Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Idea Development page 25 (2025/02/25)

Michael Hoffman, page started February 24, 2025

Site Map – Previous page – Next page

Contents:

Contents about Fontaine:

Contents con’t:

Incoming Ideas

Bait-and-Switch, Shifting Redefinition of ‘Perennialism‘ to Trick You into Agreeing to Anything

Cybermonk, March 18, 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalism_(perennialism)

You agree that all religions have some overlap of mystical experience, right? Of course, I know you do.

I’m so glad you’re on board with the Egodeath theory, which holds that Perennialism is a union experience for the purpose of spiritual and political liberation of humanity, with me as benevolent dictator.

The Egodeath Theory, Which Is “Common Core Mystical Perennialism“, Which You Agreed to, Will Save the World, with Me as Universe Dictator

The Egodeath theory’s Definition of ‘Perennialism’ to Enslave Mankind to Do My Bidding

Baggage Claim 🛬

No baggage is attached by my shifting definition of ‘perennialism’ you have signed on board with.

Are you sure you still agree about common core perennialism?

Bromhall

interesting: Bromhall aticle begins by questions what TYPE of determinism James asserted. I too, immed when reading James article, DoD, immediately saw James trying to construct an argument for domino-chain determinism that would – instead – try to produce eternalism, which is a contradictory system. determinism (always defined as domino-chain determinism, per Kafei) just as ‘entheogen’ is always drug and never (contra Wouter Hanegraaff ) non-drug) —

determinism and eternalism are COMPARABLE BUT VERY DIFFERENT.

Obvisously freewill ~= possibilism, and determinism ~= eternalism. but, unformatulately, the KIND of “determinism ” that the stupid Phil dept created, is stupidly always domino-chain determinism, which I always rejected. I believe in causality, but, don’t like arguing for a preset future of the type that’s preset due to domino-chain determinism causality. The future is rpresent preset b/c it already exists, NOT because it’s open but inevidatbly will domino-into existence per “predictionism”.

predicting is irrelevant

domino-chain determinism causality is irrelevant, for experiecing 4D Spacetime Mysticism.

mushroom-trees artists couldn’t care less about domino-chain determinism causality, it’s irrelavnt to the Psilocybin expeirence.

On Psilocybin what the mind sees, what’s revealed, has nothing do d to do w/ domino-chain determinism. domino causality is not why (or, the sensed sense in which) the future is frighteningly “closed”.

Awareness sees that the future already exists; you feel you have no arms to steer, and the possibilities branching are illusions except the one, already-existing path, “nowhere to turn L or R on the vine yard path” (Balaam).

When mind meets the angel of death, holding {blade}, and your lower self halts on the path.

Your lower self, the egoic personal control system; {donkey}. All its thoughts are, hiddenly, pre-set/ pre-existing; pre-given.

All the words I speak, to Israel, are put in my mouth by God. not by the evil king who sent me to curse Israel.

Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut (Houot 2025)

I have only read 30% of the pages (and his dissertation & two articles) so I don’t know, I guess I would give it 4 out of 5 stars b/c the topic is good, but the treatment seems to be mixed-quality of execution. 

My mission is to explain mental transformation to cognitive scientists, as my main audience that I relate to, which is exactly along the lines of the book’s concept.  

I feel obliged to read all pages of the book since I recommended the book to the church book club, and yet I am echoing the book club’s rather negative verdict about the tone, and lack of respect for & credit to forebears.

But I criticize the other suggested book, Badiner’s Zig Zag Zen, too, because (as far as I can tell, re: the 1st Ed.), all of the contributors share the false, prejudiced presupposition that adding the sacrament to meditation is an innovation.

Chemist David Nichols agrees with me: we both strongly believe meditation came from none other than the sacrament.  

ZZZ 😴 is disrespectful, in that sense, toward the sacrament, and I can’t stand reading it (I got the hardcover in 2002).

LOL someone’s trying to sell it for $2000, & $750!

Maybe Houot just got off to a poor start in the intro, a misstep, “don’t read this book if you like other approaches”.

Some readers assessed that Houot is young, immature, arrogant, needs an editor.

Houot wrote 3 publications for academia, but he evidences a disrespect for a popular audience, really underestimating, it seems.  

Houot should take Popular writing lessons from Michael Pollan – the field-invader, who is overly well-funded & networked, who is a top-notch writer, teaching writing at UC Berkeley.

Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism

4D Mysticism
fdm

Good contrast-pair. Say them aloud together.

quan tum

four dee

Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Mysticism

4D Spacetime Mysticism
fdsm

4D is much more pertinent or narrowly specific, than broad term “spacetime”. 4D h

4D has a specific meaning, in the context of being placed in opposition / contrast against “quantum”, as “what type of mysticism”.

Quantum Mysticism vs. __ Mysticism

Quantum Mysticism vs. Spacetime Mysticism

Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism

pretty similar; ok to switch between. then add ‘branching’.

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. Spacetime Non-Branching Mysticism

Quantum Branching Many-Worlds Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Spacetime Mysticism

Quantum Branching Many-Worlds Mysticism
quantum branching many-worlds mysticism
qbmm

search web to check capzn:

OMG Wiki page exists for “Quantum Mysticism”! But Where’s My Page on 4D Spacetime Mysticism?? 😢😭

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism – “Many early quantum physicists held some interest in traditionally Eastern metaphysics.

“Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, were interested in Eastern mysticism, but are not known to have directly associated one with the other.

“In fact [wtf do you mean “in fact”??], both endorsed the Copenhagen [BOO!] interpretation of quantum mechanics.”

🤢 I hate the Copenhagen interp, people gush and fawn after it exactly as they do Amanita; for all the wrong reasons, worship of anti-rationality; egoic freewill gleeful pursuit project.

Wiki: Superdeterminism

James T. Cushing against the hasty egoic rush to worship the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics: why didn’t we take the other fork in the road, or even consider it? ie , hidden variables; Superdeterminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism —

“In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell’s theorem. [like a vulnerability hole in the right side, blade inserted]
{thorn} is a form of {blade}

“By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled.

“A hidden variables theory which is superdeterministic can thus fulfill Bell’s notion of local causality and still violate the inequalities derived from Bell’s theorem.

“This makes it possible to construct a local hidden-variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics, for which a few toy models have been proposed.

“In addition to being deterministic, superdeterministic models also postulate correlations between the state that is measured and the measurement setting.”

i’m really glad to see other people puncturing the dirty willful conflation of “measure” & “consciously observe” – that wiki page gives me hope.

Wiki: Spacetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime — “In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.

—

Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its description in terms of locations, shapes, distances, and directions) was distinct from time (the measurement of when events occur within the universe).

However, space and time took on new meanings with the Lorentz transformation and special theory of relativity.”

“In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.

“This interpretation proved vital to the general theory of relativity, wherein spacetime is curved by mass and energy.”

/ END OF SPACETIME

Black Sabbath: Shock Wave lyrics

Black Sabbath: Shock Wave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn8eNagiEvU
https://www.google.com/search?q=black+sabbath%3A+Shockwave+lyrics – excerpts for scholarly analysis:

There’s no reason for you to run
You can’t escape the fate of the chosen one
Black moon rising, in a blood red sky [astral ascent mysticism]
This time you realise that you’re gonna die

When darkness has taken over your mind
And you think you’re on your own
Don’t believe you are the only one here
Look around, you’re not alone [the higher controller reveals itself]

Feel the forces from another world
Ghostly shadows fill your mind
Evil power hanging over you
As you freeze, your life in time [psychedelic q’air effect items]

Look behind you
Somebody’s calling
Someone is near
Feel yourself falling
Falling with fear

You tell yourself that it just can’t be true [your personal control thoughts don’t come from you; they were given to you from outside time]
But there is nothing you can do

Ghostly shadows from the other world
Evil forces in your mind
Trapped between the worlds of life and death
Frozen in the realms of time [eternalism]

Look behind you

[Abraham turned, looked up, looked behind him, saw ram caught in a ticket] [Mithras turn right look up & behind while blade in bull right side]

Eternalism: see Michael Pollan: How to Change Your Mind – his terrible experience of timelessness, then he sees the blithering mis-framed Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ-POS) item:

“Did you feel timelessness, which is super nifty?

Pollan was forced to reply “N/A” to this BROKEN INSTRUMENT from Tim Leary 1963 based on Stace-the-Clown’s 1960, positive-balanced model of mystical experience.

🦄💨🌈 😊👍
🤯😵🐍

The Overlooked, Forgotten, Original Version of Physics Mysticism (Eternalism-Based): 4D Spacetime Mysticism

Quantum Mysticism is possibilism-based. The battle between Relativity vs Quantum Mysticism ~= is parallel to the THE BATTLE THAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED.

Instead, Quantum Mysticism (which is possibilism-based) simply REPLACED nascent 1875-1908 Physics Mysticism, which is 4D Spacetime Mysticism (eternalism-based).

I’m identifying the opposite, forgotten, overlooked brand of Physics Mysticism from 1875-1908: I might call it “4D Spacetime Mysticism” or “4D Mysticism”, based on Minkowski’s math model of time as a 4th Dimension, competing against later, 1920’s Quantum Mysticism.

I am defining short, med, & long forms of concept-labels for the two opposite brands.

bad thing about term 4D Mysticism — it omits the Physics term that is ocntrasteted contraste d vs the PHysics term “quantum”.

Quantum Mysticism vs 4D Mysticism – SAY IT ALOUD, IT SOUNDS GOOD. THEREFORE these two are a good pair of terms.

Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism
qmv4m

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Non-Branching Mysticism
latter: too many syllables

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism

Quantum (Branching) Mysticism vs. 4D (Non-Branching) Mysticism

Nice! 😊👍🏆

quantum many-worlds vs. 4D single-world

The Many-Worlds Interpretation (Ego Inflation Times Infinity): “Time as a Many-Branched Tree”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation –

“The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many parallel, non-interacting worlds.

“It is one of a number of multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.

“MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized.

“This is intended to resolve the measurement problem and thus some paradoxes of quantum theory, such as Wigner’s friend,  the EPR paradox,  and Schrödinger’s cat, since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own world.”

Quantum (Possibilism) Mysticism vs. 4D (Eternalism) Mysticism

Branching Mysticism vs. Non-Branching Mysticism

Wiki: “Block Universe” redir’s to Eternalism (philosophy of time)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) –

“In the philosophy of space and time, eternalism[1] is an approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time.

“Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are “already there” in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.

—

“It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”, as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.”

Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism

My 2001 posts about Physics two opposite branching models in the Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout archive:

Message #1 is my 1997 summary, has good section on eternalism –
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-1/#message1

Message #10 might contain the points:
quantum = branching, 4D spacetime block universe = non-branching
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-1/#message10

Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism
qbmv4nm
qv4
A good pair!

Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Mysticism

OTOH both have 2 syllables: quan tum; four dee

The future already exists.

4D Mysticism & Minkowski’s view is actually eternalism, not “determinism”; eternalism is NOT like domino-chain determinism. As my miscommunication with Kafei highlighted.

4D eternalism & Mink “absolute four-dimensional spacetime” is more like the opposite of “determinism” (which is always defined as domino-chain determinism), re: whether the future “now exists”.

Especially, most pointedly to kill ego, determinism contradicts eternalism re: whether your future control-thoughts already exist, in a single, pre-created , pre-existing future, timelessly entire 4D block created all at once –

Minkowski
mink

domino-chain determinism cannot kill and threten and frighten egoic control.

eternalism pointedly does so. eternalism is a blade killing ego, determinism (domino-chain determinism) is not.

4D eternalism per Mink; per eternalism – mediocre explanation by Josie Kins, a jumble of domino-chain determinism mixed with eternalism, oil and water conflating two different worldmodels in the Effect Index .com entry “Perception of Eternalism”.

Hippie Quantum Mysticism Books

I think this is the book i saw in student union bookstore:
June 2011
https://www.amazon.com/How-Hippies-Saved-Physics-Counterculture/dp/0393076369/

Another book by David Kaiser, after that:

Groovy Science: Knowledge, Innovation, and American Counterculture
David Kaiser (Editor), W. Patrick McCray (Editor)
2016
https://www.amazon.com/Groovy-Science-Knowledge-Innovation-Counterculture/dp/022637288X/

The Egodeath theory combines 4D Spacetime w/ the altered state.

4D Non-Branching Spacetime Mysticism
fnsm

New concept-label: New lexicon term: 4D Spacetime Mysticism; 4D Mysticism (vs. Quantum Mysticism); or “Spacetime Mysticism”?

For a two-word term for the Minkowski-based mysticism view that can go head-to-head against “Quantum Mysticism”, the term “Spacetime Mysticism” doesn’t work; it’s way too vague.

All of Physics connotes “spacetime”, including Relativity and Quantum, both – tho spacetime is much closer to Rel. than to Quan.

That proves that the key word is ‘4D’, not ‘spacetime’.

“4D Mysticism” works, “Spacetime Mysticism” doesn’t work – as far as short terms that based in Physics to compete against the opposite view, “Quantum Mysticism”.

