edu/74021123/_Dizzy_Dancing_or_Dying_The_Misappropriation_of_MS_Bodl_602_fol_27v_as_Evidence_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_Christian_Art_ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/12/dizzy-dancing-dying-huggins-2022/

See Also

Hand-Shape Theory: Debates to Develop and Fine-Tune the Theory

Michael Hoffman 9:30 p.m. Feb. 24, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 24, 2026

Contents:

most links work cross-platform:

Favor Hand-Shape Pairs That Include Y’, Y, and I

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.

Principle: Equivalence of Hand-Shape Pairs [Y’, YI], [Y’I, Y], & [Y’I, YI]

[10:10 p.m. Feb. 24, 2026]

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 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:

Guys/ Books/ Scrolls/ B’s (f21)

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 7, 2026, fullscreen

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}.

So, the “or” labelling is useful and needed.

Crop by Michael Hoffman, “f21 right guy hand pair.jpg”, 353 KB, 7:27 p.m. Feb. 24, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f21.item.zoom, fullscreen
todo: copy to f21 / all images gallery “Details” page

Developing idea…

Avoid: [Y’I, Y’I]
Seek: [Y’I, YI]

f21 Right, gives options under debate:

  1. [Y’, Y’I] – hypothesis: this is a standard form in the genre. It’s a story to tell.
  2. [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.

  1. “First I knew possibilism-thinking.”
  2. “Then I discovered eternalism-thinking.”
  3. “Then I integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.”
  4. “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.

txt msg to RL p.m. Feb. 24, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Photo: Michael Hoffman
Photo: Michael Hoffman

RL sent URL:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stone-age-art-may-reveal-40-000-year-old-precursor-to-writing/
February 23, 2026
“Ancient art could hold clues to the origins of written language – Thousands of markings on objects made around 40,000 years ago may have been more than just doodles, a new analysis suggests”
BY JACKIE FLYNN MOGENSEN
EDITED BY CLAIRE CAMERON

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.

See Also

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

🔨 Canterbury f49: Wheels of Fate, Forge, Threatened by Angel

Michael Hoffman 4:11 Feb. 24, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

Contents:

Row 1: God’s Circle

Row 2: Mushroom-Tree, Mushroom Gavel, Mushroom Cluster, YI Forge

Row 3: Wheels of Fate, Angel Harassing/ Instructing Mystic Psychonauts

Wheels of Fate, Forge, Threatened by Angel

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f49.jpg” 660 KB [10:14 p.m. June 10, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f49.item.zoom#

Gallery image:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f49

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.

f49: Angel Harasses Psychonauts

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f49-lower-right.jpg” 417 KB [9:43 a.m. June 25, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f49.item.zoom#

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f49-lower-right.jpg” 417 KB [9:43 a.m. June 25, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f49.item.zoom#

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

2 mushroom trees, 1 vine-leaf tree, 3 lifted garments

f49: Moliero version

https://www.moleiro.com/en/biblical-books/the-great-canterbury-psalter/miniatura/251

Features

I’m off to a great, ideal start; a sign that I should go ahead and add this to the church article, Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art.

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?

Answer:

  • I’ve been showing this image in my gallery, f49 (probably from John Lash’s 2007/2008 upload), since 2006, gallery webpage at Egodeath.com cited by Brown. http://egodeath.com/christianmushroomtrees.htm#_Toc134497563
  • 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.

See Also

Site Map > Great Canterbury Psalter Overall
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#GCP-Overall

Mosurinjohn’s Dogged Avoidance of Perceiving Psychedelic Evidence, of Non-Branching in the Eternalism Experiential State

Michael Hoffman 6:42 a.m. Feb. 24, 2026

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 24, 2026, fullscreen

Contents:

most links work cross-platform:

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.

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 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?

Crop by Michael Hoffman – fullscreen

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?!

fullscreen

Asp-Dog Trying to Avoid Hearing about Non-Branching

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Folio image f109, lower right, fullscreen, f109 crops

Mushroom-Tree Next to YI Hand-Shapes

Crop by Michael Hoffman, in Folio image f109, upper left, fullscreen, f109 crops

The Asp Serpent Tries to Avoid Hearing Wisdom & Divine Truth

Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

“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.”

Web search: Asp blocks ear avoid musical enchantment

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.

