Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Idea Development page 2

Site Map

Contents:

  • Luther Protested Against For-profit Suppression of Mushrooms (= Entire “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” view/ framework/ paradigm/ revealed worldmodel) and Substituting for It Bunk, Literalist, Mushroom-Suppressing, “Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism” – Luther Was Not Just Arguing About Mushrooms (or Freewill btw)
    Luther’s “Greeks”/Gnostic/Esoteric Camp Protested for the Entire View/ Worldmodel {Mushrooms/Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism}, against the Entire View/ Worldmodel {Mushroom-Suppression/ Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism}
  • Books About Mushroom Christians (“Gnostic/Esoteric” Christians)
    • The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (1973)
    • The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (1975)
    • The Gnostic Gospels (1979)
      My set of views matches the mushroom Christians in the 3 books above.
    • The Age of Entheogens [, The Pharmacratic Inquisition, and The Entheogenic Reformation] & the Angels’ Dictionary (1995)
    • The Jesus Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1999)
    • Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ (2020)
  • Labels for Components of the Egodeath Theory
    the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
    the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of mytheme-decoding
    the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity
    the maximal mushroom theory of Christian art
    the maximal mushroom theory of Greek and Christian art
    the maximal entheogen theory of religion
    the “mixed-wine mushroom wine” theory
    Helleno-Christianity
  • mytheme decoded: {caduceus}
    I finally decoded {caduceus}!! Figured out how to think about it, relate it to other mythemes, & explain it.
  • The Requisite Non-violence of Successful Mental Transformation Implies the Ahistoricity of Jesus
    The “harmlessness” idea behind the mythemes {lamb} and {dove} implies the ahistoricity of Jesus (in his function as redeemer in the mystic altered state), instead of pointless & ineffectual violence against a bodily historical Jesus.
    • The Problem of the Pointless, Excess, Physical Bodily Death of Jesus, Leading to Ahistoricity as the Resolution of the Problem: Saved by Receiving the Vision of Christ Crucified in the Heavens
  • Helleno-Christianity
    Forming a label of my religion, which combines Greek “Paganism” (Mystery Religion & religious mythology decoding) with Christianity (an esoteric version of Barton/Stone Restorationism).
  • A Week of Manically Possessed Religious-Mythology Breakthroughs and Accidental Fasting
    I was manically possessed and driven by inspiration in the ordinary state, and accidentally fasted for a week during breakthrough decoding of the entire Canterbury “mushroom/ hanging/ sword” image, which extremely confirmed my Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of religious mythology and the maximal mushroom theory of Christian art.
  • Bad Mushroom Scholarship
    Several fulmination screeds against the sorry, worst-case state of what passes for mushroom scholarship.
    • Against Garbage, Politicized Scholarship Polluting the Field and Driving It Backwards
    • My Clean Comment About Bad Mushroom Scholarship, Posted on Cyberdisciple’s Article Listing My Recent Articles
      Brief summary of Psalter {nonbranching}, then good civilized polished reply re: be nice to “scholars” trampling the field.
    • Against Minimalist Mushroom Scholars
      Written in the middle of 1st pass of reply to comment at Cyberdisciple’s site.

/ end of section “Contents”

Top of this Page = Messy Construction Zone; Realtime Idea Development

Skip around in this page.

Scholars skim & skip massive quantities of material by skipping around and only sometimes reading top-to-bottom.

Non-scholars tend to always read top-to-bottom and not aggressively skim & skip around, and they leave as soon as they hit a bump; a typo, or an unclear point, or an uninteresting point.

THERE’S LOTS OF EXTREMELY INTERESTING SH*IT WAY DOWN BELOW in my pages.

Note re: Messiness at top of this file — maximum slop, by nature, is going to be at top of this file bc I’m showing realtime idea dev’mt; it is the cutting edge leading edge, so IS A CONSTRUCTION ZONE. TOP OF THIS FILE, INCOMING SPECULATION IDEAS, MIGHT ALL BE BULLSH*T

But usually I turn out to be mostly right; able to integrate incoming ideas so as to produce a strong explanatory power theory w/ greater expl’y power.

The material down below the top of this page has had more time to clean up typo’s & formatting & organization.

/ end of section “Top of this Page = Messy Construction Zone; Realtime Idea Development”

_________________________

Entheogen Scholars Are Converging on Perceiving a Medieval “Ye War on Druggs” – What Kind of Cover-up Was It?

Chris Bennett

Aaron Leich

Wouter Hanegraaff expose of psychedelics in New Age, and in Western Esotericism

Michael Hoffman – Clear Evidence of a Conflict Between the Mushroom Mystics and the Catholic Mass Snake-oil Profiteers Luther Railed Against

Incoming Idea Development Here

Email to Chris Bennett

Hi Chris, 

I see you have some scholarly debate articles — I haven’t read them yet. 
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/author/chris-bennett/

I’d be pretty interested in how the debate is conducted; debate and evidence-methods.  You can see my “Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof”” article, below. 

My recent articles assert that there was very heavy, hardly hidden, mainstream use of Psilocybe in Greek & Christian religion, and that there’s been a cover-up — there are many Psilocybe in Christian and Greek art (literal depictions, stylized depictions, & depictions of their highest experiential effects).  

In the past few days, I’ve begun to suspect there’s always been a major standoff between two parties in Christianity: mushroom vs. inert Eucharist.  

None of this “secret cult” notion though, please; scholars need to stop centrally thinking in terms of “secret cult”.  

There was a mainstream ongoing battle between two camps (neither one could be rightly characterized as a “secret cult”): normalized mushroom use in Christianity, versus a substitute fake Eucharist that does nothing — to sell people snake oil (the Mass & Meditation scam).

I wrote some new articles, with almost nothing to do with Amanita  — though I finally gathered my wits, engaged my facilities, and positively identified Amanita in a “Dionysus Triumph” mosaic.  In my “Criteria” article.

I consider Amanita an “Honorary Psilocybe” — it was shown in Christian and Greek art more for its striking form, than for actually ingesting it.  

I’m also open to Scopolamine plants in Christianity, eg Lily = Datura, and Mandrake, but again I think they were considered a cheap/widely available fallback for the desirable, classic entheogen, Psilocybe.

I think in art, Amanita really represents the classic, ergonomic mushroom, Psilocybe.

I decoded an image, “bestiary salamander roasting/ branching mushroom tree/ so-called ‘dancing man'” — did you assess that image?  Hatsis may have mentioned that Irvin got the “bestiary salamander roasting” image from your book.  I cover that image in my “Criteria” article, below.

I was going to notify you of my articles — now I see you’ve been in the critique/debate mode, so you might be even more interested in the scholarly dispute I’ve been engaged in, against those who claim things like “No evidence for mushrooms in Christian art” (or, in Greek art).  They claim that, by ignoring 5 out of 6 types of evidence.

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/proof-that-the-canterbury-psalters-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-is-psilocybe/

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/

Scholars’ Failure to Debate Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/20/scholars-failure-to-debate-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/

Hope you enjoy these new articles.  There are lots of interesting images you can flip through quickly.

Cheers, and Happy Thanksgiving!

— Michael Hoffman

/ end of section “Email to Chris Bennett”

Expanded Section for Outline of Evidence-Types, in Criteria Article

…

Thus there are six types of evidence which the scholar must take into account:
[text|art] x [literal|stylized|effects] =
1. Literal depictions of mushrooms (in art & in texts)
2. Stylized depictions of mushrooms (in art & in texts)
3. Depictions of mushroom effects (in art & in texts)

If the would-be “scientific, historical scholar”, allegedly using “sound historical criteria”, only considers literal descriptions or depictions of mushrooms, in texts, and fails or refuses to look through the lens of the other five of the six types of potential evidence, they are blinding themselves to five of the six, 5/6 = 83% of the types of potential evidence for mushrooms in Christian materials, and then claiming “there is practically no evidence for psychoactive mushrooms in Christianity.”

Such an out-of-hand dismissal of 5 out of the 6 types of potential evidence for mushrooms in Christian art is not, as falsely claimed, “proper, scientific, historical scholarship” or “sound historical criteria”, but is a travesty of it.

We must consider all six types of evidence, not just one arbitrarily chosen type of evidence.

This article proves that in Christian art, there is ample evidence of mushrooms; evidence of all three types: literal, stylized, and effects.

There is definite evidence even for the ultimate peak effects of mushrooms in Christian art: the experiential mushroom effects, of transforming the mental worldmodel from Possibilism to Eternalism, through suspension and cancellation of the illusion of autonomous personal control power that operates by wielding steering-power within a tree of open, branching possibilities.

The three levels of evidence for mushrooms in Christianity (literal, stylized, & effects), that are potentially found in art and in texts, are described below.

/ end of section “Expanded Section for Outline of Evidence-Types, in Criteria Article”

Per Pagels, Paul/Heracleon/Valentinians held that:
o “Greeks” = Mushroom “Gnostic” Esoteric {Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism}
o “Jews” = Fake-Eucharist “Orthodox” Exoteric {Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism}

This is the next R&D question.

What the New Testament presents to us as:

Paul railing against the Jews in 30 A.D.

is actually a late, forged proxy for; that’s actually debating about:

Luther’s protest-camp railing against the for-profit institutional Catholic Church in 1525 A.D. with their fake-Eucharist Mass replacing the actual Eucharist, which is mushrooms (and the resulting conversion from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism)

I think it’s re: the epistles of Paul? & Gospel of John? & 4 gospels?

In the “Pauline” epistles, none of which were written by a Mr. Historical Paul:

“Greeks ” means:
Helleno-Christianity mushroom esoteric gnostics;
Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism;
ahistoricity of Jesus

“Jews” means ersatz Eurcharist/Mass,
Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism,
selling & pushing magical-thinking onto the masses, that somehow by magic, violence & literal sacrifice, on the Cross and every day in the mass the they claim that the crucifixion-literal-violence is done, to clear a little bit of your freewill-premised moral sin, to get to heaven instead of literal hell after you bodily literally die.

  • The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (1973)
  • The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (1975)
  • The Gnostic Gospels (1979)
    My complete coherent set of views matches the mushroom Christians/ higher Christians/ gnostics/ esoterics, in the 3 books above.

The very first thing I listed at the top of the comparison table, is “Greeks” vs. “Jews”.

http://www.egodeath.com/pagelsgnosticpaul.htm —

Probably add on the left: early & late-period “Augustine” (Luther’s camp of forgers?)

Probably add on the right: middle-period “Augustine”. (The anti-Luther, pro-Pope camp of forgers?)

The “Church Fathers'” writings are all fake; a late, recent forgery, written in the style of 1525, Edwin Johnson says.

The “late, mid, & early-period” writings by “Augustine” are all fake – two parties making “Augustine” (and “Paul”, etc.) spout 2 opposing views. I guess he probably didn’t even exist; just an empty fictional writer-character.

Unknown by me at the moment:

Does “Augustine” evidence any awareness of the earthly life of Jesus?

Paul has not heard of Mr. Historical Jesus and his earthly storyline.
(Don’t give me that “brother” b.s., insulting my intelligence; obviously we’re all brothers, such FLIMSY arguments!)

Not sure, but I felt like Johnson suspects that the story of Jesus’ earthly life was invented in 1450, and no one before that shows any awareness of such a lifestory of Mr. Historical Jesus; we back-project such assumed familiarity, onto the “ancient” writers (who aren’t actually ancient, but are recent).

Per Edwin Johnson:

YOU MUST INTERROGATE THESE PURPORTEDLY “ANCIENT WRITERS” AND DEMAND OF THEM:

HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE EARTHLY STORYLINE OF MR. HISTORICAL JESUS?

HAVE YOU A COPY OF THE GOSPELS/ STORIES?

OR, IS SUCH AWARENESS STRANGELY ABSENT FROM YOUR WRITINGS, WHICH ARE ALL THEOLOGICAL AIRY-FAIRY VISIONS IN THE HEAVENS?

Does Richard Carrier cover this, in his brand new book Jesus from Outer Space? I have Earl Doherty’s 2nd Ed & 1st.

Pages / Resources at Egodeath.com

See also below, my book reviews of Pagels: 1) Johannine Gospel, 2) The Gnostic Paul.

Study Version of Edwin Johnson’s “The Pauline Epistles – Re-Studied and Explained”, 1894 — Reformatted copy for increased comprehensibility by Michael Hoffman Oct. 8, 2003. Proposes that the years 700-1400 didn’t exist, and that Christianity, the “early” Christian texts, Paul, the Gospels, the Church Fathers, the Dark Ages, and the Middle Ages were literary inventions fabricated in competing monasteries around 1500.

Edwin Johnson, A Radical Advocate of Chronology Criticism — Uwe Topper on Edwin Johnson
The webpage has clean formatting of the messy copy/pasted links below:

He passed away, I think — copy his articles/webpages while you can:

Detering, Hermann (1995): The falsified Paulus. The Urchristentum in the twilight (s. l.)
html (German) pdf (German)  (English version not found.  Possibly similar: http://www.radikalkritik.de/content.htm)

Gabowitsch, Eugen (2001): Did the Mongols come from the west to Russia? (Efodon synesis No. 4/2001, Hohenpeissenberg)

Johnson, Edwin (1887): ANTIQUA MATER, A Study OF Christian Origins (Truebner A. CO, London)

http://www.radikalkritik.de/antiqua_mater.htm

Click to access AntiquaMater1.pdf

(1894): “The Pauline Epistles” (Watt and CO, London)

http://www.radikalkritik.de/pauline_epistles.htm

Click to access PaulEpistles.pdf

/ resources

“Augustine” 1 is made to argue for no-free-will;
“Augustine” 2 is made to argue for freewill

Tall-tale about “the writings of Augustinian” (fake!)

The two camps of battling forgers in the monastery forgery-mills gave us this preposterous situation:

early-period Augustine believed no-free-will

middle-period Augustine believed freewill

late-period Augustine believed no-free-will

(find ‘augustine’ & ‘macarthur’ below)

/ end of section “Per Pagels, Paul/Heracleon/Valentinians held that:
o “Greeks” = Mushroom “Gnostic” Esoteric {Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism}
o “Jews” = Fake-Eucharist “Orthodox” Exoteric {Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism}”

Real Protestants Hold to Mushroom (Esoteric, Gnostic) Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism

[9:13 a.m. November 27, 2020]

… AND FROM NOW ON , I WILL OPENLY CONDEMN FAKE PROTESTANTISM that pushes this institutional “Catholic Church (TM, (R), (C))” fake Christianity, like most so-called “Protestant” FAKE churches that sell magical thinking in place of mystical ASC actual mental pis spiritual salvation and regeneration.

I like the Valentinians’s “{two races} of Christians” idea of how to combine oil and water in one allied universal church-congregation, or totally equivalently, their “{three races} of Christians” view. “Races” here is an analogy, a mytheme, not literal.

{the mushroom-given, Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism “race“} – including the Heavy Metal poets; Diary of a Madman, Ride the Lightning, Caress of Steel, 2112, Neil Peart — but with their no-free-will/monopossibility revelation “taken to completion” per the Egodeath theory, forming a fully developed “‘complete’ explanatory framework” in a Paul Thagard Conceptual Revolutions book’s sense.

{the “fake Mass & meditation”, Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism “race“}

Framework : Luther was railing against the institutional Catholic Church’s for-profit suppression of mushrooms (= the *entire* “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism”, *not* just mushrooms (nor just freewill, btw)) and Luther was condemning the fake churches’ substituting for mushrooms, the fake Eucharist; bunk, Literalist, Mushroom-Suppressing, “Ordinary-state Possibilism” – Luther was *not* just arguing against the evil suppression of mushrooms, as everyone assumes (or the little accompanying topic of freewill, btw).

Luther’s camp was arguing against not only suppression of mushrooms, but the entire accompanying worldmodel that is produced by the lack of mushrooms: Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism.

Luther’s camp was arguing against the entire framework, Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, which is produced by the lack of mushroom.

It is ironic/fitting, that literalist Catholics are always railing against “those evil, Protestant gnostics” — own it. Protestant gnostics = mushroom-revealed Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, against the lie of Mr. Hiostircal Jesus, against the institutional Catholic lie that the Protestant Joh MacArthur still repeats [todo: link my WordPress MacArthur page of his video sermon], that:

“There is no “Transcendent Knowledge”, no “hidden wisdom”, no “esoteric gnosis”.”
— John MacArthur the Catholic “Protestant”

John MacArthur – Strange Fire, Transcendent Knowledge
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/11/john-macarthur-strange-fire-transcendent-knowledge/

Luther’s camp, aka the “gnostics”, aka the “esoteric Christians”, wanted Christianity to be centered around the entire set, of mushrooms along with the resulting thing they produce, which is Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Note re: Historical records/trace of my idea development sequence:

I’m going to flip the emphasis — this section began as sketchy, uncertain, poorly founded idea of “Chronology Revisionism” and inside it, the idea developed and came out of it, the more solidly based, strong, good idea, to expand the good idea:
“priests suppressed mushrooms”,
broadening that idea to:
“priests suppressed mushrooms including the entire Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism”.

Chronology Revisionism: All Ancient Christian Texts Were Written in “1500 A.D.” in Competing Monastic Forgery-Mills

Chronology Revisionism: All Ancient Church Fathers Texts & Pauline Epistles (Which Are Unaware of the Life Story of Mr. Historical Jesus on Earth, Invented ~1450-1525) Were Written in “1500 A.D.” in Competing Monastic Forgery-Mills

Blow open your mind & theory-possibilities with Edwin Johnson’s Chronology Revisionism.

A new emphasis that came out from working within the topic/section orig’ly titled “Chronology Revisionism: All Ancient Texts Were Written in “1500 A.D.” in Competing Monastic Forgery-Mills”:

Need major section at top of this Idea Dev page, titled “Luther Protested Against For-Profit Suppression of Mushrooms (= Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) and Substituting for It, Bunk, Literalist, Mushroom-Suppressing, Ordinary-state Possibilism”

Chronology Revisionism: Protestant Monks Wrote the New Testament in 1525 (which was 825 Sun-Orbits After 1 A.D.)

eg the Church Father writings , Johson says they read like they were written in Luthers day. so I try to group two opposite camps like Pagels’ first 1 or 2 books:

Luther , gnostics, esoterics, mushrooms, Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, no-free-will/monopossibility , “the Greeks” per pagels 1st or second book, “the authentic Pauline epistles” (Johnson laughs at”authentic”) Luther wrote Paul’s “authentic” epistles? something along those lines

The Catholics who were against Luther; Orthodox[in pagels sense], the exoterics, fake eucharist, Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism , freewill moralism, “the Jews” per pagels early book(s) on John gospel or book on Paulines, they wrote the “fake, pseudonymous Pauline epistles” of the New Testament; those anti-Luther forgery factories in 1525 represent their views by the Peter character in the New Testament, which they wrote (the so-called fake epistles, as if any were real, as if Paul were a real character.).

[Johnson says] the writings of “Paul” in the New Testament were written in the year we call “1525”, by Luther’s camp, who [Hoffman says] used mushrooms and held Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism incl the ahistoricity of Jesus [per Pagels], and battled against the authors of teh “fake” espitles, who asserted (for financial profit) Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism.

Doesn’t Luthers early camp of forgers know about Mr. Historical Jesus, if they wrote the all-fake Church Fathers writings? MacArthur, John, says in his video lecture against Cath’m(TM) [not lowercase c catholic church]: the writings of the Chruch Fathers are useless to settle theological disputes, because you can find support for anything and everything in them. Johnson says that’s because the writings of the Church Fathers were ALL forged, in 1525, by the gnostic (mushroom) Luther-camp of monks, battling against the mushroom-suppressing, profit-driven, anti-Luther camp of forgers.

Setting aside all that chronology speculation, a solid takeaway is: expand my idea that “priests suppress mushrooms in order to sell fake religion, snake oil [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry], for profit” — chjange taht expand that to:

NOT ONLY [7:50 a.m. November 27, 2020] WAS MUSHROOMS SUPPRESSED BY PRIEST HUCKSTERS FOR PROFIT, ALSO Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism WAS SUPPRESSED — THE ENTIRE PARADIGM THAT IS FUSED PACKAGED TOGERH WITH MUSHROOMS.

PRIESTS SELL SNAKE OIL [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry] OF Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism AND THE SUPPRESS MUSHROOMS TOGETHER WITH SUPPRESSING Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Priests suppress mushrooms in order to sell fake religion, snake oil [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry], for profit; selling fake Eucharist & Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, which requires suppressing mushrooms & Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

_____

tracing my steps to the above positition-definition breakthrough: I’m typing paragraphs out-of-order in this section, I must write about that, an official explanation of the tension between laving a historical record of my thoughts sequence, vs, I have to jump all around in this “Idea Development page 2” webpage in order to develop ideas. solution: need a template keyboard shortcut macro to expand “dts” to: [25:00 a.m. November 32, 2020] <– todo

The solution is lots and lots of timestamps in this Idea Devmt file.

the below was written a few minutes before the above, leading to the above breakthrough of perspective expanding “huckster priests suppressed mushrooms” to “suppressed Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism to sell snake oil [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry] of Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism”. the Protestant reformation literally was Ott’s Entheogenic Reformation; Luther wanted ppl to know about mushrooms and Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, against the priests who were selling for profit snake oil [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry] of non-mushrooms, fake eucharist, Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism , with clearing of sin by magical thinking requiring blood literal sacrifice – which John MacArthur condemns wonderfully resoundingly, “Catholics” (Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism snake oil [the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry] salesmen).

“Catholics say that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross isn’t enough; they re-sacrifice (literally, in their minds/ in their for-profit sales literature scam) Christ in every Mass.” The Mass of the evil Church Institution which mushroom-advocate Luther condemned, uses fake, non-mushroom eucharist that has no power to save.

my proposal that “Augustine” writings were writteen by two warring camps that’s why he waffles like Johnson notes about Paul, do you beliefeve the unbelieveable official story :

The early-period Augustine early believed no-free-will

The middle-period Augustine believed in freewill

The late-period Augustine believed no-free-will

BS!!! poppycock & rubbish nonsense! it’s all forgery by Luther and his opponenents

Johnson says the earthly life of Mr. Historical Jesus is unknown to the church fathers, that tale was made up in the year we call “1525” (825 sun-orbits after 1 AD) — or Johnson says something along those lines, something like that. He exclaims there was no Bible until so, so, so late!

Johnson mocks the phrase “not yet, not yet, still not yet???!!! at such extremely late dates, what in the living F?!” — see my articles at [link todo] egodeath.com re: Johnson, Edwin.

he’s like HOW THE F CAN YOU BE SAYING IN 1450, 1500, “THERE STILL NOT YET WAS A BIBLE”? (todo: Quote Johnson, what’s he talking about, that is so ludicrous and breaks the narrative and strains credulity past the breaking point?) about English texts of Bible in 1500?

In effect, something like: the allegedly “ancient” Gnostic “Valentinus” is actually the nom de plume of Martin Luther. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_(Gnostic)

My Intuition Has Proved to Be Better than Others’, and I keep sensing that the New Testament was written in 1525 per Edwin Johnson.

All “ancient” religious writings are forgeries written in 1500 in monastic forgery-mills.

History is rubbish; fiction; tales.

Protestant Monks Wrote the New Testament in 1525? I feel and sense that this would be a profitable assumption-framework, helping keep an open mind.

I’ve been open to this, agnostic about chronology, since like 2005. What we know, we don’t actually know.

Our timeline calendar (chronology) rests on a foundation of mush, likely to be jumbled, hard to unravel the reality.

I believe that history prior to the printing press is a mushy pile of complete uncertainty. History is fiction.

Per Edwin Johnson, I don’t know how many times the sun travelled around the earth between Julius Caesar and the printing press. 1500 times? He thinks 800 times; the timeline’s been artificially stretched by 700 years, between 1 A.D. and 1500 A.D.

Johnson suspects that Martin Luther, a “Valentinian Gnostic” in Pagels’ sense (ie Luther was a follower of my Egodeath theory), wrote “Paul’s authentic epistles” in 825 A.D. (which we call “1525 A.D.”), and the Catholic Church corporation wrote the “pseudonymous Pauline epistles” in rebuttal.

Pagels’ book The Gnostic Gospels posits the battling teams as:
“Gnostic vs. Orthodox” Christians.
Freke & Gandy label those teams as:
“Esoteric vs. Exoteric” Christians.

Luther’s “Greeks”/Gnostic/Esoteric Camp Protested for the Entire View {Mushrooms/Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism}, against the Entire View {Mushroom-Suppression/ Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism}

Luther protested not only about freewill, but about mushrooms and about the whole entire group of ideas , the raft of ideas that mushrooms bring, such as the ahistoricity of Jesus; his was not only Ott’s “Entheogenic Reformation”, not only did Luther argue for no-free-will/monopossibility; he argued against the whole entire framework/view (the “Gnostic” side of the 2 opposed sets of ideas as I extracted in 2002 from Pagels’ first two books, on

Pagels’ book 1) the Gospel of John as “gnostic” writing (= mushrooms & their “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” that they bring); as esoteric Christianity.

Pagels’ book 2) Paul as a gnostic (‘gnostic’ actually means “mushrooms and Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism”).

/ end of section “Luther’s “Greeks”/Gnostic/Esoteric Camp Protested for the Entire View {Mushrooms/Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism}, against the Entire View {Mushroom-Suppression/ Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism}”

Blowing the Lid off the Huge Cover-up of the “Mushroom Mystic-State Analogies” Nature of Christianity:
“Gnostic” or “Esoteric Christianity” Means Mushroom Christianity

Where outsider scholars speak of so-called “gnostic Christians” and “esoteric Christians”, the Egodeath theory (or, the maximal entheogen theory of religion) instead speaks directly in terms of mushroom Christians.

[I moved the apolytrosis 1 page of definitions from here into “Idea Development page 3”. Probably researched on November 26, 2020; Thanksgiving Day.]

I’m mad at how good my Egodeath.com (to 2007) writings are. The bar is too high for MH2020 to kick azz over MH2007-and-earlier. I GOTTA UP MY GAME! I USED TO BRAG THAT NO ONE COULD OUT-RAD ME, THAT I WOULD DEFINE A POSITION SO ALREADY MAXXED OUT, THAT THER… THAT… I wrote that:

“I would rather be wrong, than allow the possibility for anyone to take a more radical position than me.”

You have to stick to your guns and double-down on the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation, even though some people will more doubt the Egodeath theory because of one of the 10 radical postulates that tear to pieces everything in the world that we think we know for a fact, the foundation of our reality, undermining our exoteric world of illusions and presuppositions.

Ahistoricity isn’t a make-or-break postulate which could disprove the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence or the Egodeath theory. It’s not in the Core; it’s in the Periphery.

The ahistoricity of religious founder figures is relevant to the Core theory, and is highly productive to consider, in order to develop the Egodeath theory, of Transcendent Knowledge, and Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

___

continuing from above:

But that MH2007 f’d up, because I now MH2020 am able to out-radical that feeble, hesitating, half-baked, lukewarm, TIMID AND HALTING MH of 2007.

The Egodeath.com site (2007) is dense and half-blind.

Why in the hell didn’t I have the good sense to simply EQUATE Gnostic Christians and Esoteric Christians as, simply, Psychedelic Christians?

Page at Egodeath.com: Entheogens
Section of page: Great entheogen divide in scholarship
http://www.egodeath.com/Entheogens.htm#_Toc64388187
Especially notice the mapping:
RADICAL ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS =
GNOSTIC = ESOTERIC = PSYCHEDELIC = MUSHROOM Christianity

Maximal entheogen theorists = gnostic esoteric mushroom Christianity

The maximal entheogen theory of religion says gnostic Christians and esoteric Christians are mushroom Christians.

That’s still backwards.

The maximal entheogen theory of religion focuses on mushroom Christians, which other scholars refer to as “gnostic Christians” and “esoteric Christians”.

Where outsider scholars speak of so-called “gnostic Christians” and “esoteric Christians”, the Egodeath theory (or, the maximal entheogen theory of religion) instead speaks in terms of mushroom Christians.

I’m thankful for being driven to blow the lid off the cover-up of mushrooms in Christianity.

Characterizing my “November Breakthrough” (not an easy case to make); how to convert my subjective manic FEELING of breakthrough, plus my long list of major mytheme decodings, plus my work btfo’ing the mushroom naysayers, how to wrap that up defensibly as “a breakthrough”? Gut says it is; but my skeptical mind says:

“Breakthrough? Thats’ big talk, buddy. “Breakthrough” is cheap talk. Breakthrough? Oh yeah? what is it, you’ve been shining brilliantly for decades, what makes you think this earns such honor? It’s just the same transcendent junk on Repeat. Yawn. Congrats, for treading in place.”

I discovered a ton of evidence, by forming the right perspective and attitude, so that I discovered in a manic week of blasting away the confusions and biases and presuppositions, many revolving around totally non-scholarly, politicized fights over punching-bag Allegro,

Christianity was really all about using mushrooms to enter the intense altered state, and transform your mind regarding the real nature of self-control, without causing self-harm in the altered state.

There was an entire initiation routine in the Mystery Religions very much including Christianity, of how to use mushrooms to enter the intense mystic altered state, and get full satisfactory permanent transformation of your thinking about how personal control works across time, without harming yourself.

The Christian Mystery Religion was and is a technology and technique to allow people to see God’s truth and yet live; to see God and know God, and yet go-on to live, without reverting to deluded illusion-based thinking about control, without suffering any harm or panic and seizure and destruction, only destroying one thing: illusion and being in contradiction of God’s truth, the truth about the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

Everyone in the field of mushroom scholarship regarding “our” religions, has been scared away by the ghost of Allegro, by the politicized fighting over the idea of mushrooms in Christian art.

I showed that Allegro is not that important and he was motivated by wanting to discredit Christianity but he was basically correct, that Christianity is indeed based on mushrooms.

There wasn’t a “secret cult” but there has been a huge cover-up of the actual, mystic altered state nature of Christianity.

Priests took this religion, that firmly comes from mushroom experiencing, and they suppressed that truth, they suppressed mushrooms, in order to sell people a bunk substitute instead.

I had to write a second article or three, (or four) to stop scholars from being trapped in the refusal to look for mushrooms with an open mind.

Scholars and the field are biased and politicized as hell, and when you propose or assert “mushrooms are the central focus of Christianity, which is analogies that describe ego death in the altered state and how to have complete full ego death without harming yourself,” scholars have a politicized, closed-minded, knee-jerk response: “Allegro’s been discredited!”

Mushrooms are the central focus of Christianity, which is analogies that describe ego death in the altered state and how to have complete full ego death without harming yourself.

I had to shove aside their bias by force, and insist ALLEGRO WAS ANTI-Christianity BUT HE WAS ESSENTIALLY RIGHT, EVEN MUCH MORE SO THAN ALLEGRO HIMSELF COULD HAVE IMAGINED.

Plaincourault is merely the tiniest tip of the huge iceberg, I’m thankful that God made me persevere and reveal a SH*T-TONNE OF MUSHROOMS, right in the very heart of Christianity.

Mushrooms are found IN SPADES, all thoughout Christian art. Brown reported incredible, utter blindness & ignorance of mushrooms by scholars, recently! An art expert [todo: quote Brown’s article] said: “I don’t know what that shape could be.” [todo: facepalm image here]

Not in texts explicitly; that proves nothing; there was a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and texts were a poor vehicle due to needing copying by hand, and censorship, but art images reveal the truth, together with the high-level analogies in texts, describing the ultimate peak effects of mushrooms, without out doubt.

Hatsis demansd that evidence be restricted to 1 orf the 6 types: literal, in text. Not inart, not stylized, not descirption of fx. 6 am nov 27 2020

6 types of evidence — ıADD TO “CRITERIA” ARITCLE TOP:

text | art/visual

x

literal | stylized | effects <– NICE! 1-word summaries, very useful shorthand.

There are 6 types of evidence for mushrooms in Christian art:

[text|art] x [literal|stylized|effects]

Literal depictions of mushrooms in art
Literal depictions of mushrooms in texts
Stylized depictions of mushrooms in art
Stylized depictions of mushrooms in texts
Depictions of mushroom effects in art
Depictions of mushroom effects in texts

NICE!

Hatsis’s camp (the minimalists) rejects 5/6 of the types of evidence, then claims that “Proper historical scholarship shows there s no evidence for mushrooms in Christian art.” He’s 83% blind!

Hatsis is omitting 83% of the evidence, then claiming there’s no evidence.

The ideas of the gentle {lamb} and the gentle, harmless {dove of the Holy Spirit} are all about describing by analogy how to not harm yourself when purging sin, mental self-contradiction about control, in the mushroom altered state.

There’s been a massive cover-up of this sensible fact, this reality that totally makes sense. Entheogenic Reformation is needed! (Ott).

Jupiter or Zeus’ {eagle} was presented as threatening and overpowering; in contrast, {lamb/dove} helps everyone avoid self-harm during full purging of sin, mental impurity and self-contradiction about control, in the intense mystic state from mushrooms.

I had to forcefully slide aside — despite everyone’s fixation on “Allegro’s been discredited”, slide aside the huge cover-up and bias, preconceptions and senseless baseless presumptions, just slide-aside the entire cover-up and the whole fixation of Allegro, to reveal that — although he sought to and was motivated by trying to discredit Christianity —

o Allegro was right about the mushroom origin, basis, and ongoing (not that he was good enough of a theorist to think it through and make a coherent position statement)

o I believe and can defend as correct, against-physical-harm, and well-fitting within a proper, developed, coherent theory of mystic experiencing:

Allegro was also right about the ahistoricity of Jesus — and, I add: the ahistoricity of Paul, and of various other religious founder figures; there’s a gigantic category error on what kind of writings are religious texts.

Bad people tried to push psychedelics on people to give them a poisoned version of “spirituality” and “entheogenic religion” designed to harm them, as Irvin blew the lid off that motivation.

The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms
Jan Irvin
https://logosmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject

But God has the last laugh, given that –even if the pushers of entheogenic spiritual enlightenment believed they were harming and delivering illegitimate garbage, it happens they inadvertently spread the flesh of Christ the redeemer, healer of sin.

Quote bible’s gnostic verse:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+2&version=KJV

1 Corinthians 2 (KJV):

2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Books About Mushroom Christians (“Gnostic/Esoteric” Christians)

The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (1973)

The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis
Elaine Pagels
1973
Heracleon’s Commentary on John
Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
http://amzn.com/1555403344
My review at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RY2KUAP5C0RTJ/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1555403344 — holy sh*t its long – it’s probably at Egodeath.com too and more readable there.
Damn, MH2013(?) is making MH2020 look lazy and dumb: Has page #s so you know I’m not just making things up, projecting my wishes onto Pagels/ Heraclitus.

Review of “The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis”

Michael Hoffman
5.0 out of 5 stars 
The elect vs. moralists, sacrament of apolytrosis (redemption)
Reviewed on January 19, 2013 <– not 2002?

This reprint of Pagels’ 1973 book based on her dissertation …

I provide a summary here, assisted by decades of original work on my theory of religious experiencing and metaphor.  The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God?  is a readable preparation for Pagels’ early books. Pagels’ book shows that Valentinians presented the following 2-level system. See my comparable contrast summary in my review of Pagels’ book  The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters .

Higher Christians (‘pneumatic’; spiritual): … [first bullet of each pair]
Lower Christians (‘psychic’; mental): … [second bullet of each pair]

o Don’t rely on the historicity of the Bible (page 12). What matters is the mystic-state meaning and metaphorical analogies. Deny the uniqueness of the Christian revelation (page 15).
o Believe in the uniqueness of the Christian revelation, emphasizing the literalness of its occurrence of historical events.
Pagels discusses ahistoricity, or the unimportance or irrelevance of Jesus’ literal historical life and crucifixion, on pages 12-16, 44, 46, and 118.

o Received the higher Eucharist; they are given grace through receiving the sacrament of apolytrosis (which I point out is entheogenic-equivalent, like the “sacraments of Phrygia and Eleusis” mentioned on page 15).
o Only have baptism by water, associated with forgiving sins but in such a way that free-will moral thinking is still implied (various pages in Pagels). They only eat literal ordinary bread and drink literal ordinary wine.
Pagels discusses the Eucharist, wine, feast, banquet, eating, drinking, sacrament of apolytrosis, bridechamber, marriage wedding banquet, and other entheogen-equivalent topics, on page 15 (sacrament of Eleusis), 62-65, 76-82, 92-96, and 115. See my review of  Gnostic Visions: Uncovering the Greatest Secret of the Ancient World  and  Flights of the Soul: Visions, Heavenly Journeys, and Peak Experiences in the Biblical World .

o Are masters of metaphor interpretation, describing experiential insights received through the sacrament of apolytrosis (redemption). Are able to interpret all brands of mystic writing (page 15).
o Are literalists. They depend on a historical reading of events in the Bible, assuming that those events literally happened. This prevents them from understanding spiritually (which I explain explicitly: they don’t understand the entheogen Eucharist and its revelation of no-free-will).

o Think in terms of this higher vs. lower understanding, making this distinction.
o Don’t believe in or understand higher Christianity and metaphor reading in terms of spiritual experience.

o Redemption and heaven is now, for the elect.
o Redemption and heaven is in the future, in the age to come.

o Receive redemption, purely by God’s grace (matching Reformed theology, my theory points out). Though veiled as “election” and explained indirectly through symbolism, these Christians basically are brought to believe the supposedly “pagan” idea of no-free-will, upon discovering that they are among the elect and receive their redemption though grace — though they initially and originally think, mistakenly, using the lower way of thinking.
o The lower Christian reaches, if they are morally good, Salvation (still reifies the free-will moral premise). These can earn salvation through works. Receive a lower salvation, a forgiveness of sins, while that forgiveness still reifies free-will moral thinking; ‘ethics’ per Pagels. They believe in free-will moral agency. They conceptualize religion in terms of freewill ethics and moral conduct as the way to earn salvation.

____

Pagels discusses determinism, election theology, grace, works, and moral ethics on pages 49, 57, 72, 82-83, 98-113, and 120-122 especially (that is the end and climax of the book). Pagels explains how Valentinians enabled treating both higher and lower Christians both as authentic Christians.

Valentinians are interesting Christian Gnostics because they define an ‘asymmetric theology’ (a term from my theory) that enables treating both higher and lower Christians both as authentic Christians.

Pagels’ doesn’t point out (but my theory does) that Augustinian theology has this same asymmetry: those who are not saved, are condemned by their own freewill-type moral guilt; the elect are chosen for redemption by God in a no-free-will type of framework.

_____

Mainstream writer Origin accuses Gnostics of asserting a fatalistic determinism theology of salvation like the pagans (page 49).

How can Pagels not mention Reformed theology here, as my theory covers?

Pagels writes “To counter the fatalism of pagan religion and philosophy, mainstream Christians stress freewill ability against fatalism, and dismiss this election theology as determinism, if not arrogance.

Plotinus also criticizes the Valentinians for not discussing ethics, the soul, purifying the soul, and right conduct.” (page 122)

She characterizes ‘the soul’ as being a factor that’s part of free-will ethics in lower Christianity, in Valentinian Gnosticism.

_____

Per Pagels, Valentinians as a concession to the mainstream Church that was trying to maximize its member count, Valentinians didn’t demonize freewillist Christians as “not real Christians”, but rather, included them as lower Christians, who could be saved after death, in the future time to come.

But per Pagels, page 112, Gnostics tend and want to posit 2 races:
o The race of the elect.
o The race of perdition.

_____

But Valentinians wanted to define an inclusive framework, so they posited 3 races, as a concession to the mainstream church:

o The race of the elect. (I point out these are those destined to believe in no-free-will, amply supportable by quotes in this book, though per the end of the book, that “pagan determinism” was veiled.)

o The race of the freewillists, who seek a freewill morality type of salvation, that the higher Christians should humor them about and theologically affirm per Valentinian theology)

o The race of those who are predestined definitely for perdition. Pagels says little (page 104) about this group and why Valentinian theology even had this grouping.

_____

Pagels (page 104) points out that the Gnostic Heracleon doesn’t use the term “free will”, but discusses “their only choice is whether to obey the will of the Father or the will of the devil”.

Heracleon’s scheme of characterizing psychic (lower) Christians is essentially thinking in the mode of freewill moral agency.

Heracleon’s Valentinianism is a veiled no-free-will theology that sort of reifies a freewillish moral salvation system, for lower Christians.

Heracleon’s 2-level theology tries to keep freewillist moralists on board as legitimate but lower members of the same inclusive church.

_____

The mainstream church tried to maximize its member count and that the Valentinian broad-church Gnostics also held that goal.

Regarding the Social Gospel: I point out that Gnostics are accused of being anti-world, and that recently, salvation-focused Protestants are accused of “Protestant Gnosticism”, meaning that these Protestants demonize the world and seek only to individually escape from it, supposedly like Gnostics sought.

But this book about Valentinian Gnosticism doesn’t support that “anti-world” accusation made against Gnostics at all; rather, this book shows Valentinian Gnosticism was concerned with accepting both higher and lower Christianity into the mainstream church.

_____

This book doesn’t discuss the social gospel (flat egalitarian society) as the New Testament Christianity’s driving goal, by either the mainstream church, nor by Valentinian broad-church Gnostics, nor by supposed elitist, supposed anti-world Gnostics.

The book does mention Gnostic cautions against elitism and arrogance on the part of higher Christians — I point out that the same caution is found in Reformed Theology.

_____

The grand finale of Pagels’ book shows why it’s taboo, silently forbidden, to bring together the topics of no-free-will and Reformed theology (as my theory does): to openly admit that Christian theology asserts no-free-will would be to admit an equivalence of Christianity with paganism, and shuts out the freewillist majority of people, or threatens to eliminate the beloved, popular, and lucrative church-friendly idea of human freedom.

_____

Her grand finale of the book, the Synthesis section, inspires me to define the church as being “universal” in the sense of using a veiled combining of two incompatible theologies: no-free-will as higher theology, together with a provisional freewill theology for the lower mass of Christians.

Pagel’s Synthesis section is the summary of the book, and describes the Valentinian “complexity of their doctrine”.

She describes how Valentinian theology veiled its determinism (election theology) aspect, “to express their apprehension of election in mythical and symbolic terms … imagistic and symbolic.” (page 122; the last sentence of the book). ‘Election’ means being fated for redemption.

_____

Election theology was used by the Gnostic Heracleon and the mainstream Origen to obscure and deny the “pagan” fatalism and determinism, by relabelling the terms to enable indirectly asserting fatedness and by avoiding discussing fatedness in general but instead restricting the topic to election and using roundabout wording.

_____

Pagels’ grand finale section is titled Anti-gnostic polemics: the development of a theory of “free will”. She explains how two incompatible theologies — elite determinism and popular freewillism — were combined into an oil-and-water or two-level hybrid system, “valid on different levels”, in an effort to maximize the size of the church.

It’s great that Pagels’ dissertation essentially points this out, though her presentation is ineffective at communicating this big revelation, which aptly describes theology in general: an exercise in combining distinct systems of elite no-free-will theology (veiled, occluded, evasive, obscurantist, or in-denial) and popular free-will moralism.

_____

After reading her conclusion, I describe all religion as deliberately veiled no-free-will, disguised as freewill moralism promises of rewards, of salvation, per the scheme of both Valentinianism and the mainstream writers such as Origen, as revealed by Elaine Pagels.

— Michael Hoffman

/ end of section “The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis”

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters

http://www.egodeath.com/pagelsgnosticpaul.htm
Profound summary by me.

Damn it, it’s such a good analysis, it makes me feel like I have made zero progress since writing my 2002 book review.

My November 2020 breakthrough [todo: characterize] completely confirms these forgotten things I wrote in 2002.

My latest perspective-insight totally confirms what the gnostic version of the Paul character asserts according to Pagels.

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters
Elaine Pagels
1975
http://amzn.com/1563380390
Here’s my 2002 review at Amazon — same as egodeath.com page.

WHAT PAGELS AND MH2002 ARE MISSING IS:

THE CONFIDENT CERTAINTY THAT:

THE ‘ESOTERIC/GNOSTICS’ SIDE OF HER “ESOTERIC/GNOSTICS VS. EXOTERIC/ORTHODOX” COMPARISON WAS *POWERED BY MUSHROOMS*.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2D7ZEG0WAOQZN/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1563380390
Copied from Amazon, probably same as egodeath site but without the nice side-by-side contrast-table:
5.0 out of 5 stars 
Contributes toward 2-level model of Christianity
Reviewed by Michael Hoffman, January 14, 2002 —

I’m surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity according to the Valentinians’ reading of Paul.

_____

This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory.

The book explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul’s early epistles.

“Jews” means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians.

“Greeks” means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians.

Paul encouraged the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower Christians.

_____

The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians.

As a philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.

_____

The two sets of doctrines — the book The Gnostic Paul divides the religious ideas as follows, from the Valentinian reading of Paul’s early writings:

HIGHER, ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
“Greeks“
The religion of Heresy
Early Paul
The Truth, wisdom, enlightenment
The initiated, adults
A secret mystery is revealed to some apostles, but not to other apostles
The sacrament of apolytrosis [<– *MUSHROOMS* ROUTINELY USED — THE GASOLINE PROPELLING THE WHOLE DAMN CAR!! – MH2020 far more confident than MH2002] (apo- can mean after-, post-, and separate redemption) in addition to common eucharist
Redemption
Spiritual freedom from moral codes — but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election
Reject idea of responsible moral agency and idea of our culpability of sin/guilt
The apple was a gift of gnosis
All blame is placed on the Ground, not us
No death on the Cross (it was mythic and could be seen as a pseudo-death)
Sacrifice is mythic, mental, conceptual, a mental experience
No bodily resurrection
Mythic Christ
Belief in higher and lower Christians (with a principled respect for the lower)
No point in moral-reward heaven or moral-punishment hell
We are spirits, controlled by God

LOWER, EXOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
“Jews”
The Orthodox religion
Peter, The Church Fathers and their forged later Paul
The Lie, error, darkness, foolishness
The uninitiated, children
No secret mystery; all apostles have authority through simple ordinary seeing of miraculous resurrection
The common eucharist, only
Salvation, baptism
Spiritual enslavement to morality — with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself
Belief in responsible moral agency and our culpability for sin/guilt
All blame is placed on us
The apple was bad
Jesus died on the Cross
Sacrifice is bodily, bloody, magically effective, physical <–
Bodily resurrection
Supernaturalist Jesus
Disbelief in higher level of Christianity — to obtain unity and harmony of the Church
Moral-reward heaven and moral-punishment hell exist, for the responsible agent/soul
We are souls, controlled by ourselves

Each point I listed above should have page references to Pagel’s book to prove that the ideas break out this way in her book.

_____

An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct readings.

It’s not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel’s treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.

If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded mysteries and should be read as such.

_____

The most remarkable thing presented repeatedly in this book is the idea that the Pauline writings intentionally withheld the higher view from the uninitiated.

[I’m skeptical about the way I worded it there. Am I or is Pagels mischaracterizing?]

Pagels never ventures to explain why.

Perhaps the Valentinians wanted to protect and preserve the delusion of the ego just as we protect children.

This problem extends beyond the Christian mystery-religion; the Greek mystery religions forbade, by punishment of death, publically revealing the things shown in the mysteries.

There were political reasons to veil a deterministic belief system, because cosmic determinism has been used to justify an oppressive status quo (“I was meant, fated, and divinely ordained by Necessity to dominate you”) rather than democracy.

So the Pauline writings were deliberately written in a way that would be read in a supernatural, Literalist way but could be read as a non-supernatural, mystery-religion, mystic allegory.

/ review by MH at Amazon

/ end of section “The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters”

The Gnostic Gospels

The Gnostic Gospels
Elaine Pagels
http://amzn.com/0679724532
1979

The Age of Entheogens [, The Pharmacratic Inquisition, and The Entheogenic Reformation] & the Angels’ Dictionary (1995)

I might have to check Egodeath.com and Amazon both, for comments written by me. I guess most of my Amazon reviews are still at Amazon.

Book:
The Age of Entheogens & the Angels’ Dictionary
Jonathan Ott
1995
http://amzn.com/0961423471
My review:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R22RVGR2PFJN69/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0961423471 —
Michael Hoffman
5.0 out of 5 stars One of the best on the entheogenic origin of religions
Reviewed on March 23, 2002
A solid 5 stars. 2 excellent short books in 1:

“Mini-book 1:
The Age of Entheogens, The Pharmacratic Inquisition, and The Entheogenic Reformation
Describes that the ancients used psychoactives all the time, then the power establishment suppressed them, but now entheogens are becoming available again.

