Ever since I published the Plaincourault Panofsky Wasson Allegro article in 2006 for the journal of Higher criticism I always argued in that article I argued there is something missing from Panofsky’s letter something is missing from Panofsky’s letter
recently I have felt bad because John Irving and I failed to spot the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation of Brinkman’s book tree stylestrees Stylizations in Medieval paintings
I have now connected those two to resolve and give myself a pass
I can’t really speak to you on Irving I don’t know if you’re on Irving Young Irvin did not tell me as far as I remember and we did not discuss as far as I remember that somethings wrong here citation needed where is that citation
there is a citation missing somewhere a citation has gone missing
that was definitely I wrote that in the article I wrote in the article that a citation is missing or that I said Tatian has gone missing I wrote that in the article
what did John Irving discuss that with me I don’t remember I believe that this was minors I believe that I noticed that a citation was missing and I believe that Jan Irvin did not comment on that I believe that Jan Irvin did not identify and recognize that a citation had gone missing
I did not suspect that Panofsky had provided what anyone would expect which is a citation I criticize Panofsky’s article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide a citation
however I should have I am I have a short coming here in 2006 I have a short coming given that I complained where the hell is the citation like in what publication have the art scholars scholars treated explicitly the question do mushrooms me mushrooms and Kristen are do mushrooms mean mushrooms in Christian art
I should have connected the dots literally given that I was complaining in the article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide what an anyone would expect a scholarly citation
where exactly have art historians discussed this question as such I complained about that in the article
and I copied wasson republishing of Pulaski’s article including wasson… So here I am ironically in my article I’m writing that panache i’m writing obviously one would demand a citation where the hell is the citation Panofsky is failing to provide a citation
and then I published wasson’s copy of Pulaski’s letter and I included wasson ellipses …
The dots I failed literally I I literally failed to connect the dots specifically those dots which was an added in place of Brinkman citation the citation a Brinckmann’s book by a Panofsky
I failed to connect those specific literal dots
of course it’s obvious now and I’m giving myself credit while also identifying where I failed to connect the dots literally I’m also giving myself of 2006 credit
I wrote in the article that I have identified a flaw a professional lapse and a gap and an omission from what we would obviously expect from Panofsky as a professional art historian obviously we would expect a citation
so I did identify that the citation was missing and I did include the dots the ellipses that Wason added in place of the citation but why failed to connect those dots those specific dots of the ellipses to what I was demanding and pointing out as missing in the article
are you I recent in the article surely surely obviously one would demand a citation why in the hell is there no citation where is the citation tell me where in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation
and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation – I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety
you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two:
1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then number two
2) … Which are physically placed literally placed exactlywhere in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation
I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two 1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then 2) number two… Which are physically placed literally placed exactly literally placed exactly precisely in the physical spot where we would expect a citation
why wasn’t I astute enough to realize that those dots are probably hiding where there is a citation but in in the literal location where I would absolutely expect the citation to be placed what I see instead is…
Therefore I should have speculated I will bet that those ellipses are hiding and censoring out a citation because that is the exact location where I would expect the absolutely expected citation to be provided but what we have in the exact spot
it’s almost like it’s almost like Wason has the word bibliography at the bottom of his reach reprint of the letter it’s as if Wason has given us the heading at the bottom called citations and bibliography and then he is placed ellipses there…
That’s the extent to which his I should’ve seen it I should’ve seen it because the ellipses are placed precisely in the physical location where I would expect and demand and where anyone on earth would expect and demand a citation right there at that location is where there are…
Jan Irving and I will we didn’t really dwell on this point I don’t remember discussing it but it was bothering me it was
the thing that bothered me the number one thing that bothered me about Panofsky’s letter was where is the damn citation this is worthless this is in no way an art historian writing this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it
this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it
if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims
you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation
and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatwriting this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatThe precise location where I would expect him to Bright pride provide a citation was instead… Which are obviously from Wassen there’s no way that Panofsky would have written those ellipses dots obviously and it’s manifestly obvious that of course Wassen wrote those dots I should have been able to interpret the… As I did dues
I should’ve written in the 2006 article I deduce that Wason have censored out a scholarly citation here because this is location of exactly where I would expect the mandatory requisite required citation to be provided
I would expect it to be provided right here and what’s here instead is… Therefore I bet that these… Are censoring out a scholarly citation! I wish I had written that that would’ve been very very astute of me and would have really resolved my demand something is very wrong here if there is something completely suspicious about Lawsons publishing this article there is no way any scholar would make this argument without providing a damn citation and instead we have… Therefore I should’ve written there for these… Must it it logically follows and it stands to reason therefore the citations must be hiding these… Must be hiding a citation because there is no way it is not possible for Pulaski to have written a letter without providing citations this is absolutely unacceptable the notion to what would make his assertion without providing a citation it it cannot be Panofsky cannot have made the assertion that art scholars have treated the matter the question without providing a citation Panofsky therefore we can be sure that pin asking must have provide as a citation and what we have instead in the exact location where we would expect and demand as a basic inherent requirement right in that spot is… And therefore it stands to reason that these ellipses which Wason placed wasson must have censored out a scholarly citation right here at these…
I have been following Thomas Hatsis’ writings and research for so long, I’ve been reading his materials even back when he was writing under the pen name of “Andy Letcher”, and puncturing his bunk arguments ever since he wrote the book Shroom.
on mobile device Using voice transcription but wow I’m impressed by how exactly accurate this voice transcription is so you can be assured that every word below is precisely the word which I carefully enunciated and this is a guaranteed 100% exact transcription of my intent and meaning probably even more accurate than if I had typed it using a full-size ergonomic keyboard
it’s kind of good news I don’t know why I see it is good news but I found my first post my first mention of Thomas Hatsis earlier like I thought it’s early 2015 Christmas 2015 it’s December 24, 2015
Maybe I need to get better at using the mobile device but I felt like I had to resort to using the full on laptop to be able to do the search properly I probably just need more practice of searching the Yahoo what is it called even I don’t even know what it’s called these days
i’ll probably do a voice recording read aloud but I just I largely feel good just because I finally it only took me I swear it only took me like one minute well no it took me about five minutes to to scope it out and be sure I was looking at the oldest the earliest message it’s at the top of digest number 144 from December 24, 2015 and there are several postings and they are very substantial and they’re there like up-to-date commentary I went to it thinking OK there will be just a few scraps it’ll be outdated it oh I want I expect these early postings they will be very in articulatei’ll probably do a voice recording read aloud but I just I largely feel good just because I finally it only took me I swear it only took me like one minute well no it took me about five minutes to to scope it out and be sure I was looking at the oldest the earliest message it’s at the top of digest number 144 from December 24, 2015 and there are several postings and they are very substantial and they’re there like up-to-date commentary I went to it thinking OK there will be just a few scraps it’ll be outdated it oh I want I expect these early postings they will be very in articulate
I came into the archives thinking expecting it’s going to be poorly written scraps of outdated uncertainty but instead I found the opposite I find a way back in 2015 I am make in my very first mentions of hats as I’m making completely forceful very totally sure footed it it reads like I it reads like the first time I posted about hats as I wrote as if I was an expert on his articles like it looks as if I read all of his articles and studied them and thought about them and compare them to my latest theory and then I posted really good postings with critical commentary so it’s I was expecting worst case and what I found instead was like
Really surprisingly best case postings instead even my very first posting it’s a little bit I don’t know
I’ve always found it in the past two years since I created the Egodeath Yahoo Group archive with maxes’ data , I always find it a little bit eerie, a little bit disturbing how super high-quality it is .
it’s a little bit, it throws me off , it’s a little hard to deal with that a high quality level, like I would be a little more comfortable if it were a little bit sorry & weak But instead it’s the opposite I guess I could characterize it as a very strong postings like maximum strength postings at the upper end like surprisingly high it feels like it’s a 10 out of 10 quality like wow I was expecting sort of like three out of 10 quality and it’s like consistently
I go to that archive expecting three out of 10 quality and it’s like 10 out of quality again and again, like whoa I don’t know, it’s a bit, I don’t kind of freaks me out a little bit.
this is pretty extensive and pretty well as always in the Egodeath Yahoo Group it is always rocksolid content it’s gold it’s very intelligent critiques I usually go there with the pompous attitude of yeah he’s gonna be old me old stupid me so it’s gonna be a bunch of like low-quality posts even lower quality than my recent post that’s what I go with I said very low expectations and then I arrive there in like
this is top quality content! Valuable links valuable solid commentary great I have to have exact dates on all the posts it’s highly structured highly intelligent it’s like should set high expectations instead of low expectations for the quality of the Egodeath Yahoo Group postings postings
I am still have not found my very first posting of the word Hatsis but I have gotten confirmation that I was heavily following him ours psychedelic I his original site even before Psychedelic Witch and then his third domain name is psychedelic historian I am I was this confirmed that his article say 2017 but I really think that he was doing YouTube videos and interviews and that these articles were posted at ours psychedelic a before he even registered the 2016 domain name I’ve I’ve been followingHatsis for much earlier than the dates that are shown in his articles. https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-168/#message9046
that posting of mine which was not my first one links from a page that shows a published article buy hatsis on this topic of no mushrooms in Christianity as early as February 2014
this confirms it was really bothering me I feel sure that I followed him in an early wave well before the stated dates of his articles of “late 2017”
I have evidence here that late 2017 was my second wave of Pointing out his errors in his articles and comparing him to Panofsky and other deniers, committed skeptics like Andy Letcher.
also you have to count my analysis of Andy Letchers book “sroom ” at Egodeath.com was like first generation of reading Hatsis in effect because the argumentation of those two is indistinguishable ; there’s no way that you could differentiate the writings of Letcher versus Hatsis because they make the identical arguments
so by the time I first discovered Hatsis (simply find the earliest occurrence of the word Hatsis at my yahoo group) by whatever date that was I had already written about and analyzed those identical arguments but written by Andy Letcher
Therefore my first generation of debunking these particular arguments is when the books room came out
then my second generation of returning to comment again on that same argument was whenever I first wrote the word Hatsis which was based on you early YouTube discussions interview of Martin ball interviewing Thomas Hatsis and based on my reading at his very first website before Psychedelic Witch reading the articles as early as February 2014 (, not that I was that early)
by the time that had moved to Psychedelic Witch in 2016.com and then a year later it seems like he put a later date revised later date on some of his articles
by the time would be my next generation and then even later than that would be like what my fourth generation of going over hatsis materials which he practically inherited those arguments from Andy Letcher
you could almost say I’ve been following Hatsis – or his arguments That he parrots and employees along with Panofsky and let your and crew – since before he even set pen to paper, or whenever the date of publication of andy lectures book “shroom”
… that’s when I returned to do a second or third reading of his articles
so modify what I said in yesterday’s episodeof the ego death mystery show i used the phrase “hatsisis first website” and “second website” and I misspoke, because in fact hatsis
his first web domain is “ours psychedelic guy”( ignore voice transcription and see the URL ) and
his second website was “psychedelic Witch” and
his third website is “psychedelic historian”
so I am a third-generation follower of hats us
Or you could practically it would be practical to describe me as a fourth generation follower of hearts is work and research and publications:
generation one : Andy lectures book.
generation two: hours suck psychedelic our domain
generation three: psychedelic which.com
generationfor : psychedelichistorian.com
Below is the URL which is in my later posting that url that shows the date of February 2014 published article on the subject
I want to work on my voice practice quotations page in conjunction with my scholarly Hall of Fame page interestingly a third page is in a certain category that’s forming because there’s also the quotes of the great mystics of ego death page all of these seem to lend themselves well to a voice practice material
Uncanny parallel 1. impossible to tell if mushroom use
rolfe’s book “The romance of the fungus world” has a sentence that is strangely uncannily parallel with Hatsis’ claim.
both of them use the word or the idea of “impossible”:
I want to study how to passage in one of hatsis articles where he says – it’s a great interesting argument, or set of 3 assertions: –
1. The Thomas Hatsis first principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible to depict identifiable psychoactive mushroom species in the medium of Christian art.
2. The Thomas Hatsis second principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible to depict ingesting the depicted mushrooms, in the medium of Christian art.
3. The Thomas Hatsis third principle of art-medium communication theory:
it is not possible in the medium of Christian art to depict ingesting the depicted identifiable psychoactive mushroom species specifically for the purpose and context of religious experiencing.
The Thomas Hatsis corollary principle of Christian art versus secular art information carrier potential:
If the above image were in a Christian art piece, it would not be possible to identify this depicted mushroom drawing as a specific particular psychoactive Mushroom species.
However, because the above image is in secular art, we can immediately, and completely unproblematically, identify the drawing as specifically the species Amanita muscaria.
Hatsis says that:
1) you can’t prove that a Mushroom in Christian Art is a psychoactive species; and
2) even if you could, you couldn’t prove that it was ingested; and
3) even if you could, you couldn’t prove that it was ingested intentionally deliberately to have religious experiencing; that the depicted ingesting of the depicted psychoactive mushroom species specifically is in the Christian religious context of intention and meaning.
The cybernetician and communication theory expert Thomas Hatsis says that as far as signal and communication message in a medium, it is not possible to transmit a message that is proof and definite evidence of ingesting mushrooms; and it is impossible to transmit proof in that medium that the ingesting was done intentionally for the purpose of religious experiencing.
consider mediums such as cyberdisciple’s sharp, clean-cut distinction , division between text versus art (and who knows where statuary and coins fit into his cut and dry sword sharp cut off of the different branches of evidentiary artifact types)
We have carriers like a wire, or the air transmitting a radio signal , and we have text as a carrier of evidence , and we have art like pictures say pictures such as – random example – serrations base of Amanita on the children’s picture book that Julie might want to take a look at Ha ha ha
Why do we make the mistake of thinking that there’s two types of evidence: media or communication transmissions message medium of either text or art.
what about coins, what about statues, what about a metal wire, what about transmitted radio frequency electromagnetic waves as a carrier medium ; Christian radio broadcast of branching Mushroom messages?
Let us separate in our analysis, the medium of text or of pictures, which could be ink , paint, parchment, (animal skin or papyrus) , walls , cave walls, rock walls , illuminated manuscripts, graffiti inscribed with a donkey on a cross a Cross in Rome, or bas reliefs: shallow sculpture on a sarcophagus rock
The great cybernetician and communication theorist Hatsis explains to us that in all of these Christian art mediums, 2) it is not possible to transmit proof of ingesting the depicted psychoactive Mushroom species, and that 3) it is not possible to use the any of these mediums to transmit proof and evidence of the use of the depicted psychoactive mushroom for the purpose of religious experiencing.
2) There is just no way that we can indicate- that any artist could use any of these art mediums to transmit definite, positive Proof and evidence of ingesting mushrooms.
3) and especially, it is impossible for these mediums to transmit evidence and proof of a purpose a religious purpose of such ingesting of the depicted identifiable Mushroom species,
1) But let us not forget how to use his opening claim and great principle of communication theory : that it is not possible for Christian artists to transmit in art image form proof of identifiable psychoactive mushroom species.
1) For some reason, it is possible for the book “the golden guide to hallucinogenic plants ” to depict a scientific identifiable illustration of amanita, but for some reason, according to Hattsis’ is communication principle number 1 of the inherent limitation of the pictorial art form, he explains that it is not possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species image in Christian art.