Greer Might Survive with Reputation Intact, Unlike Huggins, Mosurinjohn, & Ascough

But Greer is IGNORANT AS A ROCK:

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.

A redemption arc for Huggins Mosurinjohn & Ascough exists: the Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History.

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.

Page:
Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality (Wasson, 1968)
Article section:
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/18/soma-divine-mushroom-of-immortality-wasson-1968/#somap.-180-more-cussing-fewer-annotations-dec.-2-2024

Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian Art Have a Major CORRUPTION Problem, Joining Company with Wasson, Who Had an Extreme Conflict of Interest

Deniers Shamelessly Associate Themselves with Brazenly Fallacious Argumentation

Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024), https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/ & https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case

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, fullscreen
Crop 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.

  1. Inner Core. – my 1997 core theory spec.
  2. Outer Core.
  3. 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?
  4. Outer Periphery.
    Outside the Gates of the City of Egodeath Theory:
  5. 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

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f145 king demon.jpg” 605 KB, 12:13 a.m. Feb. 15, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f145.item.zoom, fullscreen

Dancing Man (Salamander Bestiary)

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?”

Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art
Ronald Huggins, 2022
https://www.academia.edu/74021123/_Dizzy_Dancing_or_Dying_The_Misappropriation_of_MS_Bodl_602_fol_27v_as_Evidence_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_Christian_Art_
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/12/dizzy-dancing-dying-huggins-2022/

God Says to Adam “You Will ‘Die1‘ on That Day”

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 metaphysically
  • Y phenomenologically
  • Y’ metaphysically

Asp-Dog, 2 Groups of Guys, and {rock ossuary}

Crop by Michael Hoffman, “f109 asp-dog 7 guys 5 guys look hands.jpg” 661 KB, 12:25 Feb. 24, 2026, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom
todo: copy to f109 page, fullscreen

Motivation for this Page

Greatest Hits passages.

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

Site Map > Sharday Mosurinjohn
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Sharday-Mosurinjohn

Site Map > Gordon Wasson
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Gordon-Wasson

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“f109 asp-dog 7 guys 5 guys look hands dog branch flute.jpg” 259 KB, 2:14 Feb. 24, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, fullscreen
todo: copy to f109 page
Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

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.”

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

Reassessing Hand-Shape Pairs via Segment-Driven Finger Inventory

Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

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’.

⚰️ Canterbury f107: Lifted from Ossuary by Right Arm, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f107.jpg, https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/16/canterbury-f107-lifted-up-from-ossuary-by-right-arm/ —

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.

Test Cases: Mushroom King, Psalter Viewer, {balance scale} Woman; Break Bowman; Threatening/ Relenting Swordsman (Unsheathing/ Sheathing): Quick Assessments Using New, Finger Segment Inventory-Driven Rules

Mushroom King: [IIIY’, IIIY’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026

L Hand (on R): IIIY’

or, IIY’, if black line = “cut” at Index base / attachment. Time will tell.

R Hand (on L): IIIY’

Links

Canterbury folio image f145: cubensis traders, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f145.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/17/canterbury-f145-king-orders-shipments-of-blue-fruit-to-storage-lockboxes-with-blue-stemmed-mushroom-tree/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/canterbury-f145.jpg

Psalter Viewer: [Y’II, IY’I], normed: [Y’II, Y’II]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026, f134 Psalter Viewer hand-shape pair

L Hand (on R): Y’II

R Hand (on L): IY’I

Links

Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134: leg-hanging mushroom tree, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom,https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eadwine-leg-balancing-image-2023-01-09.png

{balance scale} Woman: [IY’, YI], normed: [Y’I, YI]

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Lower Hand: IY’

All 3 segments of pinkie are displayed, so, Pinkie = I

Upper Hand: YI

No black line at string, so thumb is not cut. Both segments of thumb are visible.

Links

Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134: leg-hanging mushroom tree, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom,https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eadwine-leg-balancing-image-2023-01-09.png

Break Bowman: [Y’I, Y’II’] or [Y’I, Y’YI’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Lower Hand: Y’I

pinkie is I because all 3 seg visible.