“Mini-book 2:
The Angels’ Dictionary
A dictionary of entheogen religion terminology.

“This book is widely available new; simply search. Highly recommended. Ott is one of the very few writers, even one of very few entheogenists, who have their head … on right about psychoactives, in this twisted world. He tells it straight about the motives behind the prohibition-for-profit gravy train. See my Amazon info area for more information.

11 people found this helpful
/ review of Ott

Web search on the term “Entheogenic Reformation“, which isn’t the title of the book:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22jonathan+ott%22+%22entheogenic+reformation%22
“The Age of Entheogens [book] is a radical reexamination of the history of western civilization, exploring the brutal suppression of ecstatic, experiential religions by the 1600-year-old Pharmacratic Inquisition, [misleading – per the Maximal theory, there was heavy normal use of mushrooms within the heart of Christianity -mh] leading up to the contemporary Entheogenic Reformation, or frank replacement with genuine entheogens of the placebo sacraments at the hollow center of today’s purely symb…”

JONATHAN OTT: ENTHEOGENIC REFORMATION 1/8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR-jXiIX3Es

/ end of section “The Age of Entheogens [, The Pharmacratic Inquisition, and The Entheogenic Reformation] & the Angels’ Dictionary (1995)”

The Jesus Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1999)

Book:
The Jesus Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ
1999
later, vague title:
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
http://amzn.com/0609807986
Editions & subtitles – at Egodeath.com

/ end of section “The Jesus Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1999)”

Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ (2020)

Book:
Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ
Richard Carrier
http://amzn.com/1634311949
October 20, 2020

/ end of section “Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ (2020)”

The “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” theory of mythemes

A proper descriptive, useful label for the mytheme-decoding component of the Egodeath theory.

I badly need a slick name for my decoding-theory! I mean my interpretive theory that items in religious mythology are decoded by mapping them to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism. The Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of mythemes in religious mythology.

the “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” theory of mythemes

That’s a pretty good label for this component of the Egodeath theory.

/ end of section “The “Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism” theory of mythemes”

Labels for Components of the Egodeath Theory

the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of mytheme-decoding
the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity
the maximal mushroom theory of Christian art
the maximal mushroom theory of Greek and Christian art
the maximal entheogen theory of religion
Helleno-Christianity
the “mixed-wine mushroom wine” theory

Favorite Labels for Components of the Egodeath Theory

the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek religion

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek and Christian religion

the maximal mushroom theory of Hellenistic religion

the maximal mushroom theory of Helleno-Christianity

the maximal entheogen theory of religion

the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of mytheme-decoding

the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of religious mythology

Comments on the Above Preferred Labels/Terms

To go fully big in scope, only then, switch to the technical, offputting, obscurantist term ‘entheogen’, which makes the Theory sound like it’s complicated and obscure.

Consider/debate/analyze, for normal main usage:

the maximal mushroom theory of religion (? consider its merits over:)

the maximal entheogen theory of religion (seems justified; if you’re going to go so broad as to say “all religion”, it is consistent to say “entheogens” instead of just “mushrooms”.

The “favorite labels” defined here are the primary-use labels for most general-purpose coverage/discussion: notice the strategic simplicity-first, simple clarity first, principle of “point to the center, not edge”.

Normally, most of the time, unless there is a topical special reason to focus on special cases, point to the center/normal main case, not greedily “the edge, with broadest possible scope”.

Also: whenever possible, use common English words, not neologisms (‘entheogen’).

‘Helleno-Christianity‘ means Hellenistic religion, Christianity, and Gnosticism. Includes Egypt, and equivalent ideas in Ancient Near East eg ancient Persia. BUT, centered around, as paradigmatic, Greek religion and early Christianity before Mr. Historical Jesus arrived.

Just because I specify the *center* (that is: ‘mushrooms’, ‘Greek’, ‘Christian’, ‘Helleno-‘) does NOT mean that the scope is restricted to that!

Do not (normally, usually) use the broadest possible terms; instead, use strategy of simplicity leveraging pointing to the very center.

Focus on the center, not the edge!

Examples of the problem-introducing, problem-freighted “edge” would be: “all entheogens” – oh now we have to debate Scopalamine, Oopium as “visionary”, cannabis, NO END OF CONFUSION AT THE EDGE-CASES.

The ahistoricity hypothesis is not required; it is peripheral, but I’m honest and clear what I’m thinking.

Don’t say ‘entheogen’ unless there’s a specific compelling reason to draw attention to exceptions; special-cases (Lily Datura Scopalamine; Acacia/Rue DMT) — don’t be greedy in scope of coverage; prefer *SIMPLICITY* to BROADNESS.

Simplicity of expression is more important than completeness of scope.

The word ‘mushroom’ is a MILLION times clearer (ie incomparably clearer) to a general audience than the offputting term that no one has ever heard of, “complicated alien term ‘entheogen'”.

The term ‘entheogen’ complicates the Theory. ‘psychedelic(s)’ has its own raft of problems, connotations, ambiguity of :
‘psychedelic’ is an adjective;
‘psychedelics’ is a noun.
The term ‘mushroom’ is wonderful b/c it is both a noun and an adjective, nice; eg: the mushroom theory

With the term ‘entheogen’ (variants), you have to decide between “Entheogenic” (adj) vs “entheogen” (acts as adj & noun). ‘mushroom’ is great grammatically, zero problems, SO CLEAR!

___

I like the above two labels/phrases a lot, for most general-purpose usage and ease of typing, and utter maximum simplicity of expression. Unpretentious, uncomplicated, and if you are obsessed with Acacia/Rue, you are free to piggyback onto the MAIN idea, which is Mushrooms. Fixated on Amanita? The above labels can handle that; as a variant nuance detail to support the basic main idea/label, ‘mushroom’.

The following are NOT the main labels, but are very useful secondary variant forms for topical writings that focus on art:

the maximal mushroom theory of Christian art

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek art

They above are easiest to type, very forceful, use plain common words, no Shift key, no extra quotation marks, no italics key-combinations. KEEP – IT – SIMPLE. Make the Theory LOOK AS DIRT-SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

I like that phrase / label a lot – both the Christianity and the “Greek religion” versions, above.

In general-purpose usage, I like ‘mushroom‘ more than ‘entheogen‘, which signals a bad message connotation:
“THIS THEORY IS COMPLICATED AND OBSCURE”.

Do not need to italicise, quote, or capitalize! eg:

Have you heard of the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity by Cybermonk?

I like that phrase (& non italic, non upppecase, non-quotation marks) a lot. easy to type, very forceful, plain common words.

Not good idea:
the mushroom theory of Christianity <– lose the term ‘maximal’? can; therefore, should? Maybe. ‘maximal’ helps press the point, it earns its keystrokes/character-count.

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian religion

lowercase is easier to type than

the Maximal Mushroom Theory of Greek & Christian Religion

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian religion

See, even if you settle on the words, there’s still variants of casing! and italics! Capitalize “the”?????

There’s no end of quibbles! Or, of options/variants that one should use on an as-needed basis.

BE FLEXIBLE AND EXPRESSIVE AND DIRT-SIMPLE while still being able to handle variants, exceptions, nuanced distinctions.

200-character limit for a general audience with no context.

SPEAK SIMPLE PLAIN ENGLISH.

KISS — KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID, regarding terminology, labels, names of the Egodeath theory and components of it.

DON’T MAKE IT COMPLICATED AND OBSCURE.

8TH-GRADER HALLWAY CONVERSATION.

140-character posts for a random general audience CAN AND SHOULD BE CLEAR.

Keep it as simple and basic, as main-line-of-reasoning, as possible. No one knows what ‘entheogen’ means, what ‘Possibilism’ means, or Eternalism. So flip back and forth; mix it up.

Today I am going to work out whether to italicize “the”. I must create a WordPress article for that. Be sure to include a Table of Contents, Acknowledgements, peer review, and Bibliography.

Labels of Parts of the Egodeath Theory

re: labels of parts of The Theory (not completely resolved; I should attempt to tighten phrase-usage definitions – later, not now).

the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence (named 1988 therefore = the Core theory)

Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism

the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity <– my focus this past week, proving this theory. ‘mushroom’ means Psilocybin eg Cubensis & Liberty Cap. Amanita represents Psilocybe; Amanita is an honorary Psilocybe.

“Amanita is an honorary Psilocybe” is not quite the same as per the Entheos journal article Lily Datura; that “Any psychoactive represents all entheogens“.

Any psychoactive represents all entheogens.

Amanita is an honorary Psilocybe.

I will stick with elegant term ‘mushroom’, forget about the confusing details of Amanita vs. Psilocybe, or Cubensis vs. Liberty Cap, etc.

Added Cutting, Sarcastic, Burn, Call-them-out “Italian Pine Tree” Paragraph

Added the following CUTTING sarcastic Brinckmann paragraph to the “Criteria Proof” article:

High-Resolution Complete Canterbury Psalter
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item

There are Liberty Cap mushrooms in the cap of the mushroom tree, depicted literally; this is an example of “Literal Depictions of the Physical Form of the Mushroom”.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=liberty+cap+mushroom

Or maybe that mushroom-tree is a depiction of an Italian Pine tree, as art historian Brinckmann explained in his 1906 book. You see, unbeknownst to mycologists, medieval artists worked off of templates, which got screwy over the years, as the top art historian Panofsky explained in a letter to Pope-banker Wasson.

_____

The weirdest thing about writing: the more words and qualifiers you add, the more confusion you bring in.

KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. (KISS) when possible, unless there’s a special reason/context. Cyb seems to choose well, in saying the broad obscure term ‘entheogen’ in the intro/summary of the Maximal position, for the Muraresku quasi-academic context.

Use these two great labels:

The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Christianity

The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Greek and Christian Religion

The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Mystery Religions

etc., arb. variants.

the Core theory (1985-1997)
vs.
(the Myth & History portion of the Egodeath theory) 1998-2013-2020

the Egodeath theory

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/correcting-key-points-in-muraresku-the-immortality-key/ — Cyb’s formulation/characterization of part of the Egodeath theory: the maximal entheogen theory of Religion (well not exactly; that’s a theory about history) —
“drugs routinely trigger the loose cognition state, enabling the transition from the possibilism model of time and control to the eternalism model, and that religious art depicts this via analogy.”

Longer context at start of Cyberdisciple’s post: Note his labels for the theory or portions of the Theory: ‘mushroom’ is a good variant, also ‘entheogen’ as he uses, is great. BUT I want to more emphasize Mushroom, than Entheogen, re: Christianity. the Maximal Entheogen Theory of religion –> more emphasis now moving fwd, I’ll say when possible:

the Maximal Mushroom Theory of Christianity

the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity

the maximal mushroom theory of Hellenistic religion

the Maximal Mushroom Theory of Hellenistic Religion

‘Hellenistic Religion’ includes primitive Christianity, which is the Hellenized version of the Old Testament religion. Good book by Luther Martin.

re: the importance of SIMPLIFIED THEORY-DESCRIPTION/LABELLING:

KEY POINT: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS, PSILOCYBE MUSHROOMS; “MUSHROOMS”. You don’t NEED nuance about acacia/rue dmt, Lily Datura, diff’c between Amanita vs. Psilocybe, etc.

I use a “minimal sufficient explanation” strategy. ie: “Mushrooms”. No need to use WORDS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS:

WTF IS ‘ENTHEOGEN’???? It obscures, it does not help. That’s one argument, anyways. Give it (simplification to ‘mushrooms’) a shot.

In the end, I’m flexible; sometimes ‘psychedelics’, mushrooms, entheogens. Terms ‘Possibilism’ and ‘Eternalism’ have big pros & big cons.

There is no 1 correct label for a thing, for the entirety or for part of a multipart explanatory framework.

Cyb’s Intro to New Post; Labels of the Theory

Cyb writes:

“This post is for correcting the main claims in Muraresku’s The Immortality Key about drugs in Western religious history. All the confusions in the book on this topic can be resolved by adopting the Maximal Entheogen Theory of religion. The book creates a muddled mess by employing a Moderate Entheogen Theory of religion when speculating about religious history and a Minimal Entheogen Theory of religion when evaluating evidence.

“By Maximal, I mean: drugs have been used commonly throughout the world and throughout culture. The question typical of the Maximal approach is “to what extent were drugs used in x religion?”

“Authors in the Maximal camp are inherently aligned with the Egodeath Theory’s formulation that drugs routinely trigger the loose cognition state, enabling the transition from the possibilism model of time and control to the eternalism model, and that religious art depicts this via analogy.

“The Egodeath Theory points out drugs in religious art and text, but more importantly decodes the religious art and text. [“as x y z”, I think is needed here.]”

/ end of section “Labels for Components of the Egodeath Theory”

No One at the Bridge – Fresh Explanation of Song Lyrics

These are extremely relevant, highly descriptive poetic lyrics, which describe the peak experiencing of the altered state, by use of analogies.  This is the song “No One at the Bridge” by Rush, lyrics by Neil Peart.

[10:14 a.m. Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 2020]

I added this section to the About page, which I’m building-out.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/about/

Lyrics are shown here for academic analysis and commentary.

“The sky is pitching violently [perceptual distortion in the altered state: visual undulation]
Drawn by shrieking winds [the egoic control system doesn’t propel its thoughts, in the altered state; thoughts are driven forward by mystic {wind} without egoic control]
Seaspray blurs my vision [perceptual distortion in the altered state: blurring of vision]
The waves roll by so fast [perceptual distortion in the altered state: visual undulation]
Save my ship of freedom [the experience of freewill-premised control power vanishes, but is desperately needed, as control increasingly seizes and is cancelled in the loss of the experience of having personal control; a “deus ex machina”, artificial transcendent rescue from outside the entire egoic control system and alien to it, is required]
I’m lashed helpless to the mast [the altered-state experience of non-control; suspension of the familiar experience of wielding control-power; an allusion to the myth of Ulysses]

Remembering when first I held [when first discovered the altered state]
The wheel in my own hands [the illusion of egoic control power, supported in the ordinary state but not in the altered state]
I took the helm so eagerly [naively expected to be able to control the experience]
And sailed for distant lands
But now the sea’s too heavy
And I just… I just don’t understand
Why must my crew desert me? [vanishing of the accustomed experience & perspective of being a control agent wielding personal control power]
When I need… I need a guiding hand… [the power of the egoic control hand vanishes]

Call out for direction
And there’s no one there to steer [the egoic control agent illusion vanishes in the altered state]
Shout out for salvation [a good time-tested idea; to rescue viable control and return control-stability, the mind has to learn to consciously place trust its own uncontrollable source of control thoughts, which was secretly always the case anyway]
But there’s no one there to hear [not that God doesn’t respond to prayer; the meaning here is “there’s no egoic control agent here”]
Cry out supplication [pleading, begging for control-stability earnestly & humbly]
For the maelstrom is near [cybernetic control seizure and nullity, cancellation]
Scream out desperation [continuing to rely on the premise or presumption of egoic control power, is futile and leads to increasing panic and seizure and instability until changing the mental worldmodel from Possibilism to Eternalism per Mystery Religion initiation]But no one cares to hear [not that there’s no God or rescuer; that would contradict all mystic tradition and experience; the emphasis here has to be on “no one”; no egoic control agent.  The survival-protecting sense of caring and values and self-preservation is suspended and transcended, in the altered state] 

— song No One at the Bridge, album Caress of Steel, Rush / Neil Peart, 1975

My Version 1 analysis, at the Egodeath site:
http://www.egodeath.com/rushlyrics.htm#xtocid22921

At Egodeath.com, I need to rewrite my comments that read like “there is no God to save me”, which contradicts all mystic and Mystery Religion.

When I commented on those lines at some point in 1997-2007, I helplessly felt I disagreed with those lyric lines, instead of doing a better, stronger-handed interpretation.

Today above, I wrote a better interpretation of the apparently disagreeable lyric lines.

At Egodeath.com, I need to rewrite my comments that read like “there is no God to save me”, which contradicts all mystic and Mystery Religion.

When I commented on those lines at some point in 1997-2007, I helplessly felt I disagreed with those lyric lines, instead of doing a better, stronger-handed interpretation.

Today above, I wrote a better interpretation of the apparently disagreeable lyric lines.

I focused today on interpreting the seemingly incorrect lyric lines as “there is no ego-as-god”, instead of assuming they had to be interpreted as asserting “there is no transcendent god outside the egoic control system, to provide and restore control-stability.”

/ end of section “No One at the Bridge – Fresh Explanation of Song Lyrics”

{helm, helmsman}, Dionysus, King Odysseus/Ulysses Tied to Mast

Ship Helm images:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ship+helm

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/ships-helm-clifford-beck.jpg —

https://press.rebus.community/mythologyunbound/chapter/dionysusbacchus
“While at sea, the crew tried to tie him up, but the bonds fell away of their own accord. At this point the helmsman recognized that this was no ordinary boy and tried to prevent any harm coming to Dionysus, but the captain [vs. the helmsman] ignored the helmsman’s warning and told the sailors to hold on to the boy. Suddenly, wine began to flow all over the ship; vines began to grow from the sails and ivy began to twine around the mast. Then Dionysus turned into a lion and a bear appeared on the deck. The lion seized the captain and began to tear him apart, and the sailors jumped into the sea, turning into dolphins [rescuers]. Dionysus, now back in human form [a youth], prevented the helmsman from following his comrades into the sea and told him that his aid would be rewarded and no harm would come to him.”

mytheme decoded: {captain vs. helmsman}:

Hypothesis [quickly elevated to “postulate” or “principle” or successful “mytheme mapping” (ie to the direct real referent of how the mind works in the ASC)]:

{captain} = false, illusory aspect of personal control system

{helmsman} = redeemable portion of personal control system

{King} Odysseus/Ulysses {tied helplessly} (cybernetic power embedded in spacetime block as a worldline) to the mast, lest he be attracted to the siren song altered-state attractor that leads toward cybernetic control-seizure death on the {rocks} (block universe):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Mosa%C3%AFque_d%27Ulysse_et_les_sir%C3%A8nes.jpg —

_____

/ end of section “{helm, helmsman}, Dionysus, King Odysseus/Ulysses Tied to Mast”

mytheme decoded: {caduceus}

I finally decoded {caduceus}!! Figured out how to think about it, relate it to other mythemes, & explain it.

Meta-Theory:

In terms of Paul Thagard’s Conceptual Revolutions meta-theory:

I succeeded at connecting-in an explanatory datum case (the mytheme {caduceus}), into the new explanatory framework (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism)

mytheme: {caduceus}, early & late forms: Y configuration; Y symbol (non-branching bottom vs. branching top); a form of snake vs tree, contrasting 2 parallel lines vs a single line, is “the message from the gods” that “heals”/cures.

For the first time, I lost a little data at WordPress. Not much I think, but I lost this:

MY HANDS HURT FROM SLAMMING OUT BREAKTHROUGHS ALL WEEK

Gotta keep an eye on that “Update” button state. Continue to hit Save after every sentence.

It’s hard to keep my typing linear from top-to-bottom in a section — so I lose the history of which paragraph I wrote first.

Who cares, I decoded it amidst the below text — I came up w/ the hypothesis while briefly glancing at the “Hatsis Roasts Himself” article; all the below is just
testing that hypothesis,
trying to find the pictures,
comparing the newer form,
writing out the argument,
raising doubts, and
resolving those doubts by further “experimenting” and
analysis/ theory development:
can the theory’s interpretation approach handle the odd shapes?

What is a generalize form of the theory; what are all possible shapes to express

Some of the text writeup is just articulating the claim of discovery; what does it mean to “represent Possibilism vs Eternalism” as a “message” that “cures”?

Y or
a snake on a tree or
a snake on a debranched pole; or
a debranched tree trunk (of rock) with snake around it; or
a debranched tree trunk (of rock) with with a lizard running up it, etc.
snake body with human torso w/ arms
a salamander-serpent next to a Y-branching mushroom tree
etc

Compare the early Hermes’ caduceus to a snake on a pole.
[12:01 a.m. November 26, 2020]

Equivalent to Moses’ rigid serpent on a pole (de-branched tree) to heal fatal snake-bite.

I almost need a screen recorder. The below “I GOT IT” line looks sedate and calm but it was more excited wording originally.

Then I became doubtful, made my wording less boldly certain of breakthrough, then I realize my original insight held up to critique.

My instinct was, as soon as I saw the word ‘caduceus’ in his article, I knew that {the message that heals} has to be — I don’t care what shape it is — the Theory dictates that “message from on high” has to be some equivalent of “snake vs tree”, something about branching, something equivalent to the staff of Aesclepius, rod “, and Moses’ healing serpent on a pole.

Many mythemes are inherently “a message from on high” eg {king fastened helplessly to cross/tree}, or {serpentine dragon monster guarding treasure}.

My original announcement was like the following, which idea instantly appeared in my mind as soon as I glanced at Hatsis article and saw the word ‘caduceus’ — the solution-perspective immediately hit, and I hastened here to write:

The original version of my breakthrough announcement:

OK I GOT IT [12:15 a.m. November 26, 2020] I solved the original caduceus!

The boring rewritten sedate version of the breakthrough announcement after I hesitated and became critical in a minute of doubt:

OK I GOT IT [12:15 a.m. November 26, 2020] I believe I have decoded the original caduceus.

I hesitated because of the “U on top of O” shape, but, they ARE agreed to be snakes — so, it IS a non-branching pole topped with a branching pair of snakes, even if they appear fused to form a U-topped O shape.

This means that that TWO snakes in the modern caduceus still MEANS branching, and the pole in the middle continues to mean non-branching.

Ball and wings means the altered state looking at the revealed non-branching.

It looks like a circle on a pole and a U on top of the circle, but if we think of it as a branching pair of snakes, that crosses over each other fused together at top of the circle for stability, then it’s essentially a Y branching configuration formed with branching snakes — an example of ironic unnatural branching, like
legs on a snake, or
wise men showing no arms, or
a snake with multiple heads, or
a human head on a snake body (no limbs) or…

Similarly, for modern caduceus, note the non-branching central pole, and two snakes, forming a branching-like V shape around the pole. Not that different than snake winding up a tree or debranched tree/pole.

The forms can become unrecognizably distorted like the botched staff of Aesclepius (aka rod of Aesclepius) on ambulances, that has lost all traces/hints of {debranched tree}.

Moses’ snake / staff.

Here is the most profound message from the Gods:

|

omg nonbranching! hope that didn’t blow your mind too much. To reiterate:

Y

That’s like the entire Book of Revelation, right there.

Y = mental model transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Check on this: when art shows an entire torso of human coming forth from snake… ok this is a new point/observation/connection:

The man or Eve often has two arms, same topography as early original caduceus: nonbranching snake body, then two arms coming forth (branching).

___

I searched so hard for the woodcut of the andro-gyne holding the Y shape — profound and utterly obscure to people who don’t know it’s all about branching vs non-branching.

mytheme: {caduceus}, early & late forms: Y configuration; Y symbol (non-branching bottom vs. branching top); a form of snake vs tree, contrasting 2 parallel lines vs a single line, is “the message from the gods” that “heals”/cures.

Reading the article Hatsis Roasting Hatsis, he mentioned caduceus, that gave me a thought — his articles are so inspiring, for all the wrong reasons – and I may have added some mytheme decoding connections.

Generally and abstractly, {the message from the angel on high} is, “Eternalism, not Possibilism” or something to do with that, like “but do not harm the child-thinking and violate your control harmfully”.

The revelatory message that Eternalism, not Possibilism is the case, can be expressed by top-10 mythemes including branching vs. non-branching.

Moses’ rigid bronze serpent on a de-branched tree pole, is a transcendent message from on high in the altered state: looking at it, comprehending it, cures snake-bite; knowing Eternalism-thinking makes the mind compatible with the altered state instead of {dying}, seizing, panicking, loss of control.

/ end of section “mytheme decoded: {caduceus}”

How I Decoded the Bestiary Salamander Image

A “math logic proof”-style of walking the reader through the mytheme-decoding process. It got shoved way down – see section “Summary of Decoding the Bestiary Salamander Image“, below.

I kinda should add this “how I decoded the image” recounting, into the too-long “Criteria” article (linked below). Done, and copied the added section below the following post, down below.

I posted at https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/moving-on-from-muraresku-the-immortality-key/ —

Hatsis Roasting Hatsis: Critical Historical Inquiry vs. Pseudointellectualism

wtf does “Historical Inquiry” mean? Seems like a hollow, empty phrase.

[All the “big-brained historical scholarship” in the universe is worthless pretentious dross if, in the end, it fails to recognize a mushroom in mythological art as a psychoactive mushroom and fails to decode a message of “Possibilism vs. Eternalism” as such. -mh]

Link is at bottom of this comment.

He’s an expert on the topic of Pseudointellectualism. See article for details.

I’m glad his messed-up article brought my attention to the bestiary salamander (around 2015 I think).[sic, 2017]

My right/left leg speculation on that image, paid off, in decoding Canterbury.

I feel slightly embarrassed that I didn’t attack the picture with the Diamond Hammer of Interpretation hard enough to crack the whole puzzle, back then.

How I solved the stuff to the left of the “dancing[sic] man”, a week ago: fire, means ASC — that’s been known by me more or less clearly for … long time.

I failed to notice in 2015[sic, 2017], the salamander’s tail is serpentine; a salamander-serpent.

I failed to think of, until a week ago, that there is only 1 salamander: it’s a “before vs. after” photo.

After put salamander-serpent in ASC fire, it then goes “next to” the branching, so you have then, next to each other, therefore, CONTRASTED:

salamander-SERPENT VERSUS BRANCHING mushroom TREE.

Which means: contrast Eternalism vs. Possibilism.

How best describe {right hand on forehead}?

“Oh my God, I just realized that my thinking was Possibilism, but reality is Eternalism! I just understood Possibilism vs Eternalism!”

My 2015[sic, 2017] decoding got about 50% of that — couldn’t I have done better; I was well-armed, fluent at mytheme-decoding by 2015[sic, 2017].

But experience shows, it takes time to unravel the message.

It took me a full week to grasp the “class of students” including “3 levels of students”, in the class session in upper right of Canterbury!

This decoding process makes me feel dull-witted — after I have the answer in front of me.

Find ‘salamander’:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/

I did lots of improvement on your scheme section, with nice, highly usable short-form at top of TOC:

Section 3: A Spectrum of Criteria of Proof, for Identifying Mushrooms in Art or Texts

  1. Literal depictions of mushrooms
  2. Stylized depictions of mushrooms
  3. Depictions of mushroom effects

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/
Has links to his articles at bottom, including:

Roasting Jan Irvin: Critical Historical Inquiry vs. Pseudointellectualism
Tom Hatsis
November 2017 [?? not 2015? we were posting about his writings in 2015/2016… maybe his old site was marked 2015?]
https://psychedelichistorian.com/roasting-jan-irvin

/ end of my comment at Cyberdisciple’s site.

The image at issue:

Folio 027v (Bodleian Library, Medieval Bestiary)

I decoded this image, just before I found the blurry image of the Canterbury mushroom tree with no context at all, so I was able to import this same decoding to quickly decode that Canterbury mushroom tree in a series of easy steps.

I had to sharpen my skills at decoding and explaining {blades}, because the Canterbury mushroom tree is packaged together with {God’s sword}, as well as {left vs. right hand/arm/foot/leg}.

The bestiary image has {fire} (altered state; loosecog); in contrast, the Canterbury image has {sword} (cybernetic death/seizure/cancellation).

Why bother showing {fire}, since the mushroom is already shown? It’s a bestiary, of a salamander, and there’s a traditional motif of roasting salamanders.

I added the below section to my Criteria article (it had a good writeup already, but I like the new format shown below, also).

Summary of Decoding the Bestiary Salamander Image

When you put the salamander-{serpent} in the {flames} (the altered state from mushrooms), it then goes “next to” the branching tree — so you then have, placed next to each other, therefore contrasted:

salamander-{serpent} versus {branching} mushroom {tree}

You could omit or ignore the now non-essential (that is, non-mytheme) “carrier” aspects or features (salamander, mushroom), leaving:

{serpent} versus {branching tree}

We know from my November 2013 formula:

{tree} vs. {snake} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism

In this image, the order is the opposite:

{snake} vs. {tree} = Eternalism vs. Possibilism

therefore:

salamander-{serpent} versus {branching} mushroom {tree} means Eternalism vs. Possibilism.

How best decode {right hand on forehead}?

His {left hand} is floating in thin air like his {left foot}, not giving any stability; his {right hand} is stably planted on his head, like his {right foot} is solidly and stably on the ground.

It is increasingly clear that in Greek & Christian myth, {right} = Eternalism. Therefore:

{right hand on forehead} = “Oh my God, I just realized that my mental worldmodel was Possibilism-thinking, but reality is Eternalism! I just understood & recognized Possibilism vs. Eternalism!”

Q.E.D.

/ end of section “How I Decoded the Bestiary Salamander Image”

mytheme: {maiden, kore, Kore, Persephone}

Mytheme decoded/connected/corroborated; A MAJOR SUDDEN THEORY-CONFIRMATION DISCOVERY EVENT:

I was delighted to unexpectedly connect {Persephone} to my existing {maiden} decoding by discovering that her other name is {the maiden}: {maiden, kore, Persephone} = initiate who still has Naive-Possibilism-thinking.

Persephone’s other name is “The Maiden”!! SCORE

[8:59 p.m. November 25, 2020]

Ah sh*t!! I just noticed the Persephone wiki statement, “Kore” – THE MAIDEN! Total confirmation of the Egodeath theory again! See my usage of the technical term ‘maiden’ in my Canterbury article. (I’m writing notes down below instead now.)

Mytheme decoding: {after death, turn right to remember, left to forget}

Not entirely new, but more mental connections than before: Filling-in the New Theory with more detail; more interconnections.

{after death, turn right to remember, left to forget}: In the ASC (loose cognitive binding association state; loosecog), it’s hard to remember the ego death perspective, of Eternalism-thinking.

The mind tends to forget that experiential perspective, the first 10 times/glimpses, until the mind finally constructs Eternalism-model permanently.

{Looking left} means, the mind returns to childhood-suited Possibilism-thinking and forgets the Eternalism-experiential perspective that was briefly grasped in the ASC.

{Looking right} (after ego {death} in ASC) means remembering the Eternalism-thinking experiential perspective, finally being able to hang onto it upon returning to the OSC (tightcog; tight cognition; tight mental construct binding; the tight cognitive binding state).

Persephone & Demeter = Possibilism-thinking & Eternalism-thinking

{Persephone when alive} = Naive-Possibilism-thinking

{Persephone after abduction/death} = Qualified-Possibilism-thinking

{Demeter} = Eternalism-thinking

From the section I added to my Canterbury Proof article today:

“The mind is made to demonstrate its inability to control itself, in order to eliminate Possibilism-thinking, and receive its mature form of mental worldmodel: Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.”

= Demeter & her now-in-Hades daughter, Persephone.

Persephone still exists, but now in the underworld of illusions.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone —

Insertion later in the day, [8:59 p.m. November 25, 2020]
Persephone’s other name is “The Maiden”!! SCORE

Ah sh*t!! I just noticed the Persephone wiki statement, “Kore” – THE MAIDEN! Total confirmation of the Egodeath theory again!

See my usage of the technical term ‘maiden’ in my Canterbury article.

{Youth} = {maiden} = initiate still thinking in terms of Naive-Possibilism.

Oddly, I didn’t format “maiden” as a mytheme in that article, did I?? Just plain text? I marked like 1 out of 18, youth & maiden 😦 At least I got 1.

This Greek incoming content, combining with the Christian Canterbury content, increases the status of the word ‘youth’ and ‘maiden’, promoting them to full-on mytheme.

Funny how that works; quantity drives up (promotes upward) quality (ie “nature of”, or “categorization” of; repetition changes a 1-off idea into a recurring mytheme).

Like when you see “left/right” once, vs. 3 times in both Christian and Greek art, then it is promoted in my Theory into a full-on official mytheme.

Damn, but I didn’t totally fail: ONE time out of 19, I had the good sense to format “maiden” as {maiden}. 18/19 fail. I’m not a total failure. Fixed; formatted them all.

What about “youth”? Did I have the sense to mark it as an official mytheme, in the Canterbury article? I had at least 1. Fixed; formatted them all.

“In Greek mythology, Persephone , also called Kore (/ˈkɔːriː/ KOR-ee; Greek: Κόρη; “the maiden“), is the daughter of Zeus and Demeter. She became the queen [a ruler; a cybernetic center of control-agency] of the underworld through her abduction [rapture, invasion, overpowering, passive helpless receiver of control-thoughts] by Hades, the god of the underworld [where my 1995 self went to when finally purged, the completed initiate weeps for one’s beloved lost child taken away to the underworld of illusory beings — still with me as now merely Qualified-Possibilism-thinking, self-model]. The myth of her abduction represents her function as the personification of vegetation, which shoots forth in spring and withdraws into the earth after harvest; hence, she is also associated with spring as well as the fertility of vegetation.”

/ end of section “mytheme: {maiden, kore, Kore, Persephone}”

Entheogen Scholars Are Currently Reading the Present Weblog & Linked Pages

http://wassonwest.com
WASSON WEST —
Home of the Wasson-Ruck Entheogenic Research Institute and Archives
http://wassonwest.com/our-team
Officers:
Dr. Carl A. P. Ruck
Mark Hoffman:
o http://entheomedia.net
o Entheos: The Journal of Psychedelic Spirituality
Brian Muraresku
Advisory board: the whole crew

/ end of section “Entheogen Scholars Are Currently Reading the Present Weblog & Linked Pages”

Thankful for Hatsis & Muraresku

Ways in which Hatsis and Muraresku helpfully contribute to entheogen scholarship.

Cyberdisciple’s weblog posting:
Correcting Key Points in Muraresku, The Immortality Key
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/correcting-key-points-in-muraresku-the-immortality-key/
My comment posted there:

I’m thankful for any parts of Hatsis’ and Muraresku’s writings that are valuable and true and move the field forward, and popularize the field, and cause readers to think of ideas.

_____

Hatsis is a strong advocate of sound scholarship.

Hatsis’ article that discussed the much bandied-about bestiary salamander image caused me to think of the mytheme decoding {left vs. right} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

Hatsis’ article brought the bestiary salamander image to my attention — a good mytheme-decoding exercise as a warm-up to solve the puzzle of reading the entire Canterbury mushroom/hanging/sword image.

The bestiary salamander image may have been analyzed by Chris Bennett, then Irvin, then Hatsis, then me.

Hatsis’ article mentioned the caduceus, and when I glanced at that word, I immediately knew that the caduceus, as a {message from the gods that heals} must be some depiction of “Possibilism vs. Eternalism”; I merely had to form a compelling specification of in what way the old and new caduceus express “Possibilism vs. Eternalism”.

[10:05 p.m. Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 2020]
Added in this Notes file:

In what way is the following symbol-shape isomorphic with “Possibilism vs. Eternalism?” |

In what way is the following symbol-shape isomorphic with “Possibilism vs. Eternalism?” Y

_____

Muraresku’s book is popularizing the field.

I’m thankful that Cyberdisciple read and analyzed Muraresku’s book from the perspective of the Egodeath theory.

Cyberdisciple’s weblog postings about the book The Immortality Key by Muraresku:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=Muraresku

/ end of section “Thankful for Hatsis & Muraresku”

Mytheme {lamb} Decoded, Like Harmless {dove, Holy Spirit}

Big unexpected breakthrough! Isaac’s powerful {ram} vs. Jesus as gentle {lamb}, like {dove} vs. {eagle}; completing {dove} decoding too!

Central Mytheme {lamb} Decoded Unexpectedly!
{lamb} = {dove} of Holy Spirit (H.S. = ‘frenzy, mania’) =
“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him” =
Non-harmful climax; made to do no harm during complete purge of egoic self-control delusion

Section added to Canterbury Proof article:

Gentle {lamb}, {dove} and {Holy Spirit}, Contrasted with {ram}, {eagle}, and {frenzy} or {mania}

Contrasted with {lamb} and {dove}, the mythemes {ram} and {eagle} have connotations of harm, such as {burning the ram on the altar}, during or after the climactic, final full demonstration of nullity, vulnerability, and cancellation of self-control power.

The mind is made to demonstrate its inability to control itself, in order to eliminate Possibilism-thinking, and receive its mature form of mental worldmodel: Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.

In this transformation struggle, or {wrestling with an angel}, the mind is made to purify and purge itself of {sin}, {impurity}, and {pollution}; this way, the mind is finally rid of self-contradiction about self-control.

Compare the violent connotations or tone of Zeus’ {eagle} who abducts the {youth} Ganymede by force, along with {frenzy} and {mania} (the altered state); versus the {power of the Holy Spirit} (the intense, cybernetically overpowering altered state) figured as a gentle, peaceful, harmless {dove}.

Compare the powerful {ram} of Isaac, versus the gentle, non-harm-toned analogy of Jesus as {lamb}.

Together, the mythemes {Holy Spirit} as a {dove} instead of Zeus’ {eagle}, and Isaac’s {ram} now figured as a gentle {lamb}, emphasize the angelic thought that saves the completed mystic from harm, “do not harm the child”, while the mind is finally purged of the remnants of Naive-Possibilism-thinking.

[12:48 p.m. November 25, 2020]
Central Mytheme “lamb” Decoded Unexpectedly!
{lamb} = {dove} of Holy Spirit (= ‘frenzy, mania’) =
“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him” =
Made to do no harm during complete purge of egoic self-control delusion

Got it! Key breakthrough mytheme decoding: Jesus as the “Lamb” instead of Ram; why? Answer:

Isaac’s powerful ram caught helplessly in the thicket

vs.

The gentle, harmless, Do Not Harm LAMB. Relenting, Backing off the self-testing attack of the mind’s control-system against itself. The gentle lamb breaks his bow (Canterbury climax image), uses charitable mercy and good judgement that enables continued, healthy life yet also full demonstration of truth about non-control, of personal control in relation to the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

Same pattern as — here it comes, another decoding-connection to the above breakthrough, as fallout — I’ve written for a long time, the “Dove” of Christianity (Holy Spirit is gentle) as opposed to the Eagle, implying violence, of Zeus.

{dove} = {lamb} = Dunamis/power of the {Holy Spirit} = gentle harmless merciful power of overcoming personal control delusion

ALL THIS “WUSSY PEACEFULNESS” theme in Christian mythic language is not about mundane conduct of life in the OSC; IT IS ABOUT ONE NOT HARMING ONE’S OWN SELF DURING TRANSCENDED-AND-CANCELLED SELF-CONTROL in the climactic peak state of the final purging of childhood Possibilism-thinking.

Genesis 22:8-18; Genesis 22:12-13 (KJV) —

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

How I just now stumbled onto this unexpected back-of-mind decoding outstanding unsolved problem:

In my fancy grand titling of my previous section about my Salvation experience moment, I wanted to write:

“Saved by Christ Crucified, by the Blood of the Ram”

but I went — “wait — Jesus is never called “ram”; he’s called “lamb”, darn, that won’t work– WAIT!! OMG… LAMB, NOT RAM… LAMB IS *GENTLE*, AS I’VE BEEN WRITING ARTICLE-LENGTH IDEA-DEVELOPMENT ABOUT MOST-RECENTLY!

Find ‘burn’ in https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/realtime-discovery-log/ for much writing against any harm; expressing my strongly pacifist values & philosophy/belief; I spell out and explain my belief and values and theory, that:

Any physical harm as part of the climactic Proof Demonstration of Fully Knowing Cybernetic Truth would probably indicate the failure to mentally ideally and fully transcend egoic thinking.

I had also been bothered today and recently, that the Proof article lacked any mention of Jesus — Jesus the lamb — today at this breakthrough moment, that idea was in the queue, waiting to combine with these other connections. So I added dove/eagle, lamb/ram, and Holy Spirit/mania-frenzy, into the climactic center of the article, near the image of Isaac’s mushroom-horned ram caught in a mushroom-thicket.

[4:18 p.m. November 25, 2020]: I found in my pre-breakthrough writeup of central salvation paragraph, look: I wrote (apparently around [10:48 a.m. November 25, 2020]): “Christ the ram“!

That led up the to breakthrough, you can see I was trying to connect Isaac’s “do not harm the boy” ram, to Jesus and “blood of the lamb”:

So you can see my trajectory leading up to the breakthrough making of the connection that we don’t say “Jesus the ram” or “Christ the ram” or “saved by the blood of the ram”, BECAUSE WE WANT TO INSTEAD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EMPHASIZE NON-SELF-HARM during finalizing purging of sin and washing the mind’s garment white and clean; gentle during the final full, complete, permanent, and higher-thinking-satisfying disproof of egoic self-control power:

“At that moment I had a vision of the crucifixion with bloody king fastened to the cross and I was completed in regeneration and saved by a vision of Christ the ram fulfilling my non-control seizure, in peak meditation, which by default I thought in terms of, but —”
(emphasis added at [4:21 p.m. November 25, 2020])

The sequence in this page is a little out-of order, non-linear; I need to add timestamps more often, near each group of paragraphs.

/ end of section “Mytheme {lamb} Decoded, Like Harmless {dove, Holy Spirit}”

The Story of My Moment of Conversion, Rescue, & Purification from Sin

The story of my moment of mystic-state conversion/ salvation/ regeneration/ redemption/ purification/ completion/ sacrificial purging of sin; then baptism in the blood of the [gentle, harmless!] lamb afterwards.

[10:48 a.m. November 25, 2020]

The story of the moment of my salvation through a vision of Christ Crucified while in the Holy Spirit.

My brand of religion is esoteric restorationist Helleno-Christianity.

I was saved in Christ, about 1995 just before my baptism, same meditation session I think as the guitar buzz/feedback cassette recording at Egodeath.com, when I relaxed profoundly deeply lying on the bed with a sense of profound mind-body relaxation, relaxing (in Ken Wilber’s sense) the egoic thinking structure.

And then — THE CAT YAWNED, dionysus present — and then in profoundly mentally relaxed state lying on the bed, I sensed/perceived SAW A VULNERABILITY OF CONTROL —

I then got up, thought about mental control vulnerability in the meditation state, I saw my continued thinking (at that late time way after my January 1988 block-universe ego death breakthrough and my subsequent 1988 theory-documenting.

(~1995-1988 = After 7 years of Core theory development, my thinking was still tainted, polluted with freewill-premised Possibilism-thinking.)

I at that moment was made to sacrifice/ see through/ repudiate childhood-thinking finally; I was made to mentally repudiate the remaining pollution of freewill egoic thinking that I embarassingly (after 7 years of Core theory development) saw that I STILL had egoic thinking polluting my thinking.

At that moment I had a vision of the crucifixion with bloody king fastened to the cross and I was completed in regeneration and saved by a vision of Christ the ram fulfilling my non-control seizure, in peak meditation, which by default I thought in terms of, but, I was saved by a vision — not somehow by the literal actuality of harm done to a man.

By 1998, I felt puzzled about Jesus’ motives for crucifying himself.

I wanted Jesus to confirm my the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, and I saw no reason why he, being as rational as me, would deliberately get himself physically harmed.

/ end of section “The Story of My Moment of Conversion, Rescue, & Purification from Sin”

The Requisite Non-violence of Successful Mental Transformation Implies the Ahistoricity of Jesus

The big event of my salvation through a vision of Christ Crucified while in the Holy Spirit left me with the problem of what function Jesus’ bodily physical death served.

In 1998-1999, I was trying to identify how Jesus preached and corroborated my certainly true the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.

Then I read Heinrich, who mentioned Allegro re: Amanita (which I pursued Allegro for, to find out more), but Heinrich failed to say Allegro asserted ahistoricity, then I didn’t find Allegro’s book but I found a priest’s book amusedly reacting to Allegro’s book.

It was in that priest’s book that I discovered the hypothesis of ahistoricity, which solved my problem of what purpose Jesus’ allowing bodily harm to himself accomplished, given that my salvation I received from Christ Crucified violently, was an *idea*, for which actual violence served literally no function or purrose and even contradicted the mechanism by which I was rescued during my mental transformation, transfiguration.

_____

My brand of religion is esoteric restorationist Helleno-Christianity.

_____

The “harmlessness” idea behind the mythemes {lamb} and {dove} implies the ahistoricity of Jesus (in his function as redeemer in the mystic altered state), instead of pointless & ineffectual violence against a bodily historical Jesus.

For the Jesus Christ figure to serve as a mystic rescuer and savior from self harm-also-full-completer-of-healing, physical bodily harm done to him is useful purely as an idea, not as a literal actuality.

A “demonstration” of an idea, has no need to be anything other than an image, an idea.

Were Jesus actually harmed, which would require his historicity, that would directly contradict the whole key theme of “gentle, harmless, do not harm the child-thinking

The “Abrahamic” angelic idea that saves and rescues, received by the mind from on high (from the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts) is the idea or mytheme {do not harm the child}, which means:

Do not harm oneself during doing-away-with and firmly, permanently disproving child-thinking by making the control-system cancel itself, to secure mental integrity, coherent viable thinking about personal control and time.

Literal violence done to a Mr. Historical Jesus would be pointless, futile, and irrelevant, would accomplish nothing, is magical thinking that irrrationally tries in vain to substitute for actual mental transformation, and would have no power to save (rescue and regenerate the mind regarding the personal control system).

If someone defends Mr. Historical Jesus ( the historicity of Jesus) — wanting Jesus to exist and be literally harmed on the cross — indicates magical thinking, belief in “salvation through physical violence”; indicates the person doesn’t believe in non-violence per “dove” and “lamb” and “do not harm the child”.

The Historicity premise contradicts the religion of the “lamb” (Christ) and “dove” (Holy Spirit; peak altered state, overpowering frenzy, mania, loose cognition).

Similar to my previous ~200x realization that “dove” is like Zeus’ eagle, but (for no reason clear to me at the time) “more wussy and gentle, just because that’s the Christian style”. “Our brand is better b/c gentle.”

I had no idea (or too little grasp) that “gentle dove” meant, the ASC context, of: non-harm to self during purging delusion of egoic control.

NOW I ADD PROFOUND UNDERSTANDING (increased explanatory power by adding new reconnections among theory-components) OF THE DOVE AS “GENTLE” EQUIVALENT OF ZEUS’ EAGLE:

DOVE MEANS DO NO SELF-HARM TO PURGE AND COMPLETE MENTAL TRANSFORMATION/DEMONSTRATION OF NON-CONTROL IN RELATION TO HIGHER UNCONTROLLABLE CONTROLLER TO PROVE FULL RATIONALITY AND KICK-OUT, PURGE, REMAINING EGOIC DELUSION/ HABITUAL EGOIC Possibilism-THINKING.

Praise the Lord! I understand the mystic peak-state meaning of “Dove” and “Lamb” vs. “Ram” of Isaac! Lamb and Ram in Jesus and Isaac story co-strengthen each other; the two analogies contrast in a way to shine meaning on each other and co-strengthen each other!

Lamb means also, non-violent crucifixion in the heavens, not harming a Mr. Historical Jesus, which would accomplish nothing.

Thus the {lamb/dove} (non-violent) contrast against {ram/eagle} (violent), increases my theory-connection weighting of my belief in ahistoricity.

By 1998, I felt puzzled about Jesus’ motives for crucifying himself. I wanted Jesus to confirm my the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, and I saw no reason why he, being as rational as me, would deliberately get himself physically harmed.

In 1999, thanks to Heinrich’s book Strange Fruit (1995), I heard about Allegro’s work on Amanita, which led me to the rebuttal book by a priest against Allegro, and led me quickly to discover — unlike Heinrich, who didn’t understand that Allegro = ahistoricity of Jesus — Heinrich said that Allegro said Mr History Jesus used mushrooms, a huge error on Heinrich’s part.

Heinrich not Allegro, taught me about the Amanita solution to Rev’n scroll eating.

Allegro was valuable to me because his good picture of the Plaincourault Amanita mushroom tree, and because Allegro taught me about the ahistoricity thesis — well actually, the priest’s reply book against Allegro [citation] is how I learned of ahistoricity.

Later I obtained Allegro’s book.

That’s the end of value I got from Allegro.

Soon in that same library I read book about ahistoricity of Peter or Paul [citation possible?].

1995-1999, I thought in terms of, but was puzzled by — couldn’t logically reconcile – Mr Historical Jesus; his physical existence was contradictory and served no purpose.