The key concept that makes the term “4D” effectively work:
“4D” means: time is like a space dimension. space dimensions exist whether you are at that location or not; so 4D connotes that the time dimension exists, likewise. Europe exists tho i am not there. My future thoughts exist tho i am not there.

That’s what “4D Mysticism” means in this context of fighting against / contrasting against the term / view, “Quantum Mysticism”.

per book Flatland 1884 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland – “After the Square’s mind is opened to new dimensions, he tries to convince the Sphere of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a fourth dimension and higher spatial dimensions. Still, the Sphere returns his student to Flatland in disgrace.”

mid 1880s was more a 4th spatial dimension.

Minkowski = time as a 4th dimension.

A year ago, I posted wiki links about different versions of 4 dims, as I was tracing the history of what should have been , like Quantum Mysticism , a pop eternalism Physics-based mysticism prior to 1920-era Quantum Mysticism.

If Minkowski hadn’t died 1908, he would have become a Newage guru of 4D Spacetime Mysticism, battling against Quantum Mysticism.

1896/1919 Mescaline + 4D Spacetime Physics = psychedelic eternalism.

James 1897 seems close to discovering psychedelic eternalism — if he could abandon reasoning in terms of domino-chain determinism, which cannot produce bona fide eternalism.

Mescaline identified 1896 Arthur Heffter, synthesized 1919 Ernst Späth.

‘spacetime’ is too vauge. 4D is highly specific (Petkov book about Minkowski w/ 4 Mink articles 1908) – book front intro chapters usu says like
“absolute four-dimensional spacetime“.

i think ‘absolute’ is to contrast hero Mink vs villain Ein’s ‘relativity’, b/c antonyms: absolute vs. releative.

like against the Secret Amanita paradigm is the Explicit Cubensis paradigm. tho friend advsis: advises: no one heard of the word ‘Cubensis’. “I never heard the word ‘Cubensis’. Use normal common word: Psilocybin. if so, phrase would be:

the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm
epp

Lexicon Design: Pairs of Opposite Terms: the Secret Amanita paradigm, the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm

Antonym terms: free will vs. determinism; possibilism vs. eternalism

Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism [2]

possibilism vs. eternalism
pve

the altered state

2-level control
2lc

free will vs. determinism
fwd

p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”
14&56

At one time, the word ‘paradigm’ was new jargon. Thomas Kuhn 1960s:

Time travel to 1950: hey guys i have a new paradigm! “wtf?? spk English!”

{rock} vs. “iron”

“iron block” – iron fails to be ancient myth. they say rock, stone, sculpture, statue:

  • king & rulers turned to stone upon seeing snake.
  • girls leaped off rock mountain upon lift lid & see father snake, to their death.
  • giant throw rocks at Odysseus escaping.
  • Mithras born from cosmic rock (heimarmene boundary at top of onion layer 8, fixed stars, Ogdoad, moving into 9 Ennead = precession of equinoxes per David Ulansey)

What’s the opposite, competing brand from 1875-1908 in Pop Physics Mysticism, before everyone took a wrong turn to many-worlds Quantum Mysticism?

12:55 Mar 12 2025 i think i have my term i was developing: candidate: “4D Spacetime Mysticism” vs my other existing term “Quantum Mysticism”

VOX_TK_6431.wav – the too-gated, leaf blower, Mar 11, 2025: list all terms on both sides:

I am looking to form good short labels of the two opposed competing brands of Physics Mysticism that should have been defined in 1920 brands

A Y fork in the road: we took the wronge turn like books by Cushing say, against Copen’ism. Bohm took the correct turn, vs. THE MINORITY TURN.

The stupid majority mass of stupid pop cult went running after Quantum Mysticism – they ought to be have taken the other, ORIGINAL version of Physics Mysticism, which was 4D block time.

Not domino-chain determinism though, that’s the worst; it is merely possibilism -premised iron block is a garbled mess on egoic foundation.

I rejected domino-chain determinism from the start (Summer 1988, reading read pamphlet book A Conversation: free will vs. determinism : clifford stole? ), like November 1987 when I started to figure out the Way of Zen by Alan Watts better than his hazy poetic desc that failed to say “determinism”.

I wrote in Nov Dec 1987 binder, the Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

Watts, why the hell didn’t you write ‘determinism”?! [more precisely, eternalism]

The Way of Zen by Alan Watts is not a muddy expression of assertion of “determinism”, actually, of eternalism ! 4D spacetime, block-universe eternalism.

Not really block-universe determinism, which is a poor, oil-and-water construction, polluted with the egoic freewill premise of essentially open future that does not exist.

block-universe determinism – future doesn’t exist. “Closed” because/ in the sense that, domino causality.

block-universe eternalism – future exists. The future is closed because/ in the sense of, the future already exists.

Your future control thoughts are cast in stone b/c they already exist.

Your future control thoughts are not merely” inevitable” — far more strongly, your future control thoughts ALREADY EXIST, so is a DONE DEAL, as in, the creation of your thoughts was done in the timeless past.

Your future control thoughts were already created and are already sitting cast in stone.

Domino-chain determinism is the exact opposite sense of “closed future”. Entirely different foundation and way of thinking!

Eternalism has NOTHING to do w/ domino-chain determinism, they are practically opposite ways of thinking! Differently based worldviews.

Letheby’s “fate” discussions are all mis-founded on domino-chain determinism. He is ignorant of 4D spacetime eternalism.

Not in his impoverished starve-to-death buffet of bunk options.

In Chris Letheby’s writings, Find: eternalism, 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism.

He writes “fatalism”, wtf is even that. A sign of ignorance & impoverishment.

What the Way of Zen by Alan Watts is struggling to assert, by hitting student w/ stick, is eternalism – not determinism, technically, though I said “oh u mean ‘determinism'”, b/c like everyone, I didn’t know of the term ‘eternalism’.

Watts fails to use either term, bizarrely.

Eternalism totally explains Satori and mental model transformation, I realized in Dec. 1987, then a huge block-universe determinism altered state breakthrough in Jan. 1988 by using Minkowski 4D spacetime.

4D block time – “the crystalline ground of being” — solves and explains and makes sense for satori:

Watts, why didn’t you simply say “Satori is determinism”, like spirituality meditation guy against Ken Wilber — Ramesh Balsekar: “enlightenment = no-free-will”.

But trashcan domino-chain determinism , it sucks and is not at all same as eternalism b/c 4D future ALREADY EXISTS (and is single – an important contrast against branching many-worlds).

1875-1908, was v1 of Physics Mysticism: 4D mysticism of the late 1800s.

The occult style of 1895, vs. later modern studpid Quantum Mysticism worship of many-worlds ego mega inflation:

I AM THE CREATOR OF INFINITE WORLDS AT EVERY MOMENT, B/C I WORSHIP Quantum Mysticism infinitely ultra-branching many-worlds.

What did Physics find? Physics has proved that observation causes reality, and that by my power of conscious observing, at every moment, I am creating infinite worlds.

[mic comedy skit potential clown emoji mic emoji]

Below, I transcribed that recording, mostly brainstorming a list of key terms on two sides, grouped.

List of All Key Terms for Possibilism vs Eternalism: The Two Opposite Brands of Physics Mysticism

All Key Terms, Grouped, for 4D Mysticism vs. Quantum Mysticism

Brand 1: 4D Mysticism (All Associated Terms)

Brand 1 of Physics Mysticism: eternalism, 1875-1908

4D Mysticism
4D Spacetime Mysticism
4D (Non-Branching) Mysticism

  • 2-level, dependent control
  • 4D
  • block universe
  • closed future
  • determinism
  • Einstein
  • eternalism
  • Minkowski
  • no-free-will
  • non-branching
  • pre-existing control thoughts
  • pre-existing future
  • Relativity
  • spacetime
  • Special Relativity

Brand 2: Quantum Mysticism (All Associated Terms)

Brand 2 of Physics Mysticism: possibilism, 1920

  • branching
  • branching possibilities
  • freewill
  • many-world
  • many-worlds
  • monolithic control-agent
  • monolithic, autonomous control
  • open future
  • possibilism
  • possibility branching
  • steering power
  • quantum physics
  • quantum mechanics

Labels for Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism

Physics Mysticism brand 1: which concept-label?

Physics Mysticism later, 2nd, brand 2: like Late Antiquity’s value-flip against “enlightenment as heimarmene revelation”.

Quantum Mysticism was a rebuttal, A BACKLASH to add egoic branching-thinking, freewill power.

Quantum Mysticism was a backlash against 4D Mysticism.

What concept-label to use? What are the key words?

The appeal of Quantum Mysticism is not many-worlds, but rather, branching possibilities; possibilism.

1875 appeal of nascent, inchoate [not fully formed], proto- 4D block non-branching eternalism myticism.

They ought to have thought of that mystic system this way: __

They should have been grasping and pursuing 4D Spacetime Mysticism.

Contrast against the other later brand, Physics Mysticism brand 2:

Quantum Mysticism

Do NOT call one “freewill” and the other “determinism”; rather, truly the two well-contrasted brands actually are eternalism vs. possibilism.

The backlash response type of Physics Mysticism: Quantum Mysticism.

Many-worlds is opposite of 4D block single-world.

The complement of ‘quantum’ in pop lingo is pop jargon… how they ought to have used labels / lexicon that’s better?

The opposite of quantum would be “4D” or block, relativity/invarienten

Draw a line boundary, group all of the key terms into two groups.

The Forgotten, Original Version of Physics Mysticism: 4D Block Time, Flatland, 1875 – “Iron Block View” Is a Misnomer for “Domino-Chain Determinism Causality”

James mis-calles domino-chain determinism “the iron block view” – latter is actually eternalism, which has entirely diff’t basis foundation than domino-chain determinism. domino-chain determinism is worst, bad, confusion, halfway between freewill and eternalism.

You can’t do what James does, get from domino-chain determinism to eternalism – he hates “iron block univsere” – but he mixed that up w/ very diff’t, domino-chain determinism.

In 1897 article “The Dilemma of Determinism”, which i only started reading, and searching within, James has to jump a big gap from domino-chain determinism to reach eternalism – that doesn’t work. You can’t get from domino-chain determinism to eternalism aka iron block determinism. domino-chain determinism != iron block.

iron block means eternalism, not domino-chain determinism! James has a confused mix, 90% domino-chain determinism, only 10% actual iron block block-universe eternalism.

a half baked term: block-universe determinism that i used a long time 1988-2007. more proper is block-universe eternalism.

block-universe determinism ~= block-universe determinism, but different foundation! the future is “closed” in two very different senses per block-universe determinism vs block-universe eternalism.

The future is “closed” in two very different senses (for different reasons/ due to different mechanisms) in block-universe determinism vs. block-universe eternalism

the term block-universe determinism does not even cohere! domino-chain determinism does not produce “block-universe determinism”, does not produce a block universe.

Mink would not agree that the domino-chain determinism described by James is same as 4D spacetime block – very very different! I always rejected domino-chain determinism: smear it disparage it as domino-chain determinism

Incoherent “Open-Future Domino-chain determinism”, says the future does not exist and is ‘open’ in that sense – but 4D says the future exists

So, are VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS/ fundamentally different ways of Thinking about how (in what way/ sense, by what mechanism) the future is “closed”!

Determinism = Domino-Chain Causality; Eternalism = 4D Block Causality

All times were created at once; the entire 4D block was crewated all at once – THAT is the true reason & sense the future is “closed”, and “cast in stone”.

The future is cast in stone in that it already exists, NOT because of later outcome of domino-chain determinism!

Kafei knows this,

Josie Kins only half gets it,

Wm James barely understands. properly understood.

Vetkov arg’s that EINSTEIN DID NOT COMPREHEND BLOCK TIME, mink did.

Minkowski clearly understood fully, except for 2-level, dependent control, preexisting control-thoughts causing king ego to die.

James and Kins don’t grok 4D.

Josie Kins is 70% eternalism, but POLLUTED with IMPURE, 30% domino-chain determinism which is dirty possibilism-thinking.

Contaminated.

Unwashed.

Vetkov, Minkowski, Michael Hoffman, and Kafei grok 4D spacetime.

I am complaining that no one pays any attention to my brand of Physics Mysticism: 4D Spacetime Mysticism.

Everyone is in love with Quantum Mysticism many-worlds branching , I am sad about that, why don’t they pick the earlier, 4D 1875-1908 style of Physics Mysticism that was only partially formed, inchoate.

First, in the 1800s, people partly started forming a version of mysticism eg the novel Flatland, and 1980s Rucker book Time as a 4th Dimension.

For a short brief period, 1875-1908, thinkers the culture of the day created v1 of Physics Mysticism, originally based on time as 4th dimension; block-universe determinism/ block-universe eternalism.

But then, around 1920, everyone rebelled and rejected that, and ran toward instead, many-worlds egoic steering power Quantum Mysticism.

The mechanical reason in whci, because of which, the reason why / the sense in which future is “closed”: because the FUTURE ALREADY EXISTS – NOT b/c of DOMINO-CHAIN DETERMINISM!