That’s the Thomas Hatsis 1st Principle of Communication Theory based on transmission medium.
2) Hatsis then builds on this master-work fundamental principle of communication theory, by showing further that it is not possible for an artist or transmit pictoral proof and evidence of ingesting the depicted (if it were possible to to depict the identifiable psychoactive species, which is not possible; see Hatsis’ First Principle of Communication Theory).
1) Hatsis explains that it is not possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species image; that’s the Thomas Hatsis first principle of communication theory based on transmission medium.
2) Hatsis then builds on this master-work fundamental principle of communication theory by showing further that it is not possible for an artist or transmit pictoral proof and evidence of ingesting the depicted (if it were possible to to depict the identifiable psychoactive species, which it is not possible; see communication Hatsis community Communication principle number 1: it is not possible).
2) Even if it were possible to transmit an identifiable Mushroom species in the art format medium, even if you could, it would not be possible to transmit evidence and proof in this communication medium of art of ingesting the depicted mushroom ( if it were possible to depict an identifiable psychoactive Mushroom species).
3) And then his great third principal, which let me explain to you in this lecture, of Hatsis’ 3rd Principle of Communication Cybernetics theory.
the grand finale here so put your seatbelt on ha ha ha ha
3) it is not possible to transmit, using the pictoral art medium, proof and evidence – definitive clear-cut beyond-a-doubt proof and evidence – of ingesting the depicted mushrooms (if it were possible to depict a identifiable species, which is not ; see Hatsis’ communication principal number 1) in that very same image, it would not be possible to provably depict ingesting it for the purpose of religious experiencing.
… Cyberdisciple would categorize as so-called “art”.
We have a medium and we have a message.
The medium can be either one of two things: for some reason, God has provided us with precisely – he has taken a sword and precisely cut the medium into exactly 2 types: either text, or art.
Cyberdisciple’s text is artless, and his art is illiterate, because God has sharply cut with his sword our branches of transmission communication message mediums into exactly 2 types.
just like there’s male and female God created them , and in such manner also there are two mediums:
Cyberdisciple explains that in the beginning, when God created the evidence, text and art God created them, and he saw his creation, and he saw that it was good.
Now that we have cut apart the transmission medium from the message which is thereby transmitted the great cybernetician Thomas Hatsis has explained exactly why it is not possible to transmit proof of mushroom species in pictographic form (please inform Richard Schultes the author of “the golden guide to hallucinogenic plants”, who has foolishly attempted to depict a specific mushroom species of amanita on the cover of his children’s book that’s leading children astray thinking that they might be able to become religious artists and depict specifically Amanita in their art , but this is not possible in fact, as Hatsis has explained, because of the inherent limits of the pictographical medium of communication and proof and evidence.
even though it is possible to transmit evidence and proof in the form of a text.
Claude Shannon went to the grave without ever solving the problem of why this is.
get to the point
the summary is the :
put side-by-side:
Hatsis’ claim that it is impossible to give proof in art of use of mushrooms for religious experiencing.
side-by-side with:
1925 book Rolfe: “the romance of the fungus world”, who claims (when mis-identifying the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the “tree of life”), he claims that it is impossible to tell whether this use of mushrooms has any historical basis.
Thomas Hatsis’ article where hatsis claims that it is impossible for artists in the middle ages to deliver and transmit proof in their art imagery that they that the psychoactive mushrooms which they are depicting in these pictures were ingested by the artist and we’re done so ingested for the purpose of religious experiencing.
put those two quoted passages side-by-side.
Uncanny Parallel 2: “followers of Wassen” – or “followers of allegro”??
The other parallel that is the purpose of this webpage:
the other uncanny striking remarkable pearlallel which shows how people don’t think as individuals but they follow a course of a certain school of thought in a certain type and manner of thought rather than thinking as autonomous individuals the other example is
to get to the point before the end of time and second coming
I need to make a local full copy of the article that’s at archive.org because we know articles disappear from the web all the time it’s the default by default every article will vanish from the web we need to make back up
in John Lash his deleted articles about entheogens in which he says he made the discovery of a lifetime that would be enough to retire on it was such a major mind blowing discovery end and he’s correct when he discovered mushrooms in the Canterbury Psalter.
The uncanny parallel here is put side-by-side the quotation the citation excerpt of :
John lash’ deleted article where he says (see my hall of shame quotes page) he says anyone (other than John Lash) who writes anything at all about the subject of mushrooms in religion is by definition a follower of Wassen – including anyone who takes any different view other than Wasson – they are all to be considered as “followers of Wason “
put that side-by-side with :
Hatsisis’ exactly Word for Word identical passage were Wasson where instead of fingering wasson as the villain, Hatsis arbitrarily chooses to finger allegro as the villain instead, and says that anybody who writes anything (again hats this is somehow magically exempted but ) anyone (other than hatsid) who writes anything at all about mushrooms in Christianity is by definition a “follower of allegro” – wait a minute, why allegro here instead of wasson? what’s going on here? what strange parallel but with that one arbitrary difference.
successful progress formalizing the theory of pictoral pictographic communication, especially particularly in medieval Christian art, they excelled at exactly the proof and technology of pictorial indication specifically of what we are needing evidence for.
they developed art motifs to prove and communicate specifically what we are most in need of proof for.
the Christian medieval artists developed a pictographical communication technology: they developed the art motif of “branching-message msh tree” to convey the message that:
🍄🌳🐍📨
“the ultimate message is not the sheer use of msh, but rather, specifically, the transmitted, crafted message is:
the religious transformation of consciousness from a branching-premised, autonomous control model, to a nonbranching control model, of time and personal control power, in the mystic state that mshs produce”.
Christian, Western art in particular provides not merely the sheer proof in pictographic form of using msh, but masterfully, coherently, effectively, skillfully, & impressively transmits deliberate, intentional proof of plant use accompanied by pictographic proof and ideal, carefully refined evidence & a communication method for not just some vague general religious mystical feeling, but specifically, for definitive communication of the religious-state, ultimate, peak transformation of our fundamental mental conception of our nature as seemingly autonomous control agents.
12:09 AM March 24, 2022 a paradigm shift or an interpreter and interpretation inversion speaking in a loose way maybe look at the different categories of re-connections that Paul Thagard inventories in this case I considered the most important aspect of a mushroom tree was the fact it was a mushroom and then much less important is that it had branching incidental
then I inverted that I think Paul Thagard one of his major changes that he maps out is inverting into invert the relationships what was previously a random incidental bug or nuisance the unnatural branching now becomes the feature and the main point and the central primary point is the unnatural branching that stands out awkwardly and uncomfortable you a sore thumb that is exactly the message
I went from the main thing about mushroom trees is there mushrooms an odd incidental feature is that they have often usually is almost always have strange branching features
Now : these are branching message mushroom trees; the main feature of these trees is that they express moving from branching to non-branching, from possibility branching to illusory nature a possibility branching, is their main feature.
and also they happen to depict mushrooms and that day in order to represent or depict the morphology of branching in nonbranching they do so through mushroom elements
I guess you could plot a trajectory that a few weeks ago I still thought of the branches of being incidental and accidental it’s true that I figured out the one image in particular about the branching and non-branching in that image but I still had yet even after I figure that out in November 2020 I still when I saw other mushroom trees I still tended to think of them as mushroom trees which were desirable and good fines because their mushrooms but then there was an annoyance or nuisance on them that they had whimsical random incidental branching anomaly unnatural branching on them
then a couple days ago I thought let’s actually start treating the anomalous branching features as significant in a general sense that they’re trying to express the idea of the branching being problematic that was a temporary interpretive solution but I was starting to be starting to look at the branching as a feature as a meaningful feature rather than a incidental random bug or nuisance
then can I trace how I got from there too well I tried several different formulations of the word label that I use I trip played around with problem branching branching problem or message branching problem trees and then I had to become more confident of that for one thing I realized these are never roughly broken branches and I have been using the word broken branches then I started to realize and did it was always neatly cut branches that was part of a big clue for me and I think a huge turning point is when Brown mentioned that “in passage of the dip this is it really shows that a lot of times you can get a lot of value out of clueless peoples writings as I have done from thatthen can I trace how I got from there too well I tried several different formulations of the word label that I use I trip played around with problem branching branching problem or message branching problem trees and then I had to become more confident of that for one thing I realized these are never roughly broken branches and I have been using the word broken branches then I started to realize and did it was always neatly cut branches that was part of a big clue for me and I think a huge turning point is when Brown mentioned that “in passage of the dip this is it really shows that a lot of times you can get a lot of value out of clueless peoples writings as I have done from that
in this case I think that Brown had included in the email the passage from the artist who wrote about the chapel frescoes before his book and this person before she failed to see the mushrooms in her head only described it as use cutting branches off brown didn’t see any significance in that use beardless use cutting off branches but then when I saw that I was prepared because I had been thinking about that main big tree and how it have been cut very visibly cut not broken off and then today
Then today I in my mind Zai I pictured those mandrake trees I thought wait a minute don’t those mandrake trees since were talking about tree and branching a non-branching don’t those mandrake trees have cut off arms cut off branching in after while I was able to find the two images and confirmed yes indeed they do and so do the mushroom trees on the left and so we have a consistent transfer of theme again we have this idea of that be sure to compare to think side-by-side in this case if you’re finding a lot of mushroom cheese maybe you can find a mandrake tree and then find themes that crossover between them between them
date
The witch Hatsis is telling the world of artists and telling the world of Christian artists that they are so incompetent and inept that it is impossible, literally impossible, to represent an identifiable specific psilocybin species of mushroom in art.
and after he’s done making that laughable indefensible specious argument, he then makes another statement which on the surface of it would appear to be relatively meritorious and might actually stand a chance of standing up to scrutiny for more than two seconds.
Immediately after Hatsis tells artist that is impossible for them to represent an identifiable psychoactive mushroom species in art, his immediate next statement of profundity is that he informs all artists of the world, including Christian artists, that it is literally impossible for them to represent – in their picture of an identifiable Psilocybe and Mushroom species – he says that it’s impossible for them to accompany that mushroom picture along with proof that they actually ingested the mushroom and had religious experiences from it and that they did so deliberately.
how many seconds will it take for the average artist to prove him wrong?
and how many seconds will it take for specifically the master Eadwine’s group who are masters of art and adept at Psilocybin to communicate to me in particular who I am an expert at mytheme decoding and the theory of the altered state –
How many seconds do you think it will take for an average Psilocybe an artist to prove how to full of shit and reveal his argument has been completely specious argument to a reasonable level of degree?
And then how many seconds do you think it will take for the expert master artist group to Eadwine group to communicate to me, the master expert decoder of mythemes and theorist of the altered state – how many seconds do you think it will take for that group of artists to communicate to me in a way where I can receive the message and prove absolutely, in a formal proof, that they definitely had peak advanced religious experience specifically from the psilocybin mushrooms which they literally depicted in their image?
I am actually able to literally answer that question; I have date timestamps of how long it took me to decode the leg Hanging and Balancing image from the Salter,
I have four witnesses: Max Freakout, Cyberdisciple, WrmSpirit, and Dr. Jerry Brown are all witnesses that it took me one week to decode and prove exactly specifically what you said is impossible to prove.
It took me more or less a week to decode it and to write an article which literally is a proof and is structured and presented literally as a proof of exactly what he says is impossible to prove; what he in effect says that it is impossible for eight wines artist group to lay out a provable image and that is it it is impossible for me to receive and unpack and do the proof to receive & publish the proof. Beyond the shadow of a doubt that the image 100% proves everything that has said what is impossible the image and my decoding of it absolutely proves him with 100% certainty that he is completely wrong on both points first of all it is trivially easy to do the first thing that he said is impossible is trivially easy any idiot artist could literally picked a provable psychoactive Mushroom and then even at add a general level of analysis we can generally show the totally specious character of his argument even on the more subtle point that he said even if you could
even if you could prove that the image was specifically a psychoactive species that it’s impossible to prove that the painting is proof of deliberate ingestion it and deliberate ingesting for this purpose of religious experiencing that that appears like you won’t be able to instantly and totally brush it aside it appears like it will take a little bit of effort and it will not be absolutely trivial to disprove like his first point was absolutely trivial to prove had no merit whatsoever not even for a moment this other point may take a little more than a moment in fact to do the full complete absolute and total devastating formal 100% proof
it did take it wines artist group a full week to compose and implement the picture and it did take me the expert receiver a full complete week even though I was as prepared as I could possibly be except I guess I know about branching the branching message better than I did in November 2020 but more or less I was the exact ideal person to work on the decoding so that is the degree so first of all any half decent artist could do a reasonable job of portraying that yes they actually ingested the mushrooms and that you could informally you could informally prove in fact it’s really pretty easy
hey a sort of a no nonsense casual approach is really fast any artist could quickly prove Hatsis wrong on the 99% 99% formal but not quite a 100% formal level any artist any artist at all even an inapt artist could easily prove have to have this wrong on a more less informal basis and then as far as proving Hatsis wrong on a formal absolute 100% formal basis when were talking about not merely beginner trippy like trippy visuals but an actual master expert level advanced level of experiencing that level will require about one week of artist work to send the message and to set up the proof and then it took me in fact one week me being the worlds most optimal and closest to being ideal knowledge the ideal decoder it took me a full week because that’s how rich the imagery is and in the case of most other branching message mushroom trees we can do a proof that was halfway in between the casual artist and this expert level mystic experiencing because you say for example Plaincourault
surprise surprise it lost lost text again we have three levels of art all three of which disprove Hatsis at three different levels of formality we have your average half big head shop trip art mushroom trip art how to says there is impossible for such a thing to exist as head shop mushroom trip art he says that that’s such a thing cannot exist and that he’s saying that if I go in the head shop and look at the are in a head shop to even though I see mushroom images I have no way at all of proving that the artist actually meant to depict psychoactive mushrooms and especially he gets all advanced your hat is makes a very sophisticated assertion here he says there’s no way
He says that it is impossible for the mushroom trip art artist to deliver proof in their image that they intentionally ingested those mushrooms which they are depicting magic mushrooms and and that there’s no way there any artist in there who who creates head shop mushroom art he says it’s impossible for them to include in their mushroom a magic mushroom images he said
it’s impossible for them to provide any evidence that they deliberately ingested those and that they did so for in order to have a religious experience
on the intermediate level of disapproving Hatsis and showing him once again as always to be completely full of shit and specious and his arguments having zero merit at all is the plane crawl Frisco which is a special a particular category of mushroom tree because it includes the serpent and snake the non-branching serpent but I the reason I pick it I really just pick up because it’s an example of your typical average branching message mushroom tree and then this case it happens to have a serpent nonbranching serpent as well bringing the fruit which is both at the mushroom and the message of non-branching and hats this is saying that it is in
in a typical branching message mushroom tree optionally including a snake he says it is impossible for the artist to give any indication that they deliberately and just depicted psychoactive species of mushroom and it is impossible for the artist to indicate that they ingested it specifically for to have a religious experience and that’s what his argument is very sophisticated argument argument
my now that I understand clearly and perceive the two separate layers of him the mushroom trees the branching message mushroom trees they have two layers there’s kind of the surface and they enter penetrate but Thursday envelope the delivery vehicle which is the mushroom and and it’s morphology it’s visual morphology of the branching Mushroom the Mushroom with branching features and then there’s the message which is the message of non-branching or the illusory nature of possibility branching having to do with the model of time and control it’s a given that general understanding of the morphology and motive type of themy now that I understand clearly and perceive the two separate layers of him the mushroom trees the branching message mushroom trees they have two layers there’s kind of the surface and they enter penetrate but Thursday envelope the delivery vehicle which is the mushroom and and it’s morphology it’s visual morphology of the branching Mushroom the Mushroom with branching features and then there’s the message which is the message of non-branching or the illusory nature of possibility branching having to do with the model of time and control it’s a given that general understanding of the morphology and motive type of the
branching message mushroom tree whenever we see a branching message mushroom tree we immediately can assume in a kind of a semi-informal way as a general language it generally represents and pretty essentially proves immediately that anytime you see a branching message mushroom tree it means the ingesting of psychoactive mushrooms in order to have the peak religious experience the transformative cognitively transformative experience of moving the mental model from possibility branching to nonbranching and so given that understanding of that language it kind of amounts to an instant proof
that hat is wrong that the very motif it’s self is proof that he’s wrong the fact that the motif of the branching message mushroom tree exists that whole motif it’s self inherently this proves Hatsis the moment that you see a branching message mushroom tree it instantly shows him wrong because the the whole meaning of that art motif is by definition that very motif itself inherently means use of mushrooms to have the peak transformative religious experiencing so he saying that this motif can’t exist he assumes this kind of this type of a motive couldn’t existthat hat is wrong that the very motif it’s self is proof that he’s wrong the fact that the motif of the branching message mushroom tree exists that whole motif it’s self inherently this proves Hatsis the moment that you see a branching message mushroom tree it instantly shows him wrong because the the whole meaning of that art motif is by definition that very motif itself inherently means use of mushrooms to have the peak transformative religious experiencing so he saying that this motif can’t exist he assumes this kind of this type of a motive couldn’t exist
then thirdly we have the ultimate version or the ultimate instance of the branching message mushroom tree surrounded by 74 more typical instances of mushroom trees in the Canterbury Psalter I would ideally now have to discuss what makes the mushroom tree number 71 stand apart from the other 74 mushrooms mushroom trees in the Psalter
this branching message mushroom tree is in a context of a comic panel which makes statements about the branching message mushroom trees and the advanced use of them
it’s not necessarily that this one mushroom tree in itself is that special – although it is special, because it represents it’s a very specific layout of branching and non-branching elements.