It was a problem outstanding to be solved, not supporting the Egodeath theory as I was looking to fit-in how Jesus’ life and meessage confirmed the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.

contradiction I resolved, how I was saved by the crucifixion of Jesus but there was no role for his physical crucifixion, there was no identifiable purpose or function for that extra, excess, hypothesis dangling.

Jesus getting himself physically literally killed on the cross served no function, compared to the salvific vision that Christ Crucified gave me salvation and rescue, curing and purification purging of egoic control thinking in ~1995.

So, from my conversion about 1995, followed quickly by baptism in Restorationist Barton/Stone congregation Church of Christ, to about 1999, I was trying to — especially in 1998/1999 — I found the solution to my theoretical problem that:

MENTAL CONVERSION IS MENTAL, NOT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, which would serve no function, is magical thinking if anything, and would probably prevent mental conversion, because would be an ineffectual substitute for mental conversion.

I discovered ahistoricity roundabout, by reading Heinrich’s garbled Amanita/ahistoricity lead (Heinrich saw Allegro’s Amanita interest, failed to grasp Allegro’s ahistoricity; so I didn’t know about ahistoricity from reading Strange Fruit in 1999), then the priest’s book which I should get or see at my university library again.

I can look up in their card catalog.

The first time I ever heard of ahistoricity was that priest’s book, his rebuttal to Allegro (in an upbeat, humored tone).

That solved my cognitive dissonance problem of the “dangling useless excess bodily physical purpose of Jesus getting himself literally crucified”.

I want Carrier’s book Jesus from Outer Space — ie beyond the Ptolemaic spheres, Christ the ram savior, given to us for our salvation, from HEAVEN EMPYRIUM – DWELLING PLACE OF GOD AND OF ALL THE ELECT.

In 1999 I read Strange Fruit (1995), heard of Allegro’s interest in Amanita, so Heinrich identified a big question: which psychoactive is the {scrolls} eaten in the Book of Revelation? (KJV, in 1987-1987 I was trying to figure out the which psychedelic (didn’t know term ‘entheogen’), identity).

So in 1999 I looked up Allegro or his book in my university library, (I hadn’t heard of ahistoricity). They didn’t have it, they had the priest’s rebuttal book, which I looked at then.

/ end of section “The Requisite Non-violence of Successful Mental Transformation Implies the Ahistoricity of Jesus”

Helleno-Christianity

Forming a label of my religion, which combines Greek “Paganism” (Mystery Religion & religious mythology decoding) with Christianity (an esoteric version of Barton/Stone Restorationism).

Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction
Luther Martin
https://www.amazon.com/Hellenistic-Religions-Introduction-Luther-Martin/dp/019504391X
1987 (a good year leading up to Jan 1988 the great block-universe loose-cognition ego transcendence breakthrough)
Heimarmene etc.

Look into the following new 2018 book: Looks extremely relevant, must-have, Has Look Inside.

Studies in Hellenistic Religions
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Hellenistic-Religions-Luther-Martin/dp/149828308X
February 26, 2018 — “This selection of essays by Luther Martin brings together studies from throughout his career–both early as well as more recent–in the various areas of Graeco-Roman religions, including mystery cults, Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism.

“It is hoped that these studies, which represent spatial, communal, and cognitive approaches to the study of ancient religions might be of interest to those concerned with the structures and dynamics of religions past in general, as well as to scholars who might, with more recent historical research, confirm, evaluate, extend, or refute the hypotheses offered here, for that is the way scholars work and by which scholarship proceeds.”

Nice cover art of Ptolemaic spheres cosmology.

I learned/confirmed ‘heimarmene’ = no-free-will, around 2005(?), in his book Hellenistic Religion, which was a much-wanted corroboration of Hellenism matching & mapping to the Egodeath theory.

The Egodeath theory has gone from success-to-success, this way; always ratcheting in 1 direction: more confirmation; more confirmation; yet more, always more confirmation.

I never get “less confirmation”; the evidence pretty much always has corroborated the Theory, as my reading /checking on Western esotericism & religion in Antiquity proceeded.

I feel like I posted about that book in 2018.

Richard Carrier needs better artwork for his new book Jesus from Outer Space, looking like Ptolemaic cosmology — missed opportunity.

Mushrooms caused Helleno-Christianity.

By ‘Helleno-‘, I mean Hellenistic, not Hellenic.

By ‘Helleno-Christianity’, I mean broad Hellenistic religion plus primitive Christianity, including Old Testament mythemes.

Hellenisto-Christianity — doesn’t work, but it’s what I mean.

The term ‘Hellenic is too narrow; restricted to specifically Greek/Greece.

‘Pagano-Christianity’ can piggyback on that main line of argument.

The exceptions, the details, must not be allowed to confuse the Main Theory Model.

Acacia-Rue & Amanita and Lily Datura Scopalamine Mandrake can readily piggyback on that main line of Simple & Strong, Guiding, Theory Construction.

Helleno-Christianity, con’t

I advocate Helleno-Christianity, and don’t object if people say ‘Pagano-Christianity’.

In 1998 I was given a great book, my first book on ancient Greek/Hellenistic Religion. [cite would be nice]

I was saved and rescued and redeemed in a vision of Christ on the cross in 1995 (don’t have exact date) without knowing anything yet about Greek religious myth. (1998 was working on: how does Jesus’ gospel that he taught/advocated/ asserted, confirm the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence?)

3 years after I was saved in Christ’s cross (like Isaac’s ram that got itself powerlessly trapped in a thicket, which I decoded late – check Egodeath Yahoo Group posts for ‘isaac’, ‘ram’ for date stamp), I got pointed to decoding Greek religious mythology & Hellenistic Mystery Religion. Only a day or two ago, I got full confirmation of my tentative hypoth, about the bush — thciket actualy, — being equivalent to the tree that the king is caught up into (Pentheus/Jesus).

Pentheus’ tree = Jesus’ cross = ram’s thicket, confirmed 1 of 2 days ago, first hypothesized maybe 2003(?).

The term “Pagano-Christianity” doesn’t work, for two reasons:

o I didn’t and don’t know enough about N Euro Pagism, tho mother interested in Irish and I snagged a book on that when dealing w/ her possessions.

o The term Pagan is too overloaded. Northern? Mediterranean? Many problems.

The term “Helleno-” is perfect for describing my konwledge, my intersest, my sure-footed, the Hellenistic nature of primitive Christianity. Christianity was Old Testament filtered through Hellenism. What would happen if Hellenistic thinking processed the Old Testament? You end up w/ Christianity.

There are nothing but problems with Pagano-, and nothing but benefits of Helleno-.

Pagano-Christianity doesn’t work at all, it’s nothing but problems.

The only thing wrong with the term Helleno-Christianity is that is leaves a question mark around Northern European religion, which I know no more about than Buddhism; all World Religion describes the human mind’s experience in the ASC from entheogens.

N Euro Paganism supports the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence the same way as Buddhism does, or rainforest Shamanism. I can’t speak for N Pagism, except to say, the Egodeath theory explains its mystic experiencing and mythemes — eg king on tree w/ snake.

I could right now practice Hellenistic religion paganism, but in contrast, I know nothing about practicing Northern European Paganism even though I mostly come from broad entirety of Europe incl far north but less of the southern, ironically, but that’s how it went.

Use Mainly the Term ‘Helleno-Christianity’, Sometimes ‘Pagano-Christianity’

N Pagans didn’t so much document their religion.

I’ll use ‘Pagano-Christianity’ w/o objection, but speak sure-footed about in terms of ‘Helleno-Christianity’. Equivalent.

In University, studied Southern … ie Mediterranean culture. In 7th/8th grade I drew a giant map of ancient Med Trade Routes. I learned a tiny bit of Greek, Roman, then European — school didn’t teach N Paganism; I am blank there.

I know exactly what I mean by Helleno-Christianity. There’s nothing but blur and uncertainty about the term Pagano-Christianity; it does nothing but raise questions.

I can readily answer any question about Helleno-Christianity, I feel. It is essentially a specific, defined term, definable with the knowledge at hand.

The term ‘Helleno-Christianity’ totally allows N Euro Pag’m to come onboard, w/o the huge confusions of the term ‘Pagano-Christianity’. NO SOLUTION IS PERFECT — THIS IS WHAT I GOT, IN FACT.

I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO W IT, COMMIT TO IT.

Pagano- is simply , I can’t do it. Labels are hard to formulate, as you know I never was able to find the 1 perfect name of the Egodeath theory. Must have variable multiple labels.

What I bring is not Pagano-Christianity; I don’t know what that means and how to unravel the confusion of questions it produces.

I know what Helleno-Christianity means, and it doesn’t produce hard questions. I can readily deal w/ the questions and defining it and justifying it.

I love Hellenistic Mystery Religion and myth, I know it, I relate to it. I’m from N Euro but its paganism is unknown to me, I cannot authentically represent it; in contrast, I perfectly represent Hellenistic religion, sure-footed, natural, native for my thinking.

/ end of section “Helleno-Christianity”

A Week of Manically Possessed Religious-Mythology Breakthroughs and Accidental Fasting

I was manically possessed and driven by inspiration in the ordinary state, and accidentally fasted for a week during breakthrough decoding of the entire Canterbury “mushroom/ hanging/ sword” image, which extremely confirmed my Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of religious mythology and the maximal mushroom theory of Christian art.

[8:48 a.m. November 25, 2020]

I was possessed by the spirit, in the OSC, the past week driven to inspired decoding of the Canterbury leg-hanging mushroom tree entire image. I didn’t eat, except 1 meal finally at the end of the day, for like 5 days, I was way way too busy writing and writing and decoding. Forgot to drink any coffee though addicted.

Slamming out typing and decoding as fast as I can type, for past week, accidentally fasting — no time for stop and eat, busy typing out breakthrough ideas.

My explanation here is extremely simple and very easy to spin-out the theory that results from this extremely useful hypothesis, useful b/c simple. Nuance doesn’t help, here. Acacia/Rue DMT is a distraction, but generally is COMPATIBLE. <– I like that idea of, “the nuanced exceptions are COMPATIBLE with the main line of the POWERFULLY DIRT-SIMPLE BASIC MAIN LINE OF THEORY.

Stated in a simplified and that much more powerful version/ statement/ formulation. Leverage the simplicity, stay focused on the Primary Case. Don’t put edge-case exceptions in the middle of the core, in the center.

The center of the Theory , max

I push esp:

[10:17 a.m. November 25, 2020]

THE MAXIMAL MUSHROOM THEORY OF BUDDHISM & CHRISTIANITY.

Non-entheogenic Buddhism is fake and fraudulent, a substitute.

Non-entheogenic (eg non-mushroom) Christianity is fake and fraudulent, a substitute. It has no Eucharist; it has a substitute for the real Eucharist, WHCIH DOES NOT SAVE AND REGENERATE.

This right now is Jonathan Ott’s The Entheogenic Reformation, upon my discovery and proof that the Canterbury Psalter is emphatically, mainline mushroom Christianity.

There’s been a cover-up, the usual pattern of fake priests suppressing mushrooms.

Exceptions (Datura, Amanita, eaten Cannabis, even Opium) don’t disprove that theory; they corroborate it as additional variants elaborating and supporting the main-line theory/ model/ summary.

/ end of section “A Week of Manically Possessed Religious-Mythology Breakthroughs and Accidental Fasting”

The Cover-up of Mushrooms in Christianity & Buddhism (together with Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism); the “Mass & Meditation” Substitution Industry

The Cover-up of Mushrooms in Christianity and in Buddhism (together with Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism); selling snake-oil: the Meditation industry & the fake-Eucharist Mass industry; selling Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism in place of it, for profit

The malformed “secret mushroom cult” notion serves to mask the actual situation, that there’s been a cover-up of normal mushroom use [together with the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism which mushrooms produce] in Christianity. Priests are huckster who suppress mushrooms and sell snake oil [Meditation & fake Eucharist, together with Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism] for personal profit. Ott’s Entheogenic Reformation.

[5:00 p.m. November 25, 2020]

“secret entheogen cult” — false.

mushroom cover-up in Christianity and Buddhism — true.

This is the REAL version of “secret cult”; a cover-up of a normal, mainstream use of mushrooms (not a cover-up of a secret cult usage of entheogens).

earlier in day, wrote:

Mushroom Cover-up by Professional Priests in Buddhism, Same as in Christianity

There has been a cover-up of mushrooms in Christianity; that’s clear, from the Canterbury Psalter. Same shiite as the meditation hucksters; here’s the pattern:

Mushrooms created Buddhism, then professional monks suppressed mushrooms and sold people ineffectual snake-oil instead.

Mushrooms created Christianity, then professional priests suppressed mushrooms and sold people ineffectual snake-oil instead.

Protestantism was a complaint about that, in some way.

/ end of section “The Cover-up of Mushrooms in Christianity and in Buddhism”

Bad Mushroom Scholarship

Several fulmination screeds against the sorry, worst-case state of what passes for mushroom scholarship.

[10:00 p.m. November 24, 2020]

It is actually required, to “police” the field (of mushrooms in Greek & Christian art) and call people on their B.S. attempts to derail and abuse the field for their own gain, and mis-characterize the field, such as by dredging up Allegro and using him in a highly distorting way, with grossly lopsided coverage that has no connection with actual state-of-play in the field.

To write a Pop Psych book, it’s too hard to figure out where the state of play is in the field; it’s easier to declare that the game that’s being played is “follow Allegro”; then declare yourself victorious over this strawman target, this false picture of what the field is currently about.

Just re-print a few mushroom-in-art examples; simply deny they are mushrooms; show the complete lack of evidence for your– I mean, Allegro’s– Secret Amanita Cult theory; done. A popular bestselling formula. You get to be the heroic vanquisher of the Allegro Secret Amanita Cult — again.

I don’t know what exactly these “hot new rising scholars” think they’re doing, but it’s manifestly not leading-edge scholarship, informed by the built-up Body of Knowledge to date.

They’re outsiders from nowhere, completely ignorant of what’s going on in the actual field, crowning themselves winner, on a field where there’s no game being played.

L & Pseudo-S are the biggest “followers of Allegro” of all, now that Irvin’s left the field. They are “negative orbiters of Allegro”. Who’s next?

The only reason I wrote about Allegro in 2006 and 2020 is because those who dismiss mushrooms make Allegro their driving reference-point, and I’m forced to clear that obstacle.

Frankly, I think — against Irvin circa 2010 — Allegro is wholly irrelevant to the topic of mushrooms in Greek and Christian art.

I couldn’t care less about the whole idea of “Secret Amanita Cult”; it’s a baseless idea not worth considering. It’s a bizarre framing of the concerns of the field. It shouldn’t be a touchpoint.

Maybe with Irvin out of the picture, we can finally let Allegro rest in peace. I gave him his due, showed where he was right, and wrong, on selected topics.

Allegro didn’t contribute much, for my field as I see it.

People keep coming along, new people, who frame all their thinking in relation to Allegro, bizarrely.

Thanks to this little weird industry of “vanquish Allegro’s Secret Amanita Cult theory”: go to the man on the street, say “mushrooms in Christian art” and he is liable to say “the Allegro theory”. ffs.

Something smells “off” with this situation, designed to be perpetually used to prevent scholars from looking into the field of mushrooms in Christian art.

The “no Secret Amanita Cult” industry has to keep resurrecting Allegro, in order to re-kill him — and the field of mushrooms in Christian art, along with him.

Some sorceror has made the ghost of Allegro stand guard over the field of mushrooms in Christian art, to prevent anyone from entering into it.

Right now some publisher is prepping a book by another “up and coming new star young and edgy scholar, who has a new book out about Shrooms, proving that Allegro’s camp is wrong, about Secret Amanita Cult!” Allegro’s camp? What the hell are you talking about? Weirdly out of touch.

Negative-orbiting Allegro is a fkking indu$try.

All on board the 1970 anti-Allegro train! It’s tricked-out w/ infinite-loop 8-track tape deck! Publishers are looking for fresh new talent! Hot topic! Bestseller placement deals!

/ end of start of major section “Bad Mushroom Scholarship”. Subsections are below.

Against Garbage, Politicized Scholarship Polluting the Field and Driving It Backwards

[8:40 p.m. November 24, 2020]

Cyb does a great job of policing and correcting the field, examining motives and intent and exposing corrupting biases that shovel garbage-pails of falsehood and distortion onto the field, for personal gain, thus polluting and setting back the very field that they pretend to be advancing.

New, corrective content from Cyb:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/correcting-key-points-in-muraresku-the-immortality-key/
I pasted his article at bottom below. To read my comments, find: -mh]

I meant this earlier, negative critique; a good example of a much-needed scholarly expose, directly related to that constructive correction of the field which cyb just posted:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/moving-on-from-muraresku-the-immortality-key/

Important point:
SCHOLARS MUST USE HERMENEUTICS OF SUSPICION AND ACCURATELY SPOT ANY DISTORTING COVERT SCHEMING SLY MOTIVATIONS AND WARPED MOTIVES, ULTERIOR AGENDAS. That’s mandatory: people would ideally state their FULL DISCLOSURE OF their CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

eg Wasson kept secret, in effect, that he’s buddies with the Pope — we HAVE TO take that into account when Wasson prints Panofsky’s letter “no mushrooms in Christian art” — and Wasson *CENSORS* BRINCKMANN’S NAME AND BOOK RECOMMENDATION FROM PANOFSKY’S LETTER, IN SOMA.

“The Pope and I command you, DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THAT BRINCKMANN CURTAIN! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! THE MUSHROOMS THAT YOU SEE, YOU ARE NOT SEEING! — IN FACT, DON’T EVEN LOOK!

“AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE “ART HISTORIANS” HAVE SETTLED THIS, and you do not need to worry your little head over this matter. I have written some highly turgid and ambiguous sentences on how this matter has been finalized, so that settles it.” — Wasson, in SOMA.

—

This is such NAIVE advice, that WILL continue to lead to failure in the field of “mushrooms in Greek & Christian art”:

“Don’t assume people have conflicts of interest and polluted motives that cause them to distort and hold back the field out of self-serving interest.”

It is bad advice; or has to be weighed rightly and followed with great defensive caution.

We’re not “assuming”; WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE ABUSING AND TWISTING THE FIELD, blocking it forcefully. eg Brown’s article, below, has to waste time unravelling someone else’s garbled distortion of scholars’ positions, and Pope Wasson had an extreme, worst-case conflict of interest in this field, as Irvin and Brown rightly emphasize.

Calling people on their self-serving LIES that BLOCK progresss in the field, is TOTALLY RELEVANT and mandatory!!!!

It’s a fundamental inherent part of scholarly work. Good scholars do this mop-up and policing work all the time, to “check” each other’s bad intent.

YOU MUST TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE THAT IS POLLUTING THE FIELD.

You cannot accomplish anything unless you are SAVVY and know the CORRUPTING BIASES of what you read, it is “f@ke news”.

Don’t be a sucker, easily manipulated by those who TRY to TWIST the field and COVER-UP — for real, in fact — mushrooms in “our” religious history.

Wasson had a MAJOR, MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Pope-level!
BROWN AGREES WITH ME!
IRVIN AGREES WITH ME! This is absolutely unacceptable! The field HAS TO CORRECT THIS BULLSH*T, TO MOVE FORWARD!

Wasson LIED about Christianity not having mushrooms, because it would put his buddy the Pope out of business.

People ARE lying, in fact! You are a failure of a scholar, you have no chance of finding the truth, or convincing the field of what the truth is, if you gullibly believe these insincere writers such as WASSON – Boo!!!

Liar Wasson — but, understand, Allegro too is guilty of smearing / discrediting Christianity by framing mushrooms in a defamatory, embarrassment-motivated way.

I AM SICK OF MUSHROOMS BEING A RUGBY BALL KICKED AROUND BY WARRING PSEUDO-SCHOLARS [re: this topic]; IT’S A POLITICIZED FIGHT, NOT SCHOLARSHIP, and for 68 F*CKING YEARS this Allegro-centered non-scholarly fighting has been ruining and polluting and dragging backward the field of mushroom scholarship.

L & Pseudo-S keep insisting on abusing Allegro as the star that they force the entire field to steer by, and Brown is rightly incensed at being shoved into the smear-Allegro garbage-can which Pseudo-S has constructed, against all truth.

This is garbage fighting, not scholarship; the opposite of scholarship. Brown and I are FAR from steering by the star of Allegro, and it is malicious and self-serving, harming the field, for Pseudo-S to falsely persist in Allegro-izing the entire field, just b/c it’s so easy — they think.

Are you a poor scholar, ignorant of the field (of mushrooms in Greek & Christian art), but want — I literally saw Robert Price do this to Acharya, and I got him to fully retract the 8th-grade-level, mistake-riddled BS he wrote abusing Allegro — want to make yourself APPEAR superior? And you only have to read 1 or 2 books? Here’s an illegit cheap shot — it ruins the field, but who cares? f*ck the field! — simply cast the entire field into a mold that YOU created, and “Allegro’ize” the entire field! L did it, Pseudo-S did it.

Article:
Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels
Jerry Brown & Julie Brown
https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/article-p142.xml – SEE HIS REBUTTAL OF PSEUDO-SCHOLAR S CALLING EVERYONE DISCIPLES OF ALLEGRO find ‘ALLEGRAE’
Journal of Psychedelic Studies
Volume/Issue: Volume 3: Issue 2
Pages 142–163
June 1, 2019; online pub. date: September 9, 2019

// Excerpts from Brown article:

Pseudo-S [on this topic] writes:

Here is where the discipuli Allegrae and I part company. While they believe that the key Christian psychedelic mystery traditions rest in the forbidden fruit that Eve and Adam ate in the Garden, I hold a different opinion. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that medieval artists secretly signified entheogens as the fruit by depicting the Amanita muscaria into art. (pp. 113–114)

Brown rebuts that, writing:
Let us analyze one by one the oversights and oversimplifications found in this passage.

First, Hatsis (2018) sets up a bogus straw man by classifying all researchers who support the “holy mushroom theory” as “discipuli Allegrae,” which he defines as “a general term I use to refer to those who agree with the theories of John Marco Allegro, whose book The Sacred Mushrooms and the Cross (1970) argued that Christianity evolved out of a magic mushroom-eating sex cult” (p. 108).Since footnote 4 (first paragraph of the above quote) cites The Psychedelic Gospels, Hatsis obviously considers us to be “discipuli Allegrea.” This is false since we state unequivocally in The Psychedelic Gospels that:

…our theory differs from Allegro’s in three fundamental ways. First, [Brown continues]

/ excerpts from Brown article

Dirty scholar A w/ conflict of interest, Allegro, battling against dirty scholar B, Wasson — a sh*tshow, dragging back the whole field, and you tell ME to “be nice”?

That won’t work. You HAVE to identiyfy sleaze scholarship as such!!

A scholar would be inept, ineffectual, and incompetent if they didn’t push back against the opportunists’ attack on the field; it would be hard to clear such obstacles, to move the field forward.

My Clean Comment About Bad Mushroom Scholarship, Posted on Cyberdisciple’s Article Listing My Recent Articles

My Clean Comment About Bad Mushroom Scholarship, Posted on Cyberdisciple’s Article “Recent articles on: Criteria & Proof of Mushrooms in Christian Art. Branching Mushrooms. Confirmation and Reproducibility. Canterbury Psalter”

Brief summary of Psalter {nonbranching}, then good civilized polished reply re: be nice to “scholars” trampling the field.

[7:02 p.m. November 24, 2020]

I posted the comment at the weblog posting:
Recent articles on: Criteria & Proof of Mushrooms in Christian Art. Branching Mushrooms. Confirmation and Reproducibility. Canterbury Psalter
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/recent-articles-on-criteria-proof-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-branching-mushrooms-confirmation-and-reproducibility-canterbury-psalter/


I’m interested in what Cyberdisciple thinks about Strategy to counter the presumptions and confusions that fill and distort the books that have been coming out lately.

Confusions that spread and propagate and reproduce, holding the field back while in some ways moving the field forward.

_____________

this little section is about branching – it’s probably a copy from of the full work-up section, maybe in different paragraph order:

My “finished” article is probably much clearer and more appealing & inspiring, than my decoding-process while building-up that article — unless you’re really into the decoding-process itself, which I have to be interested in.

Here’s a succinct summary of the Message of the entire Canterbury “hanging-from-mushroom” image:

The mytheme {branching tree} means (by analogy) branching possibilities, which implies the *entire* Possibilism worldmodel, which is unstable and non-viable in the altered state.

The mytheme {de-branched tree} means (by analogy) monopossibility, which implies the *entire* Eternalism worldmodel, which is stable and viable in the altered state.

‘worldmodel’ here means, the mental worldmodel of time, possibility, and personal control.

_________

I try to be both tough in pushing back against the field’s strong, forceful assertions, and constructive in stating what is the case, and helping people to see clearly.

As I see it, some advice above is:

Write positively about what is the case; don’t write against the confused people; don’t write against the entire confused field.

That advice from someone worked well, for my 2006 main article.

_________

You always have to sort the wheat from the chaff, in any author’s writing — that’s the nature of advancing scholarship in any field.

We must be realistic in judging the reliability of any author on a given topic, just as I made 2 or 3 missteps while decoding the Canterbury image, and had to go back and re-word my initial characterization.

Scholars need to tell other scholars warning them that a given author is not reliable on a certain topic.

I am telling all scholars that everything they think they know about mushrooms in Greek and Christian art is the opposite of the case.

There is a ton of evidence of all 3 types of evidence for mushrooms in Christian art, and it is *not* hard to find, and it is compelling and highly coherent.

1. Literal depictions of mushrooms
2. Stylized depictions of mushrooms
3. Depictions of mushroom effects

My message has to counter the publications of vociferous scholars who loudly, strongly proclaim that they have demolished the case for mushrooms in Christian art.

It is not easy for me to shake off the mental confusions that permeate the field, for me to wake up and be able to see — against everyone else — the (now) plain, obvious evidence yelling out to us:

Greeks & Christians used mushrooms, routinely and normally, and their mythology describes how they thought of the resulting effects and how to survive those effects by changing their thinking to accommodate the effects.

If only we can shake off confused presumptions, that try to entrench and re-assert themselves, we can at last SEE CLEARLY, that Greek & Christian initiation was mushroom initiation following a clear readily discernible pattern, seeing clearly that they moved from Possibilism to Eternalism in the mushroom state.

That is the solution to the Mystery — it is that simple, and finally we can see that simple solution to the Mystery of Mystery Religion and religious mythology; we can at last clearly read, with this very simple KEY, religious mythology.

To get to that treasure, that key, we have to battle the dragon of entrenched presumptions that forcefully and assertively cloud the mind of the entire field.

_________

The Great Key, The Master Solution to the Mystery Puzzle:

Greek & Christian religious mythology is a description of mushroom initiation that converts thinking from Possibilism to Eternalism.

It is near-impossible to think that thought, when the entire field is firmly biased against it — I had to work so hard to shake off their confusion, to formulate around 2001, the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion.

Carl Ruck published a pull-quote of my boldly against-the-field assertion that “’Mixed wine’ was mushroom wine.” A forbidden thought in the field.

_____

Or how about the cajones, the sort of “counter-aggressiveness” that it required, for me to assert, against *everyone else*:

“Meditation is bunk, and is proven to not work, and is pushed by hucksters, who are thieves who steal credit from entheogens, wrongly steering people away from them because they actually work; they try to damn entheogens with faint praise.”

Can I move the field forward, with me pushing against literally everyone else, while being Nice?

Jesus had no shortage of harsh words for the Pharisees of his day.

Scholars should all be nice.

That’s not very helpful in battling the entrenched, strong, mentally censorious biases that cast a mind-clouding spell on everyone in the field.

/ comment posted to Cyb site re: Bad Mushroom Scholarship

Against Minimalist Mushroom Scholars

Written in the middle of 1st pass of reply to comment at Cyb’s.

Not Posted in Reply to W at Cyb site. This was written in the midst of a copy of W’s post which I was point-by-point replying to.

[2:00 p.m. November 24, 2020]

I’m operating on Defense, not Offense, against uneducated, under-informed, muddle-headed, self-confused, pseudo-scholars who think they know enough about the state of the field, that they can write a book — but they don’t.

They are ignorant of the evidence, the arguments, what the state of play is.

They go on the attack, a mean-spirited personal attack, against their betters, as Pseudo-S attacked Irvin, and lost as far as I’m concerned, but Pseudo-S went on to publish through Park Street Press 2 books, and he cleaned up his website and changed the domain name to look not 100% unprofessional.

I don’t know what Irvin thought about the poorly reasoned, aggressive, and underinformed attack-and-discredit articles, whether Irvin wanted to do a rebuttal of S, or ignore him.

Around that time 2015, Irvin was doing remarkable expose of the whole field as badly motivated, w/ nefarious ulterior motives – fact.

Don’t criticize me for accusing others of what’s been exposed as fact: some have ulterior motives that seek to corrupt the pop field.

I pretty much ended up ignoring Brinckmann/ Panofsky/ Wasson/ Letcher/ S, because they are SO confused, and pope-buddy Wasson has a total conflict of interest making him want to cover-up mushrooms, and Pseudo-S may be trying to “sell” Mandrake instead of mushrooms in Christianity so he acts like he has a conflict of interest distorting his thinking. “Don’t buy Brown; buy me. Mandrake is the answer, not mushrooms.”

His thinking is so distorted, he’s confusing other people in the field — and he’s writing against other people as if his arguments have merit, when they have none, on the topic of mushrooms in Greek and Christian art; his belief is the opposite of the truth, but he is hopelessly confused due to fixation and obsession on Irvin (L probably fell into that same mistake) who is the most Allegro-follower there is; in fact, the only person who could rightly be called an “Allegro follower” is Irvin circa 2010.

S doesn’t even have a sensible grasp of the concept of “esoteric art within Christendom; look at his HOPELESSLY CONFUSED CATEGORY ERROR of “bestiary vs. religious art”.

His own confusion and category errors, combined with HIS — not mine, HIS — bad mean attitude personally attacking Irvin — are a hindrance to the field. And you say *I* should be nice? Tell that to them instead. I’m f*cking rainbows and unicorns compared to their attitudes.

There is GOOD REASON to see Pseudo-S as a mean problem; the usual toxic combination of being dead-wrong, and mean, and totally self-confident.

It is a real problem, that is difficult to see how to proceed. The Establishment eggs-on horrible writers who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, and encourages them to publish their mental knots of confusion, while attacking for example Brown as a “follower of Allegro” — TOTAL STRAWMAN!

Brown is NOT a “follower of Allegro”. There is only 1 person in the entire world that can generally be seen as a “follower of Allegro”, and that is Irvin of circa 2010, who has now flipped his values against entheogenic gnosticism and left the field.

What’s happening is, Pseudo-S has very poor, inadequate understatnding of the field (like everyone else except for ~10 scholars (Ruck, M Hoffman, M Hoffman, Salvini, Ott, Ratsch…), and his lack of knowledge, combined with extreme overconfidence totally overestimating his knowledge of the field, comgbined with a vulgar personality, leads him to hallucinate and grossly misread, MISREAD THE FIELD, MISREAD SCHOLARS’ POSITION, MISREAD THE STATE OF PLAY, OVERESTIMATE HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD, MISTAKE HIS KNOWLEDGE ON ONE TOPIC, FOR KNOWLEDGE OF ALL TOPICS when in fact he is TOTALLY IGNORANT of Greek & Christian art that’s relevant to mushrooms.

He thinks that because he read ONE single book, by Irvin, that now he’s an expert on the whole state of play in teh field re: mushrooms in Christian art.

He wrongly thinks, and acts on his error, thinks he can lump together as “Allegro followers” every single mushroom theorist. He lacks all nuance and ability to differentiate one scholar’s position from another’s.

Until he gets a civil attitude and an accurate reading of the field, he must be rebuffed. He is a problem. Not me. I’m pushing the field forward despite his effort, his HALLUCINATION that he’s trying to push on others, to cloud THEIR thinking too, — all these comments apply to Letcher as well.

My god, decoding Mystery Religion Mythemes is hard enough, without mytheme-illiterate people who know nothing about it, publishing attack-and-discredit articles, and publishing books, that work to confuse others and discourage people from investigating – they weork hard to get other people to have the same, muddled thinking, and make it look like there’s NO evidence for mushrooms in Christian art, when in fact, there are TONS of mushrooms — just look at the Psalter!!! Shortage of mushrooms?

That’s the opposite of the situation; we have a PLETHORA of mushrooms all over the art.

But what in the hell spell has been cast, that prevents scholars from seeing , that makes them dismiss and ridicule any attempt to read mushrooms as mushrooms? how to get the sleeping, confused minds to wake up, when they work hard to spread their sleep, their confused thinking, through their articles and books, to propagate their confused blindness, to steer everyone away from looking and seeing the countless plain-as-day mushrooms all throughout Christian and Greek art?

It’s looking like it might as well be, in effect, a cover-up attempt.

It’s like an “interpretation frameworks war”. With one side, highly confused, so much so, they are incapable of stating what their position exactly is, in a consistent way.

The Canterbury Psalter is DRENCHED with mushrooms, all over the place! Who is casting a spell to spread their own blindness, onto the whole field?

They pull the same confused, mean, false moves, with total overestimation of their grasp of the state of play in the field. Have you watched the debate of S vs Brown?

Have you seen Brown’s castigating S for strawmanning Brown’s position, ludicrously smearing brown as a “follower of Allegro”?

S has no idea what he’s talking about, and yet LOUDLY (yet vaguely) TRUMPETS his alleged demolition “the mushroom theory”, whatever the hell he thinks that theory is supposed to mean — he shifts his meaning constantly. -mh

/ end of section “Against Minimalist Mushroom Scholars”

/ end of major section “Bad Mushroom Scholarship”

Clarifying the Explanation of {branching vs. non-branching}, as in the Entire Canterbury “Mushroom/ Hanging/ Sword” Image

Here I work out a good, clear way of explaining {branching vs. non-branching}, as in the entire Canterbury “mushroom/ hanging/ sword” image.

Clarifying Possibilism vs. Eternalism descriptions, at length

In the entire Canterbury “hanging-from-mushroom” image,

The mytheme {branching tree} means (by analogy) branching possibilities, which implies the entire Possibilism worldmodel, which is unstable and non-viable in the altered state.

The mytheme {de-branched tree)} means (by analogy) monopossibility, which implies the entire Eternalism worldmodel, which is stable and viable in the altered state.

My “finished” article is probably much clearer and more appealing, than my decoding-process while building-up that article.

_________

familiar 2013 formula:

{tree vs. snake} = Possibilism vs Eternalism

The Image’s less familiar way of the same point, using non-mythemes formula:

branching vs nonbranching = Possibilism vs Eternalism

or, its main point is:

branching = unstable = Possibilism

non-branching = stable = Eternalism

stability there means, of personal self-control in the loosecog state; in the altered state from mushrooms.

Is branching …

the word ‘branching’ means both a mytheme and a direct statement/label:

{branching tree} refers to branching possibilities

Summary/takeaway point:

Note:

Shorthand definition:
When I say:
model
or better:
worldmodel
that is shorthand for:
mental worldmodel of time, possibility, and control

‘model’ = mental worldmodel of time, possibility, and control

‘worldmodel’ = mental worldmodel of time, possibility, and control

Way of saying it #1:

branching stands-in for the entire worldmodel, Possibilism.
non-branching stands-in for the entire worldmodel, Eternalism.

Way of saying it #2:

[Whether you think in terms of branching or non-branching] indicates
[your entire giant mental worldmodel]:

Way of saying it #3:

branching –> *POSSIBILISM*
non-branching –> *ETERNALISM*

Way of saying it #4: (very clear, and read-aloudable):

Direct English statements:

If you think in terms of branching possibilities, that indicates that your entire mental worldmodel of control, possibility, and time is Possibilism.

If you think in terms of non-branching possibilities, (also known as monopossibility), that indicates that your entire mental worldmodel of control, possibility, and time is Eternalism.

even though
branching is only 1 of a whole set of attributes of Possibilism,
and
non-branching is only 1 of a whole set of attributes of Eternalism.

Using analogy-equation syntax:

branching: non-branching :: Possibilism: Eternalism

True, but we want to specify that branching has a specific relationship, even more than “branching is a subset of Possibilism”. We want to indicate that

IF YOU BELIEVE “BRANCHING” (REGARDING THE LITTLE TOPIC OF POSSIBILITY), THEN YOU BELIEVE THE ENTIRE WORLDMODEL “Possibilism”.

IF YOU BELIEVE “NON-BRANCHING” (REGARDING THE LITTLE TOPIC OF POSSIBILITY), THEN YOU BELIEVE THE ENTIRE WORLDMODEL “Eternalism”.

This communicates the exact point well:
The tiny little system attribute

[Whether you think in terms of branching or non-branching] indicates
[your entire giant mental worldmodel]:

branching –> *POSSIBILISM*
non-branching –> *ETERNALISM*

the little view on little topic “bran

A possible notation, meaning “a small attribute stands-in for a big entire system”; X “indicates” entire Y, or
“holding X, indicates that you hold entire worldmodel Y”:

branching –> Possibilism
non-branching –> Eternalism

Given these copied blobs: …

Possibilism = the branching-tree universe containing autonomous steersmen steering with freewill-power control in trees

Eternalism = the non-branching block universe containing puppet-steersmen steering with no freewill-power non-control in worldlines

____________

Possibilism =
the branching-tree universe containing
autonomous steersmen steering
with freewill-power control
in trees

Eternalism =
the non-branching block universe containing
puppet-steersmen steering
with no freewill-power non-control
in worldlines

… we can use the –> notation to say, little x attribute-position is an indicator of Big System Y:

the branching-tree universe –> Possibilism
autonomous steersman steering–> Possibilism
freewill-power control–> Possibilism
trees–> Possibilism

the non-branching block universe –> Eternalism
puppet-steersman steering–> Eternalism
with no freewill-power non-control–> Eternalism
worldlines –> Eternalism

we have seen similar notation/formulations/expressions, in my 2013 breakthrough formula / formulation:

{tree vs. snake} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism

it’s like a syllogism:
X:Y = a:b
or
X:Y :: a:b
even though X might be 100x bigger than a.

{tree} is to {snake} as Possibilism is to Eternalism

or math ratio

tree/snake = Possibilism/Eternalism

or SAT analogy notation:

{tree}: {snake} :: Possibilism: Eternalism

That includes the basic idea I’m presently focusing on, that a little small attribute indicates the presence of a whole entire total worldview/ way of thinking.

Eternalism is an experiential mode, more than a “philosophy” set of propositions

I haven’t expressed enough, that it is an EXPERINTIAL MODE, not just a “way of thinking” — it is a whole mode of experiencing/feeling/thinking/perceiving.

When Sam Harris writes asserting no-free-will, most of the time he is thinking of “no-free-will” as a set of propositions held in the OSC.

But that’s a bit improper; the Native Worldmodel of the OSC is definitely Possibilism; that’s why after regerenation climax, you still think 99% in terms of Possibilism and only remind yourself 1% that metapysically, Eternalism is the case.

After gaining gnosis/ Transcendent Knowledge, you end up with 99% Qualitified-Possibilism-thinking, and 1% Eternalism-thinking.

Whenever a mind is in OSC, its thinking is 100% or 99% Possibilism.

% of the time the mind is in Possibilism vs. Eternalism thinking

before Transcendent Knowledge:

100% Naive-Possibilism; all the time

During peak ASC climax, the mind has:

100% Eternalism

When the mind returns to mundane daily OSC, it ends up with:

99% of the time: Qualified-Possibilism;
1% of the time: Eternalism-thinking.

________________________

in the Canter Image:

expressed as division or ratio-equation:

branching/non-branching = Possibilism/Eternalism

SAT analogy-question format:

branching: non-branching :: Possibilism: Eternalism
that’s a weak statement; it fails to say that
“branching is a component of the entire Possibilism system; and
non-branching is a single component of Eternalism, that’s a giveaway telltale indicator that your entire worldmodel is Eternalism”.
Not expressive enough.

tree: snake :: Possibilism :: Eternalism

using non-mytheme direct expression, that formula becomes:

{tree vs. snake} = Possibilism vs. Eternalism

analogy formula syntax:

tree: snake :: Possibilism :: Eternalism
not expressive enough, per above comment.

“branching” or “non-branching” is just 1 aspect of two giant opposite worldmodels (Possibilism & Eternalism).

Your view regarding
the little particular topic of branching
(whether you affirm it, or deny it), is a “marker” that indicates
which of the two giant buckets you subscribe to
(Possibilism, or Eternalism). so, matching “little scope” to “big scope”:

branching stands-in for the entire model, Possibilism.
non-branching stands-in for the entire model, Eternalism.

your view regarding branching, is a small indicator, that reveals your entire worldmodel.

Possibilism = the branching-tree universe containing autonomous steersmen steering with freewill-power control in trees

Eternalism = the non-branching block universe containing puppet-steersmen steering with no freewill-power non-control in worldlines

Canter Image is a bit different than my usual analysis, b/c it so totally uses 1 little topic — branching — as the primary indicator to point to one or the other of two giant different worldmodels (Possibilism or Eternalism).

Canter Image = … i need a better label for the whole cartoon-page than “the entire image which contains the leg-hanging mushroom tree”. It’s more like…. “the cybernetic mushroom initiation Image” or
“the non-branching/blades mushroom tree [whole entire complete] image“; not obsessed/fixated on ONLY the mushroom tree in it, but how the whole image functions. damn, would be easier to paste the damn thing: THIS::::::

darn, I don’t have good phrases to refer to these 4 images:
it is difficult & awkward to write about these things w/o good phrases:

the distinctive scope-keywords to label the 4 zoom-levels on the image are:

o the mushroom tree
o the top row
o the entire image
o the page

the “mushroom tree with sword and hanging with right-limb” image

the “mushroom initiation top row” image

the “__ entire cartoon ” image

the entire page

/ end of one of the sections in major section “Clarifying the Explanation of {branching vs. non-branching}, as in the Entire Canterbury “Mushroom/ Hanging/ Sword” Image”

1st Pass of Prepping Reply to W’s Post at Cyb’s Article –
Long work-up to create short summary about branching, within in my “Bad Scholarship” comment

[2:10 p.m. November 24, 2020]

Prepping reply for Cyb weblog comments thread:
[outcome: I didn’t use the below writeups. See above, same URL, for final fresh-written reply; it’s solid.]

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/recent-articles-on-criteria-proof-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-branching-mushrooms-confirmation-and-reproducibility-canterbury-psalter/

“I couldn’t quite figure out why
the Canterbury Psalter isomorphism was so non-inspiring and quite difficult to comprehend as per the Egodeath Theory, until explained.” /W

[outcome: I posted this good summary, after *much* work, above, to best state concisely as follows:

Here’s a succinct summary of the Message of the entire Canterbury “hanging-from-mushroom” image:

_____

The mytheme {branching tree} means (by analogy) branching possibilities, which implies the *entire* Possibilism worldmodel, which is unstable and non-viable in the altered state.

The mytheme {de-branched tree} means (by analogy) monopossibility, which implies the *entire* Eternalism worldmodel, which is stable and viable in the altered state.

_____

‘worldmodel’ here means, the mental worldmodel of time, possibility, and personal control.
or: “personal control power”; I should say ‘power’ more often.


A pulse of dying power in a clenching plastic fist

https://genius.com/Rush-the-body-electric-lyrics

]

Image very, very heavily uses {blade} and the complex mytheme equation:
o {branching vs. non-branching} = {left limb vs. right limb}
Image tries to convey entire Egodeath theory / Transcendent Knowledge by only:
blade
branching vs non-branching
emphasizing:
if you depend on “branching”-thinking, in the ASC, you get the blade of death (cyber-seizure, non-viable, chaos, destruction, bad, out of control in worst way).
If you construct another basis in your mind, Eternalism ({non-branching, {rock} block univ; snake), and rely on it instead of illusory Possibilism-power : you avoid the {blade/death/ non-viable/} seizure/chaos.
That is 90% of the message of the image. (doesn’t use {rock} or {snake}; instead, to carry that weight of “block univ” & “worldline”, Image depends very heavily on instead, {non-branching}.

Image is over-pressing , over-burdening the {non-branching} idea to carry the weight of rock block universe and embedded serpent worldline.

I suspect that’s the “jump” that’s difficult for me and for you, in jumping from the Egodeath theory to this Image: you must “unpack” or “overload” {non-branching} to force it to ALSO mean block universe rock AND worldline {serpent}. The problem is, {non-branching} goes hand-in-hand with the rest:

System 1 = all of the following: {king sterring in branching tree}, instability in ASC.

System 2 = all of the following: {serpent embedded in rock} non-branching (block universe & worldline).

The difficulty of relating to the Canter Image even though you and I understand the Egodeath theory, may be my fault for not defining , in the past, that the “block universe” idea goes with “non-branching”.

Important Expansion of the Titles of the 2 Worldmodels of Control, Possibility, and Time:

Possibilism = one entire broad set of attributes/views;
Eternalism = the other entire broad set of attributes/views;
the topic of BRANCHING is only 1 of those various traits that contrast the two mental worldmodels. YOU CAN USE ANY 1 OF THE DIFFERENCES (eg branching vs nonbranching) THAT SET APART THE TWO MODELS, TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE WORLDMODEL or worldmodel-pair or -contrast.

The Canterbury image strictly focuses on two differences between the two giant worldmodels, or just one difference: BRANCHING.

How you believe about the one little topic of Branching, = which of the two giant worldmodesl (that contain much more than just the Branching issue/view) you hold. It’s like saying,
“If you tell me how you feel about wearing a mask all the time, I can tell you your entire political view.”
The way you feel about wearing a mask all the time, is an indicator of your entire way of thinking, your entire worldmodel that you inhabit.

If you tell me 1 little thing — how you think about possibility branching: is it real or not? — then I can tell whether you believe in
the entire giant Possibilism worldmodel or
the entire giant Eternalism worldmodel.

[I liked this construction and copied it to above, to break out in –> type of expression for each component; each component of one of the two models implies that entire giant model:]

Possibilism = the branching-tree universe containing autonomous steersmen steering with freewill-power control in trees

Eternalism = the non-branching block universe containing puppet-steersmen steering with no freewill-power non-control in worldlines

____________

Possibilism =
the branching-tree universe containing
autonomous steersmen steering
with freewill-power control
in trees

Eternalism =
the non-branching block universe containing
puppet-steersmen steering
with no freewill-power non-control
in worldlines

If you try to bring Possibilism-thinking into the ASC, it “breaks”, panics, seizes, goes unstable, non-viable, it perishes. The Image doesn’t talk of “Possibilism” or “Eternalism”; it only latches onto 1 aspect of those 2 models: only the “branching vs non-branching” aspect.

All sorts of things fit together, into these 2 giant Master Buckets:
the Possibilism giant bucket, and
the Eternalism giant bucket.
one contrasting thing, a difference between what’s in those giant buckets, is: branching vs. non-branching.; or, in brief:
BRANCHING (& how it differs between the 2 buckets, which are Possibilism & Eternalism.) Do you want to focus on CONTROL; “(egoic) control vs non-control”, equating the different in control, between the 2 systems, with the entire difference between Possibilism vs Eternalism giant buckets/worldmodels? Do you instead want to latch onto the topic of the difference in model of TIME?

Good News: very very simple: THERE ARE ONLY 2, VERY OPPOSITE WORLDMODELS.
Bad News: inside each model, is an entire universe of aspects, which contrast between the 2 systems.

Possibilism = this big set of distinctive attributes:
branching (that’s just 1 of the distinctive characteristic aspects of the giant Possibilism worldmodel) =
autonomous king (that’s another one of the distinctive characteristic aspect of the giant Possibilism worldmodel) =

Eternalism = this big set of opposite distinctive attributes:
non-branching = (that’s just 1 of the distinctive characteristic aspects of the giant Eternalism worldmodel) =

/ important groups of concepts, required for seeing the Canter Image as broadly covering all of the two models, Possibilism vs Eternalism.

_____________

You followed my decoding during the construction project, that’s both easy & hard, following my confusions along the way to clarity. In a way, my article / formatting/ TOC is much easier to follow now that it’s “done”.

It’s like tagging along with a Science researcher/experimenter at the leading edge — he’s not working on – or able to — stop and most clearly explain each step by step step in the Hypothesis formation stage; he has to go very fast, and when he makes a breakthrough he has to stop and try to make Log entries of how he got there, reconstructing his steps.