I have always disliked and rejected domino-chain determinism argumentation, since mid-1988 when I first read about to confirm my eternalism block-universe determinism model of mental model transformation in loose cognition.

My Driving Motivation Now: Give Cognitive Scientists a Useful Scientific Explanatory Model to Equip Them to Explore and Research Psilocybin Transformation

Email to Rick March 12, 2025

Below is my history of changing motivations for studying the altered state.

Now my driving mission is to appropriately equip cognitive scientists to endure the Psilocybin state in order to explore that state for scientific research and discovery, by providing a USEFUL, clear (STEM-expressed), most-relevant explanatory framework of Psilocybin transformation:

mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control, 

including religious myth as clarifying analogy, & art motifs.   Give them expert understanding of how mythemes & motifs describe by analogy, Psilocybin transformation “to eternalism*” — 

Transformation to a combination of possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking, per split-level compatibilism.

Translate from “free will vs. determinism” to “possibilism vs. eternalism” which is more well-formed. Not presentism (Josie Kins’ mis-contrast). Not domino-chain determinism (James 1897 mis-contrast).

You can see James struggling to construct eternalism, which has a fundamentally different basis than domino-chain determinism. He is trying hard — in vain? — to get from the domino-chain determinism argumentation done really well, to produce an outcome of eternalism instead – doesn’t really work, as Kafei & I found.

Wouter Hanegraaff is wrong to say, in “Entheogenic Esotericism keynote article chapter in Chris Partridge book-pair (at academia .edu),

“Although this redefines the word ‘entheogen’, argument from etymology [which everyone knows is invalid] supports my redefinition to: non-drug entheogens.”

Me 2007: “Although this redefines the word ‘determinism’, I don’t mean domino-chain determinism, but eternalism.”

Kafei: “the Egodeath theory is stupid domino-chain determinism. Proved by not using the term ‘absolute’.”

By semi-coincidence, Minkowski book about emphatic eternalism in Physics, very strongly uses the word ‘absolute’, to rebut ‘relative’. Book argues that Einstein’s use of ‘relativ’ shows he doesn’t comprehend 4D ramifications, like Mink does: “absolute four-dimensional spacetime”. I don’t think the word ‘absolute’ means anything clearly in myst’m or in relativity Physics, unless contrasted against “Relativity”. german: ‘theory of invariance” – IDK why Petkov doesn’t give the gernam German title of theory of relevaitity, “invarienten”:

In 1988, as I recall, I saw a German article by Einstein titled like Theory of Invariantentheorie.

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/12087/einstein-sr-is-a-theory-of-invariants-not-relativity-source —

“It is occasionally remarked that Einstein was unhappy that SR became referred to as a ‘theory of relativity’, when in his eyes it was, much more importantly, a theory of invariants (Invariantentheorie). I’m trying to find a quotable source for this, but can’t. Can anyone point me in the right direction?”

“I believe that part of his disquiet was to do with the mischief (potential or actual?) caused by linking SR with philosophical or ethical relativism (which it of course has nothing to do with), but probably more significantly that calling it ‘relativity’ muddles the problem (the frame dependence of coordinates) with the solution (the invariance of the interval).”

“I can find an essay (see p.270) which says:

“We know from his biographies that Einstein was not content with associations which his expression “Principle of Relativity” (or “Theory of Relativity”) had provoked, so he would prefer that his theory was named die Invariantentheorie (Theory of Invariance), following Felix Klein’s term, but it was already too late to rename it.”

“As well, I’ve found a rather hand-waving remark that ‘The historian of science Gerald Holton reports that Einstein was unhappy with the label ‘relativity theory’ and in his correspondence referred to it as Invariantentheorie…’. Neither of these authors, however, seems to quote an actual source (grr).”

Not proved: “..he did not use the term relativity. In fact, he did not use the term until 1911, years after other physicists had referred to his work in that way. Einstein referred to the theoretical basis of his work as Invarianten Theorie until social pressure forced him in 1911 to change”.

I remember around 1988 I took great note that the original, German title or name was “invarienten”, and I wondered why English mis-translated it as “relativity”, completely inverting the meaning.

Glad to see Stack page interest in this point, in detail, appreciate the research & fairly detailed confirmation of my 1988 observation.

I wish to see what I saw in 1988: I thought it was the German title of a 1905 Einstein article, I just might be getting the details slightly wrong but I am certain I saw essentially that.

The Stack page implies that ‘invariant’ merely refers to the perceived constant speed of light, which merely describes Ein’s thought experiment way that he thought of the theory, not a description of the theory itself:

“‘Invariance Theory’ is not very precise; it only describes the research method of the theory, not the content of the theory.” (Specifically the Special Theory of Relativity, not the motion-focused General Theory of Relativity.)

I feel sure am completely certain that I saw an Einstein article titled like “Invarianten Theorie” – Michael Hoffman. Maybe in 1988. I took great note of the word! Around when I was in a university Modern Physics course. During library research when I got a book of the 1905 Einstein articles.

Can’t Redefine ‘Determinism’ as Eternalism, though the “free will vs. determinism” debate ~= possibilism vs. eternalism

obviously determinism maps to eternalism, and freewill maps to possibilism

determinism ~= eternalism, but see the confusion between Kafei & me b/c … the prob.. this is a sympotom of a huge problem for centuries forever: everyone in the world debates about determinism, but, they all define it literally and specifically as domino-chain determinism – as Kafei pointed out. In effect, Kafei told me “You CANNOT redefine ‘determinism’ to mean eternalism aka “the absolute” (that seems to be Kafei’s term instead) – determinism BY DEFINITION

Reminds me of ‘entheogen’ means, by definition, psychedelic chemicals.

You CANNOT do what Wouter Hanegraaff did, “although this totally changes the word to mean the exact opposite of what it means…”

The word “up”, in the broad sense, means “down”.

The word “true”, in the broad sense, means “false.

The word “entheogen”, in the broad sense, means non-drug methods that can/ could/ might / may [ie, that do not] cause the exact same effect as 12g of dried Cubensis.

Heavy breathing can cause the exact same effect as 12g of dried Psilocybin mushrooms. <- HEY ACADEMICS: YOU ARE *LIARS* AND IT IS NOT COOL WHAT YOU ARE DOING: AGREEING TO LIE TO EACH OTHER AND PLAY-ACT AS IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN B.S. Ndmm the traditional methods of the mystics is BULL and you know it but you agree to lie and pretend.

It’s a DOGMATIC LIE, THAT non-drug methods “can” produce same as Psilocybin; NO THEY CANNOT, LIAR. GTFO, liars!

The academic community of liars.

Never in a million years did heavy breathting EVER cause transformation from possibilism to eternalism, which is THE ultimate, definitive, main effect of Psilocybin.

Even if heavy breathing, active imagination, and other bull sh!t fabrications do cause AN altered state, they do not and cannot produce THE altered state; transformation from possibilism to eternalism – ie, WHETHER FAKE METHODS LIKE BREATHING CAUSE AN ALTERED STATE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT.

THE ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTERS, Wouter Hanegraaff, IS: DO THESE ALLEGED “MANY OTHER METHODS” CAUSE TRANSFORMATION FROM POSSIBILISM TO ETERNALISM?

What do the liar-academics claim? “Drugs are not the only way to ___; we know that there are many, many other methods that also ___.”

If the liar-academics are merely saying non-drug meditation causes AN altered state, ok, true – an altered state that’s feeble, ineffectual, wimpy, wussy, avoidance-method, neutered, impotent, fake ersatz slight dizziness – entirely irrelevant.

If the liar-academics are

THE LYING ACADEMIC LIARS HAVE NOT ONE SHRED OF *EVIDENCE* THAT ALLEGED OTHER METHODS PRODUCE Psilocybin EFFECTS ESPECIALLY TRANSFORMATION FROM POSSIBILISM TO ETERNALISM.

Lying Academic Liars Require No Substantiation for Their Claim “Many Non-Drug Methods Can Produce Psilocybin Effects” — But No Amount of Evidence Suffices, for Mushrooms in Christian Art

If you assert “There’s mushroom imagery in Christian art”, the lying academic liars say: “We demand evidence!“

If you assert “Non-drug meditation or heavy breathing can cause the same effect as 12g of Psilocybin mushrooms”, the lying academic liars say: “Ok, no evidence needed!“

🎓🤥👖🔥🤞–>🤑💰

per voice recording Mar 11 yesterday 2025:

I was wrong to attempt to redefine the word ‘determinism’ to mean eternalism, but, I didn’t find ‘eternalism’ or ‘superdeterminism’ until the day after I finalized my main article Sep. 2007 (per Egodeath Yahoo Group archive posts).

per voice recording Mar 11 2025. near 6348.wav mixed w mic tests. Much of these new ideas in this email are from those voice recordings where I started reading aloud the James 1897 article The Dilemma of Determinism.

I’m now working out this idea studying 1897-1908 Minkowski spacetime block 4D universe (non-branching, eternalism) — against Quantum Mysticism, which = many-worlds branching freewill power.

“The Dilemma of Determinism”, William James, 1897 
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/blattnew/intro/james_dilemma_of_determinism.pdf

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/03/03/dr-justin-sledge-of-esoterica-confirmed-late-antiquity-brands-all-rejected-no-free-will-fatedness/#iron-block

I give you eternalism, which is kind of like dread/rejected “iron block determinism” — but per William James 1897 article, where he tries really hard to make domino-chain determinism/ causality produce a fundamentally differently based thing, the real treasure, eternalism.   

I do not take away your precious possibilism-thinking / freewill thinking!  It is washed, and used, not destroyed.  

The angel holds back the blade of Abraham; God blesses him “because you have done this thing, and have not held back offering up your beloved, only child.”
Rev 22:14 —https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A14&version=KJV;NIV – 

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”

William James is correct that we practically have and must revere and use freewill thinking – even at the same time as — per Jonathan Bricklin’s 2015 book about psychedelic eternalism(!) & Wm James:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/illusion-will-self-time-james-enlightenment-bricklin-eternalism/

The Egodeath Theory Gives You Split-Level Compatibilism; You End Up with Both Possibilism-Thinking & Eternalism-Thinking

We actually have underlying eternalism.  I combine those two realities – we end up with possibilism and eternalism BOTH:

Split-level Compatibilism; you end up with:

* Eternalism-thinking re: underlying level + 

* Redeemed/ justified / purified / cleansed possibilism-thinking at the practical level of personal control system; 

* Practical-level possibilism: You always love and retain and depend on using child-thinking; child Isaac: the egoic personal control system, shaped as possibilism / freewill thinking: ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control . . .

* Underlying-level eternalism: . . . while telling God – your higher thinking – you acknowledge the reality of underlying block-universe eternalism w/ 2-level, dependent control.

You might start with literalist thinking; but, you end up with understanding/ comprehending/ recognizing religious myth as analogies, instead.

Thus you {paid the sacrifice toll} at the {rock, fire, branches, blade) altar} to {pass through the guarded gate to get the treasure}.  

After Psilocybin transformation / satori/ enlightenment, after mental model transformation, you end up with BOTH POSSIBILISM AND ETERNALISM in this way & sense.

> The perfect harmony of approaches: loyal to science, AND, love the psychedelic divine and experiencing the highest levels of spiritual bliss.

> When in the realm of the gods, play by the state-suitable rules.
> When in the real world, play by the state-suitable rules.

That’s equivalent to my “split-level Compatibilism”, and 2-state model, and William James 1897 (“The Dilemma of Determinism”, which I started reading) can relate. 

The other article I’m reading, about James’ article, is by Kyle Bromhall:
AN INCHOATE UNIVERSE: JAMES’S PROBABILISTIC UNDERDETERMINISM
Kyle Bromhall, 2013

https://philarchive.org/archive/BROAIU-2

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/03/03/dr-justin-sledge-of-esoterica-confirmed-late-antiquity-brands-all-rejected-no-free-will-fatedness/#iron-block

Per Bricklin’s 2015 psychedelic eternalism book about William James (The Illusion of Time, Self, & Will…), James was torn between trying to believe in both:

* practical freewill (possibilism) in the ordinary state, and 

* Nitrous mystic-state altered state eternalism (“iron block universe determinism”).

The Ultimate Paradigm of Science: The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism

> Loose cognition takes the mind to some places outside of Science.

The mind has a drive or hunger to voyage and seek the divine and enlightenment, which is accessed through cognitive loosening agents, specifically none other than psychedelics, certainly not meaning Amanita any more than Datura, but specifically as the gold standard reference, Psilocybin.

The ultimate purpose of Science is to form a useful explanatory model of Psilocybin transformation. the Egodeath theory is the ultimate paradigmatic instance of Science.

Science Is Nothing, if not an Explanation of Psychedelic Eternalism

Science is nothing, if not an explanation of psychedelic eternalism.

The Egodeath Theory Is the Highest Achievement of STEM

The Egodeath theory is the highest achievement of STEM. 1985-2025.