Upper Hand: 1) Y’II’

or 2) Y’I or 3) Y’ Y I’

Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com

Links

Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134: leg-hanging mushroom tree, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom,https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eadwine-leg-balancing-image-2023-01-09.png

Threatening/ Relenting Swordsman (Unsheathing/ Sheathing): [Y’I, IIY’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026

R Hand (on L): Y’I

YI order / orientation: Y’I

just’n:

  • 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.

Ring: 1 seg only. Y’

Pinkie: All 3 segments. I

Links

Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134: leg-hanging mushroom tree, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom,https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eadwine-leg-balancing-image-2023-01-09.png

Guy Above Asp-Dog: [IY, IY’], normed: [YI, Y’I]

What if you WANT to FORCE a reading of IY’ (not Y’ like my first-pass assessment) on upper hand – IS IT POSSIBLE?!

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Lower Hand: IY

splayed Index I touches R arm, Y touch L arm, like von Trimberg, decoded last night, p.m. Feb. 22, 2026.

Upper Hand: IY’

A new assessment instead of simply Y’, since entire pinkie all segments are shown, including the attachment to palm.

Links

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

See Also

pending

Reference Hand-Shape Pairs

Michael Hoffman 11:0 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Change thumb 2.2 rfom I’ to I.

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

Motivation for this Page

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.

See Also

dead end, resurrect

Yes There Are Two Paths You Can Go By: The Prostitute’s Path, of Popebanker Censorship; or the Path of Psychedelic Eternalism, the Psilocybin True Reference

Michael Hoffman 6:00 a.m. Feb. 21, 2026

Crop by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreen

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

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, fullscreen

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.

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 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?

Crop by Michael Hoffman – fullscreen

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.

Crop by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreen

God Blesses {balance scale} & Cubensis dispensary bins

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman, 4:45 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026, fullscreen

God Blesses {balance scale}, Cubensis dispensary bins, & {stable column base}

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134-bless-col-base.jpg” 878 KB 6:02 a.m. Feb. 21, 2026, fullscreen

Psychedelic Eternalism in the Book Led Zeppelin’s Led Zeppelin IV (33⅓) (Davis, 2005)

https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/17/led-zeppelins-led-zeppelin-iv-davis-2005/

Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman

http://egodeath.com/MysticStateAllusionsLedZeppelinLyrics.htm — copypaste:

Led Zeppelin: “Stairway to Heaven”

Egodeath.com sucks: no dates, date fail

And if you listen very hard

The song will come to you at last

When all are one and one is all

To be a rock and not to roll

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]

at 18:57 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hLESLXqBLI&t=1137s
is “two paths”

18 * 60 + 57 = &t=1137s

Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there’s still time to change the road you’re on

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“f134-bless-col-base.jpg” 878 KB, 6:02 a.m. Feb. 21, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen

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

Greer Might Survive with Reputation Intact, Unlike Huggins, Mosurinjohn, & Ascough

But Greer is IGNORANT AS A ROCK:

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 by Michael Hoffman – Shardogged, fullscreen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfu2thO2ye8&list=OLAK5uy_n84dSCHYhjQQ8ZbOULHydIxNQs5G2C2Kk —

Won’t get fooled again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtb10ZwbReY

Screenshot
Crop by Michael Hoffman

The Exodus Is Here

Carl Ruck

Finger Height = Loss of Control

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.

Crop by Michael Hoffman, “f134 row 2 middle clutch sheath.jpg”, 37 KB, 11:01 Feb. 23, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
todo: copy to f134 page and Reference hand-shape page

https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/23/reference-hand-shape-pairs/#inventory-of-finger-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
  1. Thumb: 11
  2. Index finger: 111
  3. Middle finger: 111
  4. Ring finger: 111
  5. Pinkie finger: 111

Try other order, because fingers come before thumb, ie, possibilism-thinking (4 fingers) before altered-state discover eternalism-thinking (thumb).