The nice clean textbook presentation of his experiment results make it look easy, when the proofs are laid out all nice. Like my “finished” article is now. I did a lot at the end, yesterday/today, to put the appealing marketing onramp at the top of the Proof Canterbury Mushroom Tree Leg Hanging article. -mh

“And then I realized that [I had trouble following the in-progress Canterbury decoding b/c] it’s because it isn’t foundational. ” – W

The Image is challenging b/c no Snake, no Block Universe — they restrict themselves to only 3 mythemes:
o mushroom,
o {blade} – very heavy use.
o {branching vs. non-branching} = {left limb vs. right limb} – very heavy use.

Not used in Image:

o {king, serpent, rock…}

Concise version of Cyb’s 3 tiers of evidence to look for mushrooms:
1. Literal depictions of mushrooms
2. Stylized depictions of mushrooms
3. Depictions of mushroom effects

– mh

/ clarif of a subection about branching Canter decoding

_____

W wrote:

“And that came to me last night from the following sentence in a common prayer:

‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.’

“Bible metaphor, isomorphism, is foundational
“Heaven/Earth

“A common denominator.”

“Ego transformation from Possibilism into Eternalism
using {feet pointing, direction of hands, hanging from tree, wrinkles in clothing}, are more in-between Heaven and Earth [compare Cyb’s middle categ] and do not have a common and strong denominator, except for when there is the use of branching and non branching, trees and snakes, etc..

“Which makes it all harder to grasp.

“In the ordinary world we know it’s common for right-side brain to be more intuitive, left more analytical.

“But we don’ t grow up learning a meaning for pointing left
and right as related to ‘heaven.’ That has been made new (at least for myself) as metaphor through the Egodeath Theory.

“Now, maybe there has to be a required level of intelligence to grasp the entire Theory, and if so then the Theory automatically becomes limited and exclusive.” – W

In the Class Session scene, 1 out of 4 students passes the exam. -mh

W: “Or maybe the Theory requires being sowed and reaped umpteen times, and if so, then the Theory becomes dependent on time and repetition.”

You know that’s how it goes: rewrite 20 times, to work-out a clear way of talking about these very difficult topics. -mh

W: “I just don’t know how else to describe this other than to say that the sense of a foundational common denominator for possibilism into eternalism is missing in parts (at least for myself) and might just be a factor for people in understanding the Theory.

“Bible metaphor is easy for the mind to grasp. It uses Earth as foundation.

“Last night I was able to come up with a good metaphor (for myself) regarding the difference between childish egoic possibilism and qualified egoic possibilism.

“I simply call them immature ego/mind of possibilism and mature ego/mind of possibilism.

“The immature ego/mind of possibilism is a ‘bud’, not yet open to the ‘sun’

“The mature ego/mind of possibilism is a flower, fully open to the ‘sun’ and which bares nectar for the ‘ascent of the butterfly’.

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven”

________________

W’s paragraphs, con’t – a different post by W:

mix of “Bad Scholars” & “Branching”?

“There is a separation of life throughout the history of writings about spiritual attainments, whether in new age spirituality, religion, or in the history of entheogenic mind transformation.

“These occur commonly within the written and historical references to life, such as being pure or impure, insider or outsider, esoteric or exoteric etc.

“Whether the words that appear to separate life are used metaphorically or not, the written word does not decide that.

“The minds of the readers do.

“And although it is important to distinguish differences in the world, the rise of critiquing, which can border on attacking integrity, is either an unwanted side effect or it becomes intentional.

“And it makes me wonder what type of world is being created from the advancement of the mind.”

“I hope that love and respect, acceptance and compassion will never get pushed aside for the want of achievements, myself included.” – W

Tell that to the bullies who abuse the field for their own self-serving gain, holding back the field.

“There is never a thought of the people as to whether they are this or that.”

“They are ordinary people just like myself. I love the world that I live in, and it’s not always just good times…there are hard times too.” – W

Yeah well you’re not battling at the front lines pushing the field ahead despite the naysayers who are — in effect — through their muddled, self-confused thinking, trying to hold it back.

You’re not in the fray of the “interpretation framework wars”.

Your advice is good valid advice like a friend advised me about my 2006 main article; they said: Don’t write against others; positively write what is the case.

I am the field, shaking itself awake, shaking off the muddled-thinking, shaking off and zapping the delusion that clouds the mind of the field.

“That’s when I hold on tight to ‘the string.’

“I wish for all of you a peaceful Thanksgiving and a wonderful Christmas, if those are holidays that you celebrate.

“Never forget your heart. ” / W

/ branching sections are above

My Comments on Cyberdisciple’s Article “Correcting Key Points in Muraresku, The Immortality Key” – Part 1, November 24, 2020

[9:30 p.m. November 24, 2020]

Cyb’s new article is copied here, for my interactive reading-by-editing.

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/correcting-key-points-in-muraresku-the-immortality-key/

Cyb’s New Article, for my interactive reading-by-editing speculates about drugs in Greek and Christian religious history using a Moderate approach.

He speculates that drug use was reserved for elites and monopolized by powerful families and kept secret by mystery cults. Some occasional instances of drug use can be found outside of such groups, but they are always secret and related to those groups. Against these groups, the cults of first Dionysus and then of Jesus sought to spread drugs to more people, but they were suppressed by the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. The cult of Dionysus and early Christianity were threatening because they distributed drugs.

[what?! is this a fantasy novel? the “make sh*t up” school of scholarship?-mh]

“Muraresku’s is a relatively broad, but still firmly Moderate approach. He cannot imagine widespread drug use across all culture, including the mainstream, even as he keeps citing evidence that suggests knowledge of drugs was widespread and not limited to secretive elites or suppressed groups. His Moderate approach to speculation is typically shaky. Moderate approaches always totter toward the Maximal Theory, or seem to when viewed through the superior lens of the Maximal Theory.

In conflict with his Moderate speculation, Muraresku uses a Minimal approach when it comes to evaluating evidence for drugs. Again and again he concludes that we cannot really be sure about drugs in Greek and Christian religion, becuase we don’t have “hard evidence.” His criterion for good evidence is extremely restricted: only a residue from a cup from a religious site that shows evidence of a psychedelic when analyzed in a chemical lab will count for Muraresku. Everything else is merely suggestive, but not enough to conclude.

–

Summaries of sections of the book and corrections of key claims.

Part 1 is dedicted to Eleusis.

Chapters 2-5 (pp. 37-105) are on the topic of drugs in the Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter and Persephone. Muraresku discusses Wasson …

[i totally slammed Wasson in email to Ruck today. forget wasson. he’s a — evasive writer, too; can’t form a clear position statement to save his life. he’s harmed the field, badly, unlike Graves. Wasson is the –. He abused scholarship as a tool to conceal, not to reveal. Irvin has comparable cynicism about Wasson and his covert motives.-mh]

… , Hofmann, and Ruck’s The Road to Eleusis and laments that chemical analysis is possible of surviving cups found at the site, because they were cleaned after excavation, at a time before chemical analysis was performed in archaeology. Without that chemical analysis, Muraresku cannot decide whether or not drugs used at Eleusis.

Were drugs used at Eleusis? Yes. It was not a secret, and Wasson erred in presenting it as a secret to be revealed in The Road to Eleusis. The secret to be revealed at Eleusis is that of the switch from possibilism to eternalism in the loose cognition state induced by drugs. We do not need a chemical analysis to conclude that drugs were used at Eleusis. A convincing case can be made using evidence from visual art and text. Eleusis was also not unique in ancient Greece in its use of drugs in religion; it would be strange if drugs were not involved.

Muraresku is wrong to start his investigation with Eleusis and with The Road To Eleusis. It is distorting to focus so much attention on Eleusis

[Eleusis, Eleusis, Eleusis… and Allegro, Allegro, Allegro — L E T – I T – G O !!! reductionistic MONO-MANIA. Eject your infinite-loop 8-track tape and join the 21st C discussion! -mh]

at the expense of the rest of ancient Greece. Eleusis did not have the cultural standing that Muraresku attributes to it, as some sort of spiritual center of ancient Greece or the Roman Empire. He can only tell that story through ignoring all the other temples, cults, and stories.

[that ol’ move. same pattern: Put all focus on Allegro, make Allegro the star that you force the entire field to steer by. Easier than real scholarship, reading all those books and doing broad research -mh]

As I’ve written earlier, The Road to Eleusis is not the place to start with the topic of drugs in Greek religion. If he wanted to start with the beginning of the 20th century’s investigation into drugs in Greek religion, he should have started with Robert Graves. Better still would have been to start after surveying all the books produced since then [1957] on the topic. Best would have been to learn eternalism and the Maximal Entheogen Theory via the Egodeath Theory

Framing the question as “were drugs used at this one specific site?” (i.e. considered in isolation from other sites) is a sign of a Moderate Entheogen Theory. The Maximal Theory would never ask such a question in that way.

[true; alien to my thinking; my framework can’t present that question, loaded with the requisite background assumptions -mh]

–

Chapter 6 is on the topic of drugs in prehistory in the Mediterranean, specifically at Göblekli Tepe.

Were drugs used in prehistory and the ‘origins of religion’? Certainly; the Maximal Entheogen Theory of religion has no problem asserting that.

It would make sense, then, for drugs to have been used in connection with a religious ceremony at Göblekli Tepe… if indeed it was the site of religious ceremonies; nobody knows for sure. Nearly everything about the site is speculative.

Muraresku is wrong, however, to speculate about a continuity of transmission along cultural and genetic groups from Göblekli Tepe to Eleusis. Such a continuity is unprovable and implausible, and weakens his book.

Regardless, the case for drug use in religion does not need such a continuity.

[how does the mind work, in the altered state? that’s the driving common factor. My theory is a theory of how the human mind, every human mind at every time & place, works in the altered state, indep of where/when. -mh]

Looking for such a continuity is a sign that an investigator is using a Moderate Entheogen Theory of religion. The Maximal Theory does not need to map out tenuous connections between places and times of drug use in order to prove drug use.

–

Chapter 7 and the Epilogue to Part One are on drugs at an archaeological site in Spain. Muraresku seems to have his ‘hard evidence’ here: ergot was found on the chemical residue of a cup found at a site and on the teeth of a human jaw bone found at the same site. This ‘hard evidence’ is however thrown into doubt in the Epilogue to Part One. Muraresku reports that another scientist warns that the results are uncertain because the original samples analyzed cannot be found, and so cannot be tested again. So much for the criterion of ‘hard evidence’ via archaeochemistry.

Were drugs used across the Mediterranean and across culture? Certainly; the Maximal Theory has no problem. The evidence from the site in Spain is just another bit of data for the Maximal Theory, not of any particular importance.

For Muraresku’s speculation, however, it becomes a grandly important sign that the mysteries of Eleusis were being spread in secret

[#1 word signalling the self-contradictory Moderate theory: ‘SECRET'(re: the fact of drug use) -mh]

and that particular Greeks who founded the colony were especially spiritually sophisticated and took this special spiritual sophistication with them also to their colonies in Southern Italy.

However, there’s no clear, good evidence that the site in Spain was a cult site. Muraresku follows the archaeologists who excavated the site in this interpretation. But archaeologists frequently resort to saying that a site had a ritual purpose when they have no idea what the site was for. It’s a well-known joke in the field, and spoofed in books and articles.

Motel of the Mysteries — 1979

https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacirema.pdf
daily modern life as alien ritual

“Furthermore, if it was indeed a cult site to Demeter, this is not an indication that it was a version of the mysteries at Eleusis or in any way connected to Eleusis. Muraresku literalizes the Eleusinian myth that Triptolemus spread knoweldge of grain around the world

[i’m increasingly doubtful that grain means grain; in Mythemeland, everything mainly means the mind in the ASC. {grain} = some aspect of the altered state; the only question is, WHICH aspect/WHICH analogy-referent; WHICH isomorphism? “grain” is like X in the ASC; isomorphic, in that, Y-aspect -mh]

and thinks that the Demeter cult at Eleusis was some sort of proselytizing cult.

[? Evangelicalism meets Antiquity?? -mh]

Why Muraresku thinks that the Greek from Phocaea who founded the colony Emporion near the farm site in Spain and also founded the city of Elea/Velia in southern Italy were especially spiritually sophisticated is beyond me. Presumably this would mean that they are sophisticated in way that other Greeks were not, but Muraresku cannot bring forward anything particularly special. Embossing Persephone on their coins and producing the philosopher Parmenides at Elea/Velia do not especially set apart the Phocaeans and their colonies from other ancient Greeks.

The Minimal approach to evidence and the Moderate approach to speculation traps

[GOOD WORD, the field is caught in a trap, a dead-end snare to “violently” bust out of. “get caught in ticking traps” -mh]

Muraresku into over-estimating the importance of the site in Spain discussed in these chapters. He wants it to be a slam-dunk evidence that proves the kykeon …

[I side with Graves: ditch the complicated speculation about alien lost strains of ergot that used to work.

FROM NOW ON, ALL MY SPECULATION ASSUMES relig myth = PSILOCYBIN, with tiny footnote of Scopalamine as “if i have no other option” fallback cheap substitute that just makes you wish for real deal.

Because we KNOW the effects are 100% reliable, 100% classic entheogenic.

No Speculation Required.

trip reports of Scopalamine gave zero impression of classic enth effects, fwiw.

the Real Deal = Psilocybin.

others are side-curiosities/ poor 3rd-rate alternatives to fall back on reluctantly.

Psilo is universally considered top-shelf “the good stuff”, The Standard of Excellence.

better than 12-16-hour kinds, too: shorter duration = more control of the session-intensity curve.

reconstruct exact ancient mixed-wine usage technique of “rounds” of redosing, like at banquet; their perfected application technique is optimized. -mh]

… at Eleusis hypothesis of The Road to Eleusis right, but it is too marginal and dubious to accomplish even that limited task. The Maximal Theory does not need to rely on such special pleading.

–

Part 2 focuses on Dionysus and Christianity.

Chapter 8 is on drugged wine in ancient Greece and Dionysus. This topic is not new, and Muraresku’s narrative of looking at broken vase paintings in a museum focuses on weak evidence. He ends up presenting an uncompelling case of [on/for] a topic of great importance.

Chapter 9 focuses on establishing Dionysus in ancient Galilee, in order to justify linking Mr. Historical Jesus to Dionysus and drugged wine.

Chapter 10 focuses on drugs in the ancient Near East, including Egypt and the Canaanites. He claims that the drugs were exclusively for the elites, such as pharaohs and Canaanite elites. He then makes the cult of Dionsyus and Christianity about providing drugs to more people, non-elites.

[the make-sh*t-up school of scholarship? -mh]

He then claims this was the reason that the cult of Dionysus and Christianity were

[allegedly – Believe All Martyr-pron Tales -mh]

oppressed.

Why he is so confident that drugs were restricted to the elites, when he has just argued that wine was widely drugged, I cannot say.

[Moderate = self-contradiction -mh]

I would ask Muraresku: what evidence is there for the suppression of drugs in antiquity? As he knows, drug use was not exclusive to the cult of Dionysus and Christianity, and was found all over the Mediterranean. On what basis, then, does he think that the cult of Dionysus and Christianity were suppressed because of drugs?

Muraresku’s Moderate approach teeters and totters.

[that’s a sign, indicator, hallmark, characteristic trait of Moderate -mh]

–

I’ll add summaries and critiques of the remaining chapters. Reading the book is slow going because I want to throw the book across the room after every other sentence.

/ end of section “My Comments on Cyberdisciple’s Article “Correcting Key Points in Muraresku, The Immortality Key”” — part 1. His added part 2, Dec 2 2020, is below.

My Comments on Cyberdisciple’s Article “Correcting Key Points in Muraresku, The Immortality Key” – Part 2, December 2, 2020

Cyberdisciple added the following sections at the bottom of page:

Correcting Key Points in Muraresku, The Immortality Key
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/correcting-key-points-in-muraresku-the-immortality-key/ —

[His sections are copied below, for my commenting. -mh]

________

Chapter 11 finalizes the first sequence of part 2, consisting of Chapters 8-11, on the similarities between Dionysus and Jesus and on the Eucharist as psychedelics.

[That sounds like the original title of Freke & Gandy’s book:

The Jesus Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, 1999
http://amzn.com/0722536763

-mh]

It is not particularly new

[The above popular book is from 21 years ago, and we’ve been discussing it at the JesusMysteries Yahoo Group for 21 years, sometimes with the authors, and many heavy research scholars and book authors – the whole gang of them. The subject of ahistoricity, including Dionysus parallels, has gone quite mainstream, some years ago. -mh]

or groundbreaking to point out that a source for the Jesus figure is Dionsyus, though Muraresku acts as though he is contemplating some new breakthrough.

More importantly, it is misleading to focus so exclusively on Dionysus as the source of the Jesus figure.

The Jesus figure was derived from many sources, not only Dionysus.

[I’ve been yelling that on the world-wide web for decades. Scholars persist in the ridiculous industry of grand pronouncements of the same old preposterous 1-dimensional approach; let’s name the damn thing:

the “Single Source for the Jesus Figure” fallacy

-mh]

“Jesus figure” is my addition, since Muraresku is committed to Mr. Historical Jesus.

Muraresku invents the idea that the early Christians needed a psychedelic Eucharist, to appeal to Greeks.

[AS IF Israelites and primitive proto-Christians DIDN’T have what EVERYONE ELSE EVERYWHERE had, the mushroom (or equivalent) engine that powered the whole damn thing, Mystery Religion initiation, UBIQUITOUSLY throughout ALL of Antiquity, ALL of Hellenistic religion. -mh]

Lurking behind this idea is the implication that a mystery cult could have had some other sort of sacrament, some non-psychedelic sacrament.

[agghhhh KILL ME
fortunately i have an image handy b/c need it so often:


Can you imagine what a complete failure and laughingstock, totally uncompetitive, a “Mystery Religion with no psychoactive sacrament” would have been, in the Hellenistic era?

Such an ersatz, non-Mystery Religion “Mystery Religion” would have been the laughingstock and embarrassment of the entire Mediterranean.

The very notion is a complete contradiction in terms, like an automobile with no engine; a brand of mysticism with no mystic experiencing.

It would have been a complete, instant flop; a total non-starter, seen as pure, utter folly — a direct contradiction in terms. -mh]

We see Muraresku’s Moderate approach stumbling here.

Per the Maximal approach, there was no such thing as a non-psychedelic mystery meal.

—

Even apart from the contrast between Moderate and Maximal approaches, the idea fails on its own in the context of Muraresku’s book.

Why would it matter to the Greeks if the Christian sacred meal were psychedelic, if they already had psychedelic sacraments at Eleusis, around the Mediterranean in cults in farmhouses, and in Dionysiac initiations?

[Psychedelic initiation was as secret as awareness of the snake-shaped worldline hiding veiled in the mind, visible to anyone in the altered state, shown in all the art, literally paraded before everyone’s eyes, in the snake-basket in the (“sacred”, needless to say) parades. -mh]

A psychedelic Eucharist wouldn’t make Christianity especially appealing or noteworthy to Greeks.

What about a psychedelic sacrament would make Christianity distinctive?

—

In the heavily psychedelic and heavily mystery cult-oriented Mediterranean, Christianity’s distinctive appeal lay primarily in its counter-empire stance.

Muraresku, knowingly or not, has some awareness of this.

He makes the cult of Dionysus and early Christianity deviant and in danger of suppression from the Roman Empire.

However, he exaggerates the degree to which either was suppressed and misfires when he names the cause of suppression.

With no evidence or basis, he fantasizes that the Roman authority suppressed the cults because they used psychedelics.

[PRESENTISM FALLACY MUCH? -mh]

Because of this fear of Roman SWAT teams, the Greeks would have found it appealing for Christianity to have a psychedelic sacrament, you see.

—

Far from being hostile to psychedelics and mystery initiation, the Roman imperial hierarchy in fact incorporated the use of psychedelics and mystery initiation to support and prop up the socio-political arrangement.

To the extent that mystery cults and other religions threatened that socio-political arrangement, to that extent were they interfered with by the Roman power.

Most mystery cults and religions adapted to the hierarchy and became subordinate to it.

—

It is true that the Roman historian Livy (64/59 BC – AD 12/17) and an inscription of a decree of the Roman Senate indicate that the Roman Senate in 186 BC regulated and suppressed a particular manifestation of the cult of Bacchus/Dionysus in Italy.

—

Muraresku wants that one instance of regulation/suppression to mean that Bacchus/Dionysus was a threatened cult everywhere in every instance.

This is not the case.

Bacchus/Dionysus was not some taboo and suppressed god for the Romans.

Before the importation of the mystery cult of Dionysus/Bacchus into Italy, the Romans/Italians had their own equivalent, Liber (or Pater Liber).

Over time Liber and Bacchus/Dionysus became identified with each other.

In whatever manifestation, Liber/Bacchus/Dionysus was always a standard member of the pantheon in Greece and Rome.

His worship was completely normal and regularly incorporated into the culture of ancient Greece, ancient Italy, and the Roman Empire, from the bottom of the social order to the top.

—

As I’ve pointed out in other posts, a source as obvious, banal, and entry-level as Wikipedia shows the inaccuracy of Muraresku’s story: 

Article: Dionysus
Subsection: Worship and festivals in Rome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Worship_and_festivals_in_Rome

—

There is indeed a history of back-and-forth relations between the Roman authority and the worship of Dionsyus/Bacchus/Liber concerning the activities of worshippers.

But this does not amount to a blanket threat of suppression of the altered state in the way Muraresku implies.

The altered state via psychedelics was common and easy to come by in the ancient Mediterranean.

[ G E T – I T – I N – Y O U R – H E A D S, – S T U P I D – D E N S E – M O D E R A T E – E N T H E O G E N – S C H O L A R S !

GET MAXIMAL

-mh]

The uneasy relations of a particular brand of cult with the Roman authority did not affect the widespread and common altered state experiencing via psychedelics.

—

In turn, early Christianity stood out not for its psychedelic sacrament, but because it stylized itself as a direct counter to the Roman hierarchy and applied itself to the set-up of an alternative society.

It is another mark against Muraresku’s ‘scholarship’ that in a book on Christian origins he makes no mention of the many books on counter-empire themes in early Christianity.

The psychedelic sacrament was nothing special, and
it would have been unusual (impossible) not to have one.

—

Secondarily, the reason for Muraresku’s selective focus on Eleusis, Dionysus, and early Christianity becomes clearer in Chapter 11.

He has been so selective because he wants to tie the preparation and administering of psychedelic beverages to women.

He fantasizes that women had exclusive knowledge of psychedelics.

[as followers of the Egodeath theory know, I posted a severe criticism maybe in 2002, of the absurd and presentism-speculation-based idea, in some entheogen scholarship book, that only masters, but not slaves, knew about mixed wine mushroom wine. -mh]

—

He wants his book to participate in an intra-Catholic or intra-Christian debate about the legitimacy of women priests.

This is why he ignores all other mystery cults and the widespread use of psychedelics throughout Mediterranean culture.

Ignoring it allows him to tell his fantasy story that women held the special knowledge of psychedelics until they were suppressed by ‘the patriarchy.’

[oh fkking NO COMMENT -mh] 🗑️

—

He is committed to the Moderate approach because of cultural commitments, not because of a commitment to historical accuracy or plausibility.

[STOP HOLDING ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP HOSTAGE TO IRRELEVANT, POLITICIZED FACTORS!

TRY to do entheogen scholarhip based on strict critical historiography, but I guess that’s too much to ask. -mh]

Eleusis and Dionysus appear to be easy targets because the cult mythology at Elusis focuses on female goddesses and because Dionysus had his maenads.

[Maenads are initiate dudes, for all we know. Ruck and everyone is an uncritical literalist here, making uncritical presumptions, committing a category error, a genre error; a fallacy: shall we dub it —

the “literalistic reading of Hellenistic Mythemese” fallacy

-mh]

Early Christianity appears to be an easy target because evidence can be arranged to show its popularity among women.

Yet Muraresku has not produced any evidence that women alone knew of and administered psychedelics.

It’s implausible. Why would only women know how to mix psychedelics into wine?

Can Muraresku prove what is implied by his story, that men did not know how to mix psychedelics into wine?

[uh, I’M OUT, if we’re abandoning all sense –

I don’t have time for this sub-sub-critical scholarship,

Just go ahead, use psychedelics to project anything and everything your culture-addled mind wants to, on ancient entheogens abused as your modern-day, mid-20th C Rorschach ink blotter image.

I thought we were doing scholarship, not “fantastic-tales storytime”. Preposterous! -mh]

—

It’s a story he wants to be true, so he’ll distort everything to make it so.

—

Muraresku on the topic of women is an example of his literalizing of religious myth.

‘Female’ in analogical mythemes refers to:

“{female}: the mind’s vulnerable thought-receiver, normally {veiled}, unable to resist the uncontrollable source of thoughts. When that source-situation becomes visible, perceptible in the ASC, the female {maiden} is consciously overpowered and {abducted} to the {underworld}.”

—

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/mytheme-list/#fterms (scroll down to find).

[hyperinked above -mh]

—

The presence of females in the religious imagery of the cult tells us nothing about the historical reality of the cult’s practice.

[Mithraic initiation included the soldiers dressing as a {bride}, per their inner female helpless thought-receiver, following the Herme-Aphrodite Andro-Gyne, Mithras, who injects control-thoughts unstoppably, just as Mithras inserts the blade into the vunerable side of the bull, cancelling out its most-powerful, shoulder muscle; cancelling the egoic personal control-system’s power. -mh]

—

Lesser & Greater Mysteries: Teaching then Initiating

Site Map

Contents:

  • todo

{maiden vs. (underworld-queen + overworld-queen)} =
naive-possibilism vs. (qualified-possibilism + eternalism)

My 2nd Kepler’s Law; Key Mytheme-Formula — My Brand New
“Maiden vs. Two Goddesses” Formula

My Second Kepler’s Law — or Hoffman’s 2nd Law of Mytheme Decoding:

{maiden vs. (underworld-queen + overworld-queen)} =
naive-possibilism vs. (qualified-possibilism + eternalism)

My First Kepler’s Law — or Hoffman’s Law of Mytheme Decoding:

{tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism

The “Two Goddesses” concept is accompanied by Kore the initial maiden; it has three parts:
first, Kore, the childhood-thinking maiden; then afterwards after abduction by Hades, there are then the two goddesses:
Persephone, queen of the underworld +
adulthood-thinking Demeter, queen of the aboveground.

Three goddesses, speaking roughly — or,

The One Mortal and the Two Goddesses: Kore, Persephone, & Demeter.

My brand new formula, December 7, 2020:

{maiden vs. (underworld-queen + overworld-queen)} =
naive-possibilism vs. (qualified-possibilism + eternalism)

High Culture = Mythology = Refined Analogies for Changing from Possibilism to Eternalism

Technical-words phrasing.

High Culture = Mythology = Refined Analogies for Changing from Possibility-Branching to Pre-Existence

Common-words phrasing.

changing from possibility-branching to pre-existence [cpbpe]

High Culture, regardless of how a person personally feels “I don’t like no-free-will”,

High Culture revolves around no-free-will, high mythology, is all analogies for the no-free-will revelation in the altered state.

High culture mythology is analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

High culture = mythology = comprehending analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

High culture = mythology = analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

High culture mythology is comprehending analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

High culture mythology is analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

Culture is analogies for switching from possibilism to eternalism.

Based on the Canterbury hanging-mushroom image, and the Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis, we can assume that, of course, any brand of Mystery Religion initiation is education about the meanings of myth and mental dynamics prior to in-practice initiation.

There is a section of good mytheme-decodings below.

I pasted a Lesser Mysteries article below, to explain/rework it.

TODO:
1. Bold the key phrases.
2. Reduce/trim the below to the mythemes
3. Explain the mythemes, in terms of mental model transformation from Possibilism-thinking to Eternalism-thinking.

Initiation in bulk, a mass-production routine assembly line. Mushroom mystics’ Mystery Initiation had the intense altered state on-tap.

There’s been a cover-up! This stuff was shared common knowledge. We are recovering along with re-discovering, what used to be widely known.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Lesser+Mysteries+of+Eleusis

LESSER ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES
https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — I copied the page below to comment on it.

I’m on hiatus, I’m not going to clean this up. You can easily see the vector I’m pointing toward.

WE HAVE SOLVED THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS.

We can essentially explain purification to approach the Goddess.

We need more attention to the preparatory Lesser Mysteries, what was taught, book learning, as prerequisite for first-hand ingesting the mushrooms, in mystery religions.

Stop mentioning entheogens other than psilocybin mushrooms, in this context; it just confuses the plain matter.

Amanita is most notable for its shapes and colors. It’s an Honorary Psilocybe representation. Amanita represents Psilocybe.

See also entheogen scholar Carl Ruck on the Lesser Mysteries — mentioned in the above article.

Bibliography

Sacred Mushrooms of the Goddess
Carl Ruck
2006
https://amzn.com/1579510302
I’m quoted in this book, about {mixed wine} = mushroom wine; per the maximal mushroom theory of religion.

It’s a decorative pull-quote like the good one from McKenna on p.185:

“When ideas are controversial, they are discussed. When they are revolutionary, they are ignored.”

1. Teaching and Learning and Testing the Theoretical Knowledge of the Egodeath Theory

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “The rituals during the first purifications at Eleusis were often called the myesis, “to teach, initiate,” while the rituals at the Greater Mysteries were called epopteia, “to witness, be initiated.”

“This subtle difference in language encapsulates the differences between the two Mysteries: the Lesser was an instruction on theology and mysticism, when candidates were taught the myths of the Two Goddesses and of the sacred meaning of the Mystery rites;

2: First-hand, in-practice Actual Initiation in the Intense Mystic Altered State

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “while at the Greater Mysteries, initiates experienced these rituals and walked within the myths for themselves, even being granted a vision of Persephone [{perishable child-mode thinking}] at the end of the week-long festival.”

_____

Insertion [8:59 p.m. November 25, 2020]
Persephone’s other name is “The Maiden”!! SCORE

Ah sh*t!! I just noticed the Persephone wiki statement, “Kore” – THE MAIDEN! Total confirmation of the Egodeath theory again! Specifically, confirms the Egodeath theory’s component, Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; …

the theory that mythemes describe ASC cognitive phenomena, by analogy blah blah

I need a snappy name/label of this “mytheme decoding” part of my theory.

The Egodeath theory includes X component.

the “mytheme decoding” theory as Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism

Not Snappy. ah well, I’m on hiatus.

See my usage of the technical term ‘maiden’ in my Canterbury article.

_____

The whole “left vs right” convention does seem to have been standard.

Mythemes Decoded

{touching the snake with the right hand, without dying from fatal snake-bite} – A mind which has Eternalism-thinking is able to think about and experience the worldline of its pre-existing control-thoughts that’s frozen into the block universe, stably, without panic and control seizure and loss of control, in the altered state.

Highlighting components of that, one at a time:

{touching the snake with the right hand, without dying from fatal snake-bite} – A mind which has Eternalism-thinking is able to think about and experience the worldline of its pre-existing control-thoughts that’s frozen into the block universe, stably, without panic and control seizure and loss of control, in the altered state.

{touching the snake with the right hand, without dying from fatal snake-bite} – A mind which has Eternalism-thinking is able to think about and experience the worldline of its pre-existing control-thoughts that’s frozen into the block universe, stably, without panic and control seizure and loss of control, in the altered state.

{touching the snake with the right hand, without dying from fatal snake-bite} – A mind which has Eternalism-thinking is able to think about and experience the worldline of its pre-existing control-thoughts that’s frozen into the block universe, stably, without panic and control seizure and loss of control, in the altered state.

_____

{death} = cybernetic control seizure; the cancellation/ nullification/ self-cancellation/ instability of personal control; the inability to resist and control incoming thoughts from the uncontrollable source of thoughts, in the altered state, when attempting to rely on Possibilism-thinking (autonomous control power)

{fatal snake-bite} = in the altered state, seeing and experiencing the worldline of pre-set (thus uncontrollable) control-thoughts frozen in the spacetime block universe {rock}

{youth} = {maiden, kore} = initiate still thinking in terms of Naive-Possibilism.

{left limb/arm/hand/foot/leg} = childhood-suited Possibilism-thinking (specifically, Naive-Possibilism-thinking).

{right limb/arm/hand/foot/leg} = mature, Eternalism-thinking (specifically, accompanied by Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.

Qualified-Possibilism-thinking = {Persephone the ruler/queen of the underworld}

{underworld} = land of dead egos after ego-death

{snake, serpent} = non-branching worldline in the block universe

{purification of pollution, to be prepared to approach the goddess without invoking the goddess’ fury; the furies}

{approach the goddess} = think about and perceive control-thoughts entering into the mind from a hidden, uncontrollable source; also: think about and experience the worldline of the mind’s pre-existing control-thoughts that’s frozen into the block universe.

To {approach the goddess}, without undergoing {death & furies} (cybernetic control seizure; the cancellation/ nullification/ self-cancellation/ instability of personal control; panic; control seizure; and loss of control), you must be {pure, not polluted}; the mind must have Eternalism-thinking, not any remaining foolish reliance on the illusion-based Possibilism-thinking.

{pollution, impurity} = Possibilism-thinking about personal (supposedly autonomous & freewill-powered) control and time.

{furies} = cybernetic self-control seizure & panic & desperately trying to hide from/avoid seeing and looking at & invoking the {dragon monster that guards the treasure of gnosis}, as the mind is unable to resist its own source of control-thoughts, injected into the female passive thought-receiver part of the control-system of the mind.

______________

In the altered state (ASC; loose cognitive association binding), awareness can observe the workings of the personal control-system, the cybernetic steersman — and see how it is vulnerable and receiving control-thoughts from God, the hidden (more, now less hidden; “from the 8th sphere, you can look at the 9th” – Discourse on the 8th and 9th”) source of control-thoughts.

_____________

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — ““The ultimate design of the Mysteries […] was to lead us back to the principles from which we descended, […] a perfect enjoyment of intellectual [spiritual] good” (Plato, trans. Taylor). In the town of Eleusis, twelve miles from Athens, anyone with a desire to honor the Two Goddesses and know the truths of life and death could come to be purified in the spring and witness the Mysteries in the autumn. Tonight’s sunset marks the first day of the first half or “Lesser” of the Eleusinian Mysteries; this purification and [pre-]initiation began on the 20th day of Anthesterion, the second moon following the Winter Solstice, and ended six days later, in preparation for the ritual proper or “Greater” of the Mysteries, which takes place in Boedromion, the third moon following the Summer Solstice.

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “The Lesser Mysteries were a required “preliminary purification” preceding the Greater Mysteries (Goodart, “The Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis”). Mystery initiations must be undergone in a specific order, Plutarch instructs us; “one should bear up to the first purifications and unsettling events and hope for something sweet and bright to come out of the present anxiety and confusion.” In the case of the Mysteries of Eleusis, when initiates would meet Hades’ Queen, these purifications were particularly important. “The goddess Persephone is always associated with purity,” writes Stefanie Goodart. “One of her epithets is hagne or ‘pure.’ The term ‘creates a field of forces that demands reverence and distance’ [Walter Burkert, Greek Religion]. The opening line of one of the Orphic Gold Tablets from Thurii reads: ‘Pure I come from the pure, Queen of those below.’ For a goddess whose own purity is beyond measure, one must take extra precautions when preparing one’s self.”

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “The rituals during the first purifications at Eleusis were often called the myesis, “to teach, initiate,” …

… while the rituals at the Greater Mysteries were called epopteia, “to witness, be initiated.” This subtle difference in language encapsulates the differences between the two Mysteries: the Lesser was an instruction on theology and mysticism, when candidates were taught the myths of the Two Goddesses and of the sacred meaning of the Mystery rites; …

… while at the Greater Mysteries, initiates [vs candidates] experienced these rituals and walked within the myths for themselves, even being granted a vision of Persephone at the end of the week-long festival.

“Plato […] thought it not lawful for ‘the impure to touch the pure.’ … Thence the prophecies and oracles are spoken in enigmas, [don’t reveal Eternalism prematurely to youths ] and the mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, [dangerous to loosecog w/o theoretical reading egodeath site] but only after certain purifications and previous instructions. […] It is not then without reason that in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks, lustrations hold the first place […] After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation of instruction and of preliminary preparation for what is to come after; and the great mysteries, in which nothing remains to be learned of the universe, but only to contemplate and comprehend nature and things.” — Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “As was true of other ceremonies, one could not participate if stained with miasma, an impurity associated in Greek lore with Oedipus, for inadvertently enacting his own prophecied fate by murdering the king and marrying the queen, unknowingly therefore killing his father and marrying his mother; the House of Atreus, famously including Tartarus, Pelops, Agamemnon, Atreus, Thyestes, Menelaus, and Orestes, for various brutal murders within the family and horrific acts of violence and hubris; and Heracles, who murdered his own wife and children while mad.[look up images “the madness of heracles“] It is said that the Lesser Mysteries were created to purify Heracles of his miasma, who would not have been able to encounter Persephone and still leave the Underworld when he traveled there to defeat Cerberus during his last task (one of the many given him by Hera to absolve him of the murder of his family) without having been initiated into the Mysteries at Eleusis.

The Madness of Heracles — I posted a decoding of this when I read that good book Cyb got, around 2015. Heracles is testing and correcting his child-mode thinking. where are the fury goddesses above him?

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “Additionally, writes Thomas Taylor in The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, the heroic journey and return was key to the metaphor of the mystery, that of the spiritual liberation that lies beyond death:”

Thomas Taylor — “We may observe farther concerning these dramatic shows of the Lesser Mysteries, that as they were intended to represent the condition of the soul while subservient to the body, we shall find that a liberation from this servitude, [mind trying to break away from egoic Possibilism thinking] through the purifying disciplines, potencies that separate from evil, was what the wisdom of the ancients intended to signify by the descent of Hercules, Ulysses, etc., into Hades, and their speedy return from its dark abodes. ‘Hence,’ says Proclus [in Commentary on the Statesman of Plato], ‘Hercules being purified by sacred initiations, obtained at length a perfect establishment among the gods:’ that is, well knowing the dreadful condition of his soul while in captivity to a corporeal nature, and purifying himself by practice of the cleansing virtues, of which certain purifications in the mystic ceremonies were symbolical, he at length was freed from the bondage of matter, [frustrating re-assertion of egoic thinking/mental model; childish Possibilism-thinking ] and ascended beyond her reach [mind finally constructs Eternalism and switches from Possibilism ] .”

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “Lustratio, to which Clement of Alexandria refers to above (“in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks, lustrations hold the first place,” Stromata), is a sacrificial purification ceremony and procession. In the case of the Lesser Eleusinian Mysteries, the animal offered to Persephone and Demeter was a pig for each candidate. A procession brought the initiates and their pigs to the ocean, where they bathed their sacrifice. The Lovatelli urn above depicts Heracles himself offering a pig on the eskhara, the low altar reserved for the chthonic gods (the pig was therefore intended for Persephone), and pelanoi, round cakes made from barley meal and honey offered after the pig, while a priest offers a poured libation and perhaps poppies (associated with Demeter and Persephone, and smoked by the mother in an attempt to forget her grief over Persephone’s abduction), cheese, pomegranates, or spherical cakes, all of which are said to be offered at the Mysteries (and the Bacchic rites) by Clement of Alexandria in his Exhortation to the Greeks. (Carl A.P. Ruck proposes that the priest is carrying a platter of sacred mushrooms, eliminating the opium poppies theory due to their thickness and the fact that they are depicted with unnecessary stems and without the characteristic calyx of the capsule.)

Eleusinian Mysteries, from The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries by Thomas Taylor

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “Myth and meaning were next taught, then (as displayed on the urn), as Demeter did while grieving Persephone, the initiate sits veiled upon a ram’s fleece. Overhead, a priestess wafts a winnowing fan as a torch passes before them. The winnowing fan (liknon) “is a type of basket used to separate the wheat from the chaff. Its connection to Demeter and Persephone, goddesses of the grain [IN MYTH, GRAIN IS NOT THE REFERENT OF GRAIN. LOOSECOG PHENOM IS.], is obvious. The action can also be described as a type of sympathetic magic. The wheat is purified, and so is the initiate. The liknon is also a common symbol in the cult of Dionysos. In such a context, separating the wheat from the chaff then becomes a metaphor for separating the soul from its outer casing, the body” [ “body” ~= Removing illusory aspects of Naive-Possibilism-thinking, leaving Qualified-Possibilism-thinking + Eternalism-thinking. ] (Goodart).

https://hemlockandhawthorn.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/lesser-eleusinian-mysteries/ — “Purified, the initiate is prepared to approach the goddess. In the final scene on the urn, Heracles approaches Demeter who is seated on the kiste, the basket holding the sacred ritual objects of the Greater Mysteries–“I fasted; I drank the draught; I took from the chest; having done my task, I placed in the basket, and from the basket into the chest” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks). Heracles reaches out his right hand [we got ourselves a right hand mytheme; Eternalism ] to touch the snake coiling from the kiste [we got ourselves a cista mystica worldline serpent-box] to the goddess’s lap, while the mystes, the successful initiate carrying a bundle of some sort, touches the snake of all divine mysteries fearlessly. [moses’ serpent on pole cures the Israelites’ fatal snakebite]Demeter is not careless, but she does not even look at Heracles in the depiction on the urn, instead gazing behind her at the return of Persephone, which she bars from Heracles’ sight, [seeing worldline = cyberdeath] just as she defends the kiste, as these are mysteries only intended to be revealed at the rituals in autumn.”

Thomas Taylor — “as the dramatic shows of the Lesser Mysteries occultly signified the miseries of the soul while in subjection to body, so those of the Greater obscurely intimated, by mystic and splendid visions, the felicity of the soul both here and hereafter, when purified from the defilements of a material nature, and constantly elevated to the realities of intellectual [spiritual] vision.”

“The founders of the mysteries had a real meaning and were not mere triflers when they intimated in a figure long ago that he who passes unsanctified and uninitiated into the world below [uneducated candidates at the psilo-therapy centers] will live in a slough, but that he who arrives there [altered state, not after bodily death] after initiation and purification [education in the Egodeath theory ] will dwell with the gods. For ‘many,’ as they say in the mysteries, ‘are the thyrsus bearers, but few are the mystics.'[only 1 in 4 students in the Image passed; undrstood intellectually, theroetically, the Egodeath theory. ]”– Plato, Phaedo

Strict Requirements for Teachers, Initiation Guides, and Students, Prior to Initiation

Site Map

Contents:

Message from the Ancient Hierophants to the Clinician Session Guides

The nutshell message from the pious, god-fearing hierophants to the clinician session guides:

Pray to God, who is the higher controller and creator of all your future control-thoughts, before, during, and after the session, for mercy and wisdom (complete mental transformation to the dependent-control world model).  You’ll keep control and avoid control-seizure catastrophe in the session, if God wills it.

Article This Is Excerpted From

The present article is copied directly in its entirety from the following article:

From the article:
Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/proof-that-the-canterbury-psalters-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-is-psilocybe/
The phrase “this article” refers to the above article.

Canterbury Psalter, folio 134
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
The phrase “this image” refers to the above image.

“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God.” — Genesis 22

The Image Depicts an Entire Traditional, Time-tested Mushroom Initiation Procedure

The Message Conveyed Is Mandatory for Utilizing Psychedelics

There’s talk of a “new psychedelic revolution”, but there is no way to research such Loose Cognitive Science without preliminary learning of the Transcendent Knowledge that is conveyed in this mushroom-tree image.

The valuable message conveyed in this image is the magic password of ego death that is required in order to pass through the gateway of transformation, to explore and utilize the psychedelic state.

The intense altered state has a gate that is guarded by God’s angel of death, the dragon guarding the high treasure; a guarded gate which repels and casts out in terror anyone who doesn’t have this knowledge, this wisdom.

Instead of trying to steer away from “the shadow”, trying in vain to forever avoid, repress, and suppress “the shadow”, this Theory shows how to effectively steer toward the {blade} vulnerability demonstration.

Touching the {blade} to egoic thinking {sacrifices} Naive-Possibilism-thinking, {false rulership}, switching instead to Eternalism along with Qualified-Possibilism.

There’s no talk of “the shadow” here, except in the furrowed brows of the failed students: the exact nature of the threatening danger is exposed and known, and how to conform with and endure the danger is known.

By entering into the initiation session with this religious knowledge, training, guidance, and prayer, the initiate comes away unharmed, but enlightened and spiritually transformed.

The Depicted Method of Mushroom Initiation Provides Safety, Reliability, and Scalability

This Psalter image establishes the requirements for teachers, students, and initiation guides, to relatively safely use mushrooms to head toward what outsiders call “the shadow”, which specifically is, transcendent cybernetic control seizure, and sacrifice of the childhood-suited illusion that’s built into the branching-possibilities model of time and control.

The method presented in the image, and spelled-out in plain English in this article, covers safety, reliability, and scalability, to deliver the most profound, the very highest religious breakthrough mystical experience — as routinely done, delivering spiritual regeneration on-tap, in the various ancient Mystery Initiation traditions:

o Caution and Safety — This approach leads up to full control-seizure and mental model transformation in the most cautious and safe way possible.

o Reliability and Effectiveness — This approach provides the classic regeneration experience as effectively and reliably as possible; routinely on-tap.

o Scalability and Availability — This approach makes the cybernetic seizure and regeneration experience available and accessible to the most people, the greatest number of people possible.

The method encoded and communicated in this package-deal “mushroom, sword, and non-branching” image, is immediately and freely available to everyone who can understand and endure control-seizure and the sacrifice and purification of the childhood mental structures.

Initiation preserves the childhood mental structures intact, fully usable, and without any harm; just identifying, separating, and putting away childhood illusion, while gaining the Eternalism model of thinking about time and control.

With this article and image in hand, everyone who is able, can now sacrifice and move beyond the childhood mental structures that were taken as if metaphysically real, while yet fully preserving these required, treasured and beloved mental structures, without any harm.

These preliminary requirements for caution and safety; reliability and effectiveness; and scalable efficacy exactly fit the pattern of the Lesser and Greater Mysteries of Eleusis.

In Mystery Religion initiation on the pattern of Eleusis and depicted in the class teaching and testing scene in the upper left of this image, candidates are first instructed on theoretical book learning of the meaning of mythology as description of personal control seizure and transformation.

Only after that completed education in the ordinary state, the candidates for initiation who pass the examination, can become full-on initiates, who are prepared and ready to engage in entheogenic, real-world, in-practice, first-hand experience, of the experiences which are described, or encoded for communication, by analogies in religious mythology.

Religious mythology depicts the loose cognitive association that is reliably and strongly produced only by entheogens, a state that produces mental dynamics that are described as mania, frenzy, or rapture by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This Holy Spirit mania state, produced by ingesting the sacred meal of mushrooms provided by God, leads the mind to access its innate structure and climax potential of self-probing and control-testing, that inexorably leads to the sacrifice of childhood-suited, temporary, transient, perishable thinking, and regeneration of the mind regarding the mental model of control, possibility, and time.

This image is a mushroom-powered cybernetic control seizure mechanism, that only works if powered and activated by psychoactive mushrooms — thus proving that the mushroom tree depicted must be Psilocybe.

This same perspective from on high, above the mind’s cybernetic self-control system and getting a good look at it, likewise proves that all the other mushroom images in this Psalter and throughout Greek and Christian art are also representations of psychoactive mushrooms, whether the images match Psilocybe, Liberty Cap, or Amanita, in their various outward shapes, textures, and colors.

Qualifications That Are Required for a Completely Experienced Religious Initiation Guide: What ‘Wisdom’ Is

This illuminated manuscript image first depicts a teacher who knows the highest wisdom about self-control seizure, teaching students about how to endure Psilocybe and be spiritually regenerated.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

The image then depicts a completely experienced, God-fearing religious initiation guide at a sacred-food Psilocybe banquet, not partaking.

The religious teacher, wise from full initiation into cancelling his personal control-thinking, and the religious initiation guide, teach the initiates how to effectively wield the controlled threat of loss-of-control, so as to correctly re-align their self-control.

The ultimately experienced teacher, and the initiation guide, teach the initiates how to consciously put trust in God as the ultimate controller and the actual source of their control-thoughts.

There is no vague talk about “the shadow” here, which amounts to saying “HERE BE DRAGONS”; meaning dangerous uncharted territory.

The completely experienced instructors who are depicted in this image know all about exactly what the inherent danger involves, in the altered-state exercise of pointedly revealing the mind’s control-vulnerability, in such a way as to successfully cause mental transformation into the coherent, durable, mature configuration.

The religious guide, and the wise, fully experienced religious teacher, know the real nature of sacrifice, prayer, God’s wrath, repentance, God’s mercy, and religious regeneration.