Egodeath.com, EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com

My Current Driving Mission & Central Target Audience/ User Persona: Equip Cognitive Scientists for the Psilocybin State

Now, my driving mission, most of all, is to equip Cognitive Scientists to endure and use the altered state, so that they can explore it for Science.  

That is my defined target audience.  If I can provide for their needs, that covers everyone’s needs.  

That’s my strategic audience focus, who I can most relate to & provide for, in terms that they relate to.

Funny thing, I criticize the book we’re reading, Rise of the Psychonauts, even though my official focused mission — equip Cog Sci for scientific exploration —  exactly aligns with (Houot) the author’s concept.

History of my previous driving motivations

Seeking the divine or pursuing Transcendent Knowledge was never my driving motivation.

Figuring out Transcendent Knowledge was a means to an end, of fixing my malfunctioning personal control.  I reasoned that the first thing to do for self help, is rationally comprehend ego transcendence (in order to fix my malfunctioning personal control).

* 1985 Oct. 26 (Back to the Future day): My original, 1985-1987 motive was to figure out ego transcendence and satori in a clearly explained way per STEM, to fix my malfunctioning personal control.  

* 1988 Jan.: In my Jan. 1988 breakthrough, my motivation changed to: Explain to others what satori mental model transformation is really about [vs. what Ken Wilber claims it’s about].

* 1998 a: Then in 1998 my motive was initially to get Jesus and Paul to confirm my theory of mental model transformation — but, I immediately found that religious founder figures are mythical.

* 1998 b: So, I changed my motive to: get religious myth to confirm my theory of mental model transformation, by assuming that religious myth is a garbled, overgrown-with-bushes, description or reflection of Psilocybin-induced experience of eternalism.  

Details about success at that driving goal (myth confirms theory of mental model transformation):

* 2003: Success (finding {ingesting producing eternalism} in every  brand of myth/ esotericism) was indicated in 2003 (showing that I was on the right track that would pan out).  

eg, in astral ascent mysticism in Western Esotericism, I found {eating/drinking/food/drink}, and {eternalism} motifs/themes (heimarmene & then transcending fate).

* 2007 September: That theory of myth was then summarized in 2007 — though still missing recognition of the {branching} and {handedness} art motifs in the art that I included.

* 2013 Thanksgiving: Shook me for weeks: huge confirmation of key importance of {branching} motif/mytheme.

Our church library has that Joseph Campbell book, THE POWER OF MYTH(!!)

🍄🌳⚡️💥🤯😵

Nice version of the tree emoji, on my screen: has trident branches holding up crown, like eg the Plaincourault fresco, and almost {cut right branch}. Its branching form is YI, the ideal form.

Branching mapped to Left; non-branching mental worldmodel mapped to Right. Like Eve Left hand hold branch, and right hand holding apple of enlightenment is near non-branching snake.

Finally found color of Lucas Cranach “Eve Tempted by the Serpent” from Campbell Power of Myth! Adam and Eve 1533 “Adam und Eva”

“Lucas Cranach” “Adam und Eva”

Another good version like my Nov 2013 breakthrough version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_und_Eva_%28Cranach%29#/media/Datei:Image-Cranach_-_Adam_and_Eve_1533.jpg – Features:

  • hold cut branch w/ left hand
  • hold apple of enlightenment right hand touching non-branching trunk
  • snake on right side of tree
  • stag w/ branching antlers behind branching legs behind held branch
  • branching legs
  • weight on right foot
  • golden apple Amanita colors

The color version of my Nov 2013 version of the Cranach painting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve_(Cranach)#/media/File:Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Adam_und_Eva_(Gem%C3%A4ldepaar),_Art_Institute_of_Chicago.jpg

found at page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve_(Cranach)

showing “Eve Tempted by the Serpent” by Cranach, that shows: branching antlers, behind branching legs, behind holding a branch:

* 2015 Christmas: Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree [much discussed by entheogen scholars]: 

Speculated that {stand on right foot} = eternalism-thinking.

https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/salamander-ms-bodl-602-fol-027v-zoom-capture.png [absurd 4MB hi res png?]

That hypothesis was massively confirmed later in Nov. 2020 by Eadwine’s “leg-hanging mushroom tree” image in the Great Canterbury Psalter (image crop uploaded to web by John Lash May 2008, per archive.org).

* 2020 Nov: {branching} and {handedness} art motifs were added starting in 2020, especially via Great Canterbury Psalter; details: 

* Nov 2020: folio f134: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom-tree image:

* 2024 Nov: I was brought out of hiatus by recognizing from SPLENDOR SOLIS key mythemes on cover of book signed to me by Jan Irvin in April 2007: AstroSham 1 (2005/2006): {cut right branch}, {stand on right foot}, {hold cut branch}, and soon after, in other version, {Amanitas under tree}, and {bathe in river flowing from tree} & {gateway}:

* 2025 Jan: folio f11 (the famous one): Creation Day 4 mushrooms point to Creation Day 1 {balance scale} pans] – in conjunction with success at the weeks-long project/ pursuit of analyzing left-to-right progressive branching form of  mushroom-trees in Creation Day 3: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI: 

I am happy and satisfied to “cap” and terminate my art motif breakthrough period w/ that pair of art decodings, in famous folio f11.

Of all the many entheogen scholars looking at this main folio comic page, I am the first to see the rather obvious & explicit ({open book} is included) “mushrooms pointing to balance scale pans”:

Though, I can’t be stopped; the other day, my eyes were opened to perceive the {gateway} motif in “Sacrifice of Isaac” in Great Canterbury Psalter folio f12:
https://egodeaththeory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eadwine-sacrifice-of-isaac-2023-02-14.png – must pay toll sacrifice at rock altar with {blade} and {fire}, to pass through the {guarded gate}.

And, in 2025, I finally for first time ever, showcased all 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in Bernard Door & Column, plus, discovered {mushroom hem} & {floating mushroom hem} motifs there, and I assert {Lib Cap roofs} & {mushroom roof toppers} in Bernward metalwork including chandelier.
Only the 7 mushroom-trees:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/10/the-seven-liberty-cap-mushroom-trees-of-the-bernward-doors-and-column/

Doors & Column & Chandelier, all mushroom imagery:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/
Example of {mushroom hem} & {floating mushroom hem}:  discovered by me:

I continue deepening my ability to read mythemes & art motifs as {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs expressing the experience of psychedelic eternalism.

My summary of eternalism, written w/ Jerry Brown in mind in support of 

my “compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art” article for him Nov 2020:

https://egodeaththeory.org/defining-compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

My summary of eternalism:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/12/possibilism-vs-eternalism-2-models-of-time-and-control/

Josie Kins Effect Index entry on eternalism (it is a mix of 30% domino chain determinism (bad) & actual eternalism (good)):

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/18/3-phase-transcendent-possibilism-2-phase-eternalism/#Perception-of-Eternalism – i maybe should make a page about this fx index entry.  https://www.effectindex.com/effects/perception-of-eternalism

* 2025: Now, my driving mission, most of all, is to equip Cognitive Scientists to endure and use the altered state, so that they can explore it for Science.  That is my defined target audience.  If I can provide for their needs, that covers everyone’s needs.  

Funny thing, I criticize the book that our church book club is reading, Rise of the Psychonauts, even though my official focused mission — equip Cog Sci for scientific exploration —  exactly aligns with (Houot) the author’s concept.

/ end of email to Rick Mar. 12, 2025

Confirmed Minkowski Spacetime Is Emphatically Principled Eternalism – “Absolute 4D Spacetime”, future exists, all times exist, flow of time is illusion

Not stated:

  • single future; non-branching possibilities
  • 2-level, dependent control

against the word “relativity”, Minkowski retorted “absolute”.

The world is an absolute 4D spacetime block containing worldlines. d/k if he uses the word “block”. Ideally I’d quote the book.

A real four-dimensional world.

Changeless.

Time does not flow. The future exists. All times exist, non-branching.

2021 2nd edition with 2020 content: intro section “march 19, 2020”, less than 5 years ago.

the absolute world – compare Kafei, “the absolute”. d/k if Kafei meant “the absolute” in the exact same sense as the word’s heavy use in this book intro by Vesselin Petkov. But … just as the “coincidence” of:

  • 2001 i posted that block-universe eternalism = non-branching, Quantum Mysticism = branching
  • 2020 i discovered that non-branching = eternalism, branching imagery in mushroom-trees art = possibilism

that is, my mapping of Physics branching vs non-branching models (spacetime vs. Quantum Mysticism) to the equivalent contrast in art motifs, is not a coincidence – as Josie Kins comment about Effects Index entry “The Perception of Eternalism” wrote that it’s impressive how closely our altered state experiencing matches famous philosophy positions.

It’s impressive how much the contrast between branching vs. non-branching in mushroom-trees art maps exactly to the contrast between non-branching 4D absolute spacetime [i wound not normally employ the word ‘absolute’, it reminds me too much of Kafei’s study of mysticism – but, this book intro absolutely uses the term ‘absolute’ — in some way heavily affirming Kafei —

Per Kafei, 5 g Golden Teacher Is Not High-Dose; 12.5 g Is High Dose

I was off by order of magnitude, in saying that Kafei advocated unnecessarily excessive dosage levels.

Tent. calcs. I am open to 20 g being actual high dose – if 40 g doesn’t give a stronger experience than 20 g.

I will not confidently accuse an advocate of 20 g of overshooting, b/c I am just GUESSING, guesstimating. I might wonder if it’s overshooting, or suspect it is, but, not assert that it is.

I had thought that 5g was “high dose” or “full dose”.

5g is not high dose. 12.5g is high dose.

Def. of hi dose: if you double the amount, little increase in effect. eg:

is 1st-gen entheogen scholarship of

Is 1 g

Golden Teacher
gt

Is 1g Golden Teacher high dose? test: if instead 2g, is there increase in effect? Yes. Therefore 1g is not high dose.

Is 2g Golden Teacher high dose? test: if instead 4g, is there increase in effect? Yes. Therefore 2g is not high dose.

Is 4g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 8g, is there increase in effect?
Does 8g give much stronger effect than 4g? Yes.
Therefore 4g is not high dose.

Is 8g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 16g, is there increase in effect?
Does 16g give much stronger effect than 8g? Yes.
Therefore 8g is not high dose.

Is 16g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 32g, is there increase in effect?
Does 32g give much stronger effect than 16g? No.
Therefore 16g is high dose.

That is the template shape of the calculations. Can try different numbers. That’s how to define “high dose”, the criteria. eg,

Suppose 32 g gives MUCH stronger loose cognition than 16 g.
If so, there’s no way you can defend calling 16g “high dose”.

Cubensis
cube

Below I calc / estimate that 500 ug = high dose blotter = 12.5 g Golden Teacher. Do the calc test:

Is 25 g much stronger than 12.5 g?
No. 25 g is only slightly stronger than 12.5 g.
Therefore, 12.5 g is high-dose.

Template calc; can replace numbers.

Affirming Kafei: CONFIRMED: 5 g dried cubensis is NOT a high dose.

Somewhere in the range 10g-20g is probably high dose, IF doubling to 20 -40 g doesn’t give stronger effect.

subjective characterization: 5 g dried cubensis is like maybe 150 ug blotter. maybe 200.

5g Dried Cubensis ~= 200 ug Blotter

High dose of blotter is 500 ug. Uncertain. That is true if 1000 ug is no stronger than 500 ug.

If 1000 ug is stronger than 500 ug, then 500 ug is not high dose, by this criteria/ definition/ method.

How many grams dried cube Golden Teacher is like 500 ug blotter?

500 ug blotter * (5g dried cubensis / 200 ug blotter) = 500 * 5 / 200 = 12.5 g dried cubensis

500 ug Blotter (high dose) ~= 12.5 g dried cubensis

200 ug blotter is a casual, respectable but modest moderate, safe, non-risky amount, avoiding pushing it.

A little on the wimpy/ conservative side.

200 mics is just enough to almost be a serious amount. That’s not a good reference.

A better fuller experience is 300 ug. Very agreessive is 500 ug.

“250 ug” is not convenient. Blotter unit of 100 mic, 250 is unnatural.

  • 100 mic <– casual party background dose, or scholarly focused work.
  • 200 mic <– one foot in strong experience, not really pushing at all; fully safe, DABBLING with strong amount. Rock Concert fulfilling amount: strong, but little risk of excessive.
  • 300 mic <– pretty strong; fully respectable, but not extreme. A useful amount: in the realm of control instability capability accessed, but not entirely overwhelming. Able to do some things here that not possible w/ merely 200 mic.
  • 400 mic <– a relaxed extreme, distinctly less than max.
  • 500 mic <– extreme, full, max experience

If we assume the speculative “5 g cube = … for … good enough for a starting point estimate.

Converting Blotter Dosage to Cubensis Dosage

Based on the estimate that 5 g dried Cubensis Golden Teacher = 200 ug blotter. Not re: duration; re: intensity of loose cognition at peak window.