we have the gigantic cut right-hand branch
that position next to the pink key tree so we have to factor in the pinky tree is a in effect in fact due to the layout of the picture whenever you have a crop of the leg hanging tree, that crop will necessarily include the pink key tree in the lower left as well.
The tree has two men in it. that’s not completely unique , because we have the youth cutting off branches.
this is probably not the only mushroom tree in the world that has a person on it, but a feature of this tree is it has persons who very specifically very particularly:.
first of all the pink initiate and the red initiate both have histories depicted in the comic panel they are they are not just generic people with no context.
we have a very particular configuration.
this particular branching message mushroom tree has the pink initiate is balancing in a certain way.
his right hand is hanging onto a cut branch on the otherwise branching half of the tree, and his right foot is secured on a cut off branch in the otherwise primarily branching portion of the tree.
and the tree has a sword at the bottom
this is just a few of the ways in which this branching message mushroom tree is specially equipped to utterly destroy, with 100% finality, Hatsis’ specious argument.
10:21 PM March 23, 2022 therefore a good retort to how to says argument when he says because I I don’t think it’s Letcher I believe it’s how to make this argument I think in one of his articles he argues even if you could prove that the mushroom and Christian are represents a mushroom you could not prove he makes a very broad very very aggressive very broad and bold statement here very sweeping a search and he makes here he says even if you could prove that the mushroom and Chris start meant a mom
even if you could prove that a mushroom in Christian Art was intended as a mushroom there is no way it would be impossible to prove that the mushroom intends to represent a psychoactive Mushroom and even if you could he goes on to argue even if you could prove that the species of mushroom shown in Christian art is definitely a psychoactive type even then you could not prove that that was any evidence at all of intentionally ingesting it and intentionally ingesting it for the purpose of having a religious experience and I will not just say that I totally destroyed that
argument
dammit this is a flaky dammit this is a flaky flaky flaky interface my God look at the little things that I’m complaining right now about the little things to it’s it’s constantly inconsistent and I can’t explain it but it’s it’s doing the wrong thing at every step of the way it’s it’s buggy left and right left and right
It’s a specious argument that he makes it’s a it’s an argument that sounds like as if it’s reasonable but then as soon as you go to challenge it it turns out to be really really easy to challenge and disapproves argument his argument only appears to be have merit until the moment that you start challenging it and it immediately collapses collapses
A great initial retort to him would be what if the artist specifically took steps and made the effort to communicate both that the mushroom is a psychoactive species and that the artist expressly intentionally sought in strove to communicate to the reader to the viewer religious experiencing of a type that was expressly specifically associated with the Psilocybin type of mushroom would you has this would you continue to make such a bold and broad such a bold and such a broad sweeping assertion are you even claiming that even if the artist wanted to and tried to that there is no way it would be impossible for the artist to succeed at their attempt to deliberately and intentionally show us two things are you saying it’s impossible for the artist to depict a specifically psychoactive mushroom type and are you arguing are you really asserting that it would be lit
be literally impossible even if the artist wanted to and even if they’re smart and resourceful and a good artist and well-equipped and everything are you willing to are you really willing to argue that even if the ideal roll the clip well equipped artist that you’re saying that even if the artist strongly desired to prove that the art indicates intentional ingesting of specifically Psilocybe in species specifically for the purpose of proving that they experienced religious experiencing from it are you saying that that it would be impossible for an artist to do so first of all I know you’re not quite
first of all and let’s talk about specious arguments the easiest kind to revealed as being spaces your argument is two-part you would said first of all you argued that there’s no way to tell whether the mushroom you argued it even if we could prove the image representative Mushroom first of all you argued that there’s no way that we could be sure if it indicated a psychoactive type of mushroom that is easy to prove you false there is absolutely nothing at all the easiest thing in the world in fact this is a completely speechless specious argument it would be the easiest thing in the world for an artist to represent a provable identify positively identify but don’t you know anything at all about mushroom identification it is child’s play to provably indicate definite positive identification of an Amanita an Christian Art any artist who wanted to could readily make a positively identifiable Amanita and a positively identifiable Panaeolus and a positively identifiable commences and a positively identifiable Liberty Cap so your argument has barely gotten started and I have already totally destroyed it is utterly baseless and completely spacious because there is not a single thing in the world that would stop any artist from making a provably positively identifiable psychoactive Mushroom
now let’s destroy instantly and totally the second half of your specious argument your argument that seems like it would be sound until the instant that you try to reveal that there’s nothing to it at all
i’ll set contacts by repeating the whole specious argument even if we could prove today shape in Christian Art is mushroom and I will I will speak simply here of course when I say is mushroom I mean of course that the artist intended intended it well I guess being you’re being thickheaded I guess I’m gonna have to spell out the detail
The Hatsis argument is even if we could prove that the shape in mushroom art is definitely a mushroom it’s impossible to prove that that mushroom represents a psychoactive species and then part two of the specious argument is even if we could prove the image in Christian arc depicts a specifically psychoactive type of mushroom a particular psychoactive species of mushroom it is impossible to prove that it was understood by that
The artist to be psychoactive and it would be impossible to prove that the artist had deliberately ingested it specifically to have a religious experience
and that sounds like like it might stand up until the instant that you start to challenge that assertion because what you’re arguing the position that you’re taking amounts to that you’re claiming that even if the artist wanted to third is no possible way that an artist could provide proof birthday got a religious experiencing from the mushroom proof that they got a religious experiencing you’re saying that it is not part
now let’s move this conversation into the more abstract realm of possibility you were saying in general so kind of bracketing aside the question of Christian art you’re saying that there is no possible way to indicate through and painting you’re saying that it is not possible to paint a picture which proves to the viewer that the painter has religious experiencing from psilocybin mushrooms here you’re making a statement about the nature of religious experiencing that comes from psilocybin you are saying in a kind of a direct abstract way that there is no way to make a picture that proves that you have religious experiences from psilocybin mushrooms you’re you’re saying that even if you can even if it is possible to make a picture that’s definitely identifiable as a psilocybin mushrooms species you’re saying that even in that case there is no way that an artist can possibly prove to us that they use that and ingested that psychoactive Psilocybe and Mushroom species that’s depicted in their artwork and got a religion
got a specifically Psilocybe and religious experience from it your specious argument your specious argument claims that it is not possible to make a picture that proves that one has had psilocybin experience I’m looking for more practical ways to convey that assertion
Brain storm here has his claims that there’s no way for art to depict Psilocybe and experience I don’t know how old brain I see Hanses Hatsis says it’s impossible to represent Psilocybe and experience in art
funny this time I did say the word psilocybin, and now It misread it as the word Psilocybe that I’ve bern trying hard to get
Here is news to the art world from brilliant genius Hatsis :
dear world of psilocybin artists: did you know – interesting fact from Hatsis – did you know, that it’s not possible to represent psilocybin religious experience in art? because that is what his specious argument amounts to a certain when he says first of all it’s impossible for a Christian artist to unmistakably depict a psychoactive specific Mushroom and it’s also impossible the great art master Hatsis the great expert at altered states and an even greater expert at art he’s his name is Thomas Hatsis explains that there is no possible way that any artist could possibly prove in their art or or strongly indicate in their art their art which shows as an identifiable psilocybin species
hatsis has just revealed to us that it’s impossible for an artist to create a painting of an identifiable Psilocybe in species and also indicate in that painting proof that they had had religious experiencing from that psilocybin species
Truly Hatsis you have a dizzying intellect
10:06 PM March 23, 2020 to the minimal entheogen position or theory is completely unrealistic it brings in a whole raft of extremely negative and unrealistic presuppositions that don’t hold up the scrutiny and it makes ridiculous it does a divide and conquer approach of even if you force me to admit that this one particular mandrake image in Christian Art means mandrake I’m going to presuppose and couch that around
i’m going to build huge protective walls to wall off that one instance by a wall of negative presuppositions I’m going to reluctantly and grudgingly acknowledge that that one single loan isolated mandrake instance means to the one person the artist themselves and nobody else it means the one time used it and that there heretical and that it was secretly used and it to be at the extreme the presence of that mandrake image actually indicates the absence of use of mandrake that’s the extreme so every bit of evidence is thus strategically isolated and severed from all other evidence we don’t allow a big picture to be built up we don’t allow realistic attitudes that anyone who’s using part of the Pharma Copia
is going to be using all of them we refused to take into account the utterly realistic reality that anyone who uses one visionary plant is bound to use all of them that they can get their hands on so we will sever so that even if you could force me as a minimalist even if you could force me to admit that this is a mandrake I would not consider anything else except for that sheer isolated fact and I would do everything to keep that fact isolated I would say well you can’t prove that they used it for religious reasons this is a Hatsis type of reasoning he’s use this reasoning it gets mushrooms he said even if you could prove that that mushroom image in art you was a mushroom you couldn’t prove that it was psychoactive never mind the fact that I’ve ask
i’ve actually done so with the leg Hanging Balancing image he said he argues you couldn’t prove there was anything more than a dinner mushroom and even if you could somehow prove that it was the psychoactive type you couldn’t prove at all that they understood and intended and deliberately used it because of its religious effects he’s argued that and I’ve actually just proved all of that I’m not only showing that it’s possible that it is theory and theoretically possible to prove those things I have in fact literally proved those things that he said that there would be no way to prove those things but I’ve done it thanks to eat wine group geniuses communicating to me and giving me the exact specific concrete evidence that I need to then receive the message and decode it and explain it so that we have established a communication channel of proofi’ve actually done so with the leg Hanging Balancing image he said he argues you couldn’t prove there was anything more than a dinner mushroom and even if you could somehow prove that it was the psychoactive type you couldn’t prove at all that they understood and intended and deliberately used it because of its religious effects he’s argued that and I’ve actually just proved all of that I’m not only showing that it’s possible that it is theory and theoretically possible to prove those things I have in fact literally proved those things that he said that there would be no way to prove those things but I’ve done it thanks to eat wine group geniuses communicating to me and giving me the exact specific concrete evidence that I need to then receive the message and decode it and explain it so that we have established a communication channel of proof
unbeknownst to the witch there was a deliberate communication of specifically specifically to get around his claim so I would say I would retort to her to what if an artist knew that you would make your bank decision your bank claim your claim that there be no way to tell suppose that you had an artist who wanted to circumvent the alleged limitation that you’re talking about suppose that you have a artist a skilled artist group who knew that you would try to block them and they actually took steps to make an absolutely explicit proof and communication to meand so this artist group made a language of communication and a technology of communication basically a language and they set it up even with a decoding key the pink tree that was designed in order specifically to communicate beyond any doubt exactly precisely what’s going on in the ultimate adapt use of souls I’ve been mushrooms and that is in fact what happened so how this is imagining a bunch of incompetent inapt artists and he wouldn’t fathom anything like the concept of the theory of branching a non-branching like like hats what if what if he had his trip or Christians who were delivered
Who were deliberately trying to indicate specifically in their artwork those very things that has his claims are not possible to indicate what if you had Christians who deliberately indicated mushrooms that not only literally match the physiology but they also found ways and devised ways to communicate their altered state experiences in a way that was a unmistakable an absolute proof that only an experienced adapt could possibly have these kind of of a adept level expert level of experience with these plants and that their adapt artist at communicating with those definitive experiences and so essentially these artists are dead set on doing precisely what has his imagines and assumesWho were deliberately trying to indicate specifically in their artwork those very things that has his claims are not possible to indicate what if you had Christians who deliberately indicated mushrooms that not only literally match the physiology but they also found ways and devised ways to communicate their altered state experiences in a way that was a unmistakable an absolute proof that only an experienced adapt could possibly have these kind of of a adept level expert level of experience with these plants and that their adapt artist at communicating with those definitive experiences and so essentially these artists are dead set on doing precisely what has his imagines and assumes
cannot be done they are artist and adept at Psilocybin it transcribe correctly that time psilocybin well then it went and wrecked it but it did get it psilocybin mushrooms psilocybin mushrooms Psilocybe Mushroom I got it I got the transcription right that time like a Bayleaf bay leaf Psilocybe babe yeah I got it the transcription works
like a windowsill and then go and then fly like a sigh of breath of sigh and then be like a Bayleaf Laurelleaf bay bay Laurelleaf still go side bay Psilocybe Mushroom Psilocybe a voice dictation Psilocybe a really psilocybin mushrooms voice dictation Psilocybe a Mushroom voice dictation Psilocybe and Mushroom voice dictation Psilocybe a Psilocybe he
I went to all the trouble to learn how to pronounce the word correctly and now I have to pronounce it in a special way the voice recognition won’t get it mixed up with the word philosophy OK here’s advanced level voice dictation this is my philosophy of psilocybin that didn’t quite get it this is my philosophy of psilocybin no I didn’t say psilocybin I said psilocybin OK got it that time this is my philosophy of psilocybin nope didn’t get it psilocybin Celeste Psilocybe babe ha ha philosophy no psilocybin psilocybe Psilocybe he you have to emphasize say making a sigh of breath a breath of sigh Psilocybe my philosophy of psilocybin no I got it wrong my philosophy of psilocybin Psilocybe philosophy Psilocybe philosophy of psilocybin philosophy of psilocybin know it keeps on doing suicide in that context ha ha I
psilocybin oh it got it right and then it changed to psilocybin psilocybin mushrooms no wrong psilocybin mushrooms Psilocybe a Mushroom I added the letter a it added the E the stem thing can’t even get the word it’s correct Psilocybe a retarded stupid voice recognition Psilocybe and Mushroom no I did not say psilocybin I said psilocybin Psilocybe Mushroom it’s extremely inconsistent and unreliable voice dictation
broken buggy half broken I’ll generously say this tool is half broken ha ha Ha
956 March 23, 2022 this is the second post in this webpage so I am now going to continue where I left off at the bottom of the below long posting at the bottom of this page because new entries go at the top of the page I think I have a clearer grasp of it than ever before the amazing degree to which assumptions and presuppositions and evidence are all a crazy tangled mess and I have learned that
scholars are much much more driven by presuppositions for example look at how far I was able to push amazingly aggressive assertions about the degree of infusion use by being creative with my presuppositions and and basing those so-called presuppositions basing them on actual real world experience for example here’s some evidence for you as if a person enjoys one specific visionary plant you should assume that that person enjoys all visionary plants if a person goes hunting for one mushroom type you can safely very truthfullyand very reasonably and very much based in reality you can confidently assume that if someone gathers and values and understands psilocybin mushrooms then they also gather and use and respect and understand amanita and they recognize Amanita in our you can absolutely serve the most reasonable thing in the world and it’s easy to prove that this is the case and that this is reasonable and reality-based if someone recognizes Amanita and christian are and they appreciate it’s visionary effects you can confidently assume that that person also understands and appreciates similar plants such a Psilocybin and conversely you can assume that anyone who recognizes and comprehend Psilocybe and Mushroom images and Chris art also of course