Students Are Required to Fully Understand Eternalism First, Before Permitted to Become Initiates in Practice

This preliminary theoretical training of youths and maidens before actual initiation, is like the Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis; pre-initiation.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

A student is not permitted to become an initiate, until the student fully passes the exam to prove that the student has full theoretical understanding of the present article; knowing Eternalism and the {sacrifice} process of transforming to Eternalism-thinking (along with fully preserved and unharmed, Qualified-Possibilism-thinking).

Only 1 out of 4 students pass the exam in the upper left of the image.

The student must first prove that the student has complete understanding of Transcendent Knowledge; the Egodeath theory; Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the present article and the complete image which this article explains.

I have laid out that Theory in direct, plain language in this article; linked articles; and the Egodeath site, such as the main article there.

Students who have an incomplete understanding of Eternalism are not permitted to banquet and be on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The strict prerequisite before banqueting and being on mushrooms above God’s sword is, students are instructed and tested by the completely initiated teacher, to ensure that they first have complete understanding of the Eternalism model of time, branching possibilities, and control.

Students must be taught how to pray and trust in the hidden control source before, during, and after initiation; for example, Jonah’s prayer in the ketos (short sea-serpent), and the Psalms around this image in the Psalter.

Students must understand, for example, {fatal snake bite} and why looking at Moses’ {rigid bronze serpent on a de-branched pole} {cures} and restabilizes control.

Students are first trained, educated, and tested about (in theory) how to consciously put full trust in God as the source of control-thoughts, given that God is always the hidden uncontrollable source of control thoughts.

Students must first study this image, aided by the present article and a completely initiated teacher.

Students are required to understand {sacrifice} of child-mode delusion on the model of {Abraham’s child Isaac} and the {ram caught helplessly in the thicket}.

Students must first fully understand {charitable mercy and good judgment} and {breaking the bow}, to relent when the mind has cybernetically seized and tested its power against itself; sufficiently demonstrated to itself its dependent power.

The student must demonstrate that they consciously understand that the mind’s control system is dependent on the hidden uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

Knowing the entire present article and image it explains, is a strict requirement, before the teacher permits the students to become initiates, banquet, and be on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The teacher is shown examining the students, and rejecting the students who have an incomplete understanding of the Eternalism model of time, branching possibilities, and control, and theoretically how to consciously put full trust in God as the source of control-thoughts, given that God is always the hidden uncontrollable source of control thoughts.

Students are required to score 2 out of 2; having the {right foot down} and displaying the {right hand}, with completely un-furrowed brow, per the front-left student.

Students are not passed if they have a mixture of understanding, scoring 1 out of 2, such as {right foot down} and {left hand displayed}, with slightly furrowed brow (per the front-right student).

Students are not passed if they score 0 out of 2, with {left foot down} and {left hand displayed}, with {very furrowed brow} (implied for the two students in the back row, whose feet are not shown).

Mytheme: {ram caught helplessly in thicket}

Site Map

Contents:

  • Section 1: Effective Sacrifice for Mental Transformation Is Non-Harmful
  • Section 2: Pictures of ram caught by its horns powerlessly in bush
  • Section 3: Bible verses of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Bush-Caught Ram
  • Section 4: Why the mind tries to violate its lower thinking
  • Section 5: Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure

Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics

Experiencing the block universe rock (per Eternalism) — and in the same state, seeing the source of thoughts — sacrifices the illusion of having the power to steer among branching possibilities (per Possibilism), and transforms thinking about control and time, all at once.

The mind’s self-control system in the loose cognitive state is like a ram caught by its own struggling power become powerless, in a branching mushroom thicket.

Upon realizing this situation, the higher mind is transformed and is satisfied of having reached coherent thinking about the source of control.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f12.item.zoom

Section 1: Effective Sacrifice for Mental Transformation Is Non-Harmful

The word ‘you’, in my writing, pretty much always means “the mind in the peak altered state”; I don’t mean me, or any reader.

The word ‘you’ is shorthand for “the mind in the peak altered state”.

General decoding key:
o Abraham is you.
o Isaac is you.
o The bush is you.
o The sacrificial knife is you.
o The rock altar for sacrifice is you.
o The ram is you.

Hope this helps.

The Paranoid Ruler: How Testing the Mind’s Defense Against the Control-Source Leads to Seizure and Transformation and Mercy and Blessedness and Regeneration

Defense-probing leads to self-violation seizure and simultaneously then to:
mental transformation and
understanding of isomorphic analogies in religious myth, and
clearing sin, and
being released and announced as among the elect.

Breaking out of egoic control thinking might include various thoughts of self-violation.

It’s not about harm, so much as, the mind’s control system checking and probing itself, checking is there some “inability to control”?

The higher controller, uncontrollable source of thoughts: there can be no defense against that.

The mind is at the mercy of the higher source of control-thoughts. Realizing this IS the sacrifice, IS Zeus reluctantly zapping Semele to smithereens, IS comprehension of isomorphism of the mind’s control-seizure, ram caught in bush, king fastened helplessly to tree.

That is how you force the egoic thinking to finally “die” and stop reasserting its mode: by receiving self-testing, self-disproving thoughts.

Not by doing any physical action — no breaking of a physical bow, or burning of a ram, or killing of king, will do it.

Only thinking, of self-control violation defense indefensibility against God the source of all control thoughts.

When I write “you” only i mean that as a figure of speech; I’m discussing how the mind works in the peak state.

You end up in a battle against god but when you do, at the same time, as soon as you find your self in that situation, your sin is thereby cleared; your mind is thereby transformed, no harm is done, and you are free to go, get baptised in the ram.

Recieving command-like thoughts of self-violation, is the shock that drives mental model transformation; that’s the blade of sacrifice.

Thoughts of self-violation, and especially, realizing the mind’s fundamental lack of defense against receiving such thoughts from the ever-hidden thought-source, is, to be reborn, to learn the fear of God.

That’s confirmd by mystic and mythic descriptions;

{blade} = receiving thoughts of self-violation vulnerability

The source of thoughts, the {blade} of enlightenment, transformation, and sacrifice of delusion, drives the mind to test its vulnerability.

{The king fears being overthrown}, crown usurped by his son, so the paranoid king checks and tests his defenses, then he tests them more, now he’s caught in a bush, attacking himself to test his defenses against himself, inexorably escalating into a cybernetic control seizure.

To check your defense, you attack yourself, the army of soldiers turns on each other.

{message from angel of the Lord}; ultimate-controller-conformant thought that preserves well-being:

“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God. A ram caught in a thicket by his horns offer up in the stead.”

Effective Sacrifice Requires/Involves Not Harming, But Acknowledging & Revising

Understanding the isomorphism of cybernetic seizure = {bush-caught ram, king fastened to cross} produces the desired mental transformation; harming self-control prevents the desired mental transformation.

The Angel’s Announcement

The high angel-thought comes to the mind and says:

_____

“Announcement:

“This mind has been made to realize that its malformed child-esque thinking about control has gotten it into a cybernetic seizure, like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.

“Your thinking has now been made coherent, and conformant with the higher controller, the true source of control.”

“CONGRATULATIONS!! YOU ARE AMONG THE ELECT!!

“You have been officially regenerated. You are free to go, completely unharmed, yet completely enlightened and made coherent.

“Go get baptised in the ram provided for you by God, not as magic efficacy of vicarious harm, but rather, as celebration and acknowledgement that your sin has been healed; that your thinking has been officially converted from Possibilism to Eternalism and you are blessed by high thinking, given from above.”

In Defense of the Ram

November 23, 2020: I note and realize that the angel never tells Abraham to harm the (mythic) ram. And God never explicitly says that he’s pleased about Abraham “having done this thing” as if “the thing” refers to burning the ram after the close call with the blade.

I maintain, God was not pleased by burning the ram (that would be magic thinking, which is, I argue, ineffective for mental transformation) but rather, by Abraham’s act of being made willing to “sacrifice his child” — that’s what Abraham “obeyed”, not the harming of the ram.

Another page of the psalter shows the angel pointing to the ram. The passage never says that God was pleased because Abraham burned the ram.

God was pleased because Abraham mentally “obeyed him” in the act of willing to blade the child-thinking; ie, God was satisfied that Abraham grasped that God is in control of his control-thoughts.

God and the angel never said anything at all about the poor ram. After toasting the ram, God says “because you have done this thing , and hast not withheld thy son…”

Does “done this thing” refer to a magical violent action of burning the ram? No, it must mean, the thing = willing to violate self-control, an act of willing (or, passively: being made by God to will) which burned up the child-thinking.

“The thing” that pleases god is not burning the ram, but rather, being made willing to violate child-esque thinking; being willing to, mythically speaking, {sacrifice his child}.

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

_____

No rams were burned; the king is alive; and burning rams or killing kings is missing the point and failing to mentally transform.

To satisfy theologians (John MacArthur) who want it both ways: we are ultimately responsible AND God rules all:

When we say:

Your mind has been officially converted from Possibilism to Eternalism.

we mean:

Your mind has been officially converted from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.

Qualified-Possibilism-thinking is freewill-semi-reifying thinking; virtual ultimate moral responsibility.

The transformed mind still uses child-esque freewill thinking, but no longer believes in it, metaphysically.

Section 2: Pictures of ram caught by its horns powerlessly in bush

Image Search

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=a+ram+caught+in+a+thicket+by+his+horns+Genesis

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ram%20caught%20thicket%20horns%20Genesis

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ram%20caught%20thicket%20horns

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+22%3A8-18&version=NIV;KJV

{rock altar of sacrifice} (block universe)

{sacrifice} (forcefully finally shaking off habitual erroneous incoherent self-contradictory thinking, Possibilism-thinking)

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/104779128803562056/
http://appleeye.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Ram-in-a-Thicket-e1540091835136.jpg

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/digsite09-131205092304-phpapp02/95/genesis-dig-site-9-40-638.jpg?cb=1386257069
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/395/19342933093_e7d4ea43ac_b.jpg
https://www.wheatfieldmedia.com/wp-content/grand-media/image/A_Ram.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/71/0c/c8710c09523d1c1228173eee16bb3ebc.jpg

Section 3: Bible verses of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Bush-Caught Ram

The Bible Verses – The Angel/Ram Verses Only

Genesis 22:12-13 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s bush-caught ram — the angel/ram verses only:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22%3A12-13&version=KJV;NIV

KJV

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

NIV

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

Footnotes

  1. [a] Genesis 22:13 Many manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text a ram behind him
The Bible Verses – The Main Act Within the Chapter

Bible verses: the sacrifice of {Isaac}; childhood-suited Naive-Possibilism -thinking:

Genesis 22:8-18 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s bush-caught ram
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022%3A8-18&version=KJV;NIV

KJV

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

NIV

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”

15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”

Footnotes

  1. [a] Genesis 22:13 Many manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text a ram behind him
  2. [b] Genesis 22:18 Or seed
  3. [c] Genesis 22:18 Or and all nations on earth will use the name of your offspring in blessings (see 48:20)

Section 4: Why the mind tries to violate its lower thinking

Why the mind wants to “break” its lower thinking and needs a harmless sacrifice to finally, forcefully, permanently cast off delusion (which, frustratingly, keeps returning, re-asserting itself) without any harm

Central question of this analysis: concisely explain these 2 or 3 points

I got the full traction needed for success, in this section, below.

Now, all that remains is to rewrite the same points 3 times, to get it down to 200 characters.

1) Why does the mind need “frenzied” demonstration of nullity of egoic control power?

Answer: The mind needs sufficient understanding of Possibilism and Eternalism in order to switch over.

2) How does that relate to sacrifice? {sacrifice} is: forceful repudiation and abandonment and detachment and removal of the ever-reentrenching-itself confused egoic control thinking premised on Possibilism, to gain Eternalism.

Answer: To comprehend, is to repudiate and sacrifice. It’s all the same thing.

Eternalism is the TREASURE we most desire: Eternalism; the treasure prize of great price, snatched from the guarding dragon, God’s guarding angel of death:

switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking

3) How does that relate to the isomorphic, health-preserving, substitute sacrifice of the {ram caught powerlessly in bush by its own power}, or the {king fastened powerlessly to the debranched tree}?

Answer: Understanding isomorphism of … you just gotta be given full comprehension by God, without physical harm/activity.

The harm, Zeus reveals his power and zaps Semele to smithereens, the harm that is needed, the shock that drives mental transformation, IS the comprehension, is the message, is the sacrifice, is the isomorphism, is the comprehension of the isomorphism (of: cyb-seizure = ram caught in bush = king fastend to tree).

Looking for the harmful demonstration, to shock and cause perm transformation so egoic thinking stops returning, one finds precisely that very “harmful demonstration”, not by physical harm, but by being made to will anything — at which point, the sacrifice is already done; regeneration has already occurred, repudiation is already finished; mental transformation has completed, already.

The “act” that God requires, is a mental act of willing, self-counter-willing, a willing that God makes the mind do, by making the mind want to violate itself — at which point, the angel message is received, the mind is scourged by the gods who demand honor (Villa of the Mysteries fresco), the mind is then transformed and it is satisfied and fulfilled, completed, the child-thinking is gone.

As soon as you (the mind’s cybernetic control system) are made willing to self-violate, at the selfsame time, you are given comprehension, transformation, clearing sin, regeneration, comprehension of isomorphism with ram/bush & king/tree.

THE ANSWER: overall for 1-3: which seemed to solve all together; when I give answer for 1, or 2, or 3, it’s the same answer. “violent shocking” demonstration (to prevent full return of egoic thinking) = the sacrifice and repudiation and transformation and the comprehension of isomorphism.

When the mind understands the isomorphism, of cybernetic seizure based on incoherncy of freewil-based thinking; ram/bush, & king/tree —

THAT understanding is the “blast”, the shock, the “shocking demonstration” that’s needed and efficacious, to secure and grasp Eternalism-thinking fully, at last, such as to prevent regressive, frustrating rebirth back into egoic feewill thinking; naive Possibilism.

Write-up, toward clear, concise explanations/wordings of the above 3 points

“the act of sacrifice” really means, the effectual mental grasp of the IDEA of ‘sacrifice’ as repudiation of mental structure; no rams or kings were harmed in the writing of this mind-transforming post.

And in fact any harm, is an indicator that the mind failed to transform and get the point. The only valid sacrifice is in the mind. Any physical sacrifice or harm is beside the point and most likely a substitute, indicating a failure of mental transformation.

I’m out of time and hate to write out text work-up here, but, THIS STUFF IS OF CRUCIAL TOPMOST IMPORTANCE in mystic-state experiencing.

We cannot claim to know, have figured out, and have mapped out safely, this area of human experiencing (mental transformation in the peak intense mystic altered state) without this type of write-up.

I’m a cartographer frontier explorer, in the zone labelled HERE BE DRAGONS, and I’m in there mapping out our dragons.

Expansion of that programme, of working up a CONCISE explanation of the above 3, most-ultimate points:

Here is the explanandum; concisely and directly explain / relate these 3 points:

Crucial Point 1 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: why “break” egoic thinking?

1. Why do ancient Greeks report being led to desire and seek a horrific crazy frenzied “demonstration” of nullity of control power?

The gods drive all this; it’s innate in the mind, in the altered state, or by utilizing the altered state to achieve what the mind (even in the OSC) wants. that is:
{The gods demand to be honored and fed their sacrifice}. that is:
God-mode, God-conformant thinking is desired by the mind — not that the altered state is desired, but that the integrity so coveted and promised, is seen as achievable through utilizing loosecog.

The mind wants to hunt down and capture and sacrifice the {sacrificial youth} (youthful child-esque thinking) and force it to end

(to be precise: you must retain deluded thinking but no longer deluded; per Ken Wilber, “dis-identify but retain the lower, earlier cognitive/ psycho-spiritual develomental structures”

Don’t annihilate Possibilism-thinking, that would be regression, achieving worse than nothing, opposite of progress. change from Naive-Possibilism to Qualified-Possibilism.

CAN I RE-DEFINE ‘Eternalism’ TO INCLUDE, DISTINCTLY, qualified-Possibilism ? Doubtful.

As two opposed models of time in Philosophy of Physics, Possibilism and Eternalism are mutually exclusive.

It is so important to emphasize that

THE MIND DEFINITELY MUST RETAIN DELUDED Possibilism-THINKING FULLY INTACT UNHARMED — BUT CUT OFF THE DELUSION PART OF THE “DELUDED-THROUGH-AND-THROUGH” THINKING.

[problem with the wording “Modified-Possibilism”: it’s true, but, too neutral. we want to say, “reduced”, “lessened”.)

Restricted-Possibilism… the term ‘Qualified’ seems about right, although these technical terms are all so vague. ).

Unfortunately, because it is so important to protect Possibilism-thinking, I’m afraid I’m going to have to define keyboard abbreviation macros and I always have to say these super-long terms:

“switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking“

fkking awkward! There is no shorter,sufficiently clear way to say it. So here is the abbrv shorter insufficiently clear way:

“switching from Possibilism to Eternalism”

TERM-USAGE DEFINITION/CLARIFICATION:

When we say:

switching from Possibilism to Eternalism

we really mean:

switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking

we MUST have a short phrase, yet on the other hand, it is CRUCIAL that Possibilism-thinking is retained, completely un-harmed, in the peak-state sacrificial mental demonstration of egoic control-nullity.

continuing listing points 1/2/3 to concisely phrase:

and it is important to understand you DO NOT ELIMINATE or DESTROY Possibilism-thinking;

you PRESERVE, RETAIN, UNHARMED, now, QUALIFIED Possibilism-thinking.

This alas, is of TOP-MOST CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE for safety and well-being to not be harmed.

MUST. NOT. HARM.

But, must “destroy” childish delusion, without destroying the child.

Destroy the child’s delusion – do not destroy or harm in any way the child. How to have both gnosis and no harm.

How to harmlessly {sacrifice child} (child-esque thinking — but retain that cognitive structure and suffer no harm at all in any frenzied “demonstration” that forces-away the childish delusion.

Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking“


wtf is that (ie the desired “forceful permanent demonstration”) about?

Crucial Point 2 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: The nature of sacrifice/repudiation

(above, later, I made 75% success progress; merely need to condense, now)

2) How does that (ie point 1 of 3: the mind needs a way to forcefully disprove and break away from child-esque thinking about control) relate to sacrifice?

{sacrifice} is: forceful repudiation and abandonment and detachment and removal of the ever-reentrenching-itself confused egoic control thinking premised on Possibilism

(ie Possibilism taken naively as if it’s metaphysically true and gives one the power to steer among branching possibilities), to finally lock-onto transcendent thinking).

Crucial Point 3 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: why idea of isomorphic subst sacrifice, when it certainly has to be mental-only; no rams were harmed, in successful mental transformation

Literal sacrifice proves it’s a failure. That’s why I hang onto the Swoon Theory, as a telling of the mythic Jesus figure’s life.

Section 5: Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure

Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure to Mentally Transform

Understanding the isomorphism of cybernetic seizure = {bush-caught ram, king fastened to cross} produces the desired mental transformation; harming self-control prevents the desired mental transformation.

That message is:
Understanding isomorphism enables mental transformation; in contrast, harming anything (in the name of eliminating egoic confused thinking) prevents mental transformation, and is incorrect and unjustified — indeed is (arguably) itself confused reasoning, incoherent, irrationality.

o Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harming Anything Indicates Literalism, Therefore Failure to Mentally Transform

When I preach avoiding harm and sacrificing a ram instead, I do not mean harming an actual ram; I mean do not harm {the child}, or the mind, or one’s body, or a ram, or anything!! Do No Harm; change your mental model, only.

What I Believe:

Any harm that’s done in {sacrifice}, indicates a failure to mentally transform.

The Sacrifice of Isaac is a fictional story. The ram didn’t exist, and in the story plot the way I wish it were written, Abraham only pretended to kill the ram. – this is a poor position, because then by the same argument, you have to complain about, that in the tale of Jesus, he’s harmed, even if he doesn’t die (on the cross). What next, am I going to cry out against violence in video games? The solution is to accept that Abraham harmed the ram, BUT, understand explicitly that it’s just a story of harming a ram; no actual ram was harmed in the writing or hearing of the story.

The story is a hurtful and literalist story, still, which could prevent mental transformation ; it says “hurting a ram is good for mental transformation”.

These mythic sacrifices always seem to assert that “harming something is the way to achieve mental transformation”.

So I have complaints about both the ram story and the king story.

Are they helpful instructional stories, or do they, rather, mis-instruct people with the false lesson that “harm causes mental transformation“?

In fact, harm PREVENTS mental transformation.

Even a story of harm (ram|king), risks preventing mental transformation.

The Sacrifice of Jesus is a fictional story. Jesus didn’t exist, and in the story plot, he only pretended to be dead when removed from the cross.

Given that I believe the latter “ahistoricity plus swoon theory”, I conclude that the story of Jesus gives superior mental transformation than the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Ram, because the story of Jesus if taken as fiction with a swoon plot, involves no…. well uh… less… harm… ok bad example. :-/

Myth is violent, fictionally. A fictional story about a guy being harmed but escaping the cross, = no ACTUAL harm.

The 4 Degrees of Literalism of Sacrifice of the Ram

As a mental-only advocate & do-no-harm advocate, I advocate a fictional Jesus who (in the story plot) was alive when removed from the cross.
For actual mental transformation, & sacrifice must be strictly mental, not physical.

1. Literal-Literal — The ram literally existed and Abraham literally killed the ram.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.

2. Literal-Figurative — The ram literally existed and Abraham just pretended to kill it.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.

3. Figurative-Literal — The ram figuratively existed in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, Abraham literally killed the ram.
— FAIL? Not established!
Literalistic replacement for mental transformation?
Yeah but myth is filled w/ sacrificial violence, do I disavow myth and say it prevents gnosis (though it conveys/describes gnosis) by advocating violence-in-fiction? Am I complaining about actual Greek sacrificial practices? They ate meat. Am I complaining about holoc-burnt offereings, yes.

The angel’s message points in the correct direction — away from self-harm, toward understanding isomorphism.

The real message from the angel is correct: it is a message from on high of relenting, not of harming rams. If you think the point of the Isaac story is “salvation through harming rams”, you missed the point adn failed to mentally transform. The point is not “harm the ram”, the point is, “I iknow what you mean, you’re in a ccybernetic situation akin to a ram caught in a bush powerless; DO NO HARM.

The angel’s point is not “burn the ram, to become conformant with the control-source, and mentally coherent”.

The angel’s point is, relent from your testing, and consider yourself to be completely transformed and having become now coherent regarding control, by virtue of your having realized that your malformed thinking about control, got you into a situation that is like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.

“You have realized that your malformed child-esque thinking about control, has gotten you into a cybernetic seizure, like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.

“Your thinking is now coherent, and conformant with the higher controller, the true source of control.”

No rams were burned; and harming rams is missing the point and failing to mentally transform.

4. Figurative-Figurative — The ram figuratively existed, in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, Abraham just pretended to kill it.
— SUCCESS! Leads to mental transformation.

The other interps are literalistic thus replacemetns for mental transformation, preventing it.

Hardcore Pacifist/Figurativist when it comes to sacrifice and ceremony

I’m a hardcore pacifist when it comes to sacrifice and ceremony. I am against any harm; usually, harming anything in any way means, you failed to transform your thinking, you are still a literalist, magic thinking. I’m against all outward ritual… except to help UNDERSTANDING.

NO – MAGIC – THINKING – ALLOWED!!

I hate ancient Greeks and their religion, because they kill piglets (if they eat them, that’s different; that’s a justifiable end; holo-caust is not; harm-based sacrifice is a usually an indicator of “failure to get the point”; it is a substitute for actual mental transformation).

What use is harming a piglet, when the whole point is to change your mental model?

Literalism prevents changing your mental model; it’s a substitute for effective thinking-changing.

It’s magical thinking, which doesn’t work. I am against even the guy in the Canterbury image breaking his bow.

Why should a bow be harmed?

100% harmless, harming nothing, no ram, no king, no self-harm, is the only valid “sacrifice”.

Changing thinking, and harrming NOTHING, iss the only way to succeed.

Harm of anything or any animal or anyone = literalism = failure to change thinking.

There is only 1 effective sacrifice: it is in the mind, only; only chastening of Possibilism-thinking, to “qualify” it with no harm, other than doing away will illusion, taking illusion as real.

Physical harm proves failure to do away with illusion.

The 4 Degrees of Literalism of “Sacrifice of the King”

Label the 4 positions, from extreme literalism to extreme figurative:

1. Literal-Literal — Jesus literally existed, and literally died on the cross.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.

2. Literal-Figurative — Jesus literally existed and just pretended to die. (the literalist reading of the swoon theory)
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.

3. Figurative-Literal — Jesus figuratively existed in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he literally died.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.

4. Figurative-Figurative — Jesus figuratively existed, ie in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he just pretended to die.
— SUCCESS! Leads to mental transformation.
That’s the “ahistoricity plus swoon theory” position.

That’s the furthest you can get from literalism, which prevents actual mental transformation.

When literalists talk of the swoon theory, they assume Mr. Historical Jesus really existed; the historicist view, and they quibble about what actually happened to Mr. Jesus in reality — whether he was in reality, alive when he was really, literally removed from the cross.

But if the whole thing per Richard Carrier et al was a story, then I would argue with Richard whether or not in the story, Jesus was alive when decrossed — as a story plotline.

I would expect that Richard, who thinks the crucifixion is a story, would be consistent and agree that in the story, Jesus was alive when decrossed.

Be Consistent about things mythic. Knowing Hellenistic culture, I’m sure that they’d pick the full-on fictional tale of hidden mystery:

In the Hellenistic mystery-tale of the Crucifixion, Jesus was alive when removed from the cross.

That is consistent. Else, magic thinking, literalism, and — worst of all – failure to transform the mental model from Possibilism to Eternalism.

I have written about this before, about degrees of “swoon theory”, this is the first time I ever identified the 4 degrees.

Literal sacrifice proves it’s a failure. That’s why I hang onto the Swoon Theory, as a telling of the mythic Jesus figure’s life.

The way the fictional tale should go is, per gospel verse, Jesus was still alive when decrossed. According to the Gospel, KJV.

That’s the real Bible story according to God’s original Bible he wrote himself with his own hand, the KJV: God wrote that Jesus was still alive when decrossed. But levels of literalism: even a layer of literalism within a purely fictional story.

In Defense of the Figurative-Figurative View: Reject Magic Thinking, Which Prevents (Substitutes for, Futilely) Actual Mental Transformation

The red bow-man in Canterbury image didn’t actually break his bow, it was a 3-piece disassemblable bow.

No bows were harmed in the writing of this blog post about mental transformation.

My anti-literalism position on sacrifice, against deluded literalistic thinking, NO HARM WAS DONE IN REALITY, IT WAS REAL IN MY MIND, ONLY —

else you are guilty of the sin of literalism and you are not mentally transformed;

you are setting up your throne against God’s throne unless you agree that it’s all in the mind, that salvation is not a matter of any literal harm but is purely mental:

Jesus figuratively existed, ie in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he just pretended to die.

That’s the “ahistoricity plus swoon theory” position.

The Case for Fiction/Fiction is, mental transformation and sacrifice is 100% in the mind, no physical harm of self, of ram, or of a king.

Where is the KJV verse that God wrote? Swoon theory:

John 19:33-37
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019%3A33-37&version=NIV;KJV

KJV:

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

NIV:

33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c]37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=swoon+theory+blood+flowed+jesus+alive

3) how does that relate to a health-preserving, substitute isomorphic equivalent sacrificing a bush-caught helpless, powerless ram?

The youths and maidens are sent into the monocoursal labyrinth, as a sacrifice, the Minotaur devours them. Ariadne, daughter of the architect, who knows how to escape the maze, is married by Dionysus.

That is the idea-development research program. Write up those 3 points in 200 chacters. Whew! over the hump at last, having pinpointed that set of 3 points.

Not done anywhere in this post yet: work-up concise explanations, write-ups, of those 3 points together.

Sequence within my idea-development posts:

I often write down and down below, vertically, and then bubble-up key points to the top of the post, as done above. So, out of sequence.

_________________

It has taken me 25 years (1995) to clearly express this thought, to get at the right angle: why desire to break egoic control thinking?

It is hard to connect — clearly, directly, simply, the following sort of write-up to the {ram caught in a thicket} — the king’s power wielded harder and harder, more forcefully (egoic control power) just ends up fastened helplessly to spacetime, ridiculed by the parade watchers heckling the line of initiates passing along.

To end up at the sacrifice of egoic control thinking, the fully satisfying, permanent, fulfilling demonstration that makes the mind finally get it, that egoic control power is null, illusion-based, invalid, impotent.

Sacrifice is a mental act, reaching that point of proving to itself the powerlessness of the egoic control system.

I’ve written to some extent about this (my readers have read it, but I have forgotten what I wrote). Check main article at my website, Egodeath site, about why try shake off childhood thinking? What 2006 phrasing did I use?

It needs to be routine to elegantly and concisely articulate the frenzied-state, “too-clear-thinking” idea.

I need to be able to express the direct idea succinctly, what’s it about, the desire to break the existing personal control system as it has been? The Atman project (Ken Wilber): we do substitute revolutions instead of the real revolution; the mind wants to revolt against egoic control thinking, to force the switch to the mature state.

Spiritual emergence, emergency (Stan Grof).

The young form — Possibilism-thinking; egoic control thinking — is shaken off and vigorously cast off, in order to grow into the mature form – transcendent thinking; Eternalism-thinking.

1. The young form — egoic control thinking (1988 phrase); Possibilism-thinking (2013/2020 phrase)

2. “violent” shaking-free, shaking-off, transformation demonstration that drives, a forcing function, to force transformation and not relapse into child-esque thinking. shaken off and vigorously cast off, in order to grow into

3. Reach and secure the mature form – transcendent thinking; Eternalism-thinking.

___

1. starting state: egoic control thinking; Naive-Possibilism-thinking

2. ending state: transcendent control thinking: Eternalism + Modified-Possibilism thinking

How to cross over and stop slipping back, stop regressing into egoic thinking that keeps forcefully reasserting itself? (per Ken Wilber’s maybe 2nd or 3rd book – Spectrum of Consciousness, or The Atman Project)

How to defend against the assertive re-assertion of egoic control thinking, to make it back off?

What demonstration can be done to firmly, finally disprove egoic control thinking, like driving-off retard Letcher Hatsis for once and for all and PROVE mushrooms in Christianity? and FORCE the issue with definitive finality?

The mentality / motiviation / situation is: “Stop reasserting yourself, this is mandatory, I have to get egoic thinking to stop reasserting itself”. It’s not that transcendent thinking wants to harm and bully and break egoic thinking; it’s a defensive operation.

Make egoic thinking stop, finally, reasserting itself, re-entrenching.

How can one do a demonstration that stops the regressive rebirth into egoic thinking?

Our minds are designed as if to avoid thinking squarely straight-on about this, directly and straightforwardly.

It’s as if it is key taboo to egoic control thinking, to think this thought and clearly articulate it.

Why desire a shocking vivid demonstration of the nullity of egoic control power? Because egoic control thinking keeps habitually reentrenching, even though it’s incoherent.

The frustrated mind has an innate intense desire to learn the new way of thinking and stop being buried in the old way of thinking.

The mind that is intent on gaining coherence, coherent thinking about personal control power, by the method of using a series of loose cognitive sessions, desires to force egoic control thinking to end and be replaced by transcendent thinking.

Within the loose cognitive sessions, to achieve that goal of finally and permanently shaking-off egoic control thinking that keeps taking-over thinking again, the mind looks for a strategy of doing some vivid, unforgettable, memorable, vivid demonstration.

The effective demonstration is all in the mind: the mind tests itself in escalating degrees, testing its defenses, until self-violation thoughts.

The mind battles against each itself like an army against itself, and that is the very demonstration that is needed, to drive the change from Possibilism to Eternalism-thinking, and release the seizure.

God is wrathful and rapidly merciful when God gives the mind the transforming demonstration.

The mind wants a way to shove Medusa’s worldline-snake face at egoic control thinking, to make egoic control thinking “die” and stop reasserting its child-esque, confused thinking.

“What can I do to make the mind break out of egoic-control thinking, to get the prize, transcendent thinking?”

Personal control power that is premised on the power to steer among branching possibilities, gets itself caught helplessly and powerlessly in the spacetime block.

Condensed {message from angel of the Lord} = ultimate-controller-conformant thought that preserves well-being; thinking that is rational, true, coherent, & consistent, that simultaneously preserves viable control, life, & well-being, that is fulfilling and satisfying to the mind desiring to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts.

The loose-cognitive mind desires to demonstrate cybernetic truth, because the mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect thinking.

The mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect, incoherent thinking.

The mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect, incoherent default thinking, Possibilism; Naive-Possibilism-thinking.

Thinking that is rational, true, coherent, & consistent.

Thinking that preserves viable control, life, & well-being.

Fulfilling and satisfying to the mind desiring to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts.

The mind desires to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts, to shake off and detach from incoherent thinking.

{rock} (block universe)

{rock altar of sacrifice} (block universe) (permanently eliminating incoherent thinking)

{sacrifice} (forcefully finally shaking off habitual erroneous incoherent self-contradictory thinking, Possibilism-thinking)

Hiatus

Site Map

Contents:

I Am Doing Other Stuff

I am doing other stuff.

[January 10, 2021] Site …

What Is Dangling Messy Disaster if I Walk away from this site now?

  • Messy announcement/ naming/ resource/ home page for each theory of the set of theories per the 1-2-8 outline of the Egodeath theory breakout into component theories.
    • Found what direction to steer the set of pages.
      See outline in no-free-will announcement page.

Done

Finished stuff, so has no impact if walk away from site. Non-impact aspects.

  • Uploaded all the Egodeath Yahoo Group digests, cross-linked the two WordPress sites.
  • Finished analysis of the 5 podcast episodes & the early 4 episodes:
    (1 2 3 7)
    (12 13 14 16 26)

Methodology for Decoding the Canterbury Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree

Site Map

Contents:

About this Page

Cybermonk, November 21, 2020

Main article:
Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/proof-that-the-canterbury-psalters-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-is-psilocybe/

Idea Development page 1
Discussion in realtime, of my decoding of the Canterbury “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image with the trained, self-threatening Psalter reader.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/realtime-discovery-log/

Anyone reading the main article should read some of the present, supporting article, which is more than just notes.

The main article is the condensed decoding-solution.

The present, supporting article is for:
o Important commentary that might differ in tone.
o Timeline of decoding.
o Meta-theorizing.
o See-also resources that might differ in tone.

Length of Each Section of the Main Article


Nov 21 8pm: screen page-downs:
0 4, now 17 (Nov 24)
1 7
2 7
3 7
4 6
5 15  Banquet – need half-portion
6 9
7 17  Blade – cut in half
8 3
9  7

No big deal, I was just paging through Blades saying “how many pages is this, it goes on and on and on. It is infinitely important though, and reworked to good quality, careful wording. The good side is, the other sections are mostly pretty uniform in length.

The image uses the {blade} mytheme centrally, so it’s understandable that that’s a long section.

Should call it the “mushroom tree with sword”, to set expectations for the analysis.

I do, lately, say “mushroom tree hanging by a leg above a sword”:

Section 1 starts: “mushroom tree with a man hanging from it by one leg, above a sword“.

I’m out of time. The content is solid, top-tier.

Blade section is important, major theme of all rows. Meal took lots of analysis.

There’s no junk to move from there to here in those two sections.

Not clear-cut what to cut from there.

Everything that remains in the main article is very good.

Shortening those two sections is too low-priority.

Notes for Section 1: Proof of Psilocybe in Christian Art

A heading not used:

Canterbury Psalter: Hanging from a Mushroom Tree Above a Sword, After a Sacred Meal

Notes for Section 2: Recognizing Depictions of Transformative Effects

In the “Criteria” article, Cyberdisciple provided the outline scheme for evidence in a spectrum from literal physical description, to analogies for the effects:
1) Literalistic description of the physical form of the mushroom.
2) Analogy mythemes describing the physical form of the mushroom itself.
3) Analogy mythemes describing the highest experiential effects of the mushroom (mental model transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism).

Puzzle-Solving to Receive the Communicated Message

This top row of this image is a puzzle that is intended to be solved by exactly someone in my position.

Yet, this is Day 3 of my decoding this communication, with some input from Cyberdisciple.

Even though we are both experts at these things,

[moved paragraphs back into main article, “how to recognize” section]

In the end of the third day, I then allowed myself to briefly look at rows 2 and 3, and I quickly decoded their main message: {blades} of testing and {sacrifice} to drive mental transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.

Unlike Allegro’s motivations, this article is not put forth to discredit and embarrass Christianity and render it illegit.

The top row of the illustration is the most transcendent; it is above the more mundane rows. It is rewarding to do a mytheme-decoding of this row through the lens of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

While decoding the top row, I never looked at the bottom two rows; I wanted to avoid getting sucked into further decoding. But after full decoding of the top row, I ended up doing a quick decoding, successfully, of the jarringly prominent, {happy blade} theme of the bottom rows.

A Record of the Decoding Process

Now that I understand this image, I do not want to rewrite this article and lose the development history; instead, I preserve the messy record of decoding and discovery, with initial, half-correct writeups and corrective commentary on them.

This record of transformation and discovery helps, to explain to everyone how to properly wield the threat which reveals the mind’s inbuilt control-vulnerability and impotent weakness, which forcefully and powerfully causes mental transformation; {regeneration, purification, rebirth}.

Preserving my record of the decoding process here, is an instructive real-world example of how to decode religious mythemes, mapping them to a specific referent about how the mind works in the peak altered state.

In other articles and postings as well, I discuss and log my process of discovery, to learn more about how to change one’s thinking; how the mental model transformation process works.

It took a full three [4, incl wrath/mercy around bible study guy] days to read and decode this transcendent art, while I wrote up the decoding here as I worked it out, posting to the World-Wide Web in realtime as the decoding proceeded from success to success, coherently and consistently, occasionally corroborated and peer-reviewed by another, independent researcher. Amazingly, I actually do have peers.

Upon making interpretive breakthroughs here, my humbling indicator of success was that I often felt I had been foolish and blind, instead of wise and perceptive; embarrassed that I didn’t perceive the (now seemingly obvious) connections straightaway.

OK, I’m finally done– oh wait, there’s still more, that I was blind to! How could I not have seen?! (facepalm, write-up, repeat)

The Scientific Method Applied to Mytheme-Decoding Theory: Reproducibility

The ability of an independent decoder (Cyberdisciple) to successfully apply the same mytheme-decoding method (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) to an art image corroborates this mytheme-decoding method.

Another person (Cyberdisciple) was able to experiment by applying my theory, Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, to successfully, productively discover harmonious, congruent aspects and connections which I overlooked or didn’t get around to, or couldn’t see in my original tightly cropped, blurry image.

Paul Thagard’s book Conceptual Revolutions clarifies the Scientific Method, of how explanatory theories are improved or replaced. I apply Thagard’s theory of knowledge-development to the new field of Loose Cognitive Science.

Thagard’s framework helps explain the development and testing of the method of mytheme-decoding per the Egodeath theory (or Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism). I thus formed, one could say, the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism theory of decoding religious mythemes.

Cyberdisciple is an independent participant working to experiment with and confirm the theory of Loose Cognitive Science, including mytheme decoding (that is, coherently mapping mythemes to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism), and to establish the reproducibility of the Egodeath theory.

Cyberdisciple located the high-resolution complete Canterbury Psalter, with the right-hand portion of the image showing God, and he identified a number of consistent points for mytheme-decoding of this image, and questions to resolve within this interpretation framework.

Cyberdisciple successfully, coherently decoded some aspects of this diagram, by applying the Egodeath theory as the explanatory framework; that is, mapping mythemes to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

I expand on Cyberdisciple’s independent decodings within this explanatory framework.

I answer Cyberdisciple’s interpretation questions that he put forward within this explanatory framework; for example, I confirm that God, hidden from direct view in a cloud, is the ultimate control-source, in the center of this diagram.

A theory is an intelligible explanation based on observation and reasoning, deriving from to perceive.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/theory

The Minimal mushroom theorists are not theorists and they cannot perceive, or they refuse to perceive.

Notes for Section 3: Trees & Limbs, Branching & Non-branching

Agghh, “But wait, there’s more!” This is ridiculous, I could go on for (even more) days; it’s now into the 4th day of decoding the top row and writing-up my observations and discoveries (November 20, 2020): the two trees touch their left, branching branch.

Trees Shape: Cross-Decoding the Tree and Banquet Scenes

I did not recognize or require this pink tree hinting function during my main decoding pass, because slightly earlier, such as a couple days or hours earlier, I had already developed a {left/right leg} decoding for a salamander bestiary image:
o {Left leg} = bad = Possibilism
o {Right leg} = good = Eternalism

That imported hypothesis worked fine, without needing to notice and use the confirmation here.

By the time I noticed the mapping function that is communicated by the seemingly pointless pink tree, I had already firmly enough corroborated my imported mapping from a salamander bestiary diagram/image.

When I finally recognized the message of the pink tree, that message felt more like a 3rd confirmation, of my mapping that was already confirmed as successful by two images.

Symmetry of themes to the left and right of God’s cloud corroborate this mytheme-decoding method, with the consistency increasing the likelihood of correct interpretation.

God, the ultimate controller, creator, and source of all control-thoughts, is hidden as if behind a cloud.

As I analyzed the angel and person to the right of God’s cloud while writing this section, I held my breath hoping that the right and left arms would follow the pattern, of “left offers no support” — and they did.

In terms of the Scientific Method, my prediction of the result of my experiment successfully evidenced or confirmed my theory of mytheme-decryption.

The branching-isomorphism of the two trees, and the consistency of {left vs. right} across the arms and legs of the three men who are placed closest to God, and across the two trees’ left and right branches, are like redundant bits to ensure accurate data signal transmission.

This consistency confirms that we have achieved an accurate interpretation, reading, or decoding; we have successfully mapped the mythemes in the image, to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

The hanging red initiate’s stable self-control that prevents cybernetic death is consciously based on God the hidden control-source.

A typical inherent feeling of decoding, is the embarrassed feeling of having been blind for not apprehending seemingly obvious aspects. It helps to have this clearer, more complete image to work with.

In this higher-resolution image than I used during my initial mytheme-decoding pass, I can now see clearly that the branch-sitting pink initiate is holding securely and stably onto a cut-off branch with his {right hand} (Eternalism-thinking), similar to the hanging initiate touching the cut-off branch.

The branch-sitting pink initiate’s {left hand} is precariously floating in mid-air (Possibilism-thinking), offering no purchase to stop him from falling onto the sword or ground to his cybernetic {death}.

I was occupied with decoding and writing-up other aspects of this image, and I had not assertively interrogated the meaning of the {cut branches} in this image; I hadn’t thought it through to make those mental connections.

The sword, hand, angel, and head of the hanging red initiate are at the same vertical height as the cut-off stump, depicting his awareness of non-branching.
Cyberdisciple’s observation

The theme of {debranched} possibility-branching could hardly be depicted in a more obvious way, short of depicting someone in the act of cutting-off a branch.

I already decoded {cut-off branches} in the Montecassino Mandrake image, so here we have corroboration of this mytheme-decoding in another image.

Notes for Section 4: Class Session: The Good Student and the Bad Students

Where am I now, Day 5? 9:20 a.m. November 23, 2020: I am still discovering basic, obvious things , facepalm, how the hell did I miss this, fail!

In TOP row, (high pri), not merely row 2/3 (lower pri, decoded later), in the class session: I almost thought I had something break my interp, but then I realized, it solves a problem I had wondered about: the back two guys have very furrowed brows. The front guy is pretty, and has a slightly furrowed brow, gives wrong andwers, ONLY TODAY DID I SEE THat depending how you interp who’s feet they are, they are plainly shown as the front-right guy’s feet: THEY ARE CORRECT (right down, left up), yet, his left hand definitely is displayed. right foot plus left hand?? slightly furrowed brow? SOLUTION/CONFIRMATION of decoding:

The pretty good-looking student with feet on the right (of the other students’ feet) and only slightly furrowed brow, half-gets it: his right foot is down, left foot up — but he shows his left hand.

3 Possible Grade Levels: A (3 out of 3), C (2 out of 3), F (0 out of 3)

These are capable, clever artists, packing so much communication/information in: they express no less than 3 levels of comprehension among the class (of 5, but 3 students in front row, visible)!

Given 2 feet, 2 hands, how many grade levels are possible?

Assume that one foot up means other foot down, this gives 4 combinations, 2 equivalent, so, THREE COMBINATIONS /GRADE LEVELS:

‘F’ grade — 00; wrong foot, wrong hand; left foot down, left hand displayed — complete fail, very furrowed brow

‘C’ grade — 01; wrong foot , correct hand; left foot down, right hand displayed — not depicted. half correct. no banquet/initiation allowed.

‘C’ grade — 10; correct foot, wrong hand; right foot down, left hand displayed
Partly correct. no banquet/initiation allowed.
“Correct foot down” is better than “correct hand displayed”, given that 2 (opposite) feet are shown and only 1 hand is shown.
The pretty youth who doesn’t pass, gets 2 out of the 3 displayed limbs correct: left foot & right foot. He only messes up the hand displayed.

‘A’ grade — 11; correct foot, correct hand; right foot down, right hand displayed
Fully correct; gets to be initiated; banquet then hanging on the tree

___________________

Decoding breakthrough around 12:30 p.m. November 21, 2020:

The {arrowhead} of testing your mode of thinking is aimed straight at the inspired Bible scholar’s head from inches away, while {charitable mercy} and {good judgment} are taken into consideration from the other side.

He is the viewer, decoding this image in this Psalter during loose cognition and thinking about these control-testing dynamics.

Yes, all mythemes are you; but still, it has to be said.

Step Inside the Picture, Thinking About the Two Initiates

This section is an early, outdated interpretation pass, retained as an example of gradual improvement of decoding.

{Bearded men}, completed initiates, men of wisdom (gnosis), are those who see the risk and threat in the Possibilism-thinking model of control when in the mushroom-induced loose cognitive association state.

As the viewer studies and decodes the image, as the viewer gains purchase, the viewer joins the five observers on the left, in gesturing toward the scene, while working-out the decoding, the meaning.

The more-or-less wise men, more-or-less completed initiates, observing on the left and gesturing toward the worrisome tree situation, represent the viewer, who progressively reads, decodes, experiences, and comprehends the image. These viewers, just as all mythemes, are aspects of the mind.

Below, you can see Cyberdisciple failing (like me) to recognize (at 9:00 p.m. November 18, 2020) that the group of observers is a class session (Teacher with Students), even though he is equipped with the Egodeath theory:

Cyberdisciple’s peer-review comment:
It’s unfortunate that not all the men on the left are bearded. Having only one of five be bearded somewhat weakens the argument, and forces you to resort to “more-or-less wise men, more-or-less completed initiates.” Perhaps they do not need to be called completed initiates, since the point that they are observing (and possibly disputing about interpretation) still stands, as your observation about the placement of their hands.

The onlookers gesture toward the initiates on mushrooms, and toward God.

The three visible torsos have a hand over them, over their cybernetic self-control {hearts}.

The following “I don’t have a clue” was written a day earlier: note that this is an example of an Unsolved Problem that was able to be identified/articated by using an Explanatory Framework/Research Paradigm.

Discovering the paradigm, a skeleton for planning and conducting smaller research problems within that paradigm, helps identify spots to fill-in — puzzles to resolve within that paradigm. Now I solved this problem-within-the-paradigm with full coherency the next day, giving evidence further corroborating the Theory: it is a class in session. — Cybermonk 10:00 a.m. November 19, 2020.

I don’t have compelling interpretations or systemic decoding for the group of onlookers, but this is an example of how to analyze elements in scenes.

A close inspection shows the following inventory of the onlookers, who seem inconsistent; perhaps disputatious in working out the interpretation of the two initiates on mushrooms.

From left to right:
o Right hand, beardless, looking to the left, toward the scene
o Right hand, bearded, looking to the right, away from the scene
o Left hand, beardless, looking to the left, toward the scene
o Left hand, beardless, looking to the left, toward the scene
o Left hand, beardless, looking to the left, toward the scene

I listed out the inventory as shown above, but I was stupid and didn’t see the screamingly obvious: It is a class session. Cyberdisciple (an independent researcher using the tools of this field of Loose Cognitive Science) read my above inventory and he didn’t figure it out either. How is it not obvious?

Why would the bearded man (completed initiate) look at the hanging man; he already understands. Fail (yesterday).