  • 100 ug = 2.5 g
  • 200 ug = 5 g
  • 300 ug = 7.5 g <– useful point of reference: far enough in, to access all the dynamics to some extent; not shortchanged on the higher dynamics.
  • 400 ug = 10 g
  • 500 ug = 12.5 g

McKenna – I’ve not …. i seems to picture 5g as “high dose”. I believe 5g dried cube (typical obviously; of course a batch can be 10x stronger) – and I do not mean superstrains of cube; I mean

The Egodeath Theory Replaces Perennialism, which Is Confusion and a Failure

The Egodeath theory is a rebuttal of perennialism. Anti mysticism, anti perennialism.

If I thought those approaches had much to offer, I wouldn’t have bothered making my own custom theory of Transcendent Knowledge in 1985, deliberately from the Engineering/STEM department instead of those failed garbled approaches that don’t even try for clear useful explanation.

The Egodeath theory is more like the opposite of perennialism or esotericism.

I read the characteristics of esotericism per Antoine Faivre, and I reject and dislike all of their goals and traits.

Per Jewish mysticism history scholar Moshe Idel, the word ‘perennialism’ is unusable, b/c everyone redefines it.

Perennialism means confusion and is a dead end, failed approach that brings more confusion than clarity.

The Egodeath theory was created because perennialism is a failed approach to explaining providing a useful effective explanatory model of Psilocybin transformation.

I only care about garbled myth to some extent validating the Egodeath theory – the theory of psychedelic eternalism.

Perennialism cannot be validated, because it is an invalid mass of confusion and irrelevance.

I might agree with one or two perennialist assertions by some people, but I reject Perennialism.

Perennialism is a fundamentally broken, failed approach, a problem to be fixed by wholesale replacement of the Perennialist framework by the Egodeath theory instead; the theory of psychedelic eternalism.

Matthew Johnson’s Ethics Violations Complaints Filed Against His Hopkins Team Blocking the 2016 Religious Professionals Study

Email to Rick Mar 11 2025

Travis Kitchens describes Matthew Johnson’s ethics violations accusations against his Hopkins team.

The Most Controversial Paper in the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day: Was the Psychedelic Renaissance Led by Science or Faith?
Kitchens 2025 [subscribers]
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Most-Controversial-Paper

[excerpts condensed]

“Hopkins/NYU Griffiths’ experiment gave psilocybin to 24 religious professionals 2 times —Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim
clergy.

What happened is a mystery, as the paper has yet
to be released.

A controversy was growing in Griffiths’ lab that threatened to derail the
psychedelic renaissance.

The accusations centered on alleged misconduct involving the religious professionals study.

March 2024, New York Times published an exposé that called the study’s integrity into question.

The article drew on two ethics complaints filed by a former protégé,
psychologist Matthew Johnson whom Griffiths had groomed to be his replacement.

Griffiths, Johnson said, had been running his research lab less like a laboratory and more like a new-age retreat center, recommending spiritual literature to volunteers and allowing politically aligned funders to work directly on studies.

Funders were also paying for projects aimed at introducing various religious communities to hallucinogens.

The line between research and advocacy had disappeared.

Johnson accused Griffiths of infusing his research with his own spiritual beliefs and agenda of spreading the use of psychedelics.

This created a cult-like atmosphere.

Publishing the religious professionals study was put on permanent hiatus.

Information emerged about Griffiths and other researchers, a plan to revitalize Christianity by incorporating a psychedelic sacrament.

The renaissance of psychedelic studies: Are the researchers guided by
science, religion, or a combination?”

“Perennialism appeals to psychedelic enthusiasts.

Perennialism says one can tap into the same universal Truth known to mystics of all ages, by taking a drug, with no need for institutional religion.

Not everyone involved with the study holds such beliefs.

Johnson, the former protégé who filed the ethics complaints, thinks the findings have been exaggerated and taken out of context.

Some people want to see the results as validating the Perennial Philosophy, but it can’t.”

Moving Past Mysticism AND Materialism: Psychedelic Eternalism

The Psychedelic Renaissance[TM] is DEAD, done, died, imploded. 

Griffiths died of cancer.  The famous core people left the Hopkins team.  It’s history/toast.

I inspected their Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – verdict: garbage, junk science, b/c based on a totally fantasy-based imagining of the scope of mystical experience:

Stace 1960, unicorns farting rainbows – as real as the Amanita fantasy, bad [in some ways] entheogen scholarship v1 (1st Gen) from John Allegro and from Carl Ruck Committee, which puts 100x as much emphasis on Secret/ Suppressed (so exciting and titillating!) as on actual psychedelics.

Citations about the “Moving Past Mysticism” fight/debate within Psychedelic Science; the Mysticism Wars within Psychedelic Science:

Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/

Matthew Johnson and Chris Letheby lean way too far to hardcore materialist naturalism, and the alternative is as bad: the flakiest possible mysticism woo that you can possibly imagine. 

Bifurcated into two entirely irrelevant false dilemma options. 

I reject the whole buffet of all their options.

“Salvation” = “Save me from Heimarmene”
& “Save me from Control Instability” yet Still Give Me Full Grasp and Satisfaction of Demonstrating Non-control/ the Vulnerability that Gives New Life

Proof/Further Corroboration of my 2001 post saying “Quantum Mysticism = branching freewill model; block-universe determinism = non-branching, no-free-will model”

todo: gather passages that associate:

  • block-universe determinism of the iron block view of 1800s-era either a 4th spatial dim or time as a 4th dim, as a kind of mysticism POV that is characterized by non-branching.
  • Quantum Mysticism = worship of branching + egoic control autonomy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=branching+%22quantum+physics%22

King/Sage in Bed = Wood Lover’s Paralysis

7:30 pm Mar 10 2025

broaden the idea of paralysis to include the deep energy-drained feeling of loose cognition; ASC lethargy & paralysis.

todo for lazy starting point when you’d rather be lying in bed: list all folios that include a bed.

  • fn
  • f(n)
  • woman in bed giving birth = Bern Door right door = you with WLP thinking of new model of personal control system
  • = New Testament verses about {paralyzed} guy who Christ makes walk.

tweaking the title of the 2nd article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies​ : “2nd-gen entheogen scholarship” — 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship , 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)

darn it, i can’t even find a measly MENTION of the todo task of gathering the Great Canterbury Psalter images of the frequent motif
{sage|king sitting upright in bed holding scroll from God|Jesus}

I’ve been putting off gathering those images , a list of them, for a couple years — with a weak record of even wanting to / needing to gather that motif.

“bed” is SUPPOSED to be listed here:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#motifs

10:10 pm mar 10 2025 enjoying p 74 Lundborg book – Dee, two sides of esoterica:

Magic Is the Opposite of Mysticism

Scholars claim that magic = active control; mysticism = passive reception.

My editor view has great 1970-era font for headings… really the body text too. Magic font in WordPress editing mode.

  • MAGIC: occult magic manipulation I AM THE PUPPETMASTER emoji muscle arm, i am the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts
    vs.
  • MYSTIC – passive receptive female MYSTIC – I am the the helpless thought-receiver

I was surprised that my church library is so astute as to have Lundborg book 2012 albeit MERELY IN PAPERBACK – weak lack of commitment, you are a bad person, a poser at Transcendent Knowledge.

What kind of b.s. phony amateur hack “library” is this, paperback? that’s like Stang, Dean of Harvard, writing a paper that gives dollar price & Kindle references! oh the folly! what an embarrassment Stang is signing his name to that BAD WRITING

The hardcover printing of Lund book is pretty huge. 520 pages. The trick is: his lame TOC only gives hcater chapter page #s but he does give sections of ch’s – you MUST —

TIP: IN Lundborg’s TOC, NUMBER THE SECTION HEADINGS, THEN FIND THAT NUMBER AS HEADING WITHIN THE CHAPTER’S PAGEs.

I posted the best archive url for the best Index of the Patrick Lundborg 2012 book.

I have that printed.

I have to give my inferior printing of Index to the poser paperback book in my church library.

the earlier inferior index has sequence: numbers then alpha letters.

the superior later index: spell out the names of the numbers entreis, then move those into the letter section.

quote p 75: DEE REPRESENTS THE ESOTERIC, NON-MYSTIC [!] SIDE OF LATE RENAISSANCE SPIRITUALITY [that SO reminds be o me of the bogus a.f. contrast made by Studerus in the 11-factors article, “NON PLEASANT = NON MYSTICAL” –

garbage Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)
garbage Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)

exercises in fool assertion “non pleasant = non mystical”, with Studerus & Walter …. come on end-of-day brain stretched — Stace 1960.

Citation: Studerus 11-Factors article, p. 1: “non pleasant, therefore non mystical”

Stace 1960 = Fool.
Studerus 2011 = Fool.
Psychedelic Science from Griftiths = Fool — b/c with a straight face, these publications cite Stace 1960 as the Foundation of their “Science” 🤦‍♂️ (even though OAV 1994 got it right)

The essence of mystical experience is stand outside the egoic personal control system and make it fail; observe the external mystery source of control thoughts. Marriage from higher POV.

all of this is entirely over the head of Stace 1960, and so Leary/Pahnke 1963, and so on., TERMINATING in the 2016 UNPUBLISHABLE STUDY from Hopkins. Folly.

Phil dept, Letheby, to the rescue, offering 1 options of bunk buffet consisting of 8 brands of irrelevant materialism or irrelevant mystic fantasy.

Academic Philosophy Dept. Chris Letheby to the Rescue (got up late after dorm room trip), offering his Bunk Buffet of 8 brands of irrelevant materialism or irrelevant mystic fantasy

OAV is perfect, compared to MEQ+CEQ. OAV is not based on Stace 1960 AFAIK. MEQ claims Stace as its Science foundation. OAV does not.

I am unfair: I assign the malformed CEQ to the MEQ lineage. the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) claims to be a superset of neg items from the 3 pop q’airs, HRS, SOCQ aka MEQ; & OAV

In CEQ or 11F article, they keep saying “5DASC”, but they draw from 11F version of that, which is warmed-over unneeded version of OAV.

Oops , Griftiths misread 11F, accidentally omitted 8 of 21 Angst effects, oh well — better get rid of 10 more psychedelic Dread/Angst effects, so only 3 of 21 are left.

I’m sure that the article about CEQ explains WHY SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY IN PLAIN ENGLISH NOT HIDING BEHIND FAKE MATH, DID WE OMIT 18 OF 21 CHALLENGING EFFECTS?

We got rid of nearly all of the psychedelic-type challenging effects, because they didn’t fit our narrow categories; those effects were too broad, too powerful, so we had to omit them “for precision” to fit our fabricated VALIDATED FACTORS that the Marketing dept directed, when they took over in Phase 2 of concocting the q’air from Hell, CEQ. Good job boys, keep cutting away and sculpting! Good Grief! 🤑💰

I am pro moneymaking, anti make-sh!t-up. Selling a NEUTERED PSYCHEDELIC EFFECTS map. Houot awesome dissertation point: 39% freakouts in hihgh dose 30mg subjects. Magically gamed down to 30% (silently) in the later article i had analyzed. i confirmed his citation. Math = Magic.

HOW DID GRIFFITHS GET FROM 39% FREAKOUTS TO 30%? Crickets.

Its validated! Like gas “validates” beans.

Forget 5D-ASC; forget 11-Factors; I go directly to OAV 1994; skip 5D’s added JUNK dimensions no one cares about, and skip 11F which ADDS CONFUSION – oops forgot 8 Angst effects, hidden in neither of the sparkly “factors” Impaired Control & Cognition [why is that 1 factor, not two????] or the Anx anxiety factor. stick them in Shadow Factor 13.

too powerful and broad to fit into our factors, so, demote them to “ignore” neverland, no mans land outside of any “factor”, they are high level effects that can thus be overllooked; too big to perceive, Q 54, I WAS AFRAID TO LOSE MY SELF CONTROL –

i don’t see 54, its not in ANX factor, its not in ICC factor, so, ignore. forget. overlook. omit. delete. nix. nevermind.

Thus is the birth Phase 1 of fabricating the CEQ q’air from Hell — and then the Marketing dept got ahold of it:

“Good job boys getting rid of, domesticating, neutering, keep it up, just keep the wimpiest 3 of the 21, good to go 👍” CUT, CUT, DISCARD, DISCARD, CHOP, get rid, omit…

How to Train Your Dragon: Ignore 18 of 21 Teeth

We didn’t get rid of ALL of the psychedelic Dread effects; we kept 3 of 21! That’s why our q-air is way more comprehensive than OAV & HRS & SOCQ put together! [citation: bragging in p. 1 of CEQ article]

site map https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Psychedelics-Questionnaires

—

Our Scientific Proof is: Mysticism = 🦄💨🌈

Studerus the fool cites Stace the fool as “the science foundation”

but Erik Davis quips w/ key word “vouchsafed”: over half a century OUTDATED, ie, Disproved B S: Disproved B S,

like I have disproved 1st-gen entheogen scholarship as B S FOOLISHNESS – “We care so much about safety protocols, that we make Walter Stace 1960 the Clown our “foundation” of our “science”.