understands and recognizes and sometimes uses Amanita as well these are all stronger than prep presuppositions these are all absolutely justified rational reasonable real real world based on evidence of how life actually works and how peoples values and peoples comprehension actually works it is the easiest thing in the world to justify these presuppositions which lead to conclusions like the presence of psilocybin imagery and Christian Art is evidence for an understanding of amanita and conversely the presence of amanita an Christian Art it is easy to prove that that is evidence of knowledge and understanding and read
reverence for psilocybin and only a biased person would think otherwise only a biased person who’s out of touch with reality and misrepresent reality would argue otherwise only an unreasonable person would would make a hard line differentiation to hermetically seal and isolate Amanita from Psilocybe and I’m saying that in practice nobody really thinks Amanita in art literally represents strictly the use of amanita and no one really people are out of touch with their own beliefs but I think that in practice nobody seriously thinks that a psilocybin image in art strictly and exclusively represents
understanding and valuing and using psilocybin although we do get carried away in our artificial abstractions we are still sane and grounded in reality enough to have a practical intuitive reality-based realization that of course and amanita in art represents knowledge and valuing and use of psilocybin as well as amanita and probably mandrake to and conversely an image of psilocybin I’ll try transcription an image of Celotta be philosophy Mushroom philosophy philosophy OK well we have discovered the philosophy mushroom not to be completed with a philosopher stone in the Smart shop the most the most reasonable rational and realistic grounded thinking will acknowledge that of course a slice of the mushroom image in Christian Art represents the use of Sloss a B and amanita and mandrake
it is a completely unreal and unrealistic false presupposition to act like and think as if a specific visionary plant in art exclusively represents and necessarily and strictly and solely represents that one specific visionary plant that is completely unrealistic thinking that’s not how values work that’s not how the annual crops work that’s just not how reality works so the most realistic thinking match is the maximal entheogen theory and I don’t mean the extremist maximal but I mean a reasonably maximal reasonably generously
first post is below
I am not sure what voice dictation text got captured in that previous page it I had to kill the app it got hung I was watching it enter text madly as fast as it could text that I had spoken I couldn’t tell if it was re-injuring it 10 times or what re-entering it 10 times and then the app the page froze on me I had to kill the app so I’m I don’t know I’m gonna start a fresh short shorter page I think I may have had a limit I don’t know too much profundity too quickly and I locked up the app
I will have to use express simple ideas slowly and not blow the apps mind too fast last I remember I was trying to explain how the minimal theory would perceive a mandrake in Christian Art versus how the maximal theory would perceive that same mandrake and what presuppositions would be brought to it and it’s remarkable we can paint an incredibly negative scenario for the minimal theory and we can paint an extreme opposite scenario for the maximal theory to the maximal theme
dammit man I hope that it even transcribed a bunch of valuable text and then when I terminated then it deleted all the text
I just saw do do it again it transcribed text and then when it stopped, it deleted the text
buggy piece of crap!!
from the point of you of the maximal theory a single mandrake in Christian Art is proof that all Christians everywhere have always used every kind of visionary plant
from the point of view of the minimal entheogen theory a single mandrake and Christian art is proof that no Christian has ever used any visionary plant
those are not those absolute extreme positions are not the very most useful which is why I always defined kind of against the against the sometimes idea that the ego the theory is always to contrast the things you can see the practical necessity often of using a scale instead of a strict binary are usually define three positions the maximal moderate and minimal theory I’m feeling right now like I need for positions because a minute ago I defined extreme like truly extremistpositions I defined an extremist version of the maximal theory that’s hard to take seriously by any point of you and I also defined a rabid extremist version of the minimal view which was not actually minimal right here I guess what what would I usually call that well depends on how you define minimal one I think I’ve said this before I think I wrote this before that there’s almost 2 very different versions of minimal there’s minimal position in the sense of being absolutely against it I think I may have posted it Egodeath.com of a whole spectrum of different positions of something more like five positions than just three because we can define a ball headed committed skeptic point of you which says visionary plants are a religious and therefore it is a contradiction in terms to ever use a visionary plant in a religious way that is a nonsensical idea nobody has ever used a vision a visionary plant in a religious way because the idea is a self-contradiction and this would be not merely the minimalist position but it kind of a rabid hard-core raging anti-anti-mystic just like you can see a certain brand of fundamentalism loves loves to demonize every single form of gnosis mysticism esotericism Mystery religion Babylon mystery Babylon they love to demonize any kind of thing and some of them even demonize the Pentecostals as well and then say that anything other than a straightlaced fundamentalism is Babylon mystery religion gnosis and they would put plants they would eat instantly lump all visionary plants in the same category been at the other extreme a minute ago I defined an insanely rabid maximal extremist maximal position
which I am I have the intellectual power to define such an extremist maximal position that even I am not able to take that position
suppose let’s take our example of one mandrake image in one Christian artwork the rabbit extremist insane maximal position would be that that is absolute proof that every single Christian ever uses every kind of visionary plant that was ever existed and the day they all and they do so I’ll explicitly as the Eucharist every week
there is a big definitional problem when you define a scale and you say let’s say let’s suppose if there’s a maximal moderate and minimal positions you have to find those in so see ego death.com to see how I defined those position because I literally don’t know how I defined us and when you start really getting into the nitty-gritty and you start throwing around terms like minimal and maximal pretty quickly you’re going to run into definitional problems what is the word minimal supposed to mean what is the word maximal supposed to mean Thomas Hatsis is a Minimal a East minimalist on certain specific points but not on other points
in fact it’s coming back to me now I have a damn memory of times when I got frustrated and I said that the whole I think this was recent I think I discussed it with cyber disciple that in maybe November 2020 I became frustrated with the idea I was needing a more flexible model that has I think especially it was houses and other people where they were refusing to fit into my net categorization my neat knit categorization how come voice transcription seems to have the biggest problems is the most trivial simple words that I’m pronouncing them perfectly normal and perfectly clearly and it just dies it becomes completely retarded on the mosthow come it has the hardest trouble with the easiest words to transcribe
I don’t remember offhand what my frustrations were and why I I pretty much frankly ended up ditching in frustration my rigid simple minded model of maximal moderate and minimal entheogen theories and then I remember feeling favorable about the grid game I feel like I don’t remember for sure and I don’t remember the trajectory but I feel like my version one model was expressed as minimal moderate maximal and I feel like that got superseded by the grade game which Max defined and then I flushed it in with a lot of detail and then I added the construct of the forgot plots
i’m sure a lot of people in this position I know I’m in this position where I have written so many ideas that I literally don’t know there is not enough time in my lifetime to go review and reread what I wrote before so I’m kind of alienated from some of my own theories like exactly what is my model of minimal and moderate and why did I end up feeling like I had to abandon it it just didn’t have the Percision that I needed it’s kind of useful as long as you restrict yourself to using it and using it in a hazy blurry first order approximation kind of way but is soon as you start trying to push that model too hard you run up against the limitations of it and I feel like I felt
I felt happier around November or we could’ve been February 2021 whenever I made podcast episodes about the forgot plot and the grid game .
I was not feeling frustrated When developing my new idea of the grid game and forgot plots like I had been feeling frustrated with my moderate and minimal enth theories spectrum.
maybe I could try expressing myself now in terms of the grid game and forgot plots I still do feel it’s useful to imagine how would a minimalist fill-in the grid game where it’s all chopped up and artificially divided into which plant in which era in which region each cell has like three layers I’ve analyzed it in some detail it would be like a set of different grids two dimensional grids and I described two different philosophies of playing the game one philosophy starts with all the cells empty or negative
they defined the game in such a way that they start off all negative and the best you can possibly do is come out zero neutral it was a biased way I don’t remember how I explained it but you start off by filling in a negative and -in each soul of the grid game of the grid and then any time you find positive evidence you write a plus but next to you write a – in parentheses so it’s zero so if you tally up and if you assume number by number quantity of souls and then you score it you find it in the negative way of playing the game the highest score you can get zero in the in the maximal
in the maximal way of playing the game I think the idea was that you start off with a plus on every cell until proven otherwise assume that every religion has intelligent roots and that they used every single antigen that they could get their hands on and assume that if we have no evidence that we should go ahead and assume that they use the visionary plans anyway so so it’s a matter of two different biases you can be justifiably very biased in favor of assuming they use a visionary plants just by the argument that religious experience and comes from visionary plants and does not come from other methods therefore wherever those religion there must be visionary plants and that’s why we should play the grid game bye
I think I joked I may have joked about the extreme of hears’s how the maximalist plays the grid game:
put a plus it every cell; you’re done. instant win; 100% maximum score.And
the attitude of I will I will die by that I will I will live or die by that I I am willing to
I am absolutely willing to make a simple flat out assumption with no explicit evidence because I consider the evidence is self evident:
wherever there’s a religion , there must be visionary plants; end of discussion
And the attitude of I will I will die by that I will I will live or die by that I I am willing to I am absolutely willing to make a simple flat out assumption with no explicit evidence because I consider the evidence is self evident wherever there’s a religion there must be visionary plants end of discussion
people have suckered themselves into playing the grid game they have set up these artificial boundaries that don’t exist in nature and they don’t exist in practice and they don’t exist in peoples values these hard cut and dry distinctions that are upheld by all kinds of false assumptions we greatly exaggerate the separation of the Pharma Copia not only did I argue to Dr. Brown in practice when you go mushroom hunting you come across all of the varieties in a change in configuration year toChanging configuration year to year in the same spot and you take what you are dealt one year nature deals you more psilocybin one year nature deals you more amanita then you can fall back may be on an annual on a perennial mandrake even if you have your own ranking or even if you objectively have an objective ranking that that psilocybin is objectively more desirable and the amanita is objectively less desirable except the shape is honorable and that mandrake you might consider to be third of a3 rate that it’s more of a deliriant although it does have visionary practice properties to that would be extremely justify it extremely rational extremely extremely rational extremely reality-based extremely-based and solid real world experience the decision about which plant to represent in your art is distinct from the cards that your adult each year buy a mushroom patch or a garden a secret garden of whatever the Apoxsee theory has available that year or that month we need to really break and sever like like and that one dimwit professor is helping us out when he argues that mushrooms in our do not represent mushrooms because the mushroom in art does not represent anyone species and we can leverage that it’s child’s play to totally destroy his argument or destroyextremely rational extremely reality-based extremely-based and solid real world experience the decision about which plant to represent in your art is distinct from the cards that your adult each year buy a mushroom patch or a garden a secret garden of whatever the Apoxsee theory has available that year or that month we need to really break and sever like like and that one dimwit professor is helping us out when he argues that mushrooms in our do not represent mushrooms because the mushroom in art does not represent anyone species and we can leverage that it’s child’s play to totally destroy his argument or destroy we can easily it’s child’s play to destroy his bunk conclusion that mushrooms don’t mean not shrooms and we can totally turn out against him easily and because we are based in reality this argument is based in reality and so it can easily destroy his false conclusion which is not based in reality the reality is that at one point in time you have to make a decision of which plant you choose to represent in your art but that’s a separate conversation point from what visionary plants are available to you this month and next month and next year and which ones do you end up using for whatever reason that is distinct and separate from the question and so I think it is part of this fallacy where this fallacy is coming from where is this fallacy is coming from is minimalist presuppositions the presupposition that visionary plants are rare and are unavailable and are used only secretly and are almost never used and that anyone who uses one would only use that one type that one species and the given person would only be aware of one when you take all of these like skewed crazy set of negative long long list of negative presuppositions that is what’s behind this big huge mistake where we grossly underestimated the amount of understanding of the visionary plants that art represents and we greatly underestimate the amount of usage and we also greatly underestimate the range of Pharma Copia part of the maximum entheogen theory that I am now here spelling out is that we need to in the maximal entheogen theory a principle of it is assume that any image represents valuing and understanding and using every type of visionary plant that would be that’s an extremist position by by design that’s deliberately an extreme position if you see a mandrake in Christian art let’s say like Monte Cassino that is evidence of meaning and intending and respecting and understanding and ingesting every visionary plant in contrast the minimal presuppositions of the minimal entheogen theory are that and how many to here here is the kind of warped twisted thinking that the minimalist mind hurts when the minimalist mind sees mandrake they will attack it with the whole set of range of the most negative presuppositions that they can think of at the art for one thing the artist who drew the mandrake didn’t realize they were drawing mandrake and it was heretical and no one else recognize the meaning and it’s use with secret and they only did it once and the artist who drew it was working for someone else until the artist had no idea what they were drawing and the person who drew it does use mandrake but that’s the only thing that they use as far as visionary plants and length of artist would not have known because people were stupid back then the artist who drew mandrake we can constantly assume that they were unaware of any other visionary plans other than mandrake and we can assume confidently did the person who drew mandrake is a strict adherence of only using mandrake and never using any other in visionary plant that is the twisted mind of the neck of the minimal entheogen theory of religion end of art interpretation in fact you can see my s