Here is the correct answer:

o Displays right hand, beardless, looking toward the scene = smart student.
o Displays right hand, bearded, looking toward the leftmost beardless youth (looking away from the scene) = teacher.
o Displays left hand, beardless, looking toward the scene = slow student.
o Displays left hand, beardless, looking toward the scene = slow student.
o Displays left hand, beardless, looking toward the scene = slow student.

Their hands float and “gesture toward” (but see note below) the two initiates, and do not hold on to anything for stability.

They are displaying their hands, either their left hand or right hand, to show their manner of thinking.

The purpose of the artist showing their hands is to characterize their thinking, not really to point at the initiation scene.

Initial Writeup of Flunking Students (but rewritten)

The flunked students lack Transcendent Knowledge; they continue to only have their initial, default, childhood-suited, possibility-branching way of thinking. 

The flunked, non-graduating students are unqualified for initiation; they don’t yet understand non-branching (the Eternalism model of control, possibility, and time).

The slow students don’t yet understand block universe worldlines of personal control that are pre-existing, frozen, and snake-shaped.

The slow students continue to adhere to their familiar, innate, childhood, default, but volatile and {perishable} presumption that branching-premised control-thinking will provide the stable control that’s needed to avoid falling onto the sword of death.

{perishable} means transient, temporary, subject to failure and control-instability, then replacement.

For their own safety, the flunked students are not yet permitted to banquet and be on mushrooms, nor to appear in any other places in the illuminated manuscript, except in the oxen scene down on row 3.

Expect Students Who Gave Wrong Answer to Appear Elsewhere

Hypothesis: The flunked students give the wrong answer, the artist probably makes them reappear as low-IQ people in row 2 & 3.

The above hypothesis, that we should look for the bad students reappearing in the lower rows, is an example of a “new research problem that the new theory was able to expose and present, to fill-in details within the new explanatory framework”.

To research this question: Apply face-matching, using high-resolution zoom and side-by-side cropped images.

Results: Theory confirmed, enough – I found a candidate for a match with the students who gave the wrong answer.

I’m sure everyone reading this article has by now done an inventory of feet in the entire image, obviously.

The Teacher and Good Student, the Scribe of the Holy Spirit, and the Completed Initiate

Nov 21 2020 note: “scribe” is an example of a rejected hypothesis. I always knew it was off-based, because there’s no inkwell. He’s reading the present image in the Psalter, messing with self-control violation, receiving message-thought of mercy and blessedness and “do not harm the {child}; keep using Possibilism-premised self-control system and do not break it”.

The angelic message from God:
{do not harm the child} = keep using Possibilism-premised self-control system and do not break it, though
convert from Possibilism[Naive] to Eternalism + Possibilism[Qualified].

I changed it all in the article from “holy scribe” to: “mystic-state Bible reader” or something like that.

Similar men are downloading a punched-tape scroll from God’s cloud, and sitting without showing limbs at the sacred-meal banquet, and observing the initiates above the sword, gesturing with right hand, [solved it at this point of writing! how was this not totally obvious immediately, when I went so far as to inventory their hands and head direction and beards ~yesterday?!] possibly teaching an initiate-in-training, while the other initiates are still foolishly using left-hand, Possibilism-thinking.

I sort of had the solution in my first writeup above, about a random bunch of people who have scattered assortment of hands, could mean “disputation” — but when I truly solved it the next day (today, Nov 19), as “teacher with students, 1 who gets it, 3 who don’t get it yet”, it felt like Jackpot! far more than my previous hesitant and vague reading.

This “group of observers” is correctly solved as “Teacher with Students”, not “Rabble with Assortment of Views, Disputing” (my first, half-correct, but still off-base, muddle-headed reading from yesterday). 1:57 p.m. November 19, 2020

Notes for Section 5: Banquet Meal then Pulled by Angel by Right Limb

That above writeup (“the two bearded men at the banquet are completed initiates”) was from a couple days ago, and I want to preserve that “take” here, but we can do better, less vague.

This decoding writeup takes time: I have to do many screen captures, and the results shown here at WordPress are lossy, with less detail.

I now think a better characterization is “Religious initiation guide and teacher”, for the funnel-hat man.

I don’t feel I have the correct characterization for the blue man; my best hypothesis, as of today, is that he’s an initiate’s concerned father, such as the maiden’s father bringing his child (youth or maiden) for initiation, now that I give it more thought and inspect the zoomed image.

I’ve been decoding this image for two days, and I just now got the joke, so I again feel dull-witted and humbled; I had been dumbly scratching my head for days wondering why they showed no arms. No Limbs. Get it?

Copied paragraph to retain timestamp:

The maiden and her father are anxious, and the religious initiation guide is reassuring and coaching the maiden (presumably with prayer for trust and mercy, protection and spiritual regeneration), under the guidance of her father. — Cybermonk 2:2s1 p.m. November 19, 2020

Above:Day 4 of decoding the image: I just had an idea: all figures are you, but, The Apprehensive Maiden Is You (the viewer). 7:18 p.m. November 20, 2020.

Cyberdisciple discovered there’s the same placement of the barrier-column and mushroom tree, making them equivalent.

The banquet barrier-column section was expanded from Cyberdisciple’s points.

The {sword} and the {angel} are connected, because they are both coming from god’s cloud/aura at the same level.
— Cyberdisciple’s observation

Solved: Pink Initiate’s Open Palm & Facial Expression at Banquet [[January 3, 2021]

Decoded [Noon SHARP January 3, 2021]

Copied from
Idea Development page 8
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/31/idea-development-page-8/
where I worked up the solution almost by accident, of the lingering nuicance problem, of pink’s twisted arm (& facial expression).

Why Settle for Emptying Just 1 Bowl?
Problem/puzzle to solve: palm up touching 2nd mushroom bowl
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
Unsolved Art Interpretation/Decoding Problem

These are expressive artists. Why do these artists go out of their way to show his empty right hand, palm up? Bowl inventory:

  • White bowl: almost certainly for the angel-pulled red initiate off to the left.
  • No bowls are for the bearded telestai.
  • Red bowl is certainly for pink initiate.
  • Pink bowl is certainly for the maiden (the Psalter viewer), who is presently … shown in the act of taking (= {receiving, being given by worldline serpent}) the mushrooms which are implicitly in the bowl.
  • WHO IS THE BLUE BOWL for? Pink initiate is touching it so we are safe in concluding that it is his, therefore DOUBLE DOSE.
  • WHY IS PINK INITIATE’S PALM UP, TOUCHING BLUE BOWL w right hand/limb? Extremely unnatural, therefore it signals that we are to solve its meaning. Compare red initiate:
    touching the blue sword of God with left hand,
    touching the blue cut-off branch with right hand.
  • i got something*: eat with right hand, not left hand. His right hand is empty, therefore he finished eating two bowls of mushrooms. In contrast to maiden, who is about to eat the mushrooms.

[at this point, about 10 minutes ago, ie [11:46 a.m. January 3, 2021], I passed over the hump toward solving/decoding this problem.

takeaway lesson learned: you must leverage (take into consideration) all of the data together, that the artist presents.]

Solution: Empty right hand means he finished eating two bowls, SHE SEES THAT the pink initiate (her spiritual brother) HAS EATEN TWO BOWLS, AS SHE (THE VIEWER) IS BEING REASSURED BY HIEROPHANT/instructor/examiner AND FOLLOWING THE COURSE OF THE PINK INITIATE BUT IN MORE MODERATION THAN HIM.

I reject the possibility that the white bowl is hers. The white bowl must belong to the red initiate out-of-frame already pulled up by angel.

ASSUMPTION: NO ONE IS MIDWAY THRU EATING. The states are simple and clear; to communicate simply.

  1. The red initiate is well ahead. Single dose (white bowl).
  2. The pink initiate just finished ingesting the mushrooms. Double dose (red & blue bowl).
  3. The virgin maiden (the psalter viewer) is about to begin eating. Single dose (pink bowl).

Important: Implicitly, the maiden has passed the Lesser Mysteries textbook test exam, by the hierophant, as shown far left of top row.

To be permitted to eat the bowl of mushrooms, the maiden must have previously displayed her right (not left) hand to the examiner (now sitting next to her), her brow was completely un-furrowed, and she placed her right foot on ground, and left foot floating in thin air powerlessly.

The maiden was (like any initiate) first required to fully understand that one must put dependence consciously on the non-branching mental worldmodel, in order to have self-control stability during the mushroom-induced intense mystic altered state.

More commentary (than I emailed with wrmspirit) re: pink initiate’s expression. SOLUTION: MEANING OF PINK INITIATE’S FACIAL EXPRESSION:
“I have just finished ingesting a double dose of mushrooms, which are about to kick in. You are about to begin ingesting a single dose. We passed the training and exam together. We are spiritual brothers.” [12:00 Noon SHARP, January 3, 2021]

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

That’s good enough interpretation-elements to merit adding to the Proof article.

That’s actually a brilliant, pregnant & portentious shorthand title:

the Proof article

Scientific Theory Methodology

Article really needs a final structural-edit pass, within each major section/chapter. And the Hem chapter is too short, should dissolve. You can tell WordPress is inadequate for large-scale composition like this article.

Pink showing his empty right hand is equivalent to sticking out his tongue to display a dose, then closing his lips & swallowing, then sticking out his tongue to display none.

Notes for Section 6: Hanging by Right Leg Above Sword

November 20, 2020 (the 4th day of decoding the top row):
Yet another new observation; why didn’t I look closer before, to see that the pink initiate’s right foot is secure on a cut branch stump?

It was bugging me, the seeming lack of this stabilization of his {right-foot} but now, thanks to high-resolution plus looking more diligently, which pays off in rewards, I see that.

Cyberdisciple’s peer-review comment:
It’s curious that the left hand of the initiate in the tree, which is grasping nothing, is directly in in front of the middle stalk of the mushroom tree (or actually the right stalk, since the middle one veers over to catch the red initiate).
Yes, I have thought about that. – Cybermonk
November 20, 2020: I added the below treatment, proving coherence: his left hand is definitely not touching the stem behind it, and is instead contrasted as being on the wrong side of the stem. His arm is angled toward us, away from that stem, so there’s no back-of-hand pressed against that stem for stability. – Cybermonk

As previously noted, but now as strengthened by closer inspection: pink’s hand floats midair.

Nov 21: I no longer think Pink is pointing – this is an example of a “rejected & disconfirmed initial hypothesis”:

To a lesser extent, the pink initiate also gestures toward the {branching} under the mushroom cap tree top. The blurry picture I started with made it look like he was pointing with his index finger, but this sharp picture shows that his left hand is grasping at thin air.

Notes for Section 7: Blades to Transform Thinking

Unused caption:
Causing the {sharpened blade of sacrifice} to {threaten-to-death} the mind’s cybernetic {child}-thinking, depicted in a mystic comic book page.

Day 4 of decoding: November 20, 2020: row 2&3.

Rows 2 & 3: I just cracked the puzzle. I hadn’t really looked at or tried yet; I had only done a very quick assessment of row 2 & 3, 1 minute total, and I did notice blades and the self-stabbing, yet it didn’t instantly click.

The first time I saw the self-stabbing, the thought flashed through my head, like brainstorming for hypotheses, only.

I was very reluctant to glance at row 2 and 3, because I don’t want to get pulled into decoding them. The researcher has to decide what puzzles to spend the finite time on; which mytheme-scenes to decode first.

When I looked again, then I felt confident, that this was a defensible hypothesis — after I saw additional “sharpen the blade” images.

The third time I glanced at rows 2 & 3, after doing more theory-writeup, it clicked. I did notice knives prominently the first time I glanced at it, but didn’t see how prominent until the 3rd time I glanced at rows 2 & 3.

Sharpen the Blades! “Sharpen blade” is the outstanding, jarring theme of rows 2 & 3, like my recent posts about {harvest, scythe, wheat ear, ripe, blade}. [11:30 a.m., November 19, 2020, the above view clicked, the 3rd time I glanced at rows 2 & 3 –Cybermonk]

Isaaac, the Effective Type of Sacrificing, Removing Only What Is Actually Repudiated: Control Mis-thinking

In Abraham’s sacrifice of his child Isaac, the outcome is that they are blessed by the angel of God and they walk away completely unharmed, to be fecund and prosperous as well as God-conformant in their thinking. This “sacrifice of Isaac” is paradigmatic, therefore relevant for discussing the theme of {blade} in this art piece.

In the loose cognitive association state, the altered state from Psilocybin, the mind is led to deliberately test and challenge, probe and threaten its own self-control system, to drive mental correction and transformation.

After initiation, erroneous thinking is now repudiated, purged; separated-out and removed – while leaving the original egoic, freewill-based thinking still effectively intact, healthy, functional, and productive, like Isaac’s fecundity after Abraham’s effective and productive sacrifice.

The sacrifice of the {child}, Isaac, via sacrificing the bush-caught ram, would not be an effective, productive sacrifice if it had wrecked Abraham’s control-system in the process of demonstrating control-vulnerability.

The exact thing to end, do away with, is taking Possibilism-thinking as if literally true. Retain Possibilism-thinking, which is essential for life, as a mental structure, but Possibilism-thinking is now qualified, with the erroneous belief in it removed.

During initiation or regeneration, the familiar structure of the mind, the Possibilism model of time, possibility, and control, is retained and preserved, intact, healthy, and functional, but it is converted from Naive-Possibilism, to Qualified-Possibilism; and a quite distinct new mental model of time, possibility, and control is added: Eternalism.

{Letting one’s child live}, now {blessed by the messenger-angel of God}, means testing control-vulnerability, without harming self-control – only removing error, not breaking the egoic control system or harming it in any way, but training, correcting, and momentarily “breaking”, disrupting, disproving, or violating personal control, not to harm anything, but to change the mental model of control and time.

This is the effective, blessed way of sacrifice, that leads to fecundity and well-being together with producing gnosis, compliance with God’s control.

The {messenger-angel}, ideas from on high in the realm of transcendent thinking in the Holy Spirit, blessed Abraham to make a fully sufficient and effective control-saving sacrifice of the bush-caught ram, thus allowing Isaac to continue on in prosperity, while also walking away unharmed, fully enlightened about of the real source of personal control-power.

In real, effective {sacrifice}, nothing is harmed; harm would be irrelevant and confused, and would fail to correct mistaken thinking and gain God-blessedness.

{sacrifice} may use the threat of personal non-control, but is not about harm; harm would be the sin of literalism. God-thinking is wrathful and merciful; the angel says “This is suitable sacrifice, of the ram”.

Real {sacrifice} is about revising control-thinking, effectively and with no harm. After the encounter with God’s transformation-driving {blade}, egoic freewill thinking remains, but now qualified; now understood as virtual.

Egoic freewill-premised thinking remains fully functional, now modified as Qualified-Possibilism, without regression backwards into chaotic or incoherent thinking as in Naive-Possibilism.

The holy cybernetic sacrifice of incoherent thinking, a mental model that collapses as based on illusion when put to the test, produces altered-state-durable, Holy Spirit-compliant Eternalism along with Qualified-Possibilism.

Notes for Section 8: Foot Down or Raised, Column Foot, Mushroom Hem

Mushroom Shapes in Garment Hems, together with feet down/up

This section: November 21, 2020 (Day 5 of decoding). Maybe make this Section 8, change God to Section 9.

Here I relate this process of decoding to the alleged “The Scientific Method” together with Paul Thagard’s model, in his book Conceptual Revolutions, of exactly how a new theory or theory-modification is tested for amount of explanatory power, against the Old Theory or the theory without this additional hypothesis.

I feel and judge, based on the combination of evidence, after having properly tested the very tentative hypothesis of the previous day, that my Theory of This Entire Image is bolstered

1) by my due diligence of pointing out this question (“the new theory is able to identify new questions to check”), and

2) by my considered conclusion and judgment [show pic of her scales]; I judge that this section and its conclusions strengthens, not weakens, the New Theory overall; that this added hypothesis — deliberate mushroom hems, in conjunction with feet up/down, in conjunction with column base/feet, I CONCLUDE and commit to, (everything “conclusion” in Science is subject to later correction), this theory-addition:

Scientific Conclusion (from hypothesis formation, testing the hypothesis, tested by experiment outcome as supporting evidence):

The artist deliberately is signalling, in conjunction, to confirm all four of the following hypotheses which the astute viewer, the receiver of the artists’, communication, are expected to realize and consider as hypotheses:

1. These feet up/down in entire image represent Possibilism/ Eternalism. Around yesterday (Day 4 of decoding), I definitely concluded this; the re-look/inventory today, like testing a (mini)-theory for the 4th time, merely further bolstered this theory-addition (re: row 2/3).

2. Standing on column feet-base means, control system based on solid stable foundation that is durable within the Psilocybe loosecog state during control-testing/probing and mental-model revision in that altered state.

3. These hem-wrinkle images represent mushrooms. This is a new mini-theory, or theory-addition, lagging behind the foot up/down theory, with late-incoming hypothesis, experiment, and experiment results that confirm this new theory-addition.

4. These varying-reasonableness hem-wrinkle images represent that yes, there is a convention, of a sliding scale of how hidden/revealed the literal mushroom shapes are. The artist deliberately communicates and signals, he expresses the idea, he communicates “yes I corroborate your theory of reading, that:
“Shape-matching, when you are looking for eg sly encoded mushroom rep’n in esoteric art, is a sliding spectrum, from meaningless abstract, to literal (eg. mushroom) shape“. There’s a sort of meta-theorizing here.

On the mini-hypoth of “theese hem-wringles mean mushrooms”, the scientific process of hypothesis formation, experiment, outcome, and publishing the results, trails behind the above theory-additions.

Being able to continue going in the same vector/direction building out the Theory, adding more and more theory-additions, confirming a bigger and bigger system of interlocked hypotheses and theory-additions, adds up to a successful New Theory (the Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism interpretation for positively identifying (psychoactive) mushrooms in Christian art.

The New Theory, in contrast to “The Old Theory”, demonstrates that people, “scientists, researchers, codebreakers”, should invest in this New Explanatory Framework, which is continuing to demonstrate that it is Valid Science, because its scope of explanatory power continues to grow and grow unabated, never finding obstacles to a growing area/body of coherent explanatory power and predictive ability to predict future experiment outcomes of experiments that are conducted within this explanatory framework.

1995 Heinrich’s book Strange Fruit, to my reading tht in 1999 and steadily, immediately, rapidly mapping Heinrich’s scheme to my extant Core theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence which I defined from 1988-1997.

I steadily rapidly mapped my Core theory to “mushrooms in religous art” from 1999 to 2020 moving fast from success-to-succcess with confirmatory breakthroughs all along the way, never failing to get confirming experiment-results as I continued to venture bolder and bolder readings/mappings/decodings.

Synonyms for “Old Theory/New Theory”:

“The Old Theory” = “The Old Non-Theory”, or “The Old Theory”, or “The Old Disjointed, Fragmentary Heap of Presumptions and ‘explaining-aways’“

“The New Theory” = Paradigm, the New Big-Theory, the new capital-T “The New Theory”

We can, with this New Theory, confidently predict based on past successful coherent explanatory power, that when we read /decode additional Christian and Greek art, we will see the same patterns of imagery, such as sharp centrally placed (like the artificial-thus-signalling placement of the cooked salamander placed next to the odd unnatural artificial-thus-signalling double-stem branching of the mushroom tree in that image) contrast between “branching vs. non-branching”, and “shapes that tend to gravitate toward and swirl around, the Mushroom shape”.

All 4 of the above mini-hypotheses have been confirmed, individually and in conjunction (“individually and in conjunction” is a theme running through my years of art mytheme decoding: you have to read across multiple, independent art images, across Greek and Christian art images, to confirm the interpretation language decipherment), as deliberate signalling and communication to the receptive viewer.

I noticed these shapes yesterday, was skeptical (“hypothesis formed; not weighted yet; gather more evidence by more experimenting/looking, plus reflection on plausibility” of identification: mostly consistent feet up//down in conjunction with mostly mushroom-shaped shapes of this shape, increased likelihood of deliberate signalling).

I “ran more experiments” and did more “experiment outcome data analysis” to “test further the hypothesis/theory” of interpreting these … in conjunction, now, these feet and these mushroom-shapes.

I re-inventoried these mushrooms and feet up/down now the following morning, gave it more reflection, and decided to officially create the present section and write-up and go to the trouble of cropping and pasting these evidential images, lest the astute reader flunk me for failing to cover this question of these mushroom shapes and feet up/down, thirdly: factor-in, the column bases; the “down” foot can be on solid ground, on column base/foot/foundation, or (per the lower left cybernetician), both..

Notes for Section 9: God the Ultimate Controller of Control-Thoughts

I’ll leave it to the heresy hunters and big-brain theologians to fight over my wording for all eternity, if their inspiration is bigger than mine.

Hidden and Revealed Esoteric Gnosis

My beloved theologian John MacArthur says there is no “secret knowledge”, no “esoteric gnosis”, no “Transcendent Knowledge”, but that everything is written in text, fully revealed to everyone, publicly.

I have been openly publishing text revealing the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence (created and named as such in 1988), publicly on the internet, since before the Web.

John MacArthur – Strange Fire, Transcendent Knowledge
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/11/john-macarthur-strange-fire-transcendent-knowledge/

John MacArthur’s talk critiques Charismatic Christianity as an inauthentic Strange Fire that may offend the Holy Spirit.

MacArthur’s talk doesn’t cite Mark 4:11-13, where Jesus, sitting in a boat on a lake, spoke to a large crowd on the shore.

He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside, everything is said in parables, so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.” Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?”

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+4%3A11-13&version=KJV

Notes for Acknowledgments section

For my “Criteria” article about mushrooms in Christian art” article, Cyberdisciple sketched an outline for 3 degrees of evidence ‘looking’ for mushrooms:

1) Literal depictions of mushrooms’ physical form.
2) Mythemes describing by analogy, the physical mushroom form.
3) Mythemes describing by analogy, the mind-transformative, experiential effects that are caused by ingesting mushroom.

I then rewrote and expanded his outline. The Canterbury article began as the bottom part of that article, and was then broken out as a separate article when it reached 11 pages in length.

When the present article reached some 60 pages, I moved-out the meta-theory and record-of-discovery-process content to a separate, support article.

Notes for See Also section

Book:
Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Douglas Hofstadter
http://amzn.com/0465018475

Conceptual Revolutions
My page about the book by Paul Thagard which explains and models (unlike Thomas Kuhn) what, specifically, occurs during theory replacement, and how to measure the explanatory power of competing theories or views.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/conceptual-revolutions/

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/

Promethea comic – video commentary
Cyberdisciple made YouTube videos with his commentary about this comic series, which is about Eternalism.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/08/promethea-comic-video-commentary/

Meta Science re: Bowl Ownership and Palm Problem

copied from idea development page 8:

todo: delete irrelev info, clean up section.

My book review is below.

Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom by Andy Letcher
http://amazon.co.uk/o/asin/0571227708 — June 15, 2006
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0060828285 — February 27, 2007

4 stars out of 5 <– DIDN’T I TAKE THIS DOWN TO 3 STARS?
How did i review the book on or before April 2, 2007, if the book wasn’t published until Feb 27, 3.5 weeks later?
[I posted to Amazon on :
Reviewed on April 1, 2007. Therefore, I read Samo article(s) before … and swa saw “Hatsis'” dancing man — before April 1, 2007. Which I mostly solved mabye 2015?? , which then enabled me to get huge jump start decoding Canterbury image, which I completed decoding 8 hours ago, Noon …. yeah just turned 8pm [8:00 p.m. January 3, 2021], EXACTLY 8 hours AGO, i finished decoding the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image. Now i traced roots kinda to 2007-ish Samorini article (Hatsis i learned from him, that the image was in Samo aritcle,and i confiemd the other day what Hatsis said, that Samo mentions Chris Beennet and maybe even got the image literally from Chris Bennett, for Samo’s ~1998 mushroom-trees article (not Samo’s Plainc article of 1997, iirc the dates of publication) . I don’t believe i paid *any * partic attiont attention to “dancing man” in Samo article (awful formatting, b&w), in 2007-ish. i would NOT say I began decoding Canterbury in ~2007 from Samo’s article’s bestiary salamnder image which Hatsis aroudn 2015 showed us in color. Which Irvin book did Hatsis see Salamnder dancing man in?? now i’m tracing the history of PREVIOUS FAILED ATTEMPTS BY OTHER WRITERS TO SOLVE DECODE SALAM/DANCING MAN, AS PRECURSOR FOR MY ORIGINAL IDEA I’M THE DISCOVERER OF, OF TRYING TO SOLVE the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image. INTERESTING, HISTORY OF SCIENCE POV: “a precursor problem that other scientests had 1) posed as a progblem to solve, then 2) failed to solve. Bennett failed to solve that probl, then Irvin failed, then Hatsis failed, then I sw the problem at thattime, and I SUCCEEDED at mostly solving “dancing man”, THEN: 3) I ADDED A NEW PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image , BUT, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, I INSTANTLY SOLVED IT LIKE IN 2 HOURS, SO 4) (2 HOURS AFTER STEP 3) I SOLVED the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image (WHICH I WAS THE ONLY PERSON AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE BPROBLEM AS A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED AT THAT TIME) BASED ON MY SOLUTION OF THE “PREVIOUSLY KNOWN”, SHARED PROBLEM THAT BENNETTE/IVIN/HATSIS DEBATED. WHICH BRINGS US A QUESTION: DOES ANYTONG ANYONE OTHER THAN ME, KNOW ABOUT “THE PROBLME OF the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image”? SORT OF. “EVERYONE” IS “AWERE” OF “THE ” PROBLEM, OF the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image. BUT, THEY FAIL TO RECOG THE PROBLEM OF “LEFT VS. RIGHT”. THEIR LITTLE MINDS/CONCEPTION, IS MERELY FISTICUFFS IN PROXY WAR, “DEOSN’T THIS MUSHROOM MENAN MUSHROOM”.

my point: it’s like, BY ADDING ANOTHER PROBLEM (“What does L/R mean in the familiar, communally known Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image?”) , I SOLVED — AND PROVED MY SOLUTION — OF THE ENTIRE SET OF PROBLEMS, KNOWN AND NOT KNOWN, TO THE COMMUNITY OF SCIENTISTS. I solved Bestiary Salamander, and I positively confirmed that the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image is mushrooms, and I solved the not-known prolblem, “what does L/R mean in the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image?” Turns out, that my being able to answer the not-known-to-the-community problem, of
“what does L/R mean in the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image?”,
was sort of the key, to being able to answer the entire set of questions:
o What does dancing mean, in besty salam image?
o Is dancing tree a mushroom, in besty salam image?
o is Canter msh tree mushrooms?
and (newly ident’d problem):
o What does L/R mean in Canter image?

WHEREAS FOR ME, MY GENIUS AND LUCK OF BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE/TIME, LEVELED-UP THE PROBLEM, ADDING “WHAT DOES LEFT/RIGHT MEAN”, TO NOT … TO b*both* be able to definitely answer *yes, it definitely is Psilocybe/mushroom/ psycho-msh* – but ALSO to do … to be victorious at solving a problem which no one but me even consciously formulated! Inferior scientists merely asked “yes or no, is the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image mushroom?” I, tho, superior scientist, asked an addl question, not even articulated by the other scientists: what does L/R mean? turns out, the ability to answer that (by borrowing both the Salamander *problem* , a known-t-to-them problem, and by my unique success at decoding that known problem known tho to those other scientists, .. the ability …

my ability to answer the New Question, the New Problem — that I’m the only one to identify *AS* a problem , of “what does l/r mean?” TURNS OUT TO BE , THE KEY TO BEING ABLE TO ANSWER THE FAMILIAR PROBLEM WHICH THE OTHER SCIENTISTS *DO* KNOW ABOUT, THE PROBLEM “IS the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image MUSHROOMS?”

(NOW re-outline the above, and summarize the flow above.)

Examining that flow , of the cycle of identifying problems, sharing debated solutions, and finding ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS ARTICULATED TO BE SOLVED, <– enables solving the first, widely-known problem!

Seems like a pretty interesting dynamic, a flow, of
1) identifying problems,
2) PUBLISHING problems so they are shared among science community,
3) comm’y tries & failed to solve,
4) i solve that problem,
5) I take another communally known Problem (the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image), and I simult add/identify/recognize/perceive an Additional problem (but don’t announce it as a problem for the community to solve, b/c i instantly solve it in 2 hours!!! ) … so by the time I announce the existence of Problem #2 with the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image, I’ve already solved that newly identified problem AND all of the known problems, f*cking EVERYTHING! the whole set!

You just can’t get better confirmation than that, of a New Theory. The New Theory check Kuhn) is able to IDENTIFY NEW PROBLEMS TO SOLVE, *AND*, SOLVE THEM. THAT’S HOW MUCH BETTER THE NEW THEORY IS, THAN THE OLD THEORY/HEAP/MESS/ LESS-THAN-THEORY.

THEN ADD’LY consider today’s Problem that fully came into view, that I was able to fully perceive. You see, today, some 8 hours ago, I decided for the first time, This Simply Will Not Do.

For GOD’S SKAE, what the F is going ON with his TWISTED ARM?!

First, around 11:45 am today, (current: [8:35 p.m. January 3, 2021] ), first, I looked carefully, and determined: YES, THERE REALLY IS A PROBLEM HERE.

1) FOR THE FIRST TIME, I PROVED THAT THE ARTIST IS POSING FOR US, A DECODING PROBLEM/COMMUNICATION; A MESSAGE TO BE RECEIVED/UNPACKED.

Theory of Science takeaway: Sometimes after forming and settling the New Theory, so you switch from phase “Revolutionary Science” to phase “Normal Science”, after 1 month, only then, it becomes clear the magnitude of a Problem Made Perceptible by the New Theory. That problem may have been Registered during the RevSci phase, but assessed as “How bad this problem is, is not clear (observed data not yet explained by the New Theory), but we had to wait until the New Theory entered “Normal Science” status, before we could assess more accurately the magnitude of the problem posed by the “wrinkle” data. About 11:40 am Jan 3 (yesterday) 2021, since dust had settled and the New Theory had entered “Normal Science” state, I took another look at the “known wrinkle of unclear magnitude”, and I determined that the mag was Signficant. His arm is very, very twisted, and especially, his palm is so emphatically displayed! Not just “visible” like I thought before, but rather, HE IS EMPHATICALLY DISPLAYING HIS HAND — TOWARD HER SIGHT. HE (No sooner had I noted that, and her eating-hand being her right hand, and him EMP… SAME LATER I REALISTED SAME as if he were sticking his tongue way out. he was “sticking” his palm so as to SHOW her his palm. No merely “visible” palm; but HOSWI SHOWING palm TO HER who …. it’s clearer, my wording is unfairly priviledged now, I was about to write a priviledged piont, as she is ABOUT to BEGIN (<– priv pt) eating,

translate the whole thing into modern scenario:

She is holding her one in her fingers, while he is sticking out his empty tongue at her, where a moment ago, there were two on it.

Pink showing his empty right hand is equivalent to sticking out his tongue to display a dose, then closing his lips & swallowing, then sticking out his tongue to display none.

I LOOKED AT HIS ARM, AND THE LOGIC (PROVING THAT THERE’S A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED) BECAME CLEAR TO ME: ‘there is most definitely something wrong here.

There is CERTAINLY a signal here.

I wan’t sure, Nov 10-Jan 3 11am, whether there was a signal, here, that thus DEMANDS decoding. ~11:30 am, for the first time, I recognized, yes, there CERTAINLY, definitely is a PROBLEM HERE.

MY THEORY IS SH*T IF AT THIS 11TH HOUR [ie now that the New Theory has changed from RevSci status to NormSci status], MY THEORY IS INCAPABLE OF FIGURING OUT WHAT MUST BE THE COMPELLING CORRECT SIGNAL DECODING.

THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT FELL ONTO MY PLATE, NOW FULLY PROVED THAT IT IS INDEED A PROBLEM, ABOUT 11:45 AM THIS MORNING.

A NEW “PROBLEM” CAME INTO VIEW, thanks thanks to the New Theory.

Who else, before me, ever even ASKED wtf is with his twisted arm, and palm up?

At 11:45 I could NO LONGER avoid and brush it aside like I (and everyone before me) did.

[a more generous read, in terms of “now able to better assess the magnitude of the previously noted, ‘non-explained data’, from [10 p.m. January 4, 2021], is above. Also, more generous: against my too-harsh take, THE ARM-TWIST-PALM WAS VERYMUCH NOTED BEFORE, BUT, WAS NOT CLEAR IF IT CONSTITUTED “NON-FITTING DATA”. I KNEW I HAD NO EXPLAN, BUT WASN’T SURE IF THERE WAS ANY SIGNFICANCE; IS IT A PROBLEM? IS IT “NON FITTING DATA”, OR IS IT SOMETHING TO NOTE AND SHRUG OFF? I ATTEMTED TO SHRUG OFF… THEN RE-ASSESSED YESTERDAY, AND GAUGED: NO, IT’S A SERIOUS WRINKLE; SHRUGGING OFF IS NOT APPROPRIATE, IT TURNS OUT, UPON RE-ASSESSMENT. SPECI’LY, I WAS TRYING TO DETERMIN ~11:30 AM YEST, WHOSE BOWL IS WHOSE, HOW DO I KNOW FOR A FACT HE OWNS BOTH BOWLS? LEFT HAND OBV CERTAIN HIS BOWL. RIGHT AHND… KEY Q: WHY IS HIS PALM TWISTED UP AND TOUCHING SIDE OF BLUE BOWL INSTEAD OF SHOWING CLEAR OWNERSHIP BY HAND *ON* OR *UNDER* BLOUE BWOL? WHY IS HE NOT HELPING INDICATE TO ME THE THING I AM LOOKING FOR: HIS FIRM OWNERSHIP OF HIS BOWL#2.? WHY IS HE INSTEAD, TOUCHING BOWL2 W/ SIDE OF HAND, WHILE UNNAT’LY TWIST’G SO AS TO BE … THE MORE I LOOKED, THE MORE “WOW, HIS PALM REALLY REALLY IS EMPHATICALLY UPWARD FACING / DIRECTED: SHOWING. NOT “LYING” ON TABLE, BUT HE IS *SHOWING* *THAT* HIS HAND IS EMPTY. CONNECT THAT FACT TOGETHER WITH THE 100% UNNATURAL WHITE BOWL AIMED AT US___, AND IT’S CLEAR IT’S THE SAME EQUIVANT “X IS SHOWN TO THE VIERWR”. WHY IS “PALM DISPLAYED TO THE VIEWER” JUST LIEK “WHITE EMPTY BOLW IS DISPLAYED TO THE VIEWR”? WE IKNOW THE MEANING OF THE DISPLAYED BOWL: BAT-CAVE SIGNAGE SAYS:

“EMPTY BAT-BOWL DISPLAYED TO THE VIEWER”

THEREFORE : EMPTY PLAM HAS A BAT-SIGNAGE SAYING:

“EMPTY BAT-HAND DISPLAYED TO THE VIEWER”

WHICH HAND? RIGHT HAND. HER RIGHT HAND IS ON HER BOWL. TO EAT. HIS HAND IS INSTEAD, DISPLAYED — TO HER, TO THE WORLD , TO THE VIEWER. CONTRAST: HER RIGHT HAND IS ON BOWL TO POTENTIALLY EAT. BUT IN OCNTRAST, HIS HAND IS NEXT TO BOWL, EMPTY –> THUS : *NOT* EATING. JUMPTO : *DONE* EATING. HIS LEFT HAND: ON BOWL. HER LEFT HAND: ON TABLE EEDGE. SO HE OWNS TWO BOWLS. SHE OWNS ONE. NO QUESTION, HIS RIGHT HAND *IS* TOUCHING BLOW BLUE BOWL. FROM WHOLE IMAGE WE KNOW TOUCHING = CONNECTION. THERE CANNOTBE ANY DOUBT, THERE … IT IS *CERTAIN* HE OWNS TWO BOWLS; THAT IS EVEN MORE CERTAIN THAN WHO OWNS WHITE BOWL (but plaenty of evid that Red guy owns white bowl.). i am fully prepared (as puzzle solver) to defend on all available points of evidnece, the bowls assignments. arrtist left us enable enough points of evidence to communcate the message unambigly. but you must read all the data and consider the options of interp. It’s a math problem, set up to only all one allow one definitely correct answer — after you consider all of the clues. Once you consider all of the clues, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY. BUT, you can’t half-ass it. You *must* consider *all* the given data/clues, same as Classroom Exam on left. ONLY THEN is there no ambiguity.

]

I for this first time, PROVED that this REALLY IS a PROBLEM that DEMANDS solution, SUCH THAT: no one can possibly claim to have “solved” the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image , while having failed to even attempt, seriously attempt, to compellingly consistently systematically EXPLAIN his arm twist palm up touching his 2nd dose blue bowl.

WHY ISN’T HE HOLDING THE BOWL? YOUR THEORY IS SH*T, IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!!!! (your theory is both “SHIT”, and “SHOT”!) THE REALLY FUNNY ODD THING IS, THAT AS SOON AS I PROVED THAT HIS HAND REALL, REALLY, IS A BIG BIG PROBLME, (1145AM TODAY), IT ONLY TOOK 5-10 MINUTES TO SOLVE! !! HELL, IT TAKES ME 2 HORUS HOURS TO THEORIZE, ABOVE, ABOUT THE THEORY OF SCIENCE: THE CYCLE OF DISCOVERING A PROBLEM, POSSIBLY ANNOUNCING THE PROBLME TO COMUNITY, HYPOTHESIZING, TESTING, PUBLISHING THE SOLUTION, AND YOU MAY HAVE A COMBINATION, OF MANY PROBLMS, INCLUDING BOTH, OLD KNOWN UNSOLVED PROLBLEMS, PLUS, NEWLY REVEALED PROBLEMS THAT THE NEW THEORY IS ABLE TO RVEALE MAYBE LIKE 11145 AM TODAY I WAS ABLE TO REVEAL AND FULLY ADEQUATELY *ARTICULATE* THE PROBLEM THAT THE OLD “LESS-THAN-THEORRY’ IS OBLIVOUS TO, AND TAT THAT NEW NEW THEORY, PROVIDES PROVES ITS MERIT BY BEING ABLE TO REVEAL “HEY HERE’S A PROBLEM WE CAN NOW SEE THANKS TO THE NEW THEORY”. SO, IT’S TOO NEGATIVE TOSAY , “OMG THE PALM-UP SHOWS A PROBLEMATIC QUALITY OF THE NEW THEORY”. NO. RATHER, THE OLD THEORY WAS SO BAD AND BLIND, THAT IT COULDN’T EVEN *SEE* THE PROBLEM. THE NEW THEORY IS SO *GOOD*, THAT THE NEW THEORY powerfully makes perceptivble, the problem that was hidden, before. and, being awesome theory, IT ONLY TOOK 10 MINUTES OF APPLYIN GHT ENEW THEOR APPLYING THE NEW THEORY, TO SOLVE THE “NEW”, RATHER, .. NEWLY MADE-VISIBLE-BY-THE-WORONDERFUL NEW THEORY”, PROBLEM.” IT’S NOT A NEW PROBLEM, SO MUCH AS, A NEWLY *discovered* problem. Who gets credit for … don’t just ask “who gets credit for SOLVING” THE ‘NEW PROBLEM’, NO. ASK: WHO GETS CREDIT FOR *DISCOVERING* AND *REVEALING* AND MAKING PERCEPTIBEL, THE “NEW” PROBLEM. ANSWER: ME, AND the Egodeath theory (SPECIF’LY, my previous the Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image decoding work/system.) So I grant myself double; my Theory, my decoding, is DOUBLY CONFIRMED AND CORRUPOBATE: CORROBORATED:
O THE NEW THEORY IS CONFIRMED, IN THAT IT SUCCESSFULLY EXPOSED / DISCOVERED A NEW/ PREVIOSULY HIDDEN PROBLEM. (STRONGER: NEW THEORY PROVED THERE REALLY IS A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM. IT IS *NOT* A “PROBLEM WITH THE NEW THEORY”, THAT’S MIS-FRAMING. IT’S A PROBLEM MADE VISIBLE THANKS TO THE HUGE MERIT OF THE NEW THEORY.)
O THE NEW THEORY IS CONFIRMED, IN THAT IT SUCCESSFULLLY SOLVED — IN ONLY 10 MINUTES — THE PROBLEM.
THAT IS TWO WINS. NOT A LOSS + A WIN.

MY NOON ACCOMPLISHMENTS TODAY, BOTH WHICH CONFIRM THE NEW THEORY/DECODING-SYSTEM:
1. I USED THE THEORY TO PROVE THAT THE IMAGE PRESNTS A DECODING PROBLEM: PALM UP. THAT TOOK 5 MINUTES.
2. I USED THE THEORY TO SOLVE THAT DECODING PROBLEM. IN ONLY 10 MINUTES.

-mh 2020]

… he would need to engage the range of art that is
presented in the first three issues of Entheos magazine, and the range
of arguments such as those presented in Giorgio Samorini’s articles
about Christian mushroom trees.

Snapshot of Messy Partly Updated “The Image” Chapter of Proof Article

purpose: paste-here as-is, then delete noise in Proof article:

The Image

The Mushroom Tree with Hanging, Balancing, & Sword
“Eadwine leg balancing tree dread 2023-02-14.png” 4.2 MB, stamp: [10:43 p.m. February 14, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

“Eadwine leg balancing tree dread 2023-02-14.png” 4.2 MB, stamp: [10:43 p.m. February 14, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

2020 Dark Version
The Top Row of the Image
Row 1 (2020 Dark Version)
Row 2
Row 3

April 13, 2023 note: In 2020, I treated Row 1 as Important and Row 2 & 3 as Unimportant, so I neglected to show Row 2 and 3.

The Entire Image
“Eadwine leg balancing image 2023-01-09.png” 6.5 MB
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

“Eadwine leg balancing image 2023-01-09.png” 6.5 MB
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#

Color update notes February 14, 2023: The library site improved the color balance since Nov. 2020, apparently based on them looking at the present article and seeing that their color balance is “off”.

Great Canterbury Psalter f134 with Handedness Boxes
Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f134-2023-03-13-lines.jpg” 1.4 MB [9:40 p.m. March 26, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#
https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/canterbury-f134-2023-03-13-lines-1.jpg

Note how I hadn’t yet figured out what to do with Row 3 Left guy standing on both feet (never mind {blade touching left limb}).

v1 info was: Crop and annotations by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f134-2023-03-13-lines.jpg” 1.4 MB [6:46 a.m. March 13, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#
(keep as record of date)

This is my original capture, uploaded to my WordPress gallery Nov. 19, 2020, link provided by Cyberdisciple Nov. 17, 2020.

The Entire Page Containing the Image

Canterbury Psalter, folio 134
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom#
High-resolution, zoom, & fullscreen

The 75 Mushroom Trees of the Canterbury Psalter
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/
Lists each instance zoomed & cropped, with attributes listed, including (for example):
Mushroom tree #71: leg-hanging, balance, sword, veil branches, blue stem, broken branches

Scholars’ Failure to Debate Mushrooms in Christian Art

Site Map

Contents:

  • The Failure of Scholars to Properly Discuss and Debate the Most Important Question, of Mushrooms in Christian Art: Summary of the Sordid Situation
  • Victory in a Debate by Stating One’s Position then Declaring Victory

The Failure of Scholars to Properly Discuss and Debate the Most Important Question, of Mushrooms in Christian Art: Summary of the Sordid Situation

Recently, Jerry Brown printed Erwin Panofsky’s letter to Gordon Wasson, including the outrageously omitted (by Wasson) citation of Albert Brinckmann and his book.

Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei
(Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings)
Albert E. Brinckmann
http://amzn.com/3957383749
Entire book at Archive.org:
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_8AgwAAAAYAAJ/mode/2up
The plates are shown at the end.

Cyberdisciple then located Brinckmann’s 1906 book about mushroom tree representations, which Wasson withheld when quoting Panofsky’s letter. I was then able to perform a decoding of an Eden-tree scene from Brinckmann’s book, in my “Criteria” article.

Panofsky’s letter claimed that art historians have already considered and discussed whether mushroom-trees in Christian art represent mushrooms. Wasson omitted Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s name and 1906 book, a monograph.

In Wasson’s quote which he copied from Panofsky’s letter into SOMA, Wasson replaced the citation of Brinckmann by ellipses, this providing no evidence at all to substantiate Panofsky’s claim that art historians have discussed and already resolved the matter with certainty, concluding with certainty that mushroom-trees in Christian art represent trees but not mushrooms.

In my Plaincourault article, I thought it was outrageous for Panofsky to simply assert “art historians have discussed this matter” with zero substantiation that they had discussed it; but that fault is Wasson’s, for censoring mention of Brinckmann’s name, in a cover-up.

Wasson was a banker who had private meetings with the Pope, so likely had a conflict of interest causing him to distort and censor the matter of mushrooms in Christian art and steer critical investigation away from this topic.

Wasson did a cover-up of the whole matter because around 1970, Allegro’s book was conducting a 4-pronged attack to discredit Christianity, one prong being showing of a single picture of a mushroom-tree, the Plaincourault Amanita tree, with no argumentation around it, silently implying that there is art evidence for Amanita in later Christianity.

Are we arguing about just Amanita, or both types of mushrooms? Are we arguing about mushroom trees, or all depictions of mushrooms? None of these most-basic distinctions were at all articulated and debated in an actual, 2-way discussion.

All-in-all, there was no actual debate or investigation of mushrooms in Christian art – not in 1906, nor in 1952, nor in 1970. The whole “debate” vanishes into thin air like egoic control power, upon testing and investigation.

Compounding the complete failure of scholarly investigation, Wasson failed to credit Graves for discovering mushrooms in religion, and in particular, failed to mention that in 1957, Graves found evidence that mushrooms were the basis for Greek religion and mythology.

Graves told Wasson he was offended that Wasson didn’t mention Graves’ seminal work on mushrooms in religion and mythology.

Until Heinrich’s book Strange Fruit in 1995, which was the first real treatment that at all covered the matter, the previous scholarly “treatment” of the topic amounts to nothing, in terms of an actual 2-way debate with articulated positions and 2-sided argumentation, supported by several types of evidence.

Despite the steadily accumulating evidence for mushrooms in Christian art, that sordid tradition of arbitrary, unscholarly waving-aside and explaining-away continues on, thanks to Letcher and Hatsis.

Letcher and Hatsis slip and slide among vague, shifting position on exactly what they are denying and affirming, changing their mind about what subject they are centrally debating about:
o The Secret Amanita Christian Cult theory?
o Amanita, or both Amanita and Psilocybe?
o Mushrooms in Christian art?
o Mushrooms in Christian practice?
o Mushrooms in Christian culture?

The Minimalist school (“there’s never mushrooms, there’s never evidence”) is vague about:
o On what basis each of those questions is to be explained away.
o Why their sometimes-chosen scope of question is the key issue to deal with and center all discussion around (silently, as it suits them from moment to moment).
o Why some types of evidence and readings of that evidence count, but others are to be ignored and discounted.

Wasson’s defense of the status quo in Christianity was to censor mention of Brinckmann’s name, and do a cover-up to make it look like the entire matter of mushroom depictions in Christian art has been firmly investigated and settled by the top art historians.

Don’t look behind this ellipses curtain; the top, most relevant authorities have already discussed and settled the matter.

Brinkmann, Panofsky, and Wasson didn’t address whether the many non-tree mushroom depictions in Christian art represent mushrooms, so these Minimalists (maintaining that there are no mushrooms in Christian art) have a weak argument and a vague position, by any measure.

The resulting argument (if you can call it an “argument”) that Wasson published in the book SOMA, to dismiss and explain-away the many mushroom-trees throughout Christian art, amounted to fallacious argument from sheer position statement (“mushroom-trees are not mushrooms, but trees”), and argument from authority (“Panofsky, the top art historian, says that art historians (unnamed) have discussed and concluded the matter, therefore it is settled.”)

Victory in a Debate by Stating One’s Position then Declaring Victory

Conclusion: Do not treat Hatsis as if he’s worth taking seriously on the question of mushrooms in Christian (or Greek) art, religious, or culture.

On this topic of mushrooms in Christian art/religion/culture, Hatsis is just an ignorant outsider who hasn’t done relevant research, though he thinks he has, and he writes nothing worth reading or replying to on this particular topic.

However, against that dismissal, it has been profitable for me to push back against his misreadings of eg the salamander bestiary image (like my pushing back against Brown’s off-base rebuttal of Irvin re: the Amanita-styled vial).