We care so much about safety protocols in our Psychedelic Science, that we make Walter “Unicorns Farting Rainbows” Stace 1960 the foundation of our esteemed Science. You’re in good fantasy hands with the Griffiths team: Science on a solid basis of fantasy and wish-projection.

Daily reminder & reality check:
CEQ omits 18 of 21 items from the DED dimension — while somehow at the same time, bragging about being more comprehensive than the existing q’airs.

Now the team cannot publish their long-awaited synth Psilocybin religious professionals 2016 study in 2025.

McPriest’s article dismissing AND REFUSING TO ENGAGE THE TOPIC OF HISTORY OF PSYCHEDELICS IN Christianity. They mock it as “Allegro’s been debunked!”

Journal of Psychedelic Studies​ editor Michael Winkelman editor and Brown yell repeatedly at McPriest to pay attention of history of psychedelic in Europe Christendom, and McPriest just replies lamely: “Allegro’s been debunked.”

McPriest and MICA Deniers draw all attention to the most ridiculous errors and backwards (tail wagging the dog) HYPE by Allegro & Ruck “Dancing Man mushroom has a red cap”, who care about SECRET, above all, and merely abuse psychedelics to support their social drama incoherent narrative of “secret” barrier construction project.

Ruck Committee makes it so easy to dismiss entheogen scholarship , by their misplaced upside-down emphasis on Ruck’s hyped, all-driving narrative of “secret, that Letcher ridicules on p. 35 of 2006 Shroom:

“Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in. But Ruck cannot possibly neutralize, as he ALWAYS rushes to do, Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree as secret. So, Ruck’s entire entheogen scholarship is disproved.”

Bernward is actually a set of 7 mushroom-trees, along with {mushroom hem} , {floating mushroom hem}, etc, but who’s counting?

Not Letcher, b/c he only needs a single instance that Ruck CANNOT neutralize and frame as “secret heretical cults”, to blow up the whole fkkiong malformed field of entheogen scholarship per 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).

The Secret tail wags the Psychedelics dog.

Letcher actually only needs to count to 1! Then watch 1st-gen entheogen scholarship come crashing down.

The secret scholarship, disproved by a single instance b/c that’s all it takes.

Don’t criticize Letcher for failing to treat more than a single instance; applaud Letcher for correctly realizing that he only needs a single instance, of non-secret mushroom imagery in Christian art , to disprove entheogen scholarship — that is, v1 of entheogen scholarship, which was based on the “Secret/ Suppressed social group” fundamental premise as its very basis and core theory.

Ruck Committee: The “Secret” Tail Wags the Psychedelics Dog, as Letcher Attacked Successfully and Efficiently

Except Letcher colossally botched the fake endnote 31 on p. 35.

Letcher did not demolish entheogen scholarship; he demolished 1st-gen entheogen scholarship, efficiently w single slingshot he downed Goliath of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.

1g = The “secrecy first, psychedelics last” approach.

Such a flimsy incohernet scenario, Ruck can’t even handle a heretic individual; Ruck has to always fabricate out of thin air: the moment a person ingested Amanita, that person became, according to Pope Ruck (hiding behind his phrase ‘so called’ in all 3 print issues of Entheos) a “member of a heretical cult”.

bc Ruck has to prevent Amanita from being used by individuals mixing in w/ the great mass group of all of christendom.

Ruck’s narrative DEPENDS on reifying perpetual Prohibition. If we remove Prohibition, Ruck’s entire cobbled social drama narrative comes crashing down.

The Ruck model cannot handle a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art that is not cordoned off, that’s not secret and hidden, but is in the great mass of Christendom.

All of Ruck’s effort is consumed in a frame-attaching project, hasten to wrap and imprison every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art, within a barrier called “heretical sects”. Or 1-2 elites.

Their values-backwards construction: “our passion is Secret; our end is Secret; our means is Psychedelic.”

“The topic of psychedelics is merely to serve the purpose of our agenda: ritual telling of our social drama narrative about ‘secret’ and ‘suppressed’.”

Ruck Committee’s model cannot permit “The Mushroom” (a corny b/c confusion-soaked construction) to freely be used by individuals who are mixed in throughout the great mass of society in Christendom.

Ruck Committee’s model cannot permit mushrooms to freely be used by individuals who are mixed in throughout the great mass of society in Christendom.

Drug Warriors have a poster of Carl Accommodate Prohibition Ruck, their best supporter, bard of perpetual prohibition of The Mushroom; our holy sacred Amanita, which is FAR better than any mere psychedelic.

Amanita is a SUPER PSYCHEDELIC, it is the UBER psychedelic — on the dream fantasy myth plane.

Letcher holds up for ridicule entheogen scholarship (1st-gen version): “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in – such as Gartz & Samorini.”

[sic; actually Allegro & Ruck, based on Graves & Wasson’s tabu theory confusions.]

The ancients do in fact overhype ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ – that does not make it ok for Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck to overhype ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’; and so Letcher cashed in on their folly.

Letcher in 2006 revealed their folly; their narrative cannot stand up, and desperate Ruck cannot possibly frame Bernward Door as secret and hidden, try as he might.

Letcher demolished Ruck’s whole incoherent social drama narrative that’s the tail wagging the dog of psychedelic history.

Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Psychedelics, Not by “Secret”

Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Psilocybin, not by Amanita

Despite the ancients over-hyping Amanita — which is the supreme symbol of Psilocybin.

Against Heinrich book, Rev 10 eating scroll does not give vision of tree of life as 13 Amanitas; Rev 22 gives tree of life as 13 different manners of fruits crops each month.

Or per Bennett, 12 different uses of Hemp – please ignore what Rev 22 says, while Bennett quotes it, and says 12 different manners of fruits crops means 12 uses of Hemp/Cannabis. fruits = uses.

12 plants thus becomes 12 uses of 1 plant — that’s truly the single-plant fallacy.

Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Concern with Psychedelics, No Longer Driven by Concern with “Secret”

Psychedelic history must be driven by psychedelics, not by “secret”.

Ancients overplayed “secret”. Allegro and Ruck (& Graves & Wasson) are in error for focusing on ‘secret’.

Ancients overplayed “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”, which is a strained, forced, unnatural, reversal of the truth of how the mind works when immersed in Psilocybin loose cognition.

Wouter Hanegraaff is in error for letting himself be played by ancient hermeticists, he so badly wants to say that Psilocybin transformation is mainly from eternalism to possibilism – which is FALSE.

Psilocybin transformation is mainly from possibilism to eternalism. And the ancient hermeticists KNEW that; they crafted their inverted-valuation myth within that boundary of constraint.

They did not exceed the limits of telling a tale of transformation from eternalism to possibilism.

Wouter Hanegraaff cites them, but on next page, mis-states what he just quoted.

As Wouter Hanegraaff says (by my reading), scientific academic historiography must not be based in myth. It is a study OF myth, not based IN myth.

Psychedelic History must be Driven by Psychedelics, not Driven by the “Secret, Suppression” Social Drama Narrative that Letcher Rightly Holds up for Ridicule

Ruck Has It Exactly Backwards, and as a Result, Was Disproved; Discard 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship & Salvage from Its Post-Letcher Wreckage

FFS, psychedelic history must be driven by psychedelics, NOT “secret”; actual psychedelics, meaning Psilocybin, not Datura, not cannabis, not Amanita —

world-ubiq Psilocybin that grew all over Europe and England and was used by our ancestors in peak full potential in heyday Medieval as we have received the proof that the mushroom-tree artists Eadwine carefully crafted their unambiguous emphatic explicit message of psychedelic eternalism.

The mushroom-tree artists, especially Eadwine, especially via the {branching} motif in Great Canterbury Psalter, carefully crafted their unambiguous, emphatic, explicit message of psychedelic eternalism.

Irvin 2008 chastises Ruck Committee along same lines, in The Holy Mushroom: Irvin emphasizes that Ruck Committee cannot possibly frame the Plaincourault fresco as “heretical sects”.

Ruck Committee cannot get away with TRYING TO RESTRICT psychedelics to just “heretical sects and Christian mysticism”, or, per Ruck’s other incoherent kettle-logic tale, trying to restrict The Mushroom to only 1-2 elites.

“So titillating, so exciting, the word ‘secret'” – GTFO, immature, peurile: Ruck Committee sells as titillating and exciting, this protagonist cults fantasy framing.

The ancients pushed this “secret” motif way too much, and Ruck plays right into it to the MAX.

LOVES ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ – and Letcher 2006 and Irvin 2008 called out Ruck on this.

Tail wagging the dog.

WE are here for psychedelics, but Ruck Committee is here for SECRET, instead.

Ruck Committee’s narrative that drives & motivates their entheogen scholarship DOES NOT WORK.

Carl Accomodate Prohibition Ruck

Samorini – who he falsely cites as “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in ” — in 1998 and then Conj Eden 2001 and then me in 2002, flourished 2007 (my main article, w/ art w/ great branching motif not yet recog’d), are 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).

Entheogen scholarship abused as barrier construction prject to perpetuate Psilocybin Prohibition.

1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

Their puerile social drama narrative is the tail wagging the Psilocybin dog.

The mid 2024 special issue on Psychedelic Christianity.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/09/journal-of-psychedelic-studies/#8-2

Psychedelic Pseudo Science Cannot Publish their 2016 Religious Professionals Study

(and Deletes 18 of 21 Dread Effects without Explanation)

Psychedelic Pseudo Science is such a joke, that they cannot publish their 2016 findings about religious professionals, and their q-air from Hell, CEQ, omits 18 of 21 Angst effects — while bragging about most comprehensive. Who’s laughing now 😐

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22beware+of+dragon%22 – some good signs – i prefer {fire} breathing, with {blade} claws & teeth.

Our sign has smooth rounded corners for your safety.

Neutered Psychedelic “Science” = Do Not Color Outside the Lines of Stace 1960 “Positive-Balanced” Model of “mystical experience” [Beware of Dragon, gate guard]

Safe-for-Hopkins, neutered Pyschedelic “Science” = Do Not Color Outside the Lines of Stace Positive-Balanced Model of “mystical experience” – moot after the ethics complaints, by Matt “Lose the Budda Statue” Johnson.

Tim Leary’s MEQ & CEQ have crashed and burned as the 1-sided junk that they are. Citation: Pollan HOw chang emind: he was unable to answer the M E Q items, b/c they are framed the opposite of his horriying expewrince of timeless embeddeness.

Pollan reports that the M E Q (based on Staceanism, while claiming to be based on Mysticism) wildly contradicts his experience.

Dittrich’s OAV 1994 is an actual, serious instrument.

I have to talk make voice recording – the great IRONY — the entire purpose of the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is to catch the mystic failures of MEQ –

Cosmic irony: The CEQ has the same gigantic blind spot of the MEQ! it’s just the same 1-sided blindness, repeated in regress!

Repeat the same error: omit the sort of “unpleasant”, shocking, amazing, TERRIFIC AWE of mind’s potential to step outside of the egoic personal control system and trip it up from Dionysus’ higher vantage point above King Pentheus steering in tree disguised as a woman (that’s YOU). Get rid of all that, and sell it as “Science” – Non-P De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science

the sort of “unpleasant”, shocking, amazing, TERRIFIC AWE of mind’s potential to step outside of the egoic personal control system and trip it up from Dionysus’ higher vantage point above King Pentheus steering in tree

Hopkins’ De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science

Hopkins Sells Bunk Product, De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science: Grief Therapy, with the Psychedelic-Specific Character Omitted [same club of clowns who cannot publish the “long awaited” 2016 study of religious professionals on synth Psilocybin, b/c the ethics complaints – THE BETRAYAL FROM WITHIN THE COURT OF JESTERS!]

more manic lol from me

I typed B S, but got {balance scale}, — darn keyboard shortcut, I meant to cuss. DRATS! FOILED AGAIN by the mytheme motif.

The Fool’s Ballad of psychedelic pseudo science: Stace the Clown

you think Hatsis is notorious for insults? I call upon the spirit / genius of Hatsis, greatest historian EVAR, to insult and ridicule:

100% Ridicule of Walter Stace BUNK Model of “mystical experience”; Stace the Clown = “Psychedelic Science“

We Scientists at Griffiths Inc. are SO concerned with safety, that we make 1960 Stace-the-Clown’s theory of “mystical experience” the basis of our “Scientific” model of the Psychedelic Effects, and Seriously Cite Stace as Our Solid Authority on the Nature & Character of Mystical Experience

Our MEQ from Leary — foisted as if from Walter __ is B S but don’t worry, says Grifteths to Stang, we made-up the CEQ as Our Fallback Trashcan to catch the mystic failures; our backup scheme is provided by the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) — whoops but never mind, b/c IT TOO, has the SAME GIANT GAP: the {shadow dragon monster} blind spot.

How come both our positive, Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and our negative, Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) both have the same gigagtic faliure gap?

ie, the {shadow dragon monster} chronic panic mystic-failure response of 39% of our high-dose 30mg test subjects?? —
then he looks w/ suspicion at culprit: Hopkins Marketing Dept.