my strategy here is to define in contrast at the same time to contrasting positions take the defined the minimalist position let’s take this hypothetical abstract simplified scenario given Christian art showing mandrake what are the forceful interpretive lens of the minimal theory versus contrasted against the maximal theory what does the mind of the minimal theory perceive given a single mandrake image in Christian art and then in contrast what does the mind of the maximal theory perceive when it is shown a single mandrake increasein Christian art the minimalist mind will see secret atypical heretical use of only mandrake no other visionary plants and only by the artist and nobody else in contrast what the maximal theory will perceive by that same data is that image indicates the understanding and using and valuing and adjusting of every single visionary plan whatever is available from moment to momentAnother weird twisted angle is the strange self-contradictory way that allegro frames plane crawl as plain cruel proves the incisions were forgotten completely because it’s evidence of remembering what has been forgotten according to Alegres theory that said that mushrooms were immediately forgotten at the beginning of Christianity and therefore plain curl represents the remaining remembering of the forgotten how many days it directly self-contradictory position it’s plainly and directly self-contradictory so in allegros minimalist kind of mine because his theory of vintage and throughout history is a minimalist theory he and his theory is my minimal see if he says that tAnother weird twisted angle is the strange self-contradictory way that allegro frames plane crawl as plain cruel proves the incisions were forgotten completely because it’s evidence of remembering what has been forgotten according to Alegres theory that said that mushrooms were immediately forgotten at the beginning of Christianity and therefore plain curl represents the remaining remembering of the forgotten how many days it directly self-contradictory position it’s plainly and directly self-contradictory so in allegros minimalist kind of mine because his theory of vintage and throughout history is a minimalist theory he and his theory is my minimal see if he says that the early Christians only the first generation is laminate it and then people immediatelyhen people
My strategytrategy here
9:04 PM March 23, 2022 I have identified an important variety of the single plant fallacy and this is based on the common place understanding of the concept I am here agreeing with the commonly understood realization of the idea of the Pharma Copia it is the we have to establish the principle of the interchangeability of the Pharma Copia a picture of mandrake is evidence for the use of psilocybin a picture of amanita is evidence for ingesting cannabishear the rigid brittle unrealistic single plant fallacy of this type is the idea that a depiction in art of one particular entheogen directly and rigidly and necessarily represents the literal ingesting of that particular entheogen and that is a fallacy that’s not how values work people who value the visionary state value all the various visionary plants and they use them theyre
there is only a general or rough approximate correlation between an image of a particular entheogen and the use of that exact entheogen in reality there is a looser fairly loose somewhat looser connection for example it may be that everybody all of the infusion adapts agree and they all recognize that the most desirable visionary plant is psilocybin that it is the most efficient the most visionary the most religious the most efficient and focused
suppose that is true suppose that all religious users a visionary plants suppose if they all agree that psilocybin is the most desirable also that community would agree that the other visionary plants have value as well and you would have people for various reasons for practical reasons sometimes using visionary plans other than psilocybin but in the special case of Saul Simon you would expect those people to prefer depicting Psilocybe and even though the reality is that they do not always have Saul Simon available and saw that throughout the year in practice they are likely to use things other than psilocybin but yet they are likely to depict into prefersuppose that is true suppose that all religious users a visionary plants suppose if they all agree that psilocybin is the most desirable also that community would agree that the other visionary plants have value as well and you would have people for various reasons for practical reasons sometimes using visionary plans other than psilocybin but in the special case of Saul Simon you would expect those people to prefer depicting Psilocybe and even though the reality is that they do not always have Saul Simon available and saw that throughout the year in practice they are likely to use things other than psilocybin but yet they are likely to depict into prefer
depicting so Simon and we can think of similar reasons why people might choose to desire to depict Amanita even if that very same person knows the truth that psilocybin is more efficient and cleaner and more effective the person may still choose to depict Amanita for artistic and tradition reasons and pious reasons Pius Pius reasons even one might say for religious reasons someone might choose to ingest or rather someone might prefer and desire to to use psilocybin butThat same person might and practice use amanita at least sometimes due to issues of availability or one could even see you in a vague broad sense for religious reasons because it is depicted in Ezekiel and revelation
8:40 PM March 23, 2022 reconceptualizing and mentally re-categorizing and remapping mytheme I don’t know do I consider Mushroom Trees as a mytheme does my existing catalog of myth themes even list mushroom trees do I consider a mushroom tree to be a myth theme I don’t even know and mind you at this point I consider my catalogs to be complete they are adequate representations of all the major significant mytheme’s that I’m aware of and yet I have dealt strangely it is very strange to consider that I seriously doubt that Idesignated the concept of a mushroom tree as a mytheme I know I have designated miss seems like branching a non-branching and snake and I am I might have I don’t know where do I have mushroom do I in the name of my methanes do I have any math themes or missing categories with the word mushroom and especially do I have a mytheme called mushroom tree and if not why not what methanes do I have in my catalog that are the most similar to my latest concept first I was trying the concept of a problem Mattick mushroom tree problematic mushroom tree a few days ago and then in the past may be 24 hours I’ve had to break through on a scale it’s unclear what the scale of breakthrough is one definitely significant part of that breakthrough was I was mocking Tom Hatsis as always having a field day which is all too easy to do and I was joking about him associating him with deliriant in contrast to associating myself with it entheogens Ha Hah Hah Hah and I said that I am better at identifying mandrake in art than he is so I was talking again about my Monte Cassino pair of images of the mushroom tree on the left with the mandrake tree on the right which I am the one to identify the mandrake tree and then I thought in my mind I mentally pictured weedI made podcast voice recording where I pointed out that I have the fact that I’m better than hats and identifying mandrakes in art because I had identified mandrake trees but with all this work I’ve been doing on mushroom trees lately and the morphology particularly the branching morphology in particular of mushroom trees and so then in my recording I didn’t think of it at the time they didn’t immediately strike me at all while I made the I think it was a couple of recordings were one or two recordings I mentioned that I am the one to decode the mandrake Trees enter positively identify them and then afterwards I guess when I was listening yes when I was listening to a recording from today or yesterday where I mention Mandarin Chinese proba
probably today’s recording I pointed out that I had I am the one to identify and positively identify mandrake trees unlike Hatsis and then I was listening to that recording today and and so therefore I was picturing the mandrake trees and with all the work I’ve been doing on branching morphology of mushroom trees I thought in my mind wait a minute aren’t they’re broken aren’t they’re cut branches I’m changing my terminology from broken to cut aren’t there cut arms I remember in my mind in my mind Zai I think I seem to recall that the mandrake tree has cut branching and today I confirmedConfirmed that and so the big surprise was that the branching theme I have been demonizing mandrake as a deliriant but now I saw that the branching theme was deliberately applied to Mandry to because come on how artificial had this would immediately dismissed the mandrake treat can’t possibly be a magic because everyone knows that Amanda is not a tree and furthermore it has cut branches so it’s a poor tree and so it just feels and I’ll kinds of ways and I’m saying that I’m taking what he would reject I am what he would reject as a bug and a failure and a negative identifier I am identifying it as a a positiveConfirmed that and so the big surprise was that the branching theme I have been demonizing mandrake as a deliriant but now I saw that the branching theme was deliberately applied to Mandry to because come on how artificial had this would immediately dismissed the mandrake treat can’t possibly be a magic because everyone knows that Amanda is not a tree and furthermore it has cut branches so it’s a poor tree and so it just feels and I’ll kinds of ways and I’m saying that I’m taking what he would reject I am what he would reject as a bug and a failure and a negative identifier I am identifying it as a a positive positive identifier that straddles the categories of stylized entheogen and stylized mushrooms and depictions of the effects of infusions and this would even include intelligence in the broader sense broadened so as to include scopolamine broadened so as to include mandrake so I got today I received a few surprised unexpected bolstering from a direction that was a little bit unexpected and I have been thinking of course while I have been mocking making fun of hats is associating him with that he’s trying to replace the philosophy Eucharist by deliverance
deliriant naturally that joke raises the question of what is the visionary nature of deliverance deliriant plants versus classic philosophy psilocybin effects and I talk about the pharmacopia I talk about the broad Entheogens pharmacopia I think of deliriant plants similar to how I think about amanita or even cannabis visionary flightsand it is like I said about the realistic valuing of multiple different intensity levels like from a narrow minded point of you you might see that only psilocybin is worth anything and only at level 10 out of 10 whereas in contrast I’ve argued with Dr. Brown that in practice you’re going to use the Pharma Copia this is this is a pretty familiar pretty common place argument that people don’t just only use one plant they use whatever is available and all them and I would refine something that I argued to him that even if depictions of amanitaThe
transcription missed a bunch of my words come on thing workThe transcription missed a bunch of my words come on thing work
I think I need to start a new block which is carriage return periodically missed a bunch of my text dammit I debated with Dr. Brown I said that amanita represents the use of psilocybin but more insightful and even more realistically is that any visionary plant in religious art actually and practice represents the actual use of the entire broad pharmacopia and I some of the text that got missed the brain dead argument at Emma’s journalisthack article that put down Dr. Brown because he has no expertise but merrily has taught cultural history with agents for 1 million years which doesn’t count for anything is not relevant in this hack article has a stupid bow tied guy who’s arguing that a given Mushroom in christian art does not represent a single species with his implied result is that therefore mushrooms don’t mean mushrooms but the truth of what he’s saying despite himself is that I can almost take the unconscious truth and then amplify it any given christian and Mushroom depiction in our represents and indicates it’s an indicator of the use of every kind of visionary plant that’s available therefore the specious argument I’d flip it against him and I did this kind of thing with Dr. Brown I can flip the argument against the bowtie clueless professor who’s who said who argues he argues that a specific Mushroom and christian art does not represent a specific species of mushrooms and I am turning that against the professor and saying that’s right any particular Mushroom in christian art indicates and means and represents and is intended to represent the use of any and all visionary plan and every type of psychoactive mushroom including Amanita and the various psilocybin and indicates the use of mandrake and cannabis and opium and etc. and so for example what specifically does amanita represent in Christian Art it indicates the ingesting of every type of visionary plant including Psilocybe and Mushroom then we can ask given a Psilocybin image in Christian Art what does that represent the answer is it represents using amanita and psilocybin and mandrake and opium and cannabis etc. this is a realistic viewand every type of psychoactive mushroom including Amanita and the various psilocybin and indicates the use of mandrake and cannabis and opium and etc. and so for example what specifically does amanita represent in Christian Art it indicates the ingesting of every type of visionary plant including Psilocybe and Mushroom then we can ask given a Psilocybin image in Christian Art what does that represent the answer is it represents using amanita and psilocybin and mandrake and opium and cannabis etc. this is a realistic view and together with that realistic view is that people who use the pharmacopia let’s call them adept at using the pharmacopia know that the very most desirable or efficient visionary plant cognitive loosening agent is psilocybin any mushroom represents all mushrooms and knowledge and represents knowledgeable mushrooms so I would modify my retort on my reply to to Dr. Brown and say that instead of saying what I posted at his article at Academia.edu you instead of my assertion that amanita image represents Psilocybe and use what I should say instead is thatand together with that realistic view is that people who use the pharmacopia let’s call them adept at using the pharmacopia know that the very most desirable or efficient visionary plant cognitive loosening agent is psilocybin any mushroom represents all mushrooms and knowledge and represents knowledgeable mushrooms so I would modify my retort on my reply to to Dr. Brown and say that instead of saying what I posted at his article at Academia.edu you instead of my assertion that amanita image represents Psilocybe and use what I should say instead is that
and how many to image in Christian Art in fact represents the use of psilocybin and amanita and what does whatever visionary plants are available and you have to understand about mandrake and the scopolamine plants is it they are extremely potent and extremely common place available year-round is how we should think of them whereas the psilocybin mushrooms as far as actually adjusting it by Christians in Christian history it’s a delicacy it is a it is the most desirable it is recognized and revered as being the most desirable but to pick
images of either a Panaeolus or cube Ensis or liberty Or amanita any one of those represents the entire set of them and also represents using and indicates and is evidence of using mandrake had been scopolamine plants cannabis opium visionary plants in general and so it is non-specific actually it is a big fallacy is the assumption and see I can turn the professors argument against him who says mushrooms and or don’t mean mushrooms because no no particular mushroom in art represents one singleSpecies and therefore mushrooms in art never mean mushrooms because a mushroom in art does not represent one single species I turn that argument against him and I say any mushroom in art and it’s a given that we’re focusing on Greek and Helen Instacart any mushroom in art represents using all all types of mushrooms whatever’s available
8:39 PM March 23, 2022 this time I am adding text into a proper paragraph instead of the title of the page it would be nice but hard to do consistently after the timestamp to state a heading I am now going to have an insight about topic ask are you going to tell you that ahead of time I’m about to change my direction unexpectedly to the subject of X
8:38 PM March 23, 2022 experimenting with log entries with voice dictation with a timestamp approach that seems like it could work very very well Except that didn’t work very well because it ended up transcribing directly into the title of the page instead of a paragraph take to take two
8:36 PM March 23, 2022 voice transcription experiment usage experiments con’t the way because I enter new text at the top of the page but then I work down it works down words it fills in the words down words and then I’ll do a separate session of transcribing a few minutes later at the top of the page so I’m not sure how I think if I just use it consistently if I use a consistent approachThen it will be comprehensible of which timestamp goes with which text because I miss I really miss having the timestamps @yahoo groups when I post it all the time starting around 2010 any post that I did well that was 2011 late 2011 I started posting in between then and 2013 until Yahoo stopped my normal way was to use my typical way was to use voice dictation and on mobile and post that way in fact I found it kind of hard to operate the desktop one I got really good at the mobile use her in her face
heading 8:31 PM March 23, 2022 it is convenient to continue talking this format works really well I think for me it’s a great compromise ever since 1985 I have needed to see my thoughts and then lay out more thoughts in tangible form and generally this transcription works well enough even though it’s broken it’s overall a really good compromiseVoice transcription allowing it to be even if I allow it to be raw I have all the advantage of speaking combined with much of the advantage of being able to see my words or most of my words or a semi broken collection of some of my words in a garbled somewhat partially garbled format is good enough so that overall the effect is very powerful the advantage of being able to just speak without typing I’ve I told you how I’ve broken my fingers and broken my keyboard literally and you know that recording podcast works for me very well but producing them is pain staking and there are special times when there may be a special times like during a jackpot perhaps of decoding mytheme’s where speed of speaking or speed of generating text is more important than accuracy of that resulting text all I really need is a rough representation of the words that I said works sufficiently well and it’s worth the breakage is worth theAdvantage of being able to voice dictate though I really have to wonder why the voice dictation doesn’t work better I enunciate extremely well and I’m realistic to I’m reasonable about it I find that the meeting transcription software seems to work a lot better than this software maybe server based recognition works better than mobile device based recognition speech recognition transcription
Maybe I should make timestamp headings here that would be good because I’m dictating an essay at the top of page then I’m dictating later another essay at the top of page above it I think I need timestamp headings
heading 8:30 PM March 23, 2022 I don’t make a promise this is not for determinate down to the minute rather it’s just periodical periodical timestamps there will be ambiguity I may put text above or below the timestamp it’s I need to keep it simple it’s very important to keep it simple but I do need some kind of divisions between the different essays that I dictate
earlier….