  1. Index finger: 111
  2. Middle finger: 111
  3. Ring finger: 111
  4. Pinkie finger: 111
  5. Thumb: 11

Shorthand:

  1. 111
  2. 111
  3. 111
  4. 111
  5. 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)

That’s [,,] new notation!! 11:27 Feb. 23, 2026

Upper Hand: [111, 111, 111, 111, 11] (ie, all finger segments visible), Forming Y’, Forming Hand-Shape Pair [Y’, YI]

Thumb: Base: 1, Tip: 1

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

The shape of the bitmask:

[1111, 111, 111, 1111, 11]

“Hand Segments & Splay” Bitmask Matrix Notation: [1111, 111, 111, 1111, 11]

Format/syntax of the Hand Segments & Splay bitmask:

  1. Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  2. Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  3. Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  4. Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  5. 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)

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f134 row 2 middle psalter viewer hand-shape pair.jpg” 202 KB, 12:20 p.m. Feb. 23, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
todo: add to f134 page, and hand-shape theory / inventory page
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026, f134 Psalter Viewer hand-shape pair
  1. Need a verbose (explicit) inventory list to fill in.
  2. Convert to bitmask matrix format.
  3. Characterize one hand.
  4. Characterize one hand.
  5. Characterize hand-shape pair.

Template Combining Verbose and Condensed Bitmask

  1. _ _ _ _ – Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  2. _ _ _ – Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  3. _ _ _ – Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  4. _ _ _ _ – Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  5. _ _ – Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?

R hand of Psalter Viewer (on Left)

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026, f134 Psalter Viewer hand-shape pair
  1. 1111 – Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  2. 110 – Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  3. 110 – Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  4. 1110 – Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
    IS THIS PART OF Y’, OR IS THIS AN I?? TRY I (new idea).
  5. 00 – Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?

matrix bitmask notation:

[1111, 110, 110, 1110, 00]

Analysis: predict: IY’I (or, simplified analysis: IY’)

  • Index = I
    Index is fully displayed, and splayed far from the 2-3 branching fingers.
  • Middle & Ring = Y’
  • Pinkie = I
    All segments are shown. Not splayed, but, different than M&R.

R hand (on L) = IY’I

R hand-shape IY’I; like IIY’. Powerful.

L hand of Psalter Viewer (on Right)

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026, f134 Psalter Viewer hand-shape pair
  1. 1110 – Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  2. 101 – Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  3. 100 – Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  4. 1000 – Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  5. 11 – Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?

Analysis: expect Y’II:

  • Index fully shown = I
  • Middle cut by index, Ring&Pinkie visually cut, = Y’
  • Thumb = I

Concl: general orientation / order (wrist-up): YI. Start left = Pinkie-Index-Thumb order:

Y’II

L Hand (on R) of Psalter Viewer: Y’II

Hand-shape pair of Psalter Viewer: [Y’II, IY’I]

Normalized Equivalent: [Y’II, Y’II] – same as Mushroom King in f145

List which hand list first?

Rule: List the less powerful hand first.

If power is equal, list Left hand first, or list lower hand first, on the principle of:

Sweep from less branching to more branching.

For the standard human form, this means sweep from feet, to lower hand, to upper hand.

The two hands in no order:

  • L hand: Y’II
  • R hand: IY’I

They have equal power; equivalent two different impl of same abstracted YI form.

[Y’II, IY’I]
[Y’II, Y’II] – Normalized.

Test this Analysis Process Against Mushroom King f145

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f145 mushroom king hand shape pair.jpg” 557 KB, 12:55 p.m. Feb. 23, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f145.item.zoom
todo: copy to f145 page and Reference hand-shapes page

L Hand (on R) of Mushroom King

  1. 1111 – Index finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  2. 111 – Middle finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  3. 011 – Ring finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown?
  4. 011 – Pinkie finger: Base shown? Mid shown? Tip shown? Splayed?
  5. 11 – Thumb: Base shown? Tip shown?

Assessment: Expect now (MAJOR REVISION DEVELOPMENT: 3 I’S!! [12:59 p.m. Feb. 23, 2026])

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.

  1. Index assess: I
  2. Thumb assess: I
  3. 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
  1. Index: I
  2. Thumb: I
  3. Middle: I
  4. 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.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_(computing)

Hand Hold Sheath = IIY’

Hand Hold Sword Handle = Y’

Swordsman hand-shape pair: [Y’, IIY’]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, “f134 swordsman hand-shape pair.jpg”, 552 KB, 2:04 Feb. 23, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
todo: copy to right pages

Given that the sheath-hand is IIY’ and

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
Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f145 king demon.jpg” 605 KB, 12:13 a.m. Feb. 15, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f145.item.zoom, fullscreen

interesting pivotal technical problem to discuss

interp’n problem: 

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:

  1. Rough analysis first at overall hand shape.
  2. Then I “fixed” that crudeness by vaguely assessing each finger.
  3. 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.