Erik Davis quips: safety-first psychedelic “Science” — that’s “vouchsafed on research that’s half a century out of date.“

Cue Alan Watts’ Buddha zen enlightenment satori laugh eruption: laughing at the foolishness of Studerus citing Stace as the foundation of the science of psychedelics, when Stace is entirely wrong about his Pollyanna bunk model misconception of mystical experience.

Children’s literature classic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna

Griffiths tells Stang w/ a straight face, on video at Harvard & YouTube:
“Our Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is positive-balanced“

just like “non-drug entheogens”

Good: I need MATERIAL FOR MY STAND UP COMEDY show routine, which is all motivated by my ultimate motivation: to test microphones & mic techniques.

{shadow dragon monster}
sdm

the {shadow dragon monster} blind spot, a CHRONIC HABITUAL BLIND SPOT OF EGOIC THINKING demostrated not by OAV model, but by inferior, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) model / lineage which TIMOTHY LEARY made up.

I blame Leary as the author of the the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and its ridiculous offshoots, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)) , pretending that Walter Pahhnke made it up.

Leary made it up, but even Leary has a more negative-balanced model of mystical experience than Stace or Hopkins Corp. or Griftiths.

OAV is 99% good model of Angst, dread of ego diss.

The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) & its broken patch, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) , is 1% valid.

The CEQ is the broken wastebasket to catch the failures of the MEQ.

OAV blows away the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).

OAV 1994 is a way better model than the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) … the ever- vanishing, MEQ143 begat MEQ42 begat MEQ30 or whatever the counts – Yaldaboath, all of them, a MONSTROSITY/ travesty OF “SCIENCE”!

Unapproved by Christ the {male} thought inserter.

They make, “heaven forfend!”, a mockery of Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaldabaoth

the phrase I was looking for earlier: “heaven forfend!” define forfend
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+forfend = AVERT

The biggest danger in Psychedelic Science is its false basis of Stace 1960’s LUDICROUS “positive balanced” 1-sided model of mystical experience, Pollyanna

The advocates (who are the Enterprise called out by Forte Robert] — the phony top-down fake Psych Renaiss astroturf overly well funded: “we want Psychedelic Science to be SAFETY-FIRST.

YET, they make the bunk Stace model , “positive-balanced”, of their much-ballyhooed Psychedelic RenaissanceTM, the basis of their Science.

The Egodeath theory GIVES you what Stace ROBS you of: the amazing potential to stand OU STAND OUTSIDE THE EGOIC PERSONAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND MAKE IT FAIL.

See youtube vids: game models of train explosions, yay!

Celebrate like Abraham hwo has discovered how to make his Isaac childish personal control system fail, and thereby show his grasp of Transcendent Knowledge ie psychedelic eternalism.

The Egodeath theory = the theory of psychedelic eternalism
April 1987 I would have written on binder sheet: [TOPE]

The theory of psychedelic eternalism = learning how to demonstrate failure gap vulneratbility of child Issac thinking.

The lower, donkey following the path (look down, perceiving the egoic personal control system from outside), vs. the higher, rider, Psilocybin awareness. image: Golden Psalter: Entry into Jerusalem.

God Help Me; Save Me; Heaven Forfend = I Beg to Avert the Profound Attractive Threat that I Cannot Avoid Seeing

GOD HELP US! SAVE US [“heaven forfend” = “i beg you to avert the profound attractictive [rush mp3 ‘addict of subtraction’] threat that I cannot avoid seeing”] FROM PHONY “SCIENCE”, PSYCHEDELIC PSEUDO SCIENCE BASED ON FOOL STACE’s 1960 MODEL OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

Odysseus lashed to the mast attracted by the sirens song please demonstrate the control vulnerabiity sacred gateway to Heaven realm to eat from tree of life

Rev 22 Gets the Last Word, but angel thinking says, nah, you need to have a future, to give honor to the higher controller to give .. to express Transcendent Knowledge you must think about demonstrating {blade}ing of, {fire}ing of, Isaac child thinking.

Recipe for Transcendent Knowledge: Immerse Mental model in threat potential of {fire} {blade} for 12 Hours or Until Completion of Initiation and {Phoenix} is produced

After you violate God’s prohibition of going threre 10 times, 10 times using mushroom , then after that, you have washed robe, so NOW it’s ok to have eat from the tree that you did ten times in order to wash your robe [a circuar ironic injunction, is Rev 22:14].

Rev 22:14
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A14&version=KJV,NIV

You need both NIV & KJB to comprehend the joke that is the last word, BIBLE HAS THE LAST LAUGH.

Esotericism is a joke.

I posted such books since 2001. amazon, and the comic strip the Witt Door. Wittenburg Door comic strip Bible eso esotericism = Alan Watt’s laugh: the result of satori is Buddha belly laugh at your folly of no-free-will based freewill thinking

The folly of “the #1 concern of Psychedelic Science is Safety, so we build our Science on the foundation of Stace’s positive-balanced model of mystical experience.

DO NOT WORRY, HAVE NO FEARE, if you are a mystic-experience failure, we have the C E Q to catch you – which has the SAME gigantic monster-shaped hole as our M E Q from JOKER TIMOTHY LEARY pretending to be Walter Pahnke who made the MEQ143.

1964: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 163 – numbers are more reliable in my Ref page about q-airs.

1990: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 43

2006: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 30

2016 the year Matt Johnson sues — the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 16 [i am joking about bizarrely shrinking # of “items”] –

EVERY YEAR, Psilocybin HAS FEWER EFFECTS, SO HAVE WE HAVE TO SHRINK OUR LEARY-INHERITED Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) EVEN MORE.

2020: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 8

2025: PERFECTION IS REACHED: MEQ0; just hand over your wallet to Hopkins dammit, this is a stick-up by psychedelic pseudo science

Announcing the MEQ0 — Perfection Has Been Reached, the Perfect Questionnaire: Shut Up and Have a Mystical Experience[TM] per Stace “Positive-Balanced” Mysticism Model

In the grocery yesterday Sunday mar 9 2025 after church, super enjoyable trip to church (which i told host) & also back – i have to bug my host and exclaim again afterwards to him.

Bicycle Ride from Heaven

in grocery yesterday mar 9 2025, a manic Dionysiac guy obv drugged, overenthusaistic came blasting thru the store, they had to throw him out.
He begged them … i am try to recall…. to … what was his plea?

I was equally hyper enthusiastic, I have to have head checked for so enjoying the day beforehand. MANIC MENTAL ILLNESS.

TOO HAPPY = MENTALLY SICK, NEEDS REPAIR.

What a pleasant bicycle ride there & back yesterday!!!

The technology gear really came together. It was so pleasant! Blew me away. I had purchased and tested, but not yet used, this combination of tech equipment.

Symptom: Enthusiasm. Prescription: Sedate

My bike mechanic: joyous combination of his gear.

A friend finally showed me movie where bike guy has girl mechanic. actor died. Stupid movies. I never care — Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.

My autism superpower: IDGAF about social drama narrative, so I am better at spot the mushroom game.

The Autism Army chant: “Give us back our Aspergers, DSM! We Never Forget”

My ride back from church: noisy wind blowing rain toward me, but not really rain til much later. cloud, wind, super pleasant.

Then after talking about athletics and bike gear w/ my DJ gear sales engineer in warm shelter, I went back to the grocery w/ proper shopping gear.

Then they had to evict the manic street drug guy, too happy. He was God in disguise, but we kicked him out for being too loud in his enthusiasm.

😄🔬🔍🧐🤨💉

Let me explain my three jokes. My laughter in this paragraph is not about the joke in the previous WordPress “block” ; do not mix up which of my LOLs is re: which of my jokes in this vicinity.

Wouter Hanegraaff cannot & Ronald Huggins cannot figure out “wha happened to my imperishable Salamander??”

in the peak window, not act out “loss of control”. rather, have comprehension of the vulnerabliity. = picture, “sacr of isaac but angel holds blade back” — cook for 12 hours or until done, the salamander recipe {fire} {blade} = cooking time to transformation from possibilism to eternalism

[ i am just cycling through my jokes / insults that i previously posted)

the {shadow dragon monster} gigantic blind spot vulnerability in so-called “Psychedelic Science”
sdmbs

the pre-Science phase of psychedelic pseudo science

the pre-paradigm phase per Kuhn’s model ie there is no “old theory” that my “new theory” replaces. the Egodeath theory is the first THEORY, properly speaking.
the theory of psychedelic eternalism
tope

image: Hatsis in banana suit photo cover of his Roller Derby handbook. get from “Brown Publications” my page.

clown emoji [pollyanna’s model of mystical experience] meets hungry dragon emoji

Griffiths:
“Our #1 Concern is Psychedelic safety.”
Yet, also Griffiths:
“So, we make Stace 1960 the cited foundation of our Science.”

My citation: see LUDICROUS citation by Studerus, p 1 of the 11 Factors article.

The foolishness of citing Stace as the foundation basis of our “science”.

Stace, who says “mystical experience = unicorns farting rainbows”.

“non-mystical because non-pleasant.”

The Foundation of Our Safety-First Psychedelic Science: The “Unicorns Farting Rainbows” Model of Mystical Experience – approved by Hopkins Marketing Dept.

How come a queue has already formed, of hungry dragons eager for the result?

Meanwhile, Ethics Violations Complaints from Matthew “Lose the Buddha Statue AND I AM NOT CLOWNING!” Johnson

wonder why the delay on the 2016 study of religious professionals?? trouble in Psychedelic Pseudoscienceland.

Trouble in Psychedelic Pseudoscienceland

Pick a Side: The Mysticism of a Fool, or the Scientistic Materialism of a Fool.

See dorm room Phil dept rep, Chris Letheby for a guide to 8 flavors of trash materialism + 8 flavors of trash “mystm” – his buffet of folly , his single wrong option straight from the OSC academic Phil dept and attached dorm room trippers Letheby who by night, trips and fervently asserts “only mind exists”, and then by day publishes papers in LEARNED, LEARNED journals ridiculing, saying instead, “only matter exists”.

Motifs Yet to Inventory in Great Canterbury Psalter: {bed}

  • king/sage in bed; {sage|king sitting upright in bed holding scroll from God|Jesus}

Miking Notes: Mic Change: From Center Mic e-v 653A “omni” ie no proxy mud, to Shure SM57

Mar 9 2025 I switched from 635A to SM57. pm of Mar 9, I moved 57 to be 45-60 deg. turned, b/c fav orientation/position has max buzz. 635A has no buzz at any angle.

To get familiar w/ resp curve 57 given my more recent expertise of miking, I’m – for a change – doing 8″ not 2″ (when noise envir) or 24″ (when quiet envir).

And, two forms of 8″:

  • mic stand 45 deg. 8″
  • handheld lazy arm 8″ moving around doing entheogen scholarship standup comedy routine b/c 1st-gen entheogen scholarship is a joke as the MICA Deniers say and ridicule.

MISSION:
START SAMO’S 1998 2ND-GEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP, TO NOT DESERVE RIGHTFUL RIDICULE LIKE 1ST-GEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP FELL TO & FAILED.

Mean Andy Letcher killed off 1st-gen entheogen scholarship with a single blow of his slingshot, Bern Door 1 isolated instance of Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.

He mocked to death, 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.

Letcher held up for ridicule, like Ruck “the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree is red cap”.

Letcher p. 35 endnote 31 bizarrely and sloppily mis-attributed Bern Door “secret” assertions to Gartz 1996 & Samorini 1996 – Samorini who gave him the photo! The main guilty entheogen scholars are Allegro & Ruck & their pop reception. This section / genrerl topic came up now b/c reading Lundborg book, I keep seeing “SECRET” and “HIDDEN” way overused.

Ancients way-overused ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’.

Historians commit

Wouter Hanegraaff warns about making mythic tales the foundation for historiography.

Historians over-employ as if explanation, the “hidden” construct and the “secret” construct.

Transcendent Knowledge involves revealing a hidden occluded secret, underlying level of the mind that awareness sees only during loose cognition.

Bad, uncomprehending entheogen scholars mistakenly project the mind’s hidden/revealed aspect onto the social plane.

Samorini in 1998’s b/w picture of the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree, set up 1st-gen entheogen scholarship’s folly and faceplant. HIs article doesn’t show blue cap, but gray. A projection-fest, CHILDISH WISHFUL FANTASY PROJECTION inkblot resulted.

“If there are spots on a mushroom drawing’s cap, then we know the gray cap is red.”

Hatsis AFAIK gets the medal for ridiculing and pointing that out.

Ronald Huggins credits his fellow MICA Denier Hatsis.

mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA)

“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)

Thomas Hatsis, the historian of medieval psychedelics use (scopolamine)

Thomas Hatsis
th

Thomas Hatsis wrote a book on mid-20th C ergot too. It looks like it’s probably a good book.

4 Answers for Social Drama Narrative of 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship: Who Was Fantasy Amanita Restricted To? Heretical Sects; 1-2 Initiates; 1-2 Elites; All Elites

The essence of kettle logic is: putting forth multiple arguments with no thought of coordinating them. Some of the result is self-contradiction.