Read Hatsis on this topic, but read him as a fool on this particular topic.

Brinckmann/Panofsky think they’ve “discussed the matter” and “had a debate”.

No, the debate or question of mushrooms in Christian art(? or is it practice? or it is culture????? it’s all so vague!) hasn’t even started, until:
1. Side A states their position. (done? not done)
2. Side B states their position. (not done)
3. Side A argues against Side B’s position. (not done)
4. Side B argues against Side A’s position. (not done)
5. Judge who won. (not done)

Dumb-as-an ox is incapable in his book, of articulating what his position is.

His thinking is a thicket of muddle-headed confusion, on Eve and the Eden tree.

His writing here is a tangled confused incoherent mess with a SOLID WALL OF MISTAKES in the cista mystica serpent-basket caption, every word ignorant, wrong, and confused.

He is incapable of forming a coherent sentence on this topic.

He has failed to state his position with any coherency.

That is the bare minimum for a debate or investigation, to compare two competing theories or explanatory frameworks, by any definition.

You can’t just have 1 guy walk into the room, state his position and declare victory on the spot.

We haven’t even heard what the countering position is, much less (the 3-4 other steps above).

The Minimalists’ “victory” in the “debate” is a fallacy called “Argument by declaration of Victory”:

The debate court opens. 1 guy walks in. He says: “My position is x, I WON THE DEBATE!!!!”.

The next day, the newspaper headlines blast out: Guy 1 Wins Debate!

That is the TOTAL JOKE of alleged, “art historians already discussed” whether mushroom trees in Christian art represent mushrooms, and that mycologists are merely “ignorant” of the Art Authorities’ Unanimous [ie Unilateral] Declaration of Victory.

WHAT A JOKE!

They put forth only 1 book, by 1 man, in 1906, in German, only 86 pages, only 9 plates, restricted to mushroom trees — LET’S DECLARE VICTORY: THERE ARE NO MUSHROOMS IN CHRISTIAN ART!

Is that all you got? Could you possibly have any less?

You’re basing your entire declaration of victory on 1 book, by 1 author, in German, in 1906, restricted to mushroom tree forms; and a set of mytheme-illiterate attack-and-discredit articles by Hatsis — and we’re to think that the matter is so settled, that Hatsis’ book has no need to even summarize his purported slam-dunk disproof of all mushrooms in all Christian art?

I attempted on Nov 23 2020 to email Christian Ratsch, through his coordinator Erna, to read Brinckmann’s book in German and assess the case Br. makes.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Oh, but very impressive letterhead,
INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED COVER-UP

What an embarrassment; scholarly FAIL.

Hatsis’ total failure of a book (I want my money back, you provided worse than no value) CLAIMS that he has some devastating proof and evidence somewhere, giving the titles of two articles.

But those articles only contain a 1-sided position statement, or rather a little more: he counters Irvin, who has left the field.

Irvin, who Hatsis is fixated on attacking in his articles, was still (at the time of Irvin’s book), a little too much of an all-in, pro-Allegro cheerleader, back then.

Irvin got too stuck in the “secret Amanita Christian cult” dead-end, enabling Letcher/Hatsis to (sometimes) make that red herring issue the center of their squirrely slip-and-slide attack.

The issue is far, far from settled; the pathetic tiny “exchange” has been far from a real back-and-forth debate.

Just like Wasson/Allegro’s non-exchange, it’s been just throwing a couple or a few darts past each other, not even engaging at all in a 2-way debate between the Minimalists vs. the Maximalists.

Hatsis’ book is a lie, when he claims that his book doesn’t need to treat mushrooms in Christian art at all, showing no pictures in his book, because if only the ignorant reader saw his proof in his articles, they’d instantly know and concede that the matter is settled.

Hatsis’ book’s non-treatment literally makes a false statement, that IF people read his papers, they’d agree with him: I did read all his articles, in his old original website pre-Park Street Press; I critiqued his set of articles in detail, and he’s totally full of it.

Hatsis is illiterate at reading altered-state art mythemes.

He brags proudly, literally, of “explaining away” mushrooms in Christian art — I do not think those words mean what you think they mean; he should be embarrassed that all he has is sleazy “explaining away”.

Hatisis is not a serious scholar, on the only topic that matters: mushrooms in Christian art (and practice, and culture).

He thinks playing a fool is the same as being funny. He reveals his hand by bragging of being able to “explain away” mushrooms in Christian-related art; he thinks it’s amusing; he thinks he’s funny.

Serious scholars of the topic are not laughing, at this clowning.

Absolute B.S. Some scholar! What a joke.

Hatsis’ “method” of winning the argument and omitting the only topic that is worth anything (mushrooms in Christian art) from his $15 book, stinks of Brinckmann/Panofsky as “settled” (that is, censored) by Wasson.

The same unearned bravado,
The same “victory by position-statement”,
The same “victory by declaring victory”,
The same censoring and omitting of mushroom-art pictures,
The same failure to mention (critically) Brinckmann’s book,
The same slip-and-slide of what it is we’re debating,
The same stink.

The Brinckmann/Panofsky/Wasson/Letcher/Hatsis Minimalist school is a cover-up, not a covering, of the world’s most important topic:

Psilocybe in Greek and Christian art.

What does Hatsis’ book say about Graves’ discovery of Psilocybe in Greek religious mythology?

Finding: No, Hatsis does not cover mushrooms in Greek art; he merely mentions the conjecture of possibility of mushrooms 1 or 2 times in that chapter, but does not treat mushroom images in Greek art.

Rubbish aplenty: Brown castigated Hatsis for this, in Brown’s article: Hatsis’ book (Kindle) page 139: “Working off the theories of the now discredited John Allegro, these researchers have argued that the main Christian entheogenic sacrament was the …”

Everything about that statement is wrong. The passage is beyond redemption. He lumps together all researchers, he fixates on Amanita, he does not specify those he critiques —

Hatsis says they are “working off the theories of Allegro”, – no, that’s false; nobody is “working off the theories of Allegro”, except maybe Irvin, who’s now flipped his opinion (values) against the whole field of mushroom scholarship.

Hatsis says allegro is “discreditd” — that’s partly false.

Brown does the same slop — COME ON GUYS, you are making falsely perceived EASY SHOTS, WHOLESALE-DEMONIZING ALLEGRO as your “look how good I am” punching bag, to make yourself look good by making stuff up? SLOPPY!

Allegro wrote stuff, Irvin agreed with it, so now Hatsis (and Brown! and Price!) sees an easy way to make himself look superior, by tilting at the apparent tag-team of “Allegro/Irvin” — and, anyone else they want to throw into that garbage can of careless dismissal that THEY themselves (Wasson/ Letcher/ Hatsis) created, their mental fantasy of “Allegro and Irvin and everyone else who follows them in affirming mushrooms in Christianity” — a giant STRAWMAN exercise, cheap, sloppy, worthless, and NON-SCHOLARSHIP.

It is hard to push back and condemn a position that is not a position, because it is so ill-defined and silently changing from one paragraph to the next.

The Old Theory protects itself by poor, inconsistent definition: the minimal-to-moderate view of mushrooms/ entheogens/ or is it Amanitas or Psilocybe, in Greek, or just Christian? art — or maybe we’re arguing about religious practice?? or culture, overall?

What are we debating about? It’s under-specified, inconsistent, and unscholarly all-around.

Stop the cheap shots, guys, you’re embarrassing yourselves, making mistakes left and right. Allegro looks to you like an easy way to make yourself look superior, but you are making yourselves look SLOPPY.

The Minimal/Moderates gravitate in a fixation around Allegro, they orbit Allegro, it’s the only thing they see, the star that they steer by.

The are not capable of thinking about the field without obsessing around Allegro — unlike everyone who is actually in the field! Heinrich, Ruck, etc.

The only person I know who at all orbits around Allegro is Irvin, but he’s changed his values and left the field.

The people who are looking for cheap self-glorification by kicking the punching bag Allegro, can’t engage the field in any other way.

I’m knowledgeable about Allegro, but I have a balanced perspective — he’s only one of many in the Moderate-to-Maximal school, and he is far from the most important.

The Minimal-mushroom school is are stuck, trapped on Allegro forever, letting Allegro dictate the range or window of their thought.

Allegro was correct in some points: Christianity did use mushrooms, which is provable when the scope of question is defined adequately.

Numerous scholars believe Allegro was correct about Jesus’ ahistoricity; such as Richard Carrier.

Had I peer-reviewed this paragraph by Hatsis, I would’ve had it completely rewritten.

It’s as bad of a mess as Robert Price’s badly botched, careless, sloppy, unscholarly dismissal of Allegro as treated by Acharya (which she thanked me for reconciling her & Price and correcting him).

Page 140 he misuses the word “in fact”; he is speaking falsehood:

“There is, in fact, no evidence that any Christian ever [his emph] interpreted the forbidden fruit in such a way.” Such a what way, you ask? Sh*tty writing, is the answer — Hatsis doesn’t know what his own position is, or is incapable of articulating what it is he’s asserting and denying.

I already quoted and rebutted Hatsis’ paragraphs, at:

Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (Hatsis)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/psychedelic-mystery-traditions-hatsis/

Brown rightly castigated him for the next sentence — this shows how off-base, tilting at windmills, mis-conceiving and misunderstanding what the debate is even about:

“Here is where the discipuli Allegrae and I part company. …”

He is strawmanning; inventing the enemy group and what their position is. WTF are you talking about, “the discipuli Allegrae”?

Speak English and stop talking rubbish. “… There isn’t a shred of evidence…”

Ok, at this point, I’m gonna give up on him (whatever that means), like Cyberdisciple did with Muraresku — HATSIS IS IRRELEVANT AND INCOMPETENT in this topic; he’s failing to engage with the body of evidence, and is either ignorant, or willfully blind.

I simply don’t care what this incompetent outsider has to say on this topic.

His writing on this topic, his research, is simply too low-quality to bother with.

There are more sensible, relevant people to read and critique.

The field has moved on, leaving Hatsis in the dust of irrelevancy, heap of discarded rejected hypotheses like my calling the bible-reading man a “scribe” in the Canterbury hanging-from-mushroom image.

Hatsis is stuck back in 1970, in an endless-loop 8-track tape, debating some position that he fantasizes — in a shared dream with Letcher — that anyone cares about.

Every sentence is so filled with rubbish, there is simply no profit in taking his commentary seriously.

Hatsis is beyond hope of point-by-point correction.

I had to write a 70-page article putting down the nonsense around Plaincourault, after Price’s totally-botched dismissal of Acharya, which Price (editor of “Journal of Higher Criticism”) had to completely delete in embarrassment (and make up with Acharya with apology to her); I’m sure as hell not going to waste my time on this waste-of-time non-scholarship.

There’s some good in every book. We do have to decide which books are worth how much time to engage with, to filter out wheat from chaff.

I officially give up on the Minimal school (whatever “giving up on them” means) on the topic of mushrooms in Christian and Greek art/ religion/ culture.

Wasson Letcher Hatsis (the Minimal mushroom school) misreads the whole state of play in the field; everything he writes is off-base, and tangled in confusion, on this set of distinct questions.

Hatsis (or: the Minimal mushroom view on Greek & Christian art/religion/culture ) is not effectively engaging with the field on this topic (set of questions).

Hatsis (or: the Minimal-to-Moderate mushroom view) mistakes Irvin’s past promotion of Allegro, with the entire question — or rather (importantly) set of distinct questions.

Hatsis’ perspective (the Minimal view) is highly distorted; he doesn’t have a balanced view on the field (the set of questions).

He is (the Minimal-to-Moderate mushroom view is) under-read and doesn’t realize it, so he has poor judgment and seems to be playing on the wrong ballfield.

Notice that I’m having to tighten up and specify exactly which position I am condemning, here. The whole field is way too squishy, vague.

Hatsis (the Minimal/Moderate view) is not worth taking seriously on this topic, though my pushing back against his failed, hackneyed treatment, has been profitable in some ways.

I’m throwing up my arms about Hatsis (or: the Minimal/Moderate view) not being worth taking seriously on this subject that he just displays his ignorance and mytheme-illiteracy about.

We have to decide how much time to invest in following the Minimal-to-Moderate school. A problem with those general labels: we must instead be specific in which question we are debating.

I gave up on on Hatsis (whatever “giving up on him” means), partly because he’s inconsistent on which point he’s debating, partly because he overestimates the importance of Allegro.

He has a lopsided outsider’s reading of where the field’s at, overly influenced by Irvin (who was very pro-Allegro, 10 years ago).

Brown rightly castigated Hatsis for strawmanning, continuing to attribute to Brown a position which Brown explicitly repeatedly said he rejects and doesn’t hold.

Hatsis and such people try to make themselves look good by mis-placing everyone who is investigating any of this set of questions, into a 1-dimensional grab-bag garbage can of “Allegro”/secret Amanita cult — you win, Hatsis, you win a fake argument.

We have to decide how much time to spend following a given author, regarding a specific question.

We need to spend less time reacting to people who can’t think straight, and spend more time defining the field with precision, such as articulating consistently what the different distinct topics of debate are.

My general buckets (Min/Mod/Max) don’t always help, lumping everyone into one bucket like Letcher/Hatsis do, for some 5-10 distinct questions.

I wrote more criticism of Hatsis, which became criticism of the Minimal-to-Moderate school, which is a rather hazy category. It’s better to have specific research on highly specified topics and lay out all the evidence/arguments and control the debate.

Good, competent entheogen scholars need to control the debate with precision, on their end, and not only react to the confused and inconsistent writings of outsiders.

Competent entheogen scholars need to control the debate with precision, on their end, and not only react to the confused and inconsistent writings of outsiders.

That’s the conclusion that I ended up heading towards as I wrote more fulmination against “the Minimalist-Moderate school” (my phrase there is starting to fray as too broad a bucket):

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/20/scholars-failure-to-debate-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

We need a more professional, insular school, who is committed to a certain view, which we Can call “the Maximal view”.

I’m just having trouble specifying what I mean by “the Minimal view” and “the Moderate view”, which depends on which point, exactly, we’re debating.

That’s one beneficial outcome of writing the “Criteria” article — I now see how many distinct question-scopes there are, to debate.

I can thank Hatsis for that, he’s both good and bad there – he lumps all mushroom questions into “Allegro”, but OTOH, he breaks my Min/Mod/Max distinction, b/c he’s Min on some topics, Max on others.

It’s not exactly clear what actions this means:
“Ignore inept scholars in this field, on these particular topics.”

__________________

What does it mean, to “not take an author seriously” on a given topic?

Is it a matter of how much time to spend reading them, or writing in direct reply to them?

We have to sort wheat from chaff, and do what we can to rightly shape and steer the field.

People in the field need to do a good job, and to hell with the ignorant opinion of clueless outsiders.

If my overly sweeping categories are of any use:

To hell with Minimal-to-Moderate outsiders.

Read their books, I guess, but “don’t take them seriously” — what does that mean?

Have a patronizing attitude: What are the little children saying about this matter?

Did the little children discover an easter egg or anything to pay attention to, like little Tommy Hatsis found that cool Salamander Bestiary image?

Hatsis wrote total rubbish about it, of course, but at least Irvin, through Hatsis, brought it to my attention, and that image is pretty cool when read and decoded by someone who is mytheme-literate.

Hatsis’ use of the bestiary image in trying to win some muddle-headed irrelevant debate against the Irvin of 2010, is just a confused, unhelpful mess.

Hatsis thinks that he proves Irvin is Wrong, on some ill-specific position, because… it’s not a religious picture but a bestiary?

It is a waste of time trying to unravel Letcher Hatsis’ confusion from getting the genre wrong, a fundamental category error — we inhabit incommensurate assumption-frameworks.

It was good, in the “Criteria” article, to throw “the Minimalists” overboard, flip a giant collective bozo bit on the whole lot of them.

But haven’t I been doing that for all scholars, for 35 years already?

Adherents of a wrong framework are beyond redemption; forget them, they are just committed to a bad framework, some “The Old Theory” that doesn’t pan out.

The findings of people who are using a bad Theory/lens, might nevertheless despite their confusion, contribute some value, sometimes, after you correct their distortions.

Scholars always have to work with previous, distorted research, to constantly correct it to move forward.

Sometimes, the Old Theory is just ignorant and IRRELEVANT.

What the Minimal entheogen writers think they are arguing about, is not what my school is correctly investigating.

We have to treat the writings of the other camp(s) like aliens, not operating on the same basis of worldview at all. Of course everything they write is distorted 10 ways from Sunday.

Why should I spend hours explaining that Hatsis’ entire worldview is wrong?

Same as it’s ever been.

I care about mushrooms in Greek & Christian art/ religion/ culture/ myth.

Hatsis’ book is sub-garbage quality on the topic I care about; his book is *literally not even worth reading*, on that topic.

On the set of distinct topics I’m interested in, Hatsis’ book is nothing but an annoying, sub-amateur, outsiders’ display of his own confusion and mis-reading the field.

His book probably contributes substance, on topics that I don’t care about.

Peer Review: Hanging from Mushroom Tree

Site Map

Contents:

Article Links

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/

Peer Review Feedback from Cyberdisciple

This page only shows the feedback I didn’t incorporate or note in the article.

Is the top row indeed more transcendent than the lower rows? Why do you call them ‘mundane’ ? I wonder if they too will yield to the theory of mythemes, if only we apply the method to them. There are no mushroom trees, but the guy stabbing himself in the bottom left has that distinctive floating folded robe. But of course that can’t refer to a mushroom at all; neither can that jar near the center of the bottom row that reminds me a bit of the bowl in the Dionysus mosaic.

This builds on your identification of the column as the barrier between tight cog and loose cog. I was looking at the lower rows of the image, when the thought occurred to me to look for symmetries between the right and the left sides of each row.

The top row has god in the center, the two groups on the far left (wise men)[or, agnostically/neutrally, “onlookers/audience” -m] and the far right (banqueters), and then the two branching scenes on the near left and the near right.

The middle row has three scenes: two large group scenes around a middle scene of the guy with the hat sitting with a book on a stand.

The bottom row has four scenes: the two single figures near the border on each side and the two scenes of farming around a central column.

Additionally I’m certainly not thinking that the scythes have anything to do with the harvest mytheme you identified recently. That would be unreasonable. Just like the scroll stretching down from God’s cloud to the right hand of the guy sitting on the chair in the center couldn’t possibly be analogy for the mushroom “scroll” that connects the eater/reader to the control source.

/ end of Peer Review Feedback from Cyberdisciple

After I glanced at row 2 & 3 for the 3rd time (1 minute total), I agree with Cyberdisciple, {scythes/blades} in rows 2 & 3 refers to my recent 2 “ego harvest” 2 articles. A key thought in decoding it today was “unsheathing your sword”, then I noticed that his unsheathing-the-sword is exactly underneath, and parallel to, God’s sword. — Cybermonk 1:41 p.m. November 19, 2020

Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe

The present WordPress weblog “Post” has been superseded by the following WordPress web “Page” format, which is wider in a desktop browser:
Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/proof-canterbury-psalters-mushroom-trees-are-psilocybe/
The above linked page is more up-to-date than the present page; it has a few more items decoded such as: the passing student’s lifted garment (John Rush: “celestial erection”); and upturned hand on table. – Jan. 30, 2021.

Michael Hoffman, November 19, 2020

Top-Level Contents:

Detailed Contents:

The Image

The Mushroom Tree with Hanging, Balancing, & Sword
The Top Row of the Image
The Entire Image
The Entire Page Containing the Image

Canterbury Psalter, folio 134
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom
High-resolution, zoom, & fullscreen

Proof of Psilocybe in Christian Art

A Proof Based on Depictions of Analogies Describing Ultimate Mushroom Effects, not on Depictions of the Mushrooms Themselves

This article proves that in the Canterbury Psalter, the 3-cap mushroom tree with a man hanging from it by one leg, above a sword, is Psilocybe.

This article is a complete decoding and commentary on this illuminated manuscript image from the Canterbury Psalter which contains a 3-cap Psilocybe mushroom tree, with the right-hand branch cut off.

This proof is based on identifying descriptions of the highest effects from Psilocybe; this proof is not based on the physical attributes of the mushroom tree literally matching the surface form of Psilocybe.

The analysis method laid out in this article proves that Christianity has always been based on Psilocybe mushrooms; there must be full repeal of Psilocybe Prohibition.

The message that is transmitted, communicated, and conveyed by this mushroom tree, by the entire top row of the image, and by the entire image, is the loftiest possible message:

How to have stable self-control during the intense mystic altered state from mushrooms, by gaining a transformed, durable model of time, possibility, and control.

This complete, most-lofty analysis absolutely proves that the entire image represents and describes peak Psilocybe-induced experiencing and how to endure and accommodate it, and that the mushroom tree in this image is undoubtably Psilocybe.

The Entire Image Is a Cybernetic Control-Seizure Mechanism that Only Works if Mushroom-Powered

The mushroom tree is depicted within the flow of this image, in such a way as to make the image serve as a system, a transcendent communication and message, a device; a labyrinth mechanism which pulls-in and pulls upward the mind’s self-control system.

The image is a message from on high, from the altered-state mode of God-aware loose cognition, that draws the mind into self-testing, and leads the mind toward its mature potential for controlled cybernetic control-seizure of self-transcendence.

Following and tracing the message that is communicated in this religious image, inexorably culminates in the sacrificial self-cancellation of the mind’s incoherent, childhood-suited illusion about personal control power that’s based on a naive, incoherent branching-possibilities model of time and control, premised on confused, irrational thinking.

The mind’s initial, childhood-suited thinking is based on the premise of having and wielding the power of control to steer within a tree of branching possibilities; freewill-premised thinking within a presumed branching model of time and possibility.

This image incorporates the mushroom tree in a very specific, particular way, together with God’s sword of self-control death; {God} referring to the hidden, uncontrollable source of the mind’s control-thoughts.

The mushroom tree with the sword, sets up the sword as a stability condition; conditional stability; personal control in the mushroom-induced altered state is stable and viable if the mind contains and relies on the requisite model of time and control: the non-branching model, per Eternalism.

The sword in this image is packaged together with the mushroom tree, along with the {left limb} versus {right limb} contrast that is mapped to {branching} vs. {non-branching} thinking.

The sword and the “branching vs. non-branching” condition that are presented in this image are packaged together with the mushroom tree that’s of interest, forming a message-encoding that is corroborated by the explicit form of the pink key-tree.

The pink key-tree explicitly indicates that viable stability of personal control in the mushroom-induced altered state conditionally depends on which model of time, possibility, and control the mind uses: branching (not viable; perishable) or non-branching (viable and durable).

Simply Move Aside the Cover-up, to Reveal the Blatantly Obvious, Now Bolstered with Comprehension of Mythic Imagery

Mushrooms in art are obvious, especially now that such images are bolstered by comprehension of the patterns of mental transformation which are depicted by mushroom images together with other mythic imagery. Mythic images use analogies to describe such transformative altered-state experiencing.

This proof presented in this article shows that there has been, in effect, something like a cover-up, to make the entire world of religious scholars blind to the blatant, explicit, obvious, more-or-less literal presence of mushroom depictions all throughout Greek and Christian art.

We merely need to ignore the cries of objection from the Brinckmann/ Panofsky/ Wasson camp, those on the outside, to remove and simply move aside the cover-up and then we can easily, plainly, readily recognize that mushroom trees, and mushroom thickets, and branching and non-branching mushroom shapes and forms in Christian art, of course represent psychoactive mushrooms. Why would anyone have thought otherwise?

The brilliant, genius conclusion that in religious, mystical, mythical art, images of mushrooms represent mushrooms (shocking; who would’ve thought!), is obvious when we consider the matter sensibly from the perspective of mythemes that describe by analogies, the mind’s high potential to test itself and transform its mental model.

The mind’s built-in potential to test and challenge and probe its power over its own self-control-thoughts while in the loose cognitive state, produces regeneration into the adult form of thinking.

The adult form of thinking is characterized by non-branching possibilities per the Eternalism model of time and control, as asserted by the pink key-tree and {left & right limb usage or non-usage} when the mind’s control-system is placed precariously above the sword of God which is attached to this mushroom tree.

The adult form of thinking is conformant with the loose cognitive association state that is produced by ingesting psychoactive mushrooms, a state which reveals and makes perceptible God’s higher power of control over the mind and personal control system.

Here Is the Deal Which Mushrooms and the Mind’s Structures Offer

This revelatory article explaining this mushroom tree image which includes a sword and non-branching and an entire profound graphic storyline context, presents the following non-negotiable package deal from on high.

This is the deal that is offered by the transcendent structures in the mind, and by the inherent nature of what the mushroom experience itself ultimately reveals:

o You can have mushrooms all throughout broadly Greek and Christian art and culture throughout history.

o You can have the full repeal of mushroom Prohibition.

The price you have to be willing to pay is your {beloved first-born child-self}, mythically speaking by using analogies.

The price you have to be willing to pay is:

o You have to learn Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; the Egodeath theory; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, as laid out in the plainest, most direct English here, assisted by the Psalter image.

o You have to learn religious mythology, as well-represented in Greek and Christian Mystery Religion including this Psalter image that is explained plainly here.

o You have to sacrifice freewill thinking within a branching-possibilities presumption, as explained and instructed in the image and in this article.

As the monk artists would say:

Whether or not you elect to accept this proposed deal, is up to God.

Normal Christianity Includes Abundant Awesome Mythic-level Religious Experiencing

The revelation in this article is given in order to confirm the complete experiential authenticity of Christianity through the Holy Spirit that is given by God in the form of Psilocybe.

A reward for studying this theory of interpretation is, getting to hang precariously by one leg above the sword of God along with the red-garment initiate on the de-branched mushroom tree, and learning how to endure this intense altered state which leads inexorably to self-testing and transformation of control.

This type of decipherment of this image’s message proves that the mushrooms found throughout Christian art represent Psilocybe; and firmly, completely supports the full repeal of Psilocybe Prohibition, based on religious grounds, such as religious history and Freedom of Religion.

Scholars have failed to actually look into the matter of mushrooms in Christian art, practice, and culture. Courts are incorrect if they presume that other religions, but not Christianity, have a “shamanic” origin and tradition.

This article proves that Christianity has always been based on Psilocybe mushrooms. Christianity is highly competent in the awesome mythic and religious experiencing department.

There is no need to travel away from Christianity, mistaking it as uninspired, bereft of Dionysus, lacking the actual effective Holy Spirit; no need to go running off after other religions that proffer authentic experiencing of God’s power, and that promise to serve the mind’s innate desire for transcendent, otherworldly experience.

The theory of intense mystic altered-state experiencing that is presented here, and the method of mytheme analysis that is presented here, proves that our religion, normal mainstream Christianity, is based on intense, transformative Psilocybe experiencing, throughout history.

This mushroom tree, with a man hanging from one leg above a sword, certainly represents Psilocybe, in the heart of Christian art.

The Image Depicts an Entire Traditional, Time-tested Mushroom Initiation Procedure

The Message Conveyed Is Mandatory for Utilizing Psychedelics

There’s talk of a “new psychedelic revolution”, but there is no way to research such Loose Cognitive Science without preliminary learning of the Transcendent Knowledge that is conveyed in this mushroom-tree image.

The valuable message conveyed in this image is the magic password of ego death that is required in order to pass through the gateway of transformation, to explore and utilize the psychedelic state.

The intense altered state has a gate that is guarded by God’s angel of death, the dragon guarding the high treasure; a guarded gate which repels and casts out in terror anyone who doesn’t have this knowledge, this wisdom.

Instead of trying to steer away from “the shadow”, trying in vain to forever avoid, repress, and suppress “the shadow”, this Theory shows how to effectively steer toward the {blade} vulnerability demonstration.

Touching the {blade} to egoic thinking {sacrifices} Naive-Possibilism-thinking, {false rulership}, switching instead to Eternalism along with Qualified-Possibilism.

There’s no talk of “the shadow” here, except in the furrowed brows of the failed students: the exact nature of the threatening danger is exposed and known, and how to conform with and endure the danger is known.

By entering into the initiation session with this religious knowledge, training, guidance, and prayer, the initiate comes away unharmed, but enlightened and spiritually transformed.

The Depicted Method of Mushroom Initiation Provides Safety, Reliability, and Scalability

This Psalter image establishes the requirements for teachers, students, and initiation guides, to relatively safely use mushrooms to head toward what outsiders call “the shadow”, which specifically is, transcendent cybernetic control seizure, and sacrifice of the childhood-suited illusion that’s built into the branching-possibilities model of time and control.

The method presented in the image, and spelled-out in plain English in this article, covers safety, reliability, and scalability, to deliver the most profound, the very highest religious breakthrough mystical experience — as routinely done, delivering spiritual regeneration on-tap, in the various ancient Mystery Initiation traditions:

o Caution and Safety — This approach leads up to full control-seizure and mental model transformation in the most cautious and safe way possible.

o Reliability and Effectiveness — This approach provides the classic regeneration experience as effectively and reliably as possible; routinely on-tap.

o Scalability and Availability — This approach makes the cybernetic seizure and regeneration experience available and accessible to the most people, the greatest number of people possible.

The method encoded and communicated in this package-deal “mushroom, sword, and non-branching” image, is immediately and freely available to everyone who can understand and endure control-seizure and the sacrifice and purification of the childhood mental structures.

Initiation preserves the childhood mental structures intact, fully usable, and without any harm; just identifying, separating, and putting away childhood illusion, while gaining the Eternalism model of thinking about time and control.

With this article and image in hand, everyone who is able, can now sacrifice and move beyond the childhood mental structures that were taken as if metaphysically real, while yet fully preserving these required, treasured and beloved mental structures, without any harm.

These preliminary requirements for caution and safety; reliability and effectiveness; and scalable efficacy exactly fit the pattern of the Lesser and Greater Mysteries of Eleusis.

In Mystery Religion initiation on the pattern of Eleusis and depicted in the class teaching and testing scene in the upper left of this image, candidates are first instructed on theoretical book learning of the meaning of mythology as description of personal control seizure and transformation.

Only after that completed education in the ordinary state, the candidates for initiation who pass the examination, can become full-on initiates, who are prepared and ready to engage in entheogenic, real-world, in-practice, first-hand experience, of the experiences which are described, or encoded for communication, by analogies in religious mythology.

Religious mythology depicts the loose cognitive association that is reliably and strongly produced only by entheogens, a state that produces mental dynamics that are described as mania, frenzy, or rapture by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This Holy Spirit mania state, produced by ingesting the sacred meal of mushrooms provided by God, leads the mind to access its innate structure and climax potential of self-probing and control-testing, that inexorably leads to the sacrifice of childhood-suited, temporary, transient, perishable thinking, and regeneration of the mind regarding the mental model of control, possibility, and time.

This image is a mushroom-powered cybernetic control seizure mechanism, that only works if powered and activated by psychoactive mushrooms — thus proving that the mushroom tree depicted must be Psilocybe.

This same perspective from on high, above the mind’s cybernetic self-control system and getting a good look at it, likewise proves that all the other mushroom images in this Psalter and throughout Greek and Christian art are also representations of psychoactive mushrooms, whether the images match Psilocybe, Liberty Cap, or Amanita, in their various outward shapes, textures, and colors.

Qualifications That Are Required for a Completely Experienced Religious Initiation Guide: What ‘Wisdom’ Is

This illuminated manuscript image first depicts a teacher who knows the highest wisdom about self-control seizure, teaching students about how to endure Psilocybe and be spiritually regenerated.

The image then depicts a completely experienced, God-fearing religious initiation guide at a sacred-food Psilocybe banquet, not partaking.

The religious teacher, wise from full initiation into cancelling his personal control-thinking, and the religious initiation guide, teach the initiates how to effectively wield the controlled threat of loss-of-control, so as to correctly re-align their self-control.

The ultimately experienced teacher, and the initiation guide, teach the initiates how to consciously put trust in God as the ultimate controller and the actual source of their control-thoughts.

There is no vague talk about “the shadow” here, which amounts to saying “HERE BE DRAGONS”; meaning dangerous uncharted territory.

The completely experienced instructors who are depicted in this image know all about exactly what the inherent danger involves, in the altered-state exercise of pointedly revealing the mind’s control-vulnerability, in such a way as to successfully cause mental transformation into the coherent, durable, mature configuration.

The religious guide, and the wise, fully experienced religious teacher, know the real nature of sacrifice, prayer, God’s wrath, repentance, God’s mercy, and religious regeneration.

Students Are Required to Fully Understand Eternalism First, Before Permitted to Become Initiates in Practice

This preliminary theoretical training of {youths} and {maidens} before actual initiation, is like the Lesser Mysteries of Eleusis; pre-initiation.

A {youth} or {maiden} is a person who still thinks in terms of Naive-Possibilism; not fully initiated yet to convert to mature thinking, which is Eternalism.

A student is not permitted to become an initiate, until the student fully passes the exam to prove that the student has full theoretical understanding of the present article; knowing Eternalism and the {sacrifice} process of transforming to Eternalism-thinking (along with fully preserved and unharmed, Qualified-Possibilism-thinking).

Only 1 out of 4 students pass the exam in the upper left of the image.

The student must first prove that the student has complete understanding of Transcendent Knowledge; the Egodeath theory; Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the present article and the complete image which this article explains.

I have laid out that Theory in direct, plain language in this article; linked articles; and the Egodeath site, such as the main article there.

Students who have an incomplete understanding of Eternalism are not permitted to banquet and be on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The strict prerequisite before banqueting and being on mushrooms above God’s sword is, students are instructed and tested by the completely initiated teacher, to ensure that they first have complete understanding of the Eternalism model of time, branching possibilities, and control.

Students must be taught how to pray and trust in the hidden control source before, during, and after initiation; for example, Jonah’s prayer in the “whale” (ketos; short sea-serpent):

“Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them. But I, with shouts of grateful praise, will sacrifice to you. Salvation comes from the Lord.”

And, for example, the verses near this image in the Psalter.

Students must understand, for example, {fatal snake bite} and why looking at Moses’ {rigid bronze serpent on a de-branched pole} {cures} and restabilizes control.

Students are first trained, educated, and tested about (in theory) how to consciously put full trust in God as the source of control-thoughts, given that God is always the hidden uncontrollable source of control thoughts.

Students must first study this image, aided by the present article and a completely initiated teacher.

Students are required to understand {sacrifice} of child-mode delusion on the model of {Abraham’s child Isaac} and the {ram caught helplessly in the thicket}.

Students must first fully understand {charitable mercy and good judgment} and {breaking the bow}, to relent when the mind has cybernetically seized and tested its power against itself; sufficiently demonstrated to itself its dependent power.

The student must demonstrate that they consciously understand that the mind’s control system is dependent on the hidden uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

Knowing the entire present article and image it explains, is a strict requirement, before the teacher permits the students to become initiates, banquet, and be on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The teacher is shown examining the students, and rejecting the students who have an incomplete understanding of the Eternalism model of time, branching possibilities, and control, and theoretically how to consciously put full trust in God as the source of control-thoughts, given that God is always the hidden uncontrollable source of control thoughts.

Students are required to score 2 out of 2; having the {right foot down} and displaying the {right hand}, with completely un-furrowed brow, per the front-left student.

Students are not passed if they have a mixture of understanding, scoring 1 out of 2, such as {right foot down} and {left hand displayed}, with slightly furrowed brow (per the front-right student).

Students are not passed if they score 0 out of 2, with {left foot down} and {left hand displayed}, with {very furrowed brow} (implied for the two students in the back row, whose feet are not shown).

The Complete Mushroom Initiation Storyline in Pictures

Scenes in the Whole Image, in Temporal Order

The top row coherently depicts and communicates a storyline which includes the following stages as scenes:

1. Act 1: Teacher with students — On the left, a teaching and examination session with a mature, wise, experienced teacher, and students who conditionally graduate.

2. Act 2: Sacred meal — A sacred meal of Psilocybe with a religious initiation guide and father present, not partaking.

3. Act 3: Pulled toward God by an angel for testing — The initiate is pulled into self-testing by a messenger-angel from God. The religious initiate is carried off into the Holy Spirit altered state by an angel from God; receiving ideas about testing personal control power while in the altered state of loose cognitive association binding.

4. Act 4: Vulnerable to God’s sword on mushrooms — The religious initiate is placed in a precarious position by the angel, messenger from God (the true, ultimate source & controller of control-thoughts). In the intense altered state, the mind seeks to probe and explore its control-integrity, and is innately drawn to ideas about self-testing and control-vulnerability.

5. Act 5: The Psalter viewer gets pulled into the center of the story — The person who is looking at the Psalter image thinks of the meaning of the initiates on mushrooms above God’s sword; reviews their training and testing (upper left); their banquet coaching (upper right); their being pulled upward by angel thoughts (upper mid-right); and ending up balancing on the tree (upper mid-left).

The viewer of the image thinks of challenging the mind’s control, and mercifully and charitably relenting. Any remaining old-thinking pollution, impurity, or childhood illusion is sacrificed, gaining Transcendent Knowledge, yet retaining functioning child-mode thinking, without any harm.

5. Act 5: Daily life — In the lower rows, mundane life then resumes, expressed with mystic analogies of plowing, sowing, reaping, eating, warring, and religious study.

Scenes in the Top Row, from Left to Right

In order from left to right. Numbering = temporal sequence.

1. Transformed teacher, testing students. (1 out of 4 has the required thinking.)

2. Pink key-tree (left = branching = instability; right = non-branching = stability).

5. Mushroom tree with qualified initiates being tested and transformed in practice.

0. God as source and paradigm of valid, stable control (left hand = null power = branching-illusion).

4. Angel bringing initiate for transformation after eating.

3. Sacred meal banquet with qualified {maiden}/student (the viewer), transformed guide, initiate’s transformed father, and qualified {youth}/student.

The initiates on mushrooms are vulnerable to falling onto the ultimate controller’s sword, until their thinking is stabilized by repudiating their initial, branching-premised thinking about control, and by instead adopting the non-branching way of thinking about control, possibility, and the ultimate source of control.

Recognizing Depictions of Transformative Effects

Method of Decoding Mytheme Analogies in Esoteric Art

The reward for reading this article and learning the Theory which it presents is:
o Proof that there are countless Psilocybe mushrooms all throughout Christian art.
o Proof that Christianity has always incorporated Psilocybe.
o The entire repeal of Prohibition of Psilocybe mushrooms.
o Learning how to recognize Greek & Christian art describing mushroom experiencing.
o Learning gnosis; Transcendent Knowledge.

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/
That article defines three levels of evidence:
o Literal depictions of the physical form of mushrooms.
o Mythemes that describe the physical form of mushrooms, by analogy.
o Mythemes that describe the effects which result from mushrooms, including mental model transformation from a branching to a non-branching model of time, possibility, and control.

Understanding this proof requires the Egodeath theory, which is Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, which I have laid out here, summarized in plain, direct language.

The Image Matches Psilocybe’s Effects of Self-Cancellation: Viable Control Depends on Understanding Non-Branching Possibilities and God’s Ultimate Control of Thoughts

The entire image exactly describes the distinctive, extreme, transformative effects of Psilocybe, in a complete, coherent, consistent storyline, in which the mind is brought to test its control and pass muster upon adopting the non-branching model of time and control.

The story in the pictures proves that the mushroom tree is Psilocybe, by coherently describing the peak transformational religious experiencing which Psilocybe intensely and reliably causes.

This illuminated art work is successfully read and interpreted in a compellingly coherent way that is laid out plainly here, as a description of mental model transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism model of time and control, intensely experienced in the altered state that reliably results from Psilocybe.

The situation that is depicted and described in this art work by use of analogies, exactly describes the peak, ultimate, intense transformational crisis that results from Psilocybe — exactly as depicted: an uneasy sacred meal, then carried away to be placed precariously above God’s sword while receiving thoughts of wrath and mercy.

The mature, completed initiate now has a modified, corrected understanding of personal control. In the remainder of the image, mundane life is depicted through mystic analogies, high comedy, and meaningful absurdity, representing the self-cancellation of the old, childhood-suited mental model.

The initiate is mentally placed in a precarious testing situation where the mind is made to conform with a non-branching model of personal control power, possibility, and time.

The mind is regenerated and made conformant with God-mode thinking.

Instead of looking for the physical form of mushrooms in this image, like the Minimal mushroom theorists, I look for {branching vs. non-branching}, {blade}, and {testing} themes, which describe by analogies, the ultimate transformative experiential effects from ingesting mushrooms.

An Image Designed to Communicate the Highest and Innermost Information

It is the world’s loftiest puzzle, an image-based communication of a subtle and intense message about personal control transformation in the loose cognitive state.

This image is a strong, highly coherent communication message, like a caduceus carried by the transcendent messenger of mythic knowledge. Receiving this message involves the highest kind of decryption, decoding, deciphering – compare the Rosetta Stone.

This message was in no way designed to obscure, but was entirely designed to communicate, to convey the highest observations about how the mind works in the intense mystic altered state.

This image provide instructions about how to conform with the mystic altered state, in order to have viable control and coherent thinking that endures.

Mythic art communicates in this mode, writing and reading using this analogy-based language of mythemes and motifs, including broad Greek and Christian art.

This image is the opposite of obscurantist. This image tries to communicate, not occlude: it even includes the pink key-tree to confirm the reading or decoding of the lofty message about branching vs. non-branching possibilities, and viable control in the altered state.

The Fluency Brought to this Decoding Problem

A few days ago, I was aware of nothing but the image of the mushroom tree itself, separated from the rest of this image, as if a free-floating, isolated image that actually had no surrounding context, with a random blue wavy area on the right. I was not aware of the existence of the Psalter or surrounding areas of the image.

The only thing I knew was this blurry, out-of-context cropped image, yet I was able to quickly decode the {non-branching}, {left and right limb}, and {sword} aspects, based on my knowledge of other art and mythemes:

From https://www.ancientpsychedelia.com/canterbury-psalter/

After Cyberdisciple located the source image, it took me a couple more days to decode the class session on the left and the pink key-tree, restricting myself to the top row of the image, to unpack the dense meaning and cross-connect meanings within the top row.

Then I reluctantly allowed myself to glance at the remainder of the complete image; rows 2 & 3. I didn’t want to get sucked into decoding the entire image.

As an expert at mapping mythemes to Eternalism, it took almost a week to decode and document the complete image, to fully explain the mushroom tree in its context of the entire image in the Psalter.

I still have barely glanced at the rest of the Psalter, but clearly it confirms everything here.

The information conveyed in this entire image is so lofty, that even with this art (this clear-cut image-based coherent expression of that loftiest knowledge), combined with expertise in Transcendent Knowledge and mythemes, it still took me four days (and more) to fully decode the image and write-out the communication for everyone here.

I was fluent from having decoded mythemes in other art; I used that literacy to read this context-free mushroom tree image in a series of easy steps; then the entire top row; then the entire page.

Since I knew the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the Egodeath theory; Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism; and Transcendent Knowledge, this decoding-puzzle was perfect for me.

Receiving this imagery-expressed communication across time and place requires a sophisticated, complete, mature, well-developed comprehension of both the mystic state and analogy-based descriptions of it.

I explain this loftiest message here in plain language, for everyone to readily learn, using my latest, clearest wording, supplemented by my many other, directly relevant writings and research leads.

To successfully receive the message, the viewer must know enough about the referent domain of mystic-state experiencing, and the artistic language of mythemes, to decode and receive the message.

Trees & Limbs, Branching & Non-branching

Unnatural Branching Identifies Psilocybe in Christian Art

The Minimalist, literalist outsiders, superficial thinkers on this topic, expect to identify mushrooms in art by only looking at the mundane surface forms of plants.

Minimalists maintain that there are no mushrooms in Christianity, and there is no possibility of compelling evidence for mushrooms in Christianity. Any mushrooms that appear, are to be quickly explained away. Minimalists hold the minimal mushroom theory of Christianity.

In fact, we know these are psychoactive mushrooms, because they do not look exactly like mushrooms, but instead, have added {branching} under the caps, representing knowledge of one’s non-branching worldline in the block universe.

An instructional hypothetical question: How could one tell the difference between a non-psychoactive mushroom vs. a psychoactive mushroom, in religious art?

Answer: The psychoactive mushroom has branches under the cap, or another otherworldly, unnatural branching feature, as a message of transcendence.

The angel’s ego-transcendent {message} that causes self-control seizure, panic, ego death, profound transformation, rescue from peril, and spiritual regeneration, is about branching vs. non-branching possibilities, including the personal cybernetic power to steer among possibilities.

The presence of altered-state mythemes such as {threat of death, branching, hand on heart, and hand gesturing toward the situation} show that this image is a depiction of altered-state mental model transformation; therefore the mushrooms represent specifically psychoactive mushrooms.

Trees Shape: The Simple Pink Tree Is the Decoding-Confirmation Key

Mytheme-decoding of this image is all about consistency of the mytheme patterns, defined so wonderfully explicitly by the pink tree, which is the confirmatory decoding key and an instructional aid used by the class session on the left.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

The pink tree is much clearer regarding the cut branch being on the right. The blue tree, its cut branch is barely on the right, and the branch splits off so near to the ground, and is cut so low, that it only reads as “stump”, not “branch”. The pink right branch really is a branch, with some significant length.

The smaller, pink, non-mushroid tree, and the larger, mushroom tree, are isomorphic: both have a trunk, one cut-off branch on the {right}, and one intact branch on the {left} that branches into three branches.

The two isomorphic trees confirm the valuation pattern:
o {left} = bad; illusory; unstable control; Possibilism; branching-thinking.
o {right} = good; real; stable control; Eternalism; non-branching-thinking.

The left, branching major branch of the pink tree approximately touches the left, branching major branch of the mushroom tree, indicating that what’s true of the one, is true of the other; or should we say, “what’s false of the one, is false of the other”.

This is not “matching by isomorphism”, but instead and also, “matching by touching”. In case all the other corroborations and signals and redundancy confirmation checks weren’t enough.

No Use of {serpent} or {rock} Mythemes

This diagram does not use the mytheme {serpent} to depict worldline, or {rock} to depict block universe.

This diagram only relies on the mythemes {left vs. right limb} and {branching vs. non-branching}, together with {sword} for cybernetic death, to focus on the control-death aspect of the two worldmodels.

The red initiate securely hangs from a long, serpentine, non-branching stem. In mytheme art, branching vs. non-branching is a matter of degree, for practical artistic purposes.

Ivy is considered to be non-branching, because it relatively rarely branches.

Although one could say that “the red initiate is saved from falling thanks to a branch”, that’s not a branching spot.

The red initiate’s “good”, {right leg} is on a straight, non-branching portion of the limb, far away from major, “evil” {branching}. It’s a matter of emphasis.

This art is extremely deliberate; there’s almost no slop or accident; most every aspect has been painstakingly weighed, considered, and decided with some deliberation and awareness of the signalling, by the monks who designed this highly intelligent art composition, an intricate communication.

This art piece exudes intelligence and deliberation, a dense transmission of coherent intention and meaning, which keeps revealing more and more depth, after days of decoding it.

Trees Shape: How to Establish Left = Possibilism, Right = Eternalism

{left} and {right} are arbitrarily and traditionally assigned to the two models, to keep track of them; to enable referring to one or the other of the models.

{branching} and {non-branching} are used to describe or characterize one of the key differences between the two different models of control and time, omitting use of the mythemes {snake} (worldline) and {rock} (block universe).

“Floating in mid-air offering no protection from death” is assigned to {left}, to (in contrast) communicate that the {right}, {cut-branch}, non-branching model is the viable, life-preserving model of control and time.

The function of the pink tree is to provide a simplified morphological schematic without any distracting mushroom or men, inviting us purely to focus on contrasting branching (on the {left}) vs. de-branched (on the {right}), and serving to confirm our interpretive experiment: it messages to the viewer, “Yes, you understand this message”.

The isomorphic, duplicated branching of the two trees communicates the consistent mapping, that in this diagram, {left limb} means branching, thus Possibilism; and {right limb} means non-branching, thus Eternalism.

Class Session: The Good Student and the Bad Students

Exam Question: Which Hand to Rely On When in Peril and Put to the Test for Viable Control Stability?

Consider the hand positions in this image:

Exam Question:
Which hand is good, and which hand is bad?
That is, which hand to rely on, when in peril; which branching-model to rely on, to save one from control-system failure?

The Students Display Their Answers

The Grading System

These are capable, clever artists, packing-in so much communication of information: they express three levels of comprehension among the class.

It’s a class of four students.

Two students are fully visible in the front row; that is, with feet and hands visible.