⚰️ Canterbury f107: Lifted from Ossuary by Right Arm, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f107.jpg, https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/16/canterbury-f107-lifted-up-from-ossuary-by-right-arm/

txt msg 10 to AM a.m. Feb. 22, 2026

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

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 blessing ruler line anchors.jpg” 860 KB, 8:40 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen
todo: copy to f134 page

Oxen guy’s clutching hand holds Air and he Poins to the Invisible Line via YI fingers.

Pivot of {balance scale} Is at Midpoint of Line from God’s Blessing/Pointing Fingers and Oxen Guy’s Hand Clutching Air

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 pivot is at midpoint of held line.jpg”, 607 KB, 8:37 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen
todo: copy to f134 page

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

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 cubensis bins at midpoint of blessing and column base.jpg” 625 KB, 9:26 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen
todo: copy to f134 page

Two Lines Intersect at Cubensis Bins

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 two lines intersect at cubensis bins.jpg” 689 KB, 9:45 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen
todo: copy to f134 page

txt msg to self, 8:25 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026

you know im reliable bc i report that:

Woman Holding {balance scale} Has 3 Feet (3 Legs)

The woman holding the {balance scale} has 3 legs.

She stands on both feet, and additionally, she {stand on right foot}.

The {limbless maiden} has zero feet; 
she does not have 1 foot, 
it’s not her foot, 

it’s the woman’s 3rd foot / leg (she has YI-form legs)

a limbless youth is to her right 

been working on this puzzle since Nov 2020 😵‍💫

f109 Breakthrough: Two Pointless Groups of Guys

f109 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

f109 Is Giving Way! Decoded asp-dog group of 7 Guys

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom

[11:07 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026] I had urge to try to again try to analyze their hand shapes because

There are only 3 hands among 7 guys not 14; 11 of 14 hands are missing.

#1 important more than hands: why is he looking up and what are they looking at?

they look at the guy who has hands OBVIOUSLY, i shouldve traced looking lines every time i puzzled over this group above asp-dog.

11:47 p.m. Feb. 22, 2026 L guy thumb / hold leash? finding: his other, 4 cut fingers hold a branch that has 4 cut branches

txt msg 1 to AM & YW 7:25 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

todo: images:

  • f109 lower right group of 7 guys above asp-dog
  • von Trimberg my self-portrait w/ caption
  • “von Trimberg, upper part of figures 3 & 4”
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman

von Trimberg to the Rescue: One’s a Fluke, Two’s a Pattern

von Trimberg to the rescue

f109 lower right above asp-dog arch, Great Canterbury Psalter 

{hand mushroom-tree} in upper left, maps hand YI shapes to tree YI form

Puzzle: Decoded f109 Group of 5 Guys

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

Puzzle: Decoded f109 Group of 7 Guys

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

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)

txt msg 2 to AM & YW 7:45 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

todo: images:

  • f109 asp-dog main guy looking up at {rock ossuary}
  • f109 asp-dog main guy: face & fingers

folio image f109:

two pointless groups of guys, finally solved last night! 

in such case, follow the damn instructions provided by the artist; looking-lines:

look at fingers YI shape; hand-shape theory 

& feet analysis

guys next to {no-left-limbs} {rock ossuary} have no left arm, or visually cut left arm

that is obvious now

the guy in asp-dog group making the von Trimberg gesture looks not at himself, but up at {rock ossuary}

solved his fingers touching face: 

pinkie is fully displayed, = non-branching Eternalism 

The 3 fingers not all segments shown = branching Possibilism cut 

thus the hand at face 

 is the IY’ classic form : 

affirm I non-branching Eternalism, 

rebut branching Possibilism

other lower hand:

IY

result: the classic hand-shape pair [YI, Y’I]

here shown as [IY, Y’I]

Q.E.D. 