Is The myth theme, how broadly applicable or narrow, is identifying the purpose and message and payload of the mushroom trees that the message is branching and that the purpose of the images of mushroom trees is revealed and decoded and discovered to be non-branching.
how broadly valuable is that decoding?
is this only narrowly valuable? is the master mytheme – it is debatable that the master mytheme is branching versus nonbranching . whats “master mytheme”? there are isolated individual mytheme’s there are missing stories that are kind of a compound mytheme’s and then there are missing contrast to decode a mytheme there are different types of machines they’re not all the same shape they don’t all serve the same function in relation to other men themes
there are relationship there are types of real relationships among mytheme’s
it may be a debatable theory of myth themes to say , to assert that the master mytheme is nonbranching versus branching
what is the implicit theory, there, of how mytheme decoding or myth theme mapping works?
you definitely need to remember to look at everything in the world of religious imagery through a heavy lens of branching versus nonbranching ; always inventory every element that you see in terms of contrast of branching versus nonbranching and looking to inventory all aspects that are branching or non-branching.
for example, the decoration Greek around the border Meanderz of two types there is essentially in effect a contrast between the branching type of meander versus the non-branching type of meander
I feel a cluster of insight, I sense a gold nugget around my bringing together in the past day, the Plaincourault is extra valuable as a mushroom tree because it has the non-branching snake; the snake is bringing a message, the snake is a messenger,
imagery communicates / transmits a message; an image is inherently A transmitted a transmitting of a message
we should look for rock, Rock can be forced into the category of non-branching
A question is here on the narrowness or broad wealth of value
how broad is the value of recognizing that the message of the mushroom trees is branching concerns branching it’s about branching it’s a branching message it’s a message of branching it’s a message about branching
the message is tangibly depicted as having branching features such as cut off limbs cut off branches stumps or gratuitous extra unnatural added branches
the snake brings the message in plain corrault fresco in the snakes mouth brings the fruit which is the message
the package of the message the mushroom tree and the mushroom is the package and the image of a mushroom is the package and
people mistake the finger for the moon
people mistake the mushroom as the envelope package container they mistake that for the message which it transmits the fruit is both the package the mushroom but
ultimately though the fruit is the message that’s contained in the package
that message is knowledge of nonbranching which implies indirectly other key myth themes such as rock
rock is a depiction of non-branching
if we sort all myth themes into master categories – if possible – falling on the side of nonbranching or branching,
how much can we actually use non-branching versus branching as the two master categories and then organize everything else underneath those two master categories?
a question that must be narrower is specifically the theme of non-branching as it is represented in mushroom trees where Mushroom Trees depict branching so that the mushroom is the package or envelope and the message conveyed and transported and transmitted is non-branching and
the snake emphasizes that because then you have a nonbranching snake and then organize everything else underneath those two master categories
then a question that must be narrower is specifically the theme of non-branching as it is represented in mushroom trees where Mushroom Trees depict branching so that the mushroom is the package or envelope and the message conveyed and transported and transmitted is non-branching and
I think there is some duplicated voice transcription here ; seeing the same garbled transcription twice
the snake emphasizes that because then you have a nonbranching snake contrasted against a branching mushroom tree, so that the shape of the snake works together with the shape of the branching artificially branching mushroom tree
the feeling I have I feel like it was especially when I saw Dr. Brown’s Plainc roll fresco Julie photo with the snake, I felt like the ideas locked in at about the same time, of identifying the specific theme and purpose, and seeing how the message transmission works, of differentiating between The mushroom as two layers the envelope versus the message unravel those two layers that are complicated interpenetrating the shape of the mushroom the branching shape of the mushroom the mushroom it’s self its own shape of the physical shape of the mushroom is used to transmit the message and so in a sense the physical surface form of the mushroom is the medium and the message at the same time it physically embodies or depicts the message with it which is transmitting so that the cognitive effects from the Mushroom deliver the message and the visual morphology of the surface form of the mushroom is artificially made to transmit and embody the message of that a profound ultimate point is being made about branching I have not discussed both of you we can’t avoid discussing it sooner or later isof the mushroom is the medium and the message at the same time it physically embodies or depicts the message with it which is transmitting so that the cognitive effects from the Mushroom deliver the message and the visual morphology of the surface form of the mushroom is artificially made to transmit and embody the message of that a profound ultimate point is being made about branching
I have not discussed both of you we can’t avoid discussing it sooner or later is of course one reason I haven’t discussed it is because it’s kind of self evident is
there is an irony: what they want to convey what mythology wants to convey visually is non-branching, but you can’t – we are limited in how we can convey {the positive assertion of non-branching} .
one way to do that is a serpent, which is why the plane corral fresco is of special value
what is special about the plane crawl fresco is that it contains a serpent.
in the case of plane corral fresco, what we have is not only a mushroom tree ; what we have is a mushroom tree with the usual branching artificial branching
but what we especially need to realize that we have don’t keep these in isolated unrelated mental compartments
how does a Mushroom relate to a serpent?
the answer is that a mushroom has branching, but a serpent does not have branching
how is a mushroom the compliment of a snake? answer: mushrooms half branching they have branches or they have branching features such as carefully cut off limbs or cut branches where is snakes usually don’t have legs
except I know of one mushroom tree that has a snake that has legs: in the Psalter
if we could flip the question it would be like:
how is a snake the complement of a mushroom? answer: mushrooms don’t have branching, but snakes have legs and therefore snakes have branching
in this case we’re doing the opposite we say:
How is a mushroom the opposite of a serpent? the answer is: a Mushroom has branching, but a serpent is non-branching.
I guess the big breakthrough here and I’m not sure how broadly it applies, The last time I was in this situation was in the midst of decoding the Salter image the situation of it is a breakthrough but I don’t know yet I have no way of knowing yet the extent of it well the problem I’m facing is it it feels like a kind of a universal sort of completely wide sweeping broad breakthrough yet the skeptical view is that this merely a local decoding breakthrough which we often see that I’ve often had that like when filling in my math theme catalog it is common to have sort of a localized limited scope Jack part of what do I mean jackpot is in terms of Paul Thagard model of theory development and theory transformation it’s about connections it’s about the number of re-connections per minute or whatever and the question is those re-connections they propagate and they take a while to propagate and it’s hard to predict how broadly the re-connections will propagate for example first ID coded Hatsis salamander which was treated by three scholars before him and I didn’t know that that would eventually be the key isomorphic with the Canterbury Balancing Hanging tree which was several more years for maybe four years later or even look at the strange trajectory that every November I would have a breakthrough about branching and then the next November I would have what would seem to be thereconnection
seemingly the identical same breakthrough again on the same decoding subject again the next year and that’s how the deepening of connections works in practice decoding a missing name is not it has aspects that are immediate and instant or local they are at one moment in time or maybe one minute or one hour even but the actual reality of decoding a myth theme is that it often takes two days or seven days as the connections the changes ofconnections propagate throughout the system and it’s like a fractal spreading or something they take days to affect each other and cross map each other across the whole body or a portion of the body of myth theme mytheme you wouldn’t necessarily know that when I decoded the salamander dancing man from Hatsis clearly that did apply to some themes I was trying to apply it to like the limping God her fester Festus the God Pluto the Smith the engineer Smith who had a bad leg I applied the salamander decoding to the bad leg back then in 2016 but you wouldn’t know necessarily that that would hold the key to decoding the out of context leg hanging tree and then you wouldn’t know ahead of time that eventually I would recognize that in general Mushroom trees always have as a hallmark not just a random thing but as a definitive defining hallmark of the type type a logically these are always branching mushrooms to the point that when we see a nonbranching Mushroom that is a special deviation and is abnormal that’s the irony is that non-branching mushrooms are actually abnormal in Christian this genre of art maybe you can call it medieval art Medieval Christian Art nonbranching mushrooms are abnormal they are atypical that’s the words they are a typical whereas a mushroom tree typically and I mean the word typically in a strong sense paradigm medically The typology is that these mushrooms in Christian Art as a rule or in general or as a type a logical rule they always have branches and it is a abnormal atypical exception when the mushroom does not have branches in fact we can see the non-branching realistic mushrooms serve to if they serve a special rule they served establish that we really are talking about mushrooms but that there’s something special about the other mushrooms that have branching the The nonbranching Mushroom is a subservient utilitarian communication function it says yes we really are talking about mushrooms but there’s more to it than that see the branching mushrooms where the actual messages because there is no the only message that’s conveyed by a nonbranching Mushroom in this genre the only message there is a Nero utilitarian message message that yes we really are talking about mushrooms but there’s much more to the story than that see the branching mushrooms for explanation this is why we can expect to see some plain scientific Mushroom images in art but their message is very narrow they serve they are like the pink key tree they are plain simplified key to to lock in the meaning to give it sort of a reference point but they are not really where the action is that and I don’t even think that they are serving to vigorously message the lack of branching I don’t think that’s the function of the simple mushroom serve in this genre in practice the only functions served by simple nonbranching mushrooms in this genre is to simply establish that yes we are really literal mushrooms but that’s not the point this little simple Mushroom is confirming that yes we are talking about mushrooms but it is also signaling that the message is not mushroom that you’re missing the point if you’re just focusing on mushroom that’s missing the point it is the other branching mesh branching mushrooms that are actually conveying the real point the simple Mushroom merely establishes that yes we really are talking about mushrooms but the message the real bulk of the message the payload is conveyed by the branching mushroom not by the simple literal depictions of mushrooms it is in fact here’s Noteworthy a timestamp worth the development 8:15 PM whatever date oh it’s March 23, 2022 the category of evidence that we have labeled as stylized ha ha that way there’s a failure there we need to achieve more success we have to point out emphatically what is the number one thing when we say stylized what is by far the most significant and profound Stylizations so-called stylization is branching the theme of branching and not brick branching and cut branching The evidence category name that we have called stylized is clueless and not worth he as soon as we say stylized to get 100% score on the exam we have to provide the keyword there immediately after we say stylized the first word that we have to put is branching to the point where to a large extent we could almost replace the category name of stylized by the category name of branching then the categories would be named live literal simple mushrooms branching mushrooms and effect and now I have problem and ties are three categories because given that the stylization is about branching all the sudden we have broken our district division between category type two and three because effects the mushroom causes a cognitive affect of moving from branching to non-branching the stylization number one above all is branching features which is effects so I have just broken and transgressed and fused together are category number two and three which we have which we have called stylized in a vague unintelligent a way we have called it in an in articulate way we have simply labeled it vaguely as stylized but what is the number one most important style is the stylization feature Brinckmann’s’s book title is tree Stylizations in Medieval arent what is the most profound thing to say about these so-called style tree Stylizations for one thing the tree Stylizations are mushroom trees but they these mushroom trees are mode most notable in that they have artificial branching features especially where they look like mushrooms but they are thin artificial and unnatural because they are mushrooms that that emphatically have branching their mushrooms that cannot be mushrooms because they have branching which prevents them from representing mushrooms so they have what I first we could go I was thinking in terms of problematic branching I don’t know if I have daily daytime stamps but you can see if you can find a date at which I was talking about problematic branching of mushrooms and arguing in a podcast recently that we must reject all mushroom trees because they allmost notable in that they have artificial branching features especially where they look like mushrooms but they are thin artificial and unnatural because they are mushrooms that that emphatically have branching their mushrooms that cannot be mushrooms because they have branching which prevents them from representing mushrooms so they have what I first we could go I was thinking in terms of problematic branching I don’t know if I have daily daytime stamps but you can see if you can find a date at which I was talking about problematic branching of mushrooms and arguing in a podcast recently that we must reject all mushroom trees because they allFail to match mushrooms because they all have branching and therefore they cannot possibly be mushrooms because they have problematic branching but the whole message is that branching is problematic the branching of the mind and personal control across time in the mystic state is problematic so I was jokingly starting to re-categories maybe a week ago I was starting working on the problem of re-categorizing and adjusting my mental category how are we to think I was starting to work on the problem how are we rightly to think about like we’re trying to get the right angle here there’s there’s something that we need to see if there’s something that we need to perceive and recognize about the problematic quality that these mushrooms are all bad and failures because they have branchingFail to match mushrooms because they all have branching and therefore they cannot possibly be mushrooms because they have problematic branching but the whole message is that branching is problematic the branching of the mind and personal control across time in the mystic state is problematic so I was jokingly starting to re-categories maybe a week ago I was starting working on the problem of re-categorizing and adjusting my mental category how are we to think I was starting to work on the problem how are we rightly to think about like we’re trying to get the right angle here there’s there’s something that we need to see if there’s something that we need to perceive and recognize about the problematic quality that these mushrooms are all bad and failures because they have branching so my first attempt to reconceptualize or two in Rich and build out in a new direction my conception instead of having a kind of stupid clueless in articulate mental category and is oversimplified concepts and conceptual category of simply mushroom trees that’s not adequate because the branching is too strange and marketed and it is clearly a primary feature and not just definitely not just to make the mushrooms look like trees it is more like they go out of their way to make the branching awkward and unnatural and to stand out like a sore thumb if these are mushroom trees that have branching to make them look like trees how come the branching instead stands out like a sore thumb these are really painfully awkward trees and that’s true of the weird vine tree like in Jason coming forth from python with a Fina and there’s a scrawny vine ivy tree that has no visible branching these are painfully emphatically strenuously awkward kind of bro branching that is depicted to us the artist go out of their way to depict strenuously awkward branching features that stand out like a sore thumb it’s the main thing you what the first thing you recognize is it these are mushrooms but the very next thing that you recognize is the accentuated highlighted painfully called out branching then when you add the snake you’re really set up now to talk about the contrast between the nonbranching snake versus the vigorously amplified artificial branching theme that stands out such as on the plane corral fresco
I’m in the phase right now of the jackpot the jackpot is flowing fourth and I don’t know how big that this jackpot is I don’t know how broadly applicable this breakthrough is , is it only a local decoding?
Need simple durable format wo high risk of losing data, low overhead.
Voice misrecognition errors, so you compensate
Why did pre moderns all recognize routinely the nonbranching mytheme, but in today’s late modern era, it requires a mega ultra super genius with sweat from the brow; extreme resources, sacrificing all other focuses in order to to throw it insane Asperger’s levels of of attention to crack the code?
why is the problem so infinitely intractable for us?
why are we late moderns the slow and dull-witted ones that are unable to figure this out ?
is it just because the tradition has been lost , the language has been lost, a symbolic language
how is it that every two -bit mystic chapel and unknown anonymous artist all knew about the branching Nonbranching message, but for us –
ooh look out, bow down, everyone; here comes a late-modern person!! oh what a genius level, they’re so smart, by virtue of the number of the year that they were born in!
All of evolutionary history has let up to wonderful us , were so smart that we’re even able to figure out after just freaking 30 years what every 2 bit Mystic knew: that the whole payload message of the mushroom shapes was the “non-branching” message/payload being communicated.
it took like from 1985, or 1999, through 2022 to get to the level of grasp that all of the pre-modern’s routinely had
the short answer is because it requires the key , the cognitive loosenet Knowledge.
well also also people before us probably had higher IQ ha ha ha ha
ICanterbury Psalter image always made me feel retarded and slow and dull-witted
like how come I pride myself on being a smart late modern Denison of science and modern savvy so impressive
and yet it took a full week even bring expert level decoding Artillería took a full week to decode that image
you just make me feel slow and dull-witted and I feel that way about branching about fully perceiving the message layer as such
yes I’ve investigate I’ve recognize the theme in general across mythology the general master theme of non-branching since 2010 walking on reserves nature preserves paths branching paths in the forest patch in Octobers
but why did it take me this long to specifically perceive and recognize as such the specific branching message as the message of the branching mushrooms sometimes combined with the snake
why did it take me this long given that in 2006 given the great resources of comprehension I had then why did it take 22-6 is 16 years to get from there to here to be able to perceive what every two but mushroom artist knows that they’re in on the joke is there an on the message and I wasn’t getting it I wasn’t really comprehending or recognizing the message layer that message as the distinct thing in itself that these are specifically branching message mushroom trees where the main feature of the mushroom trees is not the mushroom, but the main primary central highlighted feature three yelling at me “branching! were signaling branching versus Nonbranching !
were signaling that’s what these arms mean that’s what these weird three arms holding up the Means that’s with all this branching what what more could we have done to inundate you and positively drown you in mass quantities of branching imagery and cut branches in fact never ragged always carefully precisely cut branches
we’re shoving the theme in your face with all of our figures of cleanly cut off branches, and the most cleanly cut off branch of them all is the is the leg Hanging Mushroom tree on the right with Gods sword right there (the handle strangely)
and I’m only the other day I was still referring to them as broken branches and only the other day did I correct my error and change it from broken branches to cut branches cleanly intentionally intelligently cut not just sloppy random “they happen to be broken “
so this makes me feel stupid
how does it feel to have decoded the message that every 2 bit Mystic knew ?