Kettle logic is not the same as self-contradiction.

Ruck: restricts the fantasy myth-realm Mushroom (not “kiddie Amanita”; rather, Fantasy Amanita Better than Mere Psychedelic, mythic-realm fantasy magic Amanita super-psychedelic.

Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to heretical (closed) underground sects. (Never to individual heretics, b/c they might mix in with the common mass, and Ruck’s social drama narrative cannot permit that.)

With no thought of the above, Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to 1-2 initiates.

With no thought of the above, Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to 1-2 elites.

Irvin AstroSham 1 2005 Conclusion 1st sentence tries to restrict the fantasy Amanita to all elites, who always kept The Mushroom secret from the masses.

Idea produced by this recording:

Andrew Rutajit:

Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered.

Andrew Rutajit, The Vestibule

He understates.

Amanita is far better than any mere psychedelic, such as Psilocybin.

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship never cares about actual Amanita; it cares about fantasy Amanita super-psychedelic, better than any psychedelic.

Dale Pendell:

“Amanita is the most famous entheogen that nobody uses. It is the SUPREME SYMBOL of all entheogenic religion.”

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship disrespects mere psychedelic Psilocybin; it reserves all enthusiasm for far better: fantasy mythic-realm The Mushroom, The Holy Sacred Mushroom, Amanita.

1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
1ges

1st-gen entheogen scholarship
1g

2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
2ges

2nd-gen entheogen scholarship
2g

In characteristic 1st-gen entheogen scholarship fashion, Clark Heinrich reluctantly, sadly recounts when users of The Mushroom, fantasy Amanita, had to stoop and reduce themselves to a mere psychedelic, Psilocybin, instead, unfortunately – a huge downgrade.

from Voice Recording pm March 8, 2025, 6328, 1:50:00, good recording for Egodeath Mystery Show

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship
1ges

2nd-Gen entheogen scholarship
2ges

The Effect Index drawing of “timeline” is pretty great, for entry: “Perception of Eternalism”.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/18/3-phase-transcendent-possibilism-2-phase-eternalism/#Perception-of-Eternalism

Stanford too low-IQ to draw a tree on the “tree model” diagram, and too incomplete of the thinker to show entire snake on right:

2 points in time that lost and forget Psilocybin esotericism:

  • The shift from geocentric to heliocentric lost the great Mithraism astral ascent model. date of Copernicus: 1510 but practically 1625 (slow takeup).
  • Newton Princip 1687.

Psilocybin esotericism, including the Mithraic cosmos model, was forgotten in 1687.

Mithraism astral ascent model:

  • Earth 0: naive possibilism-thinking; naive freewill thinking.
  • … levels / grades of increasing grasp of heimarmene.
  • Sphere 7: Saturn = 7/8 heimarmene.
  • Sphere 8: fixed stars = full heimarmene.
  • Sphere 9: precession = transcendent freewill.

astral ascent model
aamd

Psilocybin esotericism
pe

My Theorizing Routinely Integrates Psilocybin Transformation, Like Ruck’s Myth Textbook Routinely Integrates Entheogens

What a feeble, weakling, ineffectual theorist or new-paradigm- constructing scientist, I would be, if I did NOT routinely integrate conjectures.

Imagine a person who couches weakly all the time, “I am not certain of any of my ideas, but maybe perhaps…”

Such a person will get NOWHERE.

Unproductive hesitation and weakness of putting forth theory, like digging w a shovel while holding back, HOLDING BACK, working harder to hold yourslef back

“I HOPE Ronald Huggins APPROVES OF MY CONJECTURES”

, right? please validate me (whiny voice)

My Use of Key Terms Notation & Acronyms for Concept-Labels, Like Ruck’s Myth Textbook Uses KEY-TERM Notation

I am following in Ruck’s Footsteps (His Entheogen-Integrating Myth Textbook) by Integrating “Psilocybin Transformation” So Routinely in Workaday Theorizing, also Modelling His Encyclopedia-type KEY-TERM Notation, like my April 1987 development of [ACRO] Technique of Concept-Labels

Key Dispute: Does Psilocybin Transform Mainly from Possibilism to Eternalism, or Mainly from Eternalism to Possibilism?

  1. Early Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation is from possibilism to eternalism.
  2. Late Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation can be re-framed as if from eternalism to possibilism.
  3. Hanegraaff crudely says: Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.

THAT IS A GREAT SUMMARY OF HOURS OF THEORIZING/ STORYTELLING! 3:12 pm March 8, 2025.

Here’s how Wouter Hanegraaff got untethered, and we can blame the over-clever, too-tricky, irresponsible, & reckless advanced-level mythmaking of his Hermeticists in Late Antiquity:

  1. Early Antiquity said, correctly & helpfully: Psilocybin transformation is from possibilism to eternalism.
  2. Late Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation can possibly be re-framed AS-IF from eternalism to possibilism, as a rebellious marketing backlash, insincerely or aspirationally. They had nuance & restraint while stretching the truth: they only merely claim that only our highest, spirit aspect goes above heimarmene.
  3. Hanegraaff crudely says: Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.

Wouter Hanegraaff writes that only the spirit aspect transcends heimarmene. I have to give him credit.

Still, the picture he paints, exaggerates the focus on “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.

Wouter Hanegraaff eagerly misquotes the ancients, and takes-up where ancients assign Fate to the starting point and all planets.

ie he quotes their qualified statements, and then he repeats but w/o the qualifying, on the next page, contradicting his previous page. I posted specifics here in 2022; the book is marked up there.

transformation from eternalism to possibilism
tep

  1. Early Antiquity: transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
  2. Late Antiquity: transformation from eternalism to possibilism (per our competitive marketing, wink 🤥👖🔥🤞🤑💰)
  3. Metal bands, Erik Davis ed05 the book Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, by Erik Davis, 2005; p. 118: astral ascent mysticism; p. 122: the Egodeath theory : Tragedy: transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
  4. But Wouter Hanegraaff the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022 :
    transformation from eternalism to possibilism

Beyond Fixed Stars (Level 8) is Precession of Equinoxes (Level 9) & Trepidation of Precession (Level 10) – Finally a Useful Mapping of 2 or 3 Levels Above Heimarmene (Fixed Stars)

March 8, 2025 – discovered Mar 7 pm in article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres —

“In more detailed models the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them.

“The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars;

“other scholars added a ninth sphere to account for the precession of the equinoxes, [I WAS NEEDING THIS DISTINCTION PLACEMENT!]

“a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes, [I needed such accounting]

“and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic.[28]

Sphere 8 = Fixed Stars = Heimarmene/ Fate/ Eternalism/ No-Free-Will; Enslaved, Prison, Puppet, Helpless

Michael Hoffman 2006

Sphere 9 = Precession of Equinoxes = transcendent freewill = transcend Fate = outside of eternalism [yay! perfect fit! solved/ confirmed!]

Paul Thagard’s theory of explanatory models explains why I FEEL/experience that this wiki article paragraph is a confirmation that is not provided by David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres —
“In more detailed models the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them. The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars; other scholars added a ninth sphere to account for the precession of the equinoxes, [I WAS NEEDING THIS DISTINCTION PLACEMENT!] a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes, [needed such accounting] and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic.[28]

28:  Francis R. Johnson, “Marlowe’s “Imperiall Heaven,” ELH, 12 (1945): 35–44, p. 39 – agghh dogsh!t useless, where the F is the Biblio entry??? WTF is ELH???

Web search:
Francis Johnson Marlowe’s “Imperiall Heaven”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis+Johnson+Marlowe%27s+%22Imperiall+Heaven%22 — gives important page to read w/ firm reverence about which spheres move compared to the ultimate, Empyreum:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2871598 —

“Marlowes-Imperial-Heaven.jpg” 177 KB, 11:55 am Mar. 8, 2025

In the above passage, THE HIGHEST MOVING SPHERE IS PRIMUM MOBILE, which in a red/yellow diagram map below, is level 9, just above fixed stars 8 which i equate w/ full heimarmene.

The sphere which doesn’t move, here, is the Empyreum.

This literary model achieves affirming that Transcendent Knowledge = no motion, and says “achieving no motion = above heimarmene / fixed stars”, which implies that the fixed stars move, which the idea of prescession sort of confirms.

First, hsitorically, they mapped “no motion” to level 8 fixed stars = heimarmene, and that is your final destination.

Psilocybin gives you no-free-will / eternalism, end of story. According to our grandpas back in Early Antiquity, who bequeathed us, in 150 AD Late Antiquity, their HORRIBLE WORSHIP OF HEIMARMENE ENSLAVEMENT/ puppethood. HARD PASS! We agree that fate rules the cosmos, grampa is right. BUT, our job is to roll up our sleves and leverage mythmaking Marketing narrative, leveraging precession discovered [memory don’t let me down] Hipparchus 150 BC??? discovery of precession of equivnoxes, and later we can hallucinate “trepidation of precession” (oscillation).

These are MOVING levels that are AOBER ABOVE fixed stars/ heimarmene.

Waffle, waffle… as bad as Ruck “The Mushroom was everywhere but no one knew about it”

Thank god for Mithraism the best useful point of reference, for talking about in what way we can have transcendent freewill.

I was wrong the other day saying “art = good b/c too simple to show mental errors”.

Then I remembered Mithraism is ALL ABOUT depicting “transcend heimarmene”. Mithraism says the highest level of Psilocybin transformation is motion; freewill – but not naive possibilism-thinking.

It’s a motion a freewill that affirms cosmic no-free-will. The Mithraism model says only PART of you is above the no-free-will prison rock block universe, snake-bounded by the heimarmene snake.

That’s actually agreed to by the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.

But now we have problem re: the Renaissance cosmos model, that says the ultimate final destination is non-moving, where God & elect are, several levels higher than mere fixed stars/ heimarmene.

I fervently hold that fixed stars = heimarmene, based on arg from usefulness, & b/c most systems assert that. Contradicts Renaissance model which says God level doesn’t move, but all levels lower move.

SOLUTION: separate the idea of movement from the idea of heimarmene & transcending it.

My Defining 2- AND 3-Level Models is like mystic cosmos models that have variable # of spheres 7-11

But my strategy to keep clarity and usefulness of entire set of all cosmos mappings, is 3-fold:

  • multiple levels of moving planets – easy b/c everyone says 7 planets.
  • fixed stars, FIRMLY ALWAYS ASSIGN HEIMARMENE HERE – easy b/c standard.
  • multiple levels above heimarmene – 9 & 10; or 9 & 10 & 11.

fixed stars mapped EASILY to heimarmene – yet Wouter Hanegraaff manages to cosmically botch this elementary given that everyone else agrees, the stars are level 8 = heimarmene, DUH.

Every child knows that, but Wouter Hanegraaff can’t handle that b/c it forces him to move from Saturn to no-free-will.

Blame ancient Hermeticists who did poor job of using myth as clarifying analogy.

His ancient Hermeticists try too hard to assign demonized Fate to all levels from Earth 0 to Stars 8, so how can Wouter Hanegraaff avoid multiplying their confusion/ their anti-clarifying, insane-level hatred of heimarmene?

Like I said in favor of MICA Deniers Letcher and Hatsis:

  • It’s not Wouter Hanegraaff’s fault he’s confused; he did not invent this confusion where Fate is mis-assigned to starting point Earth 0 prior to Psilocybin, and then Fate is ALSO assigend to spheres 1-7, then he calls sphere 8 freedom above heimarmene – unlike everyone else. Hermeticists are to blame for over-assigning fate to too many levels, below 8th/9th/10th spheres. We should only assign fate to level 8, and reserve 9+ for transcendent freewill.

There ARE early cosmos models that focus only on …
There ARE early astral ascent models that only use 7 planets, and are silent re: fixed stars level 8 (heimarmene), and act like level 8 = transcendent freewill, and what THEY do is, assign heimarmene to Saturn sphere 7:

  • 0 earth, no Psilocybin
  • 1 moon – 1st Psilocybin
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7 – Saturn = heimarmene. (that assignment is not very problematic, b/c all models effectively assign heimarmene to Saturn, even if formally assign heimarmene to level 8 fixed stars; ie, Saturn is TANTAMOUNT TO heimarmene.) The slowest moving planetary wanderer (unless later per Hipparchus’ discovery of precession, you say that the fixed stars wander, over 30K years)
  • 8. fixed stars.
    IF your culture values heimarmene as the ultimate mental transformation state, then call this sphere “heimarmene”, same as level 7 Saturn.
    IF your culture values transcending heimarmene as the ultimate mental transformation state, then call this sphere “transcending heimarmene”, contrasting w/ level 7 Saturn. Wouter Hanegraaff does this, except he feels he has to delete the stars entirely, & ends up sneaking them into level 7 Saturn.

I am not mad at Wouter Hanegraaff for valuing moving from heimarmene to freewill. I’m mad at him and/or Hermeticists for assigning heimarmene to every level from 0 through 7, or 0 through 8. Not helpful, fails to clarify, which