{rock ossuary} [RO]

{rock ossuary}
{ro

txt msg 3 to AM & YW 7:50 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

todo: images:

  • f109 Row 2 right: 5 guys and {rock ossuary}

touch-face guy looks up at rock ossuary

guys by rock ossuary have cut left arm

= rebut branching Possibilism; affirm non-branching Eternalism 

finally solved this damn puzzle, two groups of guys 

txt msg 4 to AM & YW 7:57 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

todo: images:

  • f109 row 2 right: 5 guys: crop of the two contrasted hands
  • repeat of: f109 Row 2 right: 5 guys and {rock ossuary}

two guys form a classic YI hand-shape ​pair

[Y’I, YI] 

ie, fingers cut on one hand , displayed on the other hand

qualified possibilism-thinking – we are shown eternalism-thinking but we continue using possibilism-thinking 

Y’:

possibilism branching is not the case metaphysically, 

Y:

yet branching Possibilism IS the case phenomenologically 

Keyboard Shortcuts for f109

todo: continue the update / normalization project that’s at https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/01/24/idea-development-page-32/#keyboard-shortcuts-for-main-eadwine-images

f109 = Great Canterbury Psalter folio image url f109: 🤚 Canterbury f109: Hand Mushroom-Tree, Hell-Mouth, Net Rescue, Right-Limb Ossuary, Clean Temple, Cut-Branch Dog; https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg & https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/
f109c

Canterbury folio image f109: lifted up in ossuary by Christ, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f109.item.zoom, https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/25/f109-great-canterbury-psalter-hellmouth-net-ossuary-cloth-looking-out-from-temple/, https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/canterbury-f109.jpg

Might Decode in Detail f49 Next: Forge, Wheels of Fate

f49: Wheels of Fate, Forge, Threatened by Angel

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f49.jpg” 660 KB [10:14 p.m. June 10, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f49.item.zoom#

Commentary & detailed crops

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f49

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

Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 4 plant 3

Grove of Tree-Sized Mushrooms

See Also

Site Map:

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, fullscreen
Crop 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?!

fullscreen

Asp-Dog Trying to Avoid Hearing about Non-Branching

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Folio image f109, lower right, fullscreen, f109 crops

Mushroom-Tree Next to YI Hand-Shapes

Crop by Michael Hoffman, in Folio image f109, upper left, fullscreen, f109 crops

The Asp Serpent Tries to Avoid Hearing Wisdom & Divine Truth

Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen

“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.”

Web search: Asp blocks ear avoid musical enchantment

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

Egodeath Apology Form for Deniers of Mushrooms in Christian History

Michael Hoffman 10:34 a.m. Feb. 19, 2026

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 20, 2026, fullscreen

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

God’s Blessing Fingers Point at the Cubensis Dispensary Display-Case Bins in f134

[4:46 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026]

White line from blessing fingers, through pivot of {balance scale}, to Cubensis Dispensary Display-Case Bins.

In Great Canterbury Psalter Folio f134, God Blesses the {balance scale} and Cubensis Dispensary Bins

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 God blesses balance scale and Cubensis dispensary bin display cases.jpg” 1.1 MB, 5:03 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
fullscreen

6:54 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026 God’s line touches {stable column base} row 3 right, between fool sowing Cubensis & oxen’s {left foot lifted}

6:56 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026 fool points at {stable column base} at where God’s line lands

In Great Canterbury Psalter Folio f134, God Blesses the {balance scale} and Cubensis Dispensary Bins (Detail)

Crop and annotation by Michael Hoffman
“f134 God blesses balance scale and Cubensis dispensary bin display cases zoom.jpg” 720 KB, 5:08 p.m. Feb. 20, 2026
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
todo: copy to f134 page, fullscreen

Popebanker Wasson’s Duplicitous Censorship

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

Greer Might Survive with Reputation Intact, Unlike Huggins, Mosurinjohn, & Ascough

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.

This Page Is Dedicated to Neil Peart

web image search: caress of steel back cover
https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=”caress+of+steel+back+cover&#8221;

See Also

Site Map > Mushrooms in Art (Flagship)
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#flagship-Mushrooms-Greek-Christian-Art

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

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)

Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 19, 2026

Crop & handedness correction by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

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/ —

Citation Keyboard Shortcut [JI09]

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), https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556292/ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2026/02/19/the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross
ji09

Motive for this Page

This book is central.

You suck if you don’t have Irvin’s books.

I don’t have this book. I need it.

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.

Visually ILLITERATE like I was in 2006/2009.

Photo of 1970 book:
https://www.biblio.com/book/sacred-mushroom-cross-study-nature-origins/d/1587976732

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

Site Map > Jan Irvin
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Jan-Irvin

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