Testimonial transcribed from the Egodeath Mystery Show, Episode 81
I just posted The Thomas Hatsis Guide to Exemplary Historiographical Methodology – a new page at the site! So if you’re interested in professional-level, ideal Historian conduct, how to move the field forward most effectively and collaborate harmoniously with other leading-edge thinkers in the field, be sure to read my page, where I’ve extracted carefully: what makes Hatsis so ideal, such a model of exemplary historiographical methodology?
And I think I’ve got it nailed; I’ve managed to extract and carefully study the ways that Hatsis conducts himself that makes him the paradigm of historiographical methodology of how to reach 100% efficiency at collaborating with others to push the field forward on a sure-footed way, using his water-tight methodologies.
My most valuable thing I’ve ever written was, I extracted Thomas Hatsis’ exemplary historiographical methodology. This really blows away any enlightenment experience I’ve ever had, figuring out Thomas Hatsis’ methodology, which is empowering me far more than any study of Transcendent Knowledge.
– Cybermonk
Introduction
For the benefit of you amateur bloggers, I’d like to unpack how historians adjudicate historical claims, by laying out the criteria we use.
Ancient Language Skills
Botch your latin, while vigorously lecturing everyone at length about your exemplary, excellent, professional ancient language skills.
Reject 90% of the data. The more data you discard, the more sound your remaining base of data is.
Instead of text and art evidence for literal, stylized, and altered-state effects description, limit the data base to only literal, textual, explicit discussions of mushrooms in Christian materials.
Only focus on text evidence, because art evidence is wholly dependent on text evidence.
Then, when discussing art, ignore the text that’s in the art, that explicitly says what is depicted. For a great example of this historiographical methodology that we Historians use, at https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/, find “spear”.
Recognize Your Rivals’ Allegiance to Your Designated Villain
Use your E.S.P. to dictate to others that they hold their position “because Allegro…”
A weak and unprofessional approach is to gather position statements of people in the field, that they have provided.
Instead, a much stronger position, that’s part of the methods that we Historians use, is to dictate that everyone else in the field is all followers of the weakest representative of the field that you can dredge up.
Accuracy of Representing Which Historian Holds Which Position
This isn’t important. Historians should focus on strict historical criteria, and not waste time learning and accurately representing other entheogen historians’ positions.
Claim that you agree with Carl Ruck (even though he is the main promoter of the Secret Amanita thesis). Livestream September 2021 with McKenna, Chris Bennett, & Brian Muraresku: “No, I AGREE with Carl Ruck!”
Then, because your argument requires that someone play the role of villain (other than the Ruck school of contributors to Entheos journal), and Jan Irvin left the field a decade ago, and Allegro died way back in 1988, insist that Dr. Brown holds the Secret Amanita thesis (“Dr. Brown, a follower of Allegro”), and insist that Cybermonk holds the Secret Amanita thesis: “You only hold your position because Allegro…” (personal correspondence).
Even while you market yourself as an exemplary historian, there’s no need to treat, acknowledge, mention, or discuss the main question that John Allegro raises, of the historical origin of the Jesus figure: the conventional big-bang model, versus the gradual-coalescence model, in which the Jesus figure started out as a personification of “the mushroom”, and only afterwards came to be seen as an identifiable historical individual.
Just frame Allegro’s position as “Secret Amanita Cult”, without addressing the historical problems raised by Allegro’s integrated, no-historical-Jesus theory. Leave that question to the historians.
Amount of Attention to the Top Historians of Art
Although you know that the only significant mushroom tree is the Amanita-like tree at Plaincourault, when you make your entire article at Hancock’s site focused on that one instance of a mushroom tree, ignore the top historian of art, who urges that the main factor in interpreting Plaincourault is that it is not unique or special in any way, but is merely one instance of a type, which consists of hundreds of other instances of mushroom trees.
Don’t mention this top interpretive principle that’s specifically about interpreting this particular art instance, from the top historian of art.
Treat Plaincourault as an isolated, unique, special instance, against the urging of the top historian regarding this particular image, who says there’s nothing special at all about this mushroom tree instance. Don’t mention the top historian’s point that the data to be interpreted is an art motif type comprising hundreds of mushroom trees.
Instead, expend your limited word count telling people that it’s important to follow the interpretive principles that are used by the top historians.
Attention to Chronology
Declare Psilocybe in Christian history as “anachronistic”, by fiat.
No need to formulate a complete position statement, just use the word “anachronistic”, and you’re good, and are adhering to the methods that we Historians use to adjudicate historical claims.
Sales & Marketing
First commit to your brand marketing – “the famous debunker of all evidence for mushrooms in Christianity” – and then afterwards, do anything it takes to uphold that brand marketing, no matter how corrupt and garbled the argumentation and wholesale rejection of evidence that’s required to prop up your new rebranding from http://psychedelicwitch.com to “Psychedelic Historian”.
Crafting Position Statements and Theory Statements
Don’t clearly define your position.
By not clearly specifying what your position asserts and does not assert, this allows you to move the goalpost silently from one end of the football field to the opposite end of the field, replacing entire fields of research (mushrooms in Christian history) by a single position that you select & define to be the weakest possible, narrowest position you can possibly come up with (Amanita only + Allegro only + Plaincourault only + secret use only).
This is how we Historians operate.
Tone of Professional Communication
Bully people; make sure to communicate to them at every opportunity, “I am taunting, threatening, and insulting you.”
We Historians are pretty much the same thing as roller-derby coaches.
The professional message that you need to send, to represent refined historiographical methodology, is: I will crush you!
Use the Irvin (Phase 1) vs. Hatsis debate as the ideal model for conversing with, collaborating with, and shit-talking at each other.
Be sure to express yourself in the most explicitly insulting, taunting, offensive manner possible.
That’s how we Historians conduct ourselves, because this is the most efficient mode of collaboration, to move our field of Historical Scholarship forward the fastest – really just think of it the same as coaching girls for a roller derby match.
Attack people personally, threatening to hurt their ego (including the creator of the Egodeath theory) and “send them crying into a corner”.
This is how “we historians”, such as myself, Tom Hatsis, the ideal model of professional methodology, conduct ourselves.
Coverage of Rival Teams’ Competing Theories and Membership Lists
Critique the research coming from other theories, such as the Egodeath theory, without ever spending any time learning what the Egodeath theory asserts and what evidence it has found, interpreted, and organized.
Put low priority on Greek mythic imagery, refer to a cista mystica as a “vat”.
Keep careful track of whether others in the field are currently on your good side today, designated as a “friend”, or whether their status today is “enemy”.
Study 8th-grade girls culture and roller derby for tips on how to keep track of who’s friends & enemies today.
For example, keep careful track of whether Carl Ruck or Chris Bennett is For you or Against you, each day – are you on the inside, today, or outside?
Are you besties today, or sworn enemies who are on the outs?
Your top concern should be the shifting alliances and enmities on a daily basis.
Professional Conduct & Self-Presentation to Represent the Scholarly Field
Spill more ink bragging about your big & girthy historical methodological methodology, berating and chastising your betters, than delivering sound method.
Refer to yourself in an idealized way as the ideal representative of methodology and professionalism in the field: “how historians adjudicate historical claims, by laying out the criteria we use.”
Present this in a pompous and insulting way, to encourage others to enter the field.
Don’t just pose as a professional; sell yourself vigorously as the ideal model of professionalism, the very paradigm of what it means to be a scientific historian.
Good luck with these principles of mine. May you aspire to being an ideal professional Historian like me.
Yikes, who is this ass-clown who presumes to represent the field? Keep him well out! “… the methods that we historians use”?! Are you fcking sh*tting me?!
How dare you; GTFO, you embarrassing poser douche! No professional talks that way! You sound like an 8th grade girl putting on airs, gag!
This clown is about as believable and convincing as wearing a t-shirt that reads “Professional Historians Club Member”.
This page is quick zoom crops to study morphology patterns, in support of the Egodeath theory (analogical entheogenic eternalism and control transformation) and in support of the maximal psilocybe theory of Greek & Christian history.
The Superseding of Authority, and Scientific Discovery of Real Authority
Requirement: Expert knowledge of all images of mushrooms & entheogens in religious art
Requirement: Expert knowledge of analogical psychedelic eternalism & control-transformation
Requirement: Expert knowledge of Mytheme Decoding in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism & control-transformation
Requirement: Expert knowledge of the history of Plaincourault contention
The Superseding of Authority, and Scientific Discovery of Real Authority
Who decides who has authority and should be believed – a gullible journalist outsider who is awed by those who pose as having relevant authority and expertise? Maybe whoever puts on airs the most, is who we should trust as the authority to be believed. I am the authority that you should believe, because I am the authority, because I act convincing and journalists (whoa!) confidently refer to me as having debunked the naysayers, multiple times.
Knowing about a certain type of wall painting does not qualify you to make pronouncements that are treated as carrying any weight.
It is extremely unimpressive when a scholar of wall painting pontificates on whether the mushroom tree of Plaincourault means mushrooms.
I am not too impressed by “scholars in the best position to interpret Plaincourault”.
Judging mushroom images in religious art is a specialized question which requires an appropriate combination of fields’ knowledge, including some mycology, some altered states, some religious knowledge, some art knowledge. A narrow degree is unlikely to qualify you; you remain an outsider with regard to this particular question.
What’s going on here is a superseding of authority and establishing of real authority, superior authority, over a halting, makeshift, stand-in, temporary authority.
Brinckmann’s authority was from studying tree stylizations in his 1906 book. The top art authority of 1952, Panofsky, wrote to Wasson, largely asserting that Plaincourault – according to the art authority of the day, which had limited validity like Science at any moment – estimated that Plaincourault didn’t mean mushrooms, but that Plaincourault was developed through random template distortion along the lines of Brinckmann’s (overheated and strained) theories of realism in Evolutionary Racial Consciousness.
Now I step in, in 2006, 2020, and 2022, and my authority has been revealed to be the real, correct authority. Compare Paul Thagard’s explanation of superseding an initial quasi-theory by a later, actual, more sound and more systematic theory, in his book Conceptual Revolutions. My authority is based in a sound, systematic theory of ego transcendence: the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence; the Egodeath theory; that is, the “analogical psychedelic eternalism control-transformation” theory of religious experience and mystic-state transformation of the mental worldmodel of time, control, and possibility branching. It turns out that art authorities are poorly positioned to judge mushrooms in religious art, and that mystic-state authorities are the appropriate type of authority to judge mushrooms in religious art.
Art History authorities and Mycologists are poorly positioned to judge mushrooms in religious art. Mystic Altered State authorities are the appropriate type of authority to judge mushrooms in religious art.
Cybermonk
We go from poorly founded authority, like Albert Brinckmann’s overheated and off-track speculations that applied the 1906 theory of Evolutionary Racial Consciousness to tree stylizations in medieval art, which is (at best) like the Ptolemaic (earth-centered) cosmology (which employed overheated corrective epicycles because it was off-base), to my well-founded and actually relevant theory context that I bring to the question, which is like the Copernican (sun-centered) theory.
Requirement: Expert knowledge of all images of mushrooms & entheogens in religious art
Here are (were) the actual qualifications that were actually required to prove beyond a doubt that the 75 mushroom trees in the Canterbury Psalter are Psilocybe: The Fluency Brought to this Decoding Problem, in the article Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe.
I had to already be an expert (the top expert) in interpreting mythemes and art in terms of the Egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism & control transformation), and even then, as the leading expert ideally suited for this particular decoding problem, it still took me an entire week to decode this one image containing a single mushroom tree.
Requirement: Expert knowledge of the history of Plaincourault contention
Has that wall-painting scholar written a 70-page article on that specific topic – a critical review of the history of the Plaincourault contention – for the Journal of Higher Criticism? I have, 16 years ago, in 2006. I am bringing actual, relevant expertise to the topic of interpreting mushroom shapes in religious art.
You must look at the art examples and must know the Egodeath theory (ie analogical psychedelic eternalism & control-transformation) and must know ten books on mystic state experiencing, on religions, on altered states.
The qualification you need is, you need to look into this question, about mushrooms, altered states, mythology, analogy, and symbolic representation.
People have a lower trust in authorities than ever. Authorities usually means false and bought pseudo-authority, liars who are posturing and are out to deceive you.
Authority is supposed to mean trustworthy, but authority has been so abused, the word ‘authority’ now has scare-quotes baked into it. Now, being an authority — or, having other people try to sell you as an authority — means, you are a liar, an actor, a fraud.
“Those authorities are the only ones who are positioned to interpret art, on this topic. Dr. Brown is unqualified to judge this matter, because he is not a professional eminent mycologist. And, separate from that, Brown is disqualified because he’s not an eminent professional art historian. “
“If Brown were the top mycologist, he would be disqualified because he’s not the top art historian.
And if Brown were the top art historian, he would be disqualified because he’s not the top mycologist.”
Motivation of creating this page:
Unqualified people claim to be qualified to make pronouncements that they are not qualified to assess; or, probably more typically/commonly,
Propagandists cite authorities to make claims about what such alleged authorities have allegedly:
1) Asked about.
2) Studied systemically.
3) Concluded.
4) Proclaimed.
The 4 points can be reduced to 2:
1) Have they taken up & looked into the question? 2) Have they concluded about the question?
In fact, the self-appointed authorities, or those who are proclaimed by propagandists to be authorities, have neither asked/investigated/looked into the question of mushrooms in religious art, nor have made conclusions about mushrooms in religious art.
eg Wasson claims and insinuates that Panofsky and suchlike (Albert Brinckmann, whose 1906 book is so devastating to Gordon Wasson’s propaganda that Wasson censored Panofsky’s citation of it):
1) Have studied (considered, started to raise and discuss questions) mushroom trees (a LIE; they have not studied mushroom trees).
2) Have analyzed mushrooms in Christian art (performed assessments & analysis by collecting/cataloging and analyzing data) (a LIE; they have not analyzed mushrooms in art eg msh trees).
3) Have concluded that mushroom trees are not mushrooms (a LIE; they have not concluded about mushroom trees).
4) Have asserted negative conclusions; made strong statements of their conclusions (a LIE; they have not made strong statements of conclusions about mushroom trees).