The exam consists of two questions for which to give an answer, the answer being indicated as follows:
Which hand displayed?
Which foot down?

The only exam-answers which we can see for the two back-row students, is the hand, not the feet (that is, whether a student’s left foot or right foot is down).

There are three possible grade levels:
A — correct foot down & correct hand displayed.
C — correct foot down & incorrect hand displayed.
C — incorrect foot down & correct hand displayed.
F — incorrect foot down & incorrect hand displayed.

Further details of that analysis:

Assume that one foot being up, means that the other foot is down. This gives 4 combinations (one feet-configuration, one hand-configuration), the middle two combinations being equivalent.

There are four theoretically possible combinations, to represent three grade levels:

‘A’ grade — 11; correct foot, correct hand; right foot down, right hand displayed.
Score: 2 out of 2. Fully correct understanding. Unfurrowed brow.
Passed; the student is allowed to banquet and be initiated on mushrooms above God’s sword.

‘C’ grade — 10; correct foot, wrong hand; right foot down, left hand displayed.
Score: 1 out of 2. Half incorrect understanding. Slightly furrowed brow.
Not Passed; the student is not allowed to banquet and be initiated on mushrooms above God’s sword.

‘C’ grade — 01; wrong foot , correct hand; left foot down, right hand displayed.
Score: 1 out of 2. Half incorrect understanding. Not depicted; would be slightly furrowed brow.
Not Passed; the student is not allowed to banquet and be initiated on mushrooms above God’s sword.

‘F’ grade — 00; wrong foot, wrong hand; left foot down, left hand displayed.
Score: 0 out of 2. Completely incorrect understanding; very furrowed brow.
Not Passed; the student is not allowed to banquet and be initiated on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The Students’ Grades on the Exam

Students must fully pass this “Possibilism vs. Eternalism” exam, or else they aren’t allowed to be on mushrooms above God’s sword.

The student on the left passes.
The pink-undergarment student, to the left of the teacher, confidently gives the correct answer with completely un-furrowed brow, displaying his {right hand} (Eternalism); that’s why he’s permitted to pass the exam and continue on to banquet and be on mushrooms, so he gets to appear twice more in the top row for the school yearbook, as the pink initiate.

The successful student has studied the present article and fully understands it. He is the one good student among the class of four.

The three students on the right don’t pass.
The student with feet on the right and only slightly furrowed brow, half-gets it: his right foot is correctly down, left foot up — but he incorrectly displays his left hand.

The other two students, with fearful, furrowed brow, give the incorrect answer, displaying their {left hand} (Possibilism); and either having left or right foot down; not shown — we can assume they all had the correct foot as the front-right student shows. The don’t pass the exam.

For their own safety, they are not allowed to banquet and be on mushrooms, nor to appear in any other photos in the top row for the yearbook.

The teacher:
The teacher doesn’t need to look at the initiates on the mushroom tree; he already understands, and is examining the good student’s thinking.

The teacher has successfully communicated the full understanding to the good student.

The teacher’s expression shows that he is testing the student; and this student displays the fully correct answer.

The other candidate {youths}/students are still incorrectly thinking partly in terms of {left hand} Possibilism; Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism, even though the front student has the correct foot down (the back students’ feet we can’t see) — I think I recognize them.

The teacher is Cybermonk.

The smart student is Max Freakout and Cyberdisciple, who pass the exam and so are coached further at the banquet, and are then permitted to be on mushrooms and blade-instruct themselves into a God-conformant new mental model, putting their well-studied, theoretical understanding of Eternalism into practice, first-hand.

The flunked students are Brinckmann, Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, and Hatsis; they give the wrong answer, according to their default presumptions, they flunk the exam, and for their own safety, they are not permitted to banquet and be on mushrooms, nor to appear in any other places in the school yearbook, the illuminated manuscript, except in the oxen scene down on row 3.

However, as a cautionary example of failure, the bad students’ images of giving the foolish, wrong answer are captured, and remain in the yearbook for the next 800 years.

Students Who Gave Wrong Answer Appear Elsewhere

Have you seen these youths around town? Former students, it didn’t work out.

The happy brute getting grain poured into his sack is one of the few with the wrong foot on the ground, his left foot (he is affirming Naive-Possibilism-thinking). Grain is more useful than gnosis.

I think it’s Wasson — there’s an uncanny resemblance.

Banquet Meal, then Pulled by Angel by Right Limb

The Sacred Meal and the Barrier Column Between Mundane and God-Consciousness

There is a full-height barrier column to the right of God, between the angel and the spiritual-food banqueters who are beginning their celestial loose-cognitive voyage.

The column divides the ordinary state from the altered state. The barrier column means separated from God-awareness, in the ordinary state of consciousness (tight cognitive association binding).

{Foot/base of column} represents stability.

There’s the same placement of the barrier-column and mushroom tree, making them equivalent.

By the same symmetry, the observers on the left are in the ordinary state, with the mundane pink tree.

Everything to the left of the mushroom tree is in the same, ordinary (but spiritually observant) state of consciousness.

The zone of altered-state God-awareness (God-consciousness, God-mode thinking), is from the mushroom tree to the barrier-column.

The observers on the left observe the altered-state representations, the peak altered-state phenomena that are depicted and visually described.

The meal banqueters on the right are consuming the entheogen that causes the peak altered-state phenomena that are depicted and visually described.

The horizontal placement of the barrier-column is symmetrically placed with the mushroom tree, corroborating that the column represents the switch from ordinary state to altered state; think of the mushroom as being overlaid onto the column, serving as a gateway or portal to the otherworld of Mythemeland.

The column and the mushroom tree are in exactly equivalent spots. This confirms the interpretation of the column as the barrier between tight cognitive state and the loose cognitive state. What causes the shift from tight cog to loose cog? Look to the same spot on the other side for the answer: the mushroom (tree).

Having cleared his bowl of the mushrooms provided by God, while the others are still eating them, one of the entheogenic banqueters (the red initiate) — the same who later hangs above the sword — is now lifted off the ground in the altered state, supported and pulled (by his {right arm}) by an angel, messenger of God; a messenger of Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

The entheogenic banqueter (the red initiate) who has taken off is supported and pulled by the angel of God by his {right arm}, emphatically not by his {left arm raised up floating} in the air, nor by his {feet} in the ordinary state on the right-hand side of the column, where we are blocked from seeing God’s power.

{Left arm} means Possibilism-thinking.
{Right arm} means Eternalism-thinking.

{Both of the red initiate’s feet together off the ground} is a different kind of meaning, more like ordinary comic book than a mytheme. It means that the red initiate is not using his accustomed Naive Possibilism-based control-thinking (and experiencing).

The red initiate’s feet are not on the ground and on the base of the column; his usual self-control basis is suspended. Compare shoes that are partly resting on other column-bases.

The theme of “resting on the base of a column” is probably less consistent or ubiquitous than the use of hands and arms in the upper row; it is less of a critical driving theme, and is used more opportunistically, as a lower priority to drive the placement of items.

The red initiate’s accustomed control-system is in abeyance.

The referent or meaning of “both feet together floating at the top of the column foot, base, or foundation” is somewhat different than “left hand grasping at thin air without purchase, in the altered state as virtual Possibilism-power fails”.

“Both feet together floating” is negative; it means “not the mind’s regular control-thinking/experiencing”; “regular control-thinking and control-experiencing is in abeyance.”

On the right side of the cloud of God, an angel is coming forth from the realm of God, holding up the red initiate {beardless youth} by his {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking).

The red initiate’s {left arm and hand} (Possibilism-thinking) is {floating in mid-air}, offering no support for personal control stability.

Timeline for Initiates Finishing Eating, Getting Placed in Tree, then Almost Falling Onto the Sword

There are two initiates in the tree at the same time: first the red initiate, hanging, then after that, joining him, the pink initiate, sitting near the branch in the tree.

1a. First, the red initiate ({youth}) finishes eating his white bowl (while pink is still eating two bowls).
1b. Then, the angel pulls the red initiate (initiate #1) by the {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking).
1c. The angel then places initiate #1, the red initiate, hanging in the tree above the sword.

2a. Trailing some time behind red, the pink initiate-{youth} finally finishes consuming his two bowls.
2b. The angel pulls the pink initiate by the {right limb}.
2c. The angel places the pink initiate to sit near the branch of the tree, overlooking the red initiate who is hanging. That’s the state that the left scene shows.

3a. Third, not shown, in the future, on the right, the {maiden} will finish eating.
3b. It’s implied that in the future, the angel will pull the {maiden} up into God-mode thinking, by her {right arm}.
3c. The angel will then place the {maiden} in the tree in some position, to be vulnerable to falling on the sword if she maintains branching-thinking and its model of control.

Note: {threatened to almost meet a blade} = for example, the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham — or rather, of the ram which got himself stuck helplessly in a thicket.

Genesis 22:12-13 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s thicket-caught ram — the angel/ram verses:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22%3A12-13&version=KJV;NIV

Barrier-Column

On the right side of the image, on the left side of the barrier-column, the red initiate is pulled by an angel coming out of God’s cloud or aura — the blue band.

The red initiate is pulled by the angel by his {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking), while his {left arm} (Possibilism-thinking) extends up, floating helplessly in mid-air.

The red initiate’s {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking) is pulled by, and attached to, the stability that’s dependent on the angel, though the angel is about to hang him above the threatening sword; meanwhile, the red initiate’s {left arm} (Possibilism-thinking) floats free without offering any control-stability; no purchase for control, no foundation, no ground, no basis to support control-power.

The placement of the red initiate in relation to the barrier-pillar:

The red initiate bends, where his body crosses the state-boundary.

The red initiate’s feet extend down straight to the base of pillar, on the ordinary-state, right side of the boundary-pillar.

A full-height spear or pillar dividing a scene marks a major contrast:
tight cognition/loose cognition
ordinary state/ altered state
mortals/immortals
mortal/immortal
perishable/imperishable
egoic/transcendent
Possibilism/Eternalism
Naive Possibilism/ Eternalism + Qualified Possibilism

The barrier-column is the gateway between the tight cognitive and loose cognitive states; the ordinary state vs. the altered state.

The left side of the barrier-column shows that the loose cognitive state lets us distinguish the two models of control.

On the right side of the barrier-column, the red initiate’s legs are together, indicating that he only knows one model of time, possibility, and control; he only knows Naive Possibilism.

On the left side of the barrier-column, the red initiate’s arms are spread emphatically far apart, indicating that he has become highly aware of a new model (Eternalism ) in stark contrast to the old model (Naive Possibilism).

After initiation, the initiate possesses two mental models of time, possibility, and control: Qualified-Possibilism, and Eternalism.

In the loose cognitive state, there is a clear difference between the two models of time and control:

The loose cognitive state is the realm of experiencing the Eternalism model.
The tight cognitive state is the land of the Possibilism model.

Before initiation, the mind has the Naive-Possibilism model.
After completion of initiation, the mind has the Qualified-Possibilism model an the Eternalism model.

The loose cognitive state introduces a new model to the mind, that contrasts with the old model, so the initiate becomes now aware of the existence of two models: old vs. new.

Lack of {left vs. right} pattern on the right side of the barrier column

The {left vs. right} rules do not apply in the ordinary state (tight cognitive association binding), to the right of the barrier column.

The column sets up a sharp contrast: to the left of the column, the {left vs. right} limb or branch rules consistently and emphatically apply; to the right of the column, the {left vs. right} rules manifestly do not apply.

The red initiate {beardless youth} held by the angel doesn’t have a clear-cut difference between his two feet, on the right side of the dividing column.

Both of his feet appear to be floating: he is not basing his foundation of control on ordinary-state thinking (which is, initially, naive Possibilism-thinking); his foundation of control-reliance is solely on the angel holding him up by the right arm.

The pink initiate {beardless youth} on the right of the table explicitly has both arms resting on the table, each holding a bowl, taking a double dose of Psilocybe.

In the middle of the table are the {bearded, mature men} (completed initiates who have gnosis; wisdom.

Snakes with Legs, and Men with No Limbs

The bearded men do not eat the sacred meal, because they are already completed initiates.

The bearded, mature men have completed initiation to convert from Possibilism to Eternalism-thinking.

They have been de-branched; like the cut-off right branch of the mushroom tree, which is the good, stable, Eternalism model, they show no branching limbs.

Canterbury Psalter, folio 11. Includes unnatural branching as a signal: serpent with legs, and branching under the mushroom cap.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item

(The image also contains literal depictions of Liberty Cap mushrooms, within a mushroom-tree cap. Or maybe that’s a depiction of an Italian Pine tree, as art historian Brinckmann explained in his 1906 book: artists worked off of templates, which got screwy over the years, as the top art historian Panofsky explained in a letter to Pope-banker Wasson.)

A serpent is non-branching. Ironic mythology, playing with branching and non-branching as a central theme, includes serpents with branching, such as multiple heads, or with legs (branching limbs).

The Concerned Father Bringing His Maiden for Psilocybe Initiation

Everyone at this table has prepared by studying Transcendent Knowledge in the ordinary state, as shown on the left side; they have read the present article, in the ordinary state, and the blue man has first-hand experience blading (self-threatening, to revise) his child-thinking.

Zoom-in the high-resolution image at the site, to examine everyone’s facial expression. These are capable comic book illustrator monks, creating these images; their facial expressions are significant and meaning-filled.

The {maiden} and her father are anxious, and the religious initiation guide is reassuring and coaching the {maiden} (presumably with prayer for trust and mercy, protection and spiritual regeneration), under the guidance of her father.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

The Apprehensive Maiden Is the Viewer; the Reassuring Experienced Religious Guide Is the Monks

Everyone at the table is looking at the {maiden}, and the {maiden} is looking at them. The {maiden} is the common focal point at the meal.

(The angel is not visible to the meal participants.)

All mythemes and mythic figures are aspects of the mind in the altered state.

The viewer identifies with the {maiden} and her concerned, fully initiated father and loved ones.

I suspect that the “women” Maenads, devotees of Dionysus, with unbound hair (loose cognition), revelling in the forest, are either men or women, in women’s clothing.

King Pentheus, to spy on Dionysus’ group, had to dress as a Maenad to fit in; that was the initiates’ dress.  

A common theme in Mystery Religion is {maiden, kore} = initiate, by analogy: “the mind makes itself vulnerable to mystic impregnation, producing new birth spiritually”.

In Mithraism, soldiers dress as woman, for at least one stage of initiation.

Religious Initiation Guide at Banquet

The religious initiation guide is de-branched; showing no limbs, like a non-branching, wise {serpent}.

The bearded men do not show their limbs — they are limb-less, debranched — a mystic joke about branching, like the snake with legs.

The red initiate owns the white bowl that’s emptied of mushrooms; he’s already off the ground, pulled by the angel by his {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking).

The pink initiate owns the red and blue bowls, a double-dose that slowed him down, so he’s following behind the first initiate.

Since the {maiden} isn’t shown on the mushroom tree, she will be third in line to be placed on the mushroom tree by God’s messenger angel, precariously above the sword. The {maiden} rests both limbs (arms or hands) on the table.

Angel

To pass through the gate guarded by the {angel} of {death} with {flaming sword}, the price is ego death; repudiating Naive Possibilism, and knowing/affirming Eternalism, so that the mind ends up with Qualified Possibilism.

{Angel, messenger} = communication of cybernetic death-dynamics. The angel from God is the active agent; this communication and lesson is received by, not initiated by, the egoic controller.

Hanging by the Right Leg Above a Sword

Precarious Hanging Above a Sword, Supported by the Right Leg Only

Hanging precariously above a sword by the right leg, with left foot floating, is evidence for Psilocybe representation, by representing the peak effects of Psilocybe.

This diagrammatic image represents by analogies of {branching and non-branching}, {peril}, and {sword} causing {death}, the two models of time and control.

These mythemes describe the Psilocybe-induced phenomena of mental model transformation from the branching Possibilism to the non-branching Eternalism model of time and control, thus confirming that this tri-fold mushroom tree in Christian art specifically represents Psilocybe.

The red initiate {beardless youth} ate the mushrooms in the {banquet}.

The meal and barrier-column area show that the red initiate consumed (emptied) his (no one is touching the white bowl, it is shown to us as empty, and the red initiate is already being pulled by the angel by his {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking), and will be first to be hung above the sword, while the pink initiate is still eating, and will be initially placed by the angel to sit at the branch) bowl before the pink initiate, who was still eating his two bowls (he is touching the blue bowl and holding the red bowl).

Now the red initiate, pulled into gnosis by the angel, has ended up in a {precarious} position that threatens {death}; control-loss.

The red initiate was pulled by the {angel, messenger} of God, by his {right arm} (Eternalism-thinking), and ended up positioned to hang {precariously, perilously} above a {sword}, {supported by} only his {right leg}, and touching with his {right hand} the {cut-off branch} of the mushroom tree, affirming the truth of non-branching, to {save his life} (restore his viable cybernetic control-stability).

The red initiate’s {left hand} is touching the sword: his {left hand} (Possibilism-thinking) offers no purchase, no power to stop him from falling onto the sword and dying.

The red initiate’s {left hand} (Possibilism-thinking) is cut by the sword, which removes Naive-Possibilism-thinking, the {perishable} part of the mental model, leaving only Qualified-Possibilism, as well as driving the mind to construct and develop Eternalism-thinking.

Eternalism-thinking is the new model of time and control, which is able to endure and conform with the loose cognitive association state from Psilocybe.

Implicitly, the sword cut off the right-hand branch of the mushroom tree, rendering it the correct branch, which is, the “non-branching”, second model of time and control which the mind develops.

The Pink Initiate

The pink initiate {beardless youth}, who is sitting in the {branching} part of the {tree}, {grasps at thin air with his left hand}, and {gestures towards and looks towards} the hanging red initiate’s {foot floating in mid-air}, which gives no support basis to prevent control-loss cybernetic {death} by falling onto God’s {sword}.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

The {sword} and the {angel} are connected, because they are both coming from god’s cloud/aura at the same level.

This is equivalent to the angel with flaming sword who guards the gate into the Garden of Eden.

The {left hand} of the pink initiate who is sitting in the {branching} part of the {tree} is {floating in mid-air}; his left hand is grasping at thin air, clenching to try to support himself from falling onto the {sword of death}, but grasping nothing.

The pink initiate is only supported and saved from death by the {cut-off branch} grasped by his {right hand}. His right hand is firmly grasping the {cut branch} which is saving or rescuing him from falling to his {death}.

{Left leg and foot} means the old, naively held Possibilism mental model, naive freewill-premised thinking, which gives no basis for stable, effective personal control power in the loose cognitive state; relying on that mental model in the loose cognitive state produces the threat of cybernetic control instability, {death}.

{Right leg and foot} represents the new, Eternalism mental model, which gives support (on the branch, not the ground, in this case) to prevent from {dying} by falling into the {sword} of cybernetic loss-of-control upon seeing and experiencing that one’s future path of control-thoughts is pre-set, frozen into the block universe.

A mytheme related to {left hand grasping at thin air for support, to save from death} is {idol worship}; freewill-premised, branching Possibilism-thinking has null power, as experienced in the altered state.

The pink initiate’s {right foot} is {secured, stabilized} on a {cut-off branch} (there’s a white line like on the major cut), just as his {right hand} is {securely} clutching a {cut off branch} within the branching half of the tree.

The loose cognitive association state characteristically makes creative, fluid, fluent analogies.

The pink initiate’s {left hand} and {left foot} are floating in thin air, not {securing} him from falling to his {death} on the {sword}.

A deliberate contrast is shown: instead of the pink initiate’s {left hand} being shown as behind the stem, thus grabbing onto it for support, his left hand is in front of that stem, explicitly on the wrong side of the stem, the hand displayed as clenched and {grabbing onto nothing}, {giving him no security}, rendering his left hand useless and {impotent to stabilize} him.

His hand is displayed, explicitly underlined as not behind the stem where one would want it to be, to provide {secure stability}. 

If the far stem weren’t too far away, he could be pressing the back of his {left hand} against that stem to provide stability.

The consistent intention would be clearer if his hand were floating against a gold backdrop. But the artist uses the “wrong side” contrast instead.

The artist contrasts, “hand on wrong side of stem”, and the stem is sufficiently far away and his arm is angled toward us, to indicate that his {left hand} is floating in mid-air, not reaching around to grab the stem.

Be sure to look closely, using high-resolution fullscreen zoom; it pays off; this high art is extremely deliberate, in various significant, crucial points. The details are packed and loaded with significance.

Hanging: Continued Analysis of the Mushroom-Tree Hanging Diagram

The right-hand mushroom, the hanging red initiate’s {right foot} (Eternalism thinking), and the {sword} of cybernetic self-control {death} all touch the realm of God.

His right foot is touching God’s cloud, as if standing on and supported by God’s veiled power. He’s not supported and saved by the branching, by Possibilism, but rather, by a serpent-like, non-branching stem.

The {serpentine non-branching long stem} is good for control-stability, equivalent to {non-branching, cut-off-branch}; it describes by analogy, through its shape, the non-branching worldline in the block universe.

The {life-threatening} {sword}, that threatens self-control loss, {wrath} of God, comes from God’s {cloud} that prevents directly seeing God’s transcendent power.

God is demonstrating his {wrath}, {threatening} the initiate to teach him to stop relying on freewill-premised, Possibilism-premised control-thinking.

Personal control power, the wrathful threat of control-instability (cybernetic {death}), the {merciful} return of control-stability ({imperishable life}), and mental transformation ({gnosis; message from angel}) all come from the realm of {God} the ultimate controller, as experienced, revealed, and apprehended in the loose cognitive state from Psilocybe.

The hanging initiate’s {left hand} is on the far side of the sword, dangling in mid-air, offering no support, so that he would fall onto the sword and {die} if he tried to rely on his left hand; Possibilism-thinking.

The hanging initiate’s {right hand} touches the cut-off trunk-stem; understanding non-possibility-branching Eternalism provides stable self-control cybernetics.

Blades to Transform Thinking

The mushroom {tree} comes with a {sword}, a {blade}. It’s a package deal. Here’s the specific, directly identified nature of the {blade} of {sacrifice} to become {blessed} and {regenerate}.

Hyper-Inspired Psalter Reader with Self-Testing and Self-Mercy

The Psalter reader in the peak intense altered state views this image.

The self-threatening Bible reader, or Psalter image viewer, is the central focal point of the entire image.

Five figures focus on the hyper-inspired Psalter image viewer:
o The bow man with arrowhead inches away from the Psalter image viewer’s head.
o The sword man, who is unsheathing or re-sheathing his sword.
o The bow man who is relenting, backing off, and breaking his bow.
o {charitable mercy and good judgment}.

The Psalter image viewer is the same man as the initiation guide, who is reassuring and en-couraging the uneasy {maiden} (initiate), who is the viewer of this image.

The teacher is testing the student’s thinking. The teacher is the same man as the Psalter image viewer, who is testing his own thinking.

The mind stably relies only on the {right leg}, which is, Eternalism-thinking, about time, possibility, and control.

The mind’s self-control is put to the test, but reasonably judges, with {charitable mercy based on good judgment}, relenting and breaking the bow, upon purging the illusion of branching possibilities: {left leg}, Naive-Possibilism-thinking.

The viewer of this image in the Psalter, is shown within this image, viewing the Psalter, and thinking about the meaning of the red initiate above him hanging by the {right leg only}, on mushrooms, above God’s sword, while the viewer’s mind {unsheathes the sword of sacrifice} and at the same time, pleads the case for {charitable mercy and good judgment} for the viewer’s mind and well-being.

The mystic reader (as the red initiate) {breaks his bow} (he backs off from self-control system violation), and receives the thought, the transcendent message, like the {angel} said of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his {child} Isaac, which would prevent God’s promise of health and fecundity from coming true:

The angelic thought is sent into the mind: “This mind has demonstrated right, coherent thinking about personal control. For an appropriate, blessed sacrifice that matches this correct, coherent thinking, here is a ram that got himself trapped helplessly in a thicket.”

The {sacrifice of the ram} is the Bible paradigm of sacrifice that sustains life unharmed; yielding corrected, blessed thinking about control and time.

Genesis 22:12-13 (KJV) —

“he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.”

From folio 12 of the Psalter.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f12.item.zoom

Abraham then sacrificed the ram on the altar of {rocks} (block universe), and Abraham and his child-thinking walked away unharmed and healthy, yet thinking rightly about control and time.

Genesis 22:8-18 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s thicket-caught ram
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022%3A8-18&version=KJV;NIV

Genesis 22:12-13 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s thicket-caught ram — the angel/ram verses only:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22%3A12-13&version=KJV;NIV

The angel’s message, the saving thought: do not harmfully violate self-control; rather, repudiate reliance on freewill-thinking; convert from Naive-Possibilism to Eternalism (+ Qualified-Possibilism), as the model of time, possibility, and control that endures and is true and stable.

The soldiers {unsheathing God’s sword}; the intensely inspired Bible reader; and {charitable mercy based on good judgment}, are all the viewer in the mystic state; the mind probing and testing its control-model, and relenting upon repudiating Naive-Possibilism and converting to Eternalism + Qualified-Possibilism.

{child} = childhood-appropriate self-control thinking, based on illusory and incoherent, branching-possibility, freewill-premised control, which proves powerless when put to the test, and cancels itself out in the intense mystic altered state.

Gentle {lamb}, {dove} and {Holy Spirit}, Contrasted with {ram}, {eagle}, and {frenzy} or {mania}

Contrasted with {lamb} and {dove}, the mythemes {ram} and {eagle} have connotations of harm, such as {burning the ram on the altar}, during or after the climactic, final full demonstration of nullity, vulnerability, and cancellation of self-control power.

The mind is made to demonstrate its inability to control itself, in order to eliminate Possibilism-thinking, and receive its mature form of mental worldmodel: Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.

In this transformation struggle, or {wrestling with an angel}, the mind is made to purify and purge itself of {sin}, {impurity}, and {pollution}; this way, the mind is finally rid of self-contradiction about self-control.

Compare the violent connotations or tone of Zeus’ {eagle} who abducts the {youth} Ganymede by force, along with {frenzy} and {mania} (the altered state); versus the {power of the Holy Spirit} (the intense, cybernetically overpowering altered state) figured as a gentle, peaceful, harmless {dove}.

Compare the powerful {ram} of Isaac, versus the gentle, non-harm-toned analogy of Jesus as {lamb}.

Together, the mythemes {Holy Spirit} as a {dove} instead of Zeus’ {eagle}, and Isaac’s {ram} now figured as a gentle {lamb}, emphasize the angelic thought that saves the completed mystic from harm, “do not harm the child”, while the mind is finally purged of the remnants of Naive-Possibilism-thinking.

The heavily inspired Psalter viewer may be looking at an image of the sacrifice of the ram that got himself stuck helplessly in a thicket.

The {arrowhead} of testing the mind’s mode of thinking is aimed straight at the inspired Bible reader’s head from inches away, while {charitable mercy} and {good judgment} are taken into consideration from the other side.

{charitable mercy} and {good judgment} in the mystic’s mind encourage the mind to do no more than sufficient, adequate demonstration of the control-vulnerability of the freewill-premised, branching-possibilities model of control and time.

{good judgment and charitable mercy} {holds up her palm}, asking the mind’s sword-men and bow-men to relent, have mercy, and not harmfully violate the personal self-control system. The red initiate, in compliance with this reasonable, saving idea, {breaks his bow}.

The reasonable pleading tone of {charitable mercy} and {good judgment} is that very tone of God’s angel telling Abraham that he has obeyed God rightly, and to go sacrifice the provided, isomorphic, ram that got himself caught helplessly in a thicket.

During the altered-state initiation into adult thinking, the mind is innately designed to put its power and integrity of self-control to the test, in order to drive itself with force, to convert to the non-branching, Eternalism model of control and time, while yet keeping the original, illusion-based, incoherent model of time and control fully intact and usable, unharmed.

{Foot/base of column} represents stability. The inspired Bible reader’s chair rests on the right side of the base of the column. This is a stable zone, a stable space, with two columns under God.

{charitable mercy} and {good judgment} rest on, and are based on, the foot of the stable column.

The intensely inspired Bible reader is both reading the Bible — viewing the present Psalter image in this illuminated manuscript — and receiving revelation through the Holy Spirit.

The inspired Bible reader’s right foot is on the ground, left foot floating in thin air; he knows the Egodeath theory.

{God’s wrath} & {God’s mercy}

The arrowhead and spear are aimed pointedly at the inspired Bible reader’s head.

The arrowhead and sword are directly below God’s sword.

The {unsheathed sword} is parallel with {God’s sword}; the intensely inspired Bible reader is in the same situation as the red initiate who is hanging supported by his {right leg} above {God’s sword} of cybernetic self-cancellation.

The contemplative Bible reader in a state of intense Psilocybe inspiration, has been placed on the de-branched mushroom tree by the {angel}, messenger of God’s control, to test and correct his control-thinking.

Full Comic Book Page

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

Inventory of Rows 2 & 3

Characterization-inventory of rows 2 & 3:

Row 2, left: war with blades, arrowhead touching sword to affirm same meaning; below God’s sword.
Row 2, middle: intensely inspired mystic-state Bible reader.
Row 2, right: grain, harvested, for sustenance (below the sacred banquet of Psilocybe).

Row 3, left: happy cybercide with sword.
Row 3, middle-left: reaping; scythe blade for harvesting ripened grain (mystic analogy for harvesting the developed egoic thinking to convert it to transcendent thinking).
Row 3, middle-right: sharpen that harvesting blade, plowing with blade.
Row 3, right: sowing grain; here a mystic analogy for teaching and learning spiritual, mystical things like the Egodeath theory; Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

Exam: Analyze These Images

This entire image includes sloppy, random, purely whimsical art; silly, with no meaning, and inept, at that — in such a way that accidentally, a pattern is followed, referring to the very highest realm of experiencing and revelation.

Attending the sacred meal banquet requires passing this exam.

During preparation for initiation, the religious initiation teacher examines the student’s mode of thinking, to ensure he is prepared for self-testing of his control-basis; for testing his attribution of the origin of his mind’s control-thoughts.

Exam Question 1: Inventory of the man with sword

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

Inventory of the man with sword:
o {mytheme} — referent aspect of loose cognitive experiencing
Hint: {left … } — x model of y
o ___________________________
o ___________________________
o ___________________________
o ___________________________

Exam Question 2: Commentary on the man with scythe

Exam Question 2: Provide Commentary on the man with scythe:
Hint: hand … from the row above
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

Rows 2 & 3 feel like a dessert, a game, to apply the rules from row 1 and look for high art Mystery jokes.

All details in the picture take on a High Mystery puzzle aspect; such as a guy floating with both feet off the ground, who looks like the mystic-state Bible reader. Maybe it’s just cannabis.

Sharpening the Sacrificial Blade

See the section in the supporting article:
Isaaac, the Effective Type of Sacrificing, Removing Only What Is Actually Repudiated: Control Mis-thinking
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/21/methodology-for-decoding-the-canterbury-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree/

Humorless, dour people cannot crack the code — it is the wrong mentality. Can the comic book artist make it any clearer?

All mythemes refer to aspects of the mind in the entheogen-induced, loose-cognitive, altered state.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

From top to bottom row, the blade-dense middle band:
Row 1: God’s sword of ego death.
Row 2 top: Unsheathing the mind’s sword to demonstrate the control-violation vulnerability; aiming the mind’s bow & arrow to drive the mental transformation about the source of control.
Row 2 bottom: Cybercide. Mystic comedy. Happy Sacrificing!
Row 3: Sharpen the mind’s scythe — egoic freewill-premised Possibilism-thinking is ripe and ready for the bountiful harvest of gnosis.

Two guys are both stabbing themselves happily, communicating a positive, winking sense, un-serious yet of highest, ultimate profundity and classic mythic drama.

The duplication of the {self-stabbing} image signals that these images are meaningful and relevant, not just whimsical.

This joking yet ultimate, transformative experiencing goes beyond mere “epic”, to full-on mythic level.

Unsheath the Sharpened Sword of Scripture

Arrow tip as a blade: In Mithraism, the Father (initiator) would aim the bow and arrow at the initiate. 5 blades are shown below.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

Cybercide

{Piercing the right side wound}, means demonstrating the vulnerability of the freewill-premised, branching-based model of control, in order to drive mental regeneration.

{piercing} the {wound} of {death and regeneration} is, exposing the flaw of the mind’s control model which is based on the initial childish assumption of branching possibilities.

Self-threat by the {blade} means probing how control-thinking works, to cause regeneration of the mental model of control.

By such testing and probing of its control vulnerability, the mind learns to attribute God as the ultimate source of thoughts, and thus properly and coherently place trust in God, rather than trying to keep trusting in and relying on the vaporous {idol} illusion of autonomous personal control agency.

Happy cybernetician with his right foot solidly on the ground and on the foot of the stable support column.

His left foot floats in thin air.

Esoteric Christian Prayers
Jonah’s prayer from within the ketos (short sea serpent)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/05/esoteric-christian-prayers/
“Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them. But I, with shouts of grateful praise, will sacrifice to you. Salvation comes from the Lord.”

Sharpen the Scythe, the Crop Is Ripe for the Harvest

Mytheme: {blade & harvest} = ripe for sacrifice, to gain Eternalism
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/mytheme-blade-harvest-mature-for-sacrifice-to-gain-eternalism/

Mytheme: {spear/dagger/wound} = cybernetic death & rebirth
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/mytheme-spear-dagger-wound-cybernetic-death-rebirth/

Foot Down or Raised, Column Foot, Mushroom Hem

1. {Left or right foot: up or down} throughout the entire image represents Possibilism vs. Eternalism.
{left foot down} means Possibilism (that is, knowing only Naive-Possibilism).
{right foot down} means Eternalism (along with Qualified Possibilism).

2. {Standing on column foot-base} represents that the mind’s control system has been transformed to Eternalism (along with fully-functioning, Qualified Possibilism) in the altered state, to become consciously based on a solid stable foundation that is durable within the Psilocybe loosecog state during control-testing/probing and mental-model revision in that altered state.

3. These hem-wrinkle images represent mushrooms.

4. These varying-reasonableness hem-wrinkle images represent that yes, there is a convention, of a sliding scale of how hidden/revealed the literal mushroom shapes are.

Hem 1

Hem 2 (foot on column)

Hem 3 (also: right feet down on the solid ground, left feet floating in thin air)

Hem 4 (also: right foot on solid ground and column foundation, left foot powerless in thin air)

He’s a nice guy, but the oxen have more wisdom.

The sower’s left foot supports him, and right foot floats (that’s backwards).

The sower’s left hand is secured on the cut-off branch of the grain-container, and his right hand floats (that’s backwards).

https://confidenceandjoy.com/dumber-than-an-ox/

God the Ultimate Controller of Control-Thoughts

Sword Piercing God’s Cloud in God’s Right Side

God’s {sword of death}, cybernetic self-control cancellation and violation, is piercing into God’s cloud, instead of coming out from it.

Theology of Sword Piercing God’s Cloud in the Right Side

To positively identify the mushroom tree in Christian art as Psilocybe, the greatest analytical power we can bring, to apply in order to judge that question, would be the highest, most fully sophisticated esoteric theology of cybernetic ego death; so I here lay that out, plainly and directly summarized, to explain how {God’s sword of correction} works.

This is what the red initiate is thinking, mystic thoughts that are caused by and distinctive of entheogens, not by an ersatz sacred meal of merely grocery-store mushrooms.

Being a classic entheogen, that causes loose cognitive association binding, Psilocybe causes these types of thoughts, about self-control cybernetics, thoughts which match the analogies that are depicted by the picture’s mythemes, thus proving that the mushroom tree is Psilocybe, not grocery-store mushrooms.

{God’s cloud} is being pierced by God’s {sword of death}. The monks who designed the picture show God’s cloud pierced by the sword in the right side.

The initiate is made to threaten their own self-control so as to violate it so as to cause the mind to switch its attribution of its control-foundation source.

The mind is made to change to:

o The non-possibility-branching, Eternalism model, depending on and trusting in the actual source of control-thoughts

instead of:

o Futile and irrational {praying for rescue} by the {grasping-at-thin-air idol} of freewill-premised personal control power, per the Possibilism model of control, possibility-branching, and time.

The mind is caused by God to pierce itself in its vulnerable side, to gain correct, coherent thinking, fundamental integrity and coherence; made to sacrifice one’s child-thinking.

God sacrifices his son, the king ruling over all the cosmos, in the same pattern, relevantly isomorphic with the self-sacrifice, sufficient demonstration that the mind is made to do to eliminate the illusion and self-contradiction of branching-possibility control-thinking.

In cybernetic {death}, the mind receives control-thoughts that cause the mind to violate and cancel its own power, by the initiative of the uncontrollable higher controller.

The {blade of sacrifice} pierces the {right side} of God’s cloud.

God is being pierced by the {sword of death and regeneration} in his right side.

The {right side} is where the self-control system has a vulnerable opening, through which {death and regeneration} occurs, producing gnosis; Transcendent Knowledge, mental model transformation from Naive-Possibilism, to Eternalism alongside with Qualified-Possibilism preserved and affirmed as blessed.

God is being {pierced by a blade in his right side}, while pulling-in the red initiate, whose control foundation {right foot} is in God’s cloud, while sending out a message scroll to the mystic-state Bible reader.

The sword is not shown with handle coming out from God’s cloud, cutting the mushroom tree’s right branch.

Inventory of items coming from God’s cloud

There is a lot of key activity in the bottom band of the center of the image.

The sword and angel come from the cloud in symmetric positioning.

Inventory of items in the bottom band of the center of the image:
Pink tree cut-branch & bottom of branching
Mushroom tree cut-branch & bottom of branching
Sword in cloud
God’s right hand pointing down to stable ground, vs. left hand in thin air
Head of red initiate
Right hand of red initiate touching cut-branch
Left hand of red initiate floating in thin air
Red/white disc below God
Bottom of cloud/aura around God
Angel
Red initiate pulled by angel, to hang on tree
Red initiate’s feet above pillar base, on the ordinary-state side
Angled Liberty Cap shape in God’s garment under left arm (check Psalter conventions)

A separate “cloud-touching” inventory covers items such as the scroll coming down from God’s cloud, and the red initiate’s right foot.

God — The Uncontrollable Hidden Controller; the Creator and Source of All Control-Thoughts

Items touching God’s cloud:
o Mushroom cap with branches on the underside.
o Red initiate’s right foot, toes go into cloud.
o Sword tip goes into, or comes from, cloud.
o The funnel hat of the mystic-state Bible reader.
o Scroll.
o Angel, legs come from cloud, right hip/leg shown, angel’s wing.

God’s {left hand} (the Possibilism mental model) is lifted up {dangling in mid-air}, offering no support, and his {right hand} (the Eternalism mental model) points down to the {ground}, which provides firm support for self-control cybernetic stability in the mushroom-induced, loose cognitive association state.

In the loose cognitive state, the mind can perceive and experience God’s power, as the hidden, uncontrollable source and creator of control-thoughts, embedded in the non-branching spacetime block.

Acknowledgments

Cyberdisciple did the following:
o Located the high-resolution Canterbury Psalter.
o Found the folio page which contains this image.
o Contributed some decodings; interpretation solutions.
o Peer-reviewed the article.
o Provided an outline scheme for types of evidence, from literal description of the mushroom’s physical form, to analogies describing the mushroom’s physical form, to analogies describing the effects of mushrooms.

See Also

About the Psalter

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

Canterbury Psalter
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item
High-resolution, zoom, & fullscreen

Great Canterbury Psalter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canterbury_Psalter
It was made in Canterbury (1200 A.D.) & Catalonia (1340 A.D.)
It is located in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (bnf.fr).

Canterbury Psalter Mushroom Inventory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/13/canterbury-psalter-mushroom-inventory/

Identifying Mushrooms in Art

Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/

Scholars’ Failure to Debate Mushrooms in Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/20/scholars-failure-to-debate-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

Methodology for Decoding the Canterbury Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree
Decoding-history & additional analysis to support the present article.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/21/methodology-for-decoding-the-canterbury-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree/

Gallery of Mushrooms in Greek & Christian Art
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/gallery-of-mushrooms-in-art/

The Egodeath Theory

Summary of the Egodeath theory
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/first-blog-post/

Possibilism vs. Eternalism: Two Models of Time and Control
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/12/possibilism-vs-eternalism-2-models-of-time-and-control/

Theory of Mythemes
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/theory-of-mythemes/

Mytheme: {blade & harvest} = ripe for sacrifice, to gain Eternalism
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/mytheme-blade-harvest-mature-for-sacrifice-to-gain-eternalism/

Mytheme: {spear/dagger/wound} = cybernetic death & rebirth
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/mytheme-spear-dagger-wound-cybernetic-death-rebirth/

Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics
http://egodeath.com (2007)

“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God. A ram caught in a thicket by his horns offer up in the stead.”

Scientific Reproducibility of Mytheme Decoding

Site Map

Contents:

The Scientific Method: Reproducibility

The Scientific Method: Reproducibility. Establishing the scientific reproducibility of the Egodeath (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) decoding of mythemes.

Reproducibility in Loose Cognitive Science

Independently confirm lab test results of these sets of experiments — these images.  Are my scientific experiment results Reproducible in your alchemy lab’s Cryptography & Decryption Dept.?  

Need these 2 images tested for Reproducibility, which consists of Replicability and Repeatability.

Images for independent analysis in your alchemy lab, re: decoding the salamander bestiary image and the “hanging from right leg above sword” Canterbury image in terms of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, especially in terms of branching analysis and the Mythemeland mindset (mentality, perspective, frame of mind).

The Reproducibility Crisis in Science

But there’s no reproducibility crisis in Loose Cognitive Science.

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
I’m not seeing anything in this schoolboys’ version of How Science Works, re: confirmation by other independent scientists.  I thought that was part of the deal eg per Ken Wilber “Eye to Eye” article.

Neither does this schoolboy-science article have a “test for Reproducibility” step. Is this why Science has a Reproducibility Crisis?
https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

Why doesn’t the main “Scientific Method” article at wiki have a robust “Test for Repoducibility step? Is this near-total omission why Science has a Reproducibility Crisis?

wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Communication_and_community
But whoa, almost nothing in this main article about duplication in other labs!? What gives?
“Frequently the scientific method is employed not only by a single person but also by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Such cooperation can be regarded as an important element of a scientific community. Various standards of scientific methodology are used within such an environment.

Peer review evaluation
Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists’ manuscripts are submitted by editors [weak! no running experiments?] of scientific journals to (usually one to three, and usually anonymous) fellow scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. [weak! expected “re-run experiment”] ……

Documentation and replication [this section starts w/ following statement & link:]
… Main article: Reproducibility [<– what I’m looking for is in this other article. Why so little about Reproducibility in the main article? The main article continues:]
Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, veer from standard methods and practices (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results. [Wasson censoring Brinckmann’s book about musrhoom trees?] Occasionally [what?? but there’s a whole other article on this, saying it’s important! wtf] because of this then, other scientists might attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results.”

Forget that main article.  This article dedicated to Reproducibility contradicts that main article: it says this is a very important step.  Isn’t this step, or process, or check, a main normal part of the schoolboy “The Scientific Method”?  Confused.  

Ah well, the whole thing is b.s. anyways.  As they say themselves, “the replication crisis”.  I expect us to have better replication than them!  🙂   After all, Loose Cognitive Science (loosecog switching from Possibilism to Eternalism) is the original Science Confirmation Test Corroboration of Truth.  Hard Science just tries to dumbly ape that true Science of the Gods which we do in alchemy labs.

Here’s the real article about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
“Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. [not according to the weak main article!] It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge. [my emph]
…
The terms replicability and repeatability are used in the context of reproducibility, see below.

In recent decades, there has been a rising concern that many published scientific results fail the test of reproducibility, evoking a reproducibility or replicability crisis.

lol – crisis? have you tried prayer, sacrifice, and putting trust in higher controller?

Confirming My Experiment Results

2 images, which I saw years before, but didn’t take an aggressive and persistent decoding mentality, just fell open to me. It is striking, how this works. I feel as if I was relatively blind and dull-eyed, before now, when looking half-dumbly at these images before.

This is big, bigger than mytheme-illiterate who cannot Read these images. 

This is a new, full, coherent reading of the Salamander bestiary image, in terms of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, mytheme decoding (a clearer, stronger “Mythemeland” frame of mind than before), and especially branching-assessment of images.

I’m writing up my leading-edge discoveries in realtime on the World-Wide Web (within the ‘Criteria’ article) — a new technology, which is cool.

Mytheme decoding is of more ultimate importance than the Rosetta stone because it gets to understanding gnosis.

This mytheme decoding type of work rests on the basis of the Rosetta Stone type of work, sitting at a higher level, achieving full decoding to directly identify the referent: mythemes describe Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.

It’s weird to me and very significant that I before, failed to (fully) Read these images. 

During the first decoding pass a few years ago, I was busy making initial progress: affirming it’s a mushroom (I never hestitated on this), and speculating (with a lesser degree of confidence) that the man who someone else thought was “dancing”, was rather, standing on one leg, lifting the other leg in the air, meaning “Eternalism mental model”.

In the first decoding pass, around 2015, I had a weaker degree of confidence about that “leg” decoding.

I failed yet to map to salamander (still seen as if plural) next to — what I didn’t attempt to think about in the first pass of decoding — the branching stem of the mushroom.

I was still largely visually dumb, clueless, now I’m not but am embarrassed I looked w/ such dulled eyes b4.  Had to aggressively use “the diamond hammer of interpretation “– do an assertive, dedicated, branching analysis, together with the “Mythemeland” frame of mind.

One big change was that this time, I cross-decoded two 1-leg images in tandem.

I feel same way about failing before, to reason-through to Positively Identify Amanita as tiger-watering bowl. 

I had to get in the right “Reading Mindset” to read mythemeland and crop and put the 2 pics together (same Amanita photo I think on Strange Fruit cover, next to the wonderful Dionysus Triumph, bottom middle, the dog-watering bowl.  

Of course it’s Amanita!  The only 1 odd misfit is, the dog-watering bowl has a lip (ring), not sure if some upturned Amanitas have that, maybe if it hyper-curls up so the fins are almost pulled on top of the cap?? Ignore that ring, and it’s an *exact* match.  

Of course the stem/bowl-diameter is not *exactly* the same proportion, but no 2 specimens are *identical*.  I seen lots of them firsthand. 

The proportions are “within range” of, like electronic parts, 10% variance. 

My point about dog-watering bowl identi’n is, I had a sorry, unsure, wrong mindset, until a couple days ago, now it is reached Certainty.  What changed?  Why am I more fluent, more literate at reading books in mythemeland, than I was before?

I couldn’t read the images before (except, I was correct, ~2015 or whenever I read Roasting Salamander article, about 1 foot.  I had some doubts, but less and less, and less and less doubts b/c Coherence — I’m literally making predictions of what I’ll see when I re-look at pics. 

I could barely read them, now a simple Coherent Interp the 2 images (like others the past days) are falling open to me, a series of Observation -> Hypoth -> Predict -> Confirmation (however, I’m very skeptical about that schoolboy theory of “The Scientific Method”).

Too hot jackpot to fix typos.  Onward!

I feel embarrassed that I was lame about these 2 images before, I looked at them with dull eyes, I didn’t know “how to think” about them, “how to perform an assessment” — WHY NOT?  what lacking?  I failed to do a BRANCHING ANALYSIS.  I couldn’t even come up w/ hypotheses before! when lacking BRANCHING ANALYSIS.

A weird thing is, implausible coincidences, (a “sign”?) – I’m picking pics that are supposedly very different, but then, very improbably, discovering major, key, important things so similar — “structurally” in terms of Egodeath interpretation – that I am forced to crop portions and the two images.

Decoding 2 images in tandem, like November 2013, the 2 images (Campbell’s Power of Myth Eden tree & Douris Jason Athena serpent kylix on front cover of myth book) — are essential to shine light on each other. 

I have to use — of random pair I happened to have — I have to use key elements in both these pics.

Other labs can run same decoding experiment to check the same analytical perspective, perform the same analysis.  Like grade-school “how scientists corroborate ‘The Sci Method’ results.”

Independent Scientists, am I full of it? 

Are my Experiment Results Reproducible in your labs? 

Are my lab glasses contaminated and blurry? 

Need branching analysis. 

The funniest finding earlier: the very factors that make dimwit rejects these as Psilocybe, are precisely the Message that proves that they ARE entheogenic.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BRANCHING and the fact that the artist “bends” away from natural shape, to do oddball things w/ branching, PROVES that these are entheogenic.  They have it backwards!