Add to my hall of shame: POS article against Brown that states “If Plaincourault as mushrooms has been debunked multiple times, why then does the blunder persist?”
What are the actual qualifications, for a person’s opinion or assessment to be worth a sh*t on this topic? The person must have looked at the evidence, and must know theory of mystic altered state, and must address the 2-3 positions and their arguments. Are mycologists qualified? No. Are art scholars qualified? No; it is a specialized question.
What are the specialized qualifications for this particular topic?
Certain specific specialized knowledge of certain mycology aspects.
Certain specific specialized knowledge of certain art aspects.
Certain specific specialized knowledge of the mystic altered state.
“Two of the fresco’s current champions are Julie and Jerry Brown, neither of whom are mycologists or art historians. Jerry is an anthropologist at Florida International University, where he teaches a course on psychedelics and culture. Julie is an integrative psychotherapist. The Browns believe that Allegro got a few things right, namely, the idea that early Christianity could have incorporated the use of psychoactive plants, and that mushrooms depicted in Christian art are proof of that use.”
“Art historians are also skeptical that the medieval fresco is secretly showcasing Christianity’s psychedelic roots. “I can assure you that the arboreal form at Plaincourault, or elsewhere for that matter, in no way references a particular species of mushroom,” says Marcia Kupfer, an independent scholar of medieval art and author of Romanesque Wall Painting in Central France.”
That’s a true and misleading argument: in fact, a mushroom shape in religious art means all Psilocybe-containing species.
“If the idea of the Plaincourault fresco depicting a hallucinogenic mushroom has been debunked, repeatedly, by scholars in the best position to interpret it, why does it persist?”
Notice the chicken-sh*t weasel-word “If”. About as true as “Meditation ‘can’ cause intense classic Psilocybin effects.” That is faint praise, small accomplishment, to be a “scholar in the best position to interpret psychedelic mushrooms in religious art”.
Who exactly are these “best positioned” scholars, and what exactly are their qualifications to judge this particular question?
How can you prove and demonstrate that, in fact, these people are the “best-positioned” to interpret mushroom trees? How exactly does one join this group of “best-positioned” people? What exactly are the qualifications, and why exactly are those qualifications relevant and adequate to constitute “best-positioned to interpret” this particular question?
Why are expert Mycologists unqualified, according to Wasson & Panofsky? (See their “blunder” quote, favorably cited by hack writer Emma.) Conversely, why is Mycology expertise required, according to hack journalist (typist) Emma (contradicting the pronouncements of esteemed Pope Wasson and his patsy that he censors-out, Panofsky?)
What does Albert Brinckmann assert about the qualifications that are relevant, justified, and required, to make pronouncements on mushroom trees?
If it’s been proved that pigs can fly, 1+1=3, and the Church’s official Art Authorities have repeatedly debunked Plaincourault, why do people continue to link Psilocybe with religious art? What is lacking in our propaganda and specious pseudo-argumentation?
WHAT BULL SH*T – WHERE HAS PLAINCOURAULT BEEN “DEBUNKED”?BY WHICH PAID, LYING FRAUDULENT CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST SHILLS? Based on which argument from authority? What exact “position” makes these fakes “best positioned to interpret it”?
Total empty bull sh*t. They have exactly zero basis to pontificate on entheogenic history, GTFO, you POSERFRAUDS!
The Pope’s banker wrote, “One could expect mycologists, in their isolation, to make this blunder. Mr. Allegro is not a mycologist but, if anything, a cultural historian.”
So, according to the Megabank Head of Propaganda & Public Relations, if you are a mycologist, that counts for NOTHING, and ONLY Art “expertise” counts for anything, because Reasons (ie, because we say so).
Yet, this slimy yellow journal smears Brown as, not only lacking in Art authority (which is the only thing that counts, according to the above sleazy logic from Mr. Banker for the Pope [no CONFLICT OF INTEREST there]), but the journal is sure to nevertheless smear Brown for being guilty of not being a mycologist – which all of a sudden, is a source of credibility.
Get your bull sh*t story & crooked, lying logic straight, you lying POS’s. Crookeder than a barrel of snakes, these Establishment shills. Mushrooms over Salvation Hucksters, any day; GO TO HELL, SALVATION-SELLING SCUM, frauds, fakes, phonies, posers. Meditation Hucksters & Salvation Salesmen.
Psilocybin has nothing to do with religious origins, because we are the authorities and we say so.
The Authorities and their “investigative journalists” (bards, paid by the fawning word)
WILL ACADEMIC FOR YOU FOR PROFIT – GOOD RATES – CONVINCING CREDS
Church in Norway, late 13th C. DEAGOSTINI/GETTY IMAGES
Mid-12th C mosaic. FINE ART IMAGES/HERITAGE IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES – the PROBLEMATIC MUSHROOM BRANCHING collection
I hastened to improve this page after it got off to a start in a flurry of rant and outright namecalling that I decided wouldn’t fly. But I was able to convert that ranting into interesting constructive points that were both of special interest and broad interest.
I was able to pull the page out of the fire and turn it around and develop/ discover some interesting substance at the top, and not just have it be inflammatory & outraged like version 1.
From my challenge, the challenge from my point of view of what works, for writing my commentary like that webpage you mentioned:
My process is to think and complain and constructively criticize: it starts with a cutting negative criticism and defensive pushback against people who are even going so far as defamation, as Dr. Brown has had to defend himself against.
Dr. Brown had to defend against defamation while turning the field to the correct direction forward – an opportunity as well as a constraint
Commenters lightly criticized the pair of articles saying they were a wash; that the pair of articles really didn’t contribute much constructive. Dr. Brown had to publish a rejoinder against the nasty & garbled attack article against his book The Psychedelic Gospels, at Graham Hancock’s popular site in the wake of the high-profile major, centrally relevant book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku.
Christianity’s Psychedelic History: Reply to Thomas Hatsis’ Review of The Psychedelic Gospels
Brown’s article didn’t really have the luxury of being as purely positive and constructive as I would’ve liked, because Brown really had to take care of his first order of business, which was defending against scholarly defamation.
It was harder to do better in that tough situation than to come out neutral. I’m just one more person idealistically pressuring Dr. Brown to transcend that bad-faith actor (the low-quality writer & muddled thinker of bad character) and really move the field forward.
Dr. Brown doesn’t have time now to discuss more, the positive moving of the field forward, because he’s overextended.
He’s moving the field forward, but didn’t have the wordcount available to write an article at Hancock’s site that was 80% positive and constructive, and only 20% defending against defamation.
The original article was so intensely, massively awful (in such great quantity) that his reply-article had to be mostly defensive, and it couldn’t really have the luxury of transcending that (to the extent that some commenters & I are inquiring about) and luxury of focusing on positive contribution to move the field forward.
He replied to those who wished for an even more constructive outcome, “Sometimes in life you have to play the hand you’re dealt; sometimes you don’t get to choose your battles.”
It was a more urgent priority for him to use his limited word count & limited time to defend against more of the false accusations and bunk scholarship, than to spend those words (finite wordcount & time) positively moving the field forward.
The Challenge of Combining Effective Forceful Pushback and Positive Progress
It’s a challenge: for a field to move forward involves critique and debate and pushback and calling out falsehoods and pushing back effectively/vigorously.
But then the challenge is how to convert it from cursing and fulminating, to then turn that into something constructive and strong and effective, something that’s going to be effective pushback and will be effective at setting things straight and at disproving falsehoods and exposing bad-faith actors.
At first this webpage was too purely negative, purely pushback. But then I felt like I was able to redeem it in and make good on it and harvest the potential from it in my second pass.
I came up with some good points and I put them at the top.
My rework of this page produced really good very interesting questions about:
If a newspaper journalist points to certain people and says “These people are the authorities who are in the best position to judge this matter”, how exactly do we test that statement? What is the ground for assessing authority?
How can we effectively push back and say “No, these are not actually good & relevant authorities for this matter, just because *you* say & assert & claim that these are the ‘best positioned’ authorities that we should therefore believe.”
There is a implicit unstated assertion that the journalist is making, when asserting that because this person studies wall paintings, therefore they are in a better position to judge. But does that actually follow?
What about the relevant evidence in pictures in illuminated manuscripts – doesn’t a person need authority in that field too, even though the media is entirely different than the medium & art genre of wall painting?
Why is the medium of any relevance at all? Why bother looking up an expert at wall paintings? The medium is largely irrelevant.
For example, a person would have greater authority and be in a better position to judge if they were not an expert at wall paintings, but rather, if they were an expert at all mediums of visual representations (that is, regardless of which medium), but were expert specifically of mushroom shaped trees — now that would actually be relevant authority.
A low-relevance kind of expertise is like Erwin Panofsky, who is an expert at the broad, non-specialized field of all kinds of images of everything. Ideally, we need more like a top art expert who also happens to be a top mycologist and who happens to additionally have a specialty in mushrooms in art. That would be relevant authority.
Even that relatively ideal domain of authority would still be insufficient, if lacking the expertise which I brought to the leg-hanging & balancing mushroom tree (#71) in the Canterbury Psalter November 2020.
Deciphering the leg-hanging & balancing mushroom tree image in November 2020 required specialized expertise.
The most relevant expertise and the authority who is actually best positioned to judge that image, requires expertise specifically in mytheme decoding or mapping in terms of analogical psychedelic eternalism & control-transformation.
Cyberdisciple in his weblog posting pointed out that if you rely (like Hatsis) on the idea of the “dark ages”, it shows that you’re out of touch with the latest theories or the up-to-date science of history, because the up-to-date science — today’s latest revised self corrected science of History — does not believe in the concept of the “dark ages”.
Similarly, if you’re an expert in medieval art; that’s not a static subject; it changes! For example, I read Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 book (Tree Stylizations in Medieval Art) — that book is so driven by really dubious outdated anthropology theories, it’s very heavy theorizing (I mean theory-overlay relying on or slathering-on a particular interpretive lens).
Albert Brinckmann in 1906 writes about & employs, as an interpretive lens, the notion of the evolutionary consciousness of different peoples, when he’s presuming to talk about tree forms in medieval art.
Cyberdisciple critiqued similarly outdated books about Mythology, that heavily apply narrowly dated theories to the field of Mythology.
This article/webpage became better then mere complaints, because I I stayed focused on the particular topic, but I also connected that to the broad subject of:
In general, what is the basis for authority, and how can you discern false authority from legitimate authority?
It was a really interesting distinction between:
Some people may present themselves as authorities – but that’s different than when other people point to those people as authorities.
The job at hand is not necessarily to push back against the alleged authorities themselves, but rather, to push back against people who claim that certain other people are authorities.
I’m not yelling and fighting against the authorities themselves, but rather, I’m yelling and fighting back against “random” people; other people who are claiming that certain people are authorities – that’s an interesting distinction.
It turns out to be kind of interesting to think about and ask questions about “how does authority, or assessment of authority work?”
Who gets to appoint someone as an expert, or an appointed expert?
What makes you, a newspaper writer, what makes you well-positioned to tell me that this art scholar is more well positioned?
On what basis are you telling me that this person is better position than this other person what is your unstated argument and basis for making that claim?
I am not challenging that authority-person; rather I am challenging you (journalist), when you are claiming that that authority-person is in a better position than some other potential authority-person.
On what basis are you well-positioned to judge how well positioned a given scholar is, on this particular matter of interpreting mushroom shapes in medieval art?
Are not you yourself (a writer of an article) implicitly claiming to be a top expert in interpreting mushroom shapes in medieval art?
Has your research for this short article made you into the top leading expert on this specialized subject, because you spent a couple days putting together an article and talking to a few art scholars (who don’t specialize in this particular topic, unlike Dr. Brown)?
Dr. Brown is more believable; is best positioned to judge on this topic: he’s been teaching a course on this since the 1970s & he’s gone traveling to the locations; it doesn’t take much critique to really call into question who is in the better position to judge: Dr. Brown, or the wall painting specialist art scholar.
Dr. Brown specializes in this subject matter, not this visual medium.
Journalist, you would have to have some authority or some kind of a basis for argumentation, when you presume to tell me who is better positioned to judge on this matter.
Your mere *declaring* that wall-painting scholar to be “best positioned” — specifically, better positioned than Dr. Jerry Brown — does not automatically make that the case.
How authority works: it seems that there are several parties involved.
People who position themselves as “fact checkers” — or, people who were treated by certain other parties as the fact checkers — have been disproved and that their authority now has become worthless; their credibility has been forfeited.
The general question of authority is interesting.
This webpage went from being a narrow complaining , mere criticizing, and then in my second version of it, I put that more interesting material at the top, and I found some interesting questions that still kept the focus on the subject at hand, but also connected that subject to the broader question of authorities.
This page is for scholarly research, to explain the mystic-state transformation from the branching to the non-branching model of time, control, and possibility, by cataloging mushroom branching morphology art motifs in the Canterbury Psalter.
Branching morphology is important for branching-message mushroom trees.
The present page is specifically to present zoomed crops on each isolated mushroom tree in the context of the Egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism & control transformation), in order to give full attention to each individual mushroom tree.
That Inventory page also covers the altered-state lifted garment motif (identified by John Rush) of the Eadwine artists’ group that accompanies the branching-message mushroom trees and vine-leaf trees.
That Inventory page is scoped to show all mushroom trees, not all vine-leaf trees or all lifted-garment instances.
March 16, 2022: fine-tuning my read, my interpretation & reading of this image:
This image is to be read as depicting high-capability mystic acrobatics, not just as desperate struggling to avoid cybernetic catastrophic control-failure death.
If your brow is furrowed, like that of the failing students/candidates for initiation, you interpret these men as desperately struggling to avoid death.
If your brow is un-furrowed, like that of the passing student/candidate for initiation, you are eligible to balance and dangle skillfully at God’s sword of differentiation between egoic possibilism-premised thinking vs. transcendent, eternalism-premised thinking about the foundation of personal control.
We are being shown skillful balancing and deliberate, masterful touching of the sword of control-agency death, cancelling and disproving (“cutting off”) the branching-possibilities model of personal control. In the branching model (Possibilism), future control-thoughts don’t exist already as a single set of thoughts.
In the ordinary experiential state, king ego is presumed to have the power to steer through a tree of presumably non-settled possibilities, to create one’s future control-thoughts.
In the mystic altered state, that experiential mode ceases, and the experienced branching of possibilities is cut off, along with king ego’s presumed, previously experienced power of steering among the supposed branching possibilities.
I also want to shift from characterizing these as roughly, wildly “broken off” branches to cultivated and intentional “cut off” branches, more cleanly; they are always clean cuts, as from an axe – or God’s sword – not rough breaks. Like clean mystic acrobatic skill; reference the two smiling (skilled, adept) cybercide guys. So I globally changed “broken branches” to “cut branches”.
– Michael Hoffman
Mushroom tree #72: 5 caps, pink panaeolus, red liberty caps, blue stem, veil branches, cut right branch
Brinckmann, Mushroom Trees, & Asymmetrical Branching https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/ – Albert Brinckmann identified the theme of vine-leaf trees in medieval art in this 1906 book. This is the book that Erwin Panofsky cited in the letter to Gordon Wasson about Plaincourault’s branching mushroom tree. Wasson replaced the citation of this Brinckmann book by ellipses (and silently omitted Panofsky’s two photostat images) every time he publicly republished that letter from Panofsky.
The Egodeath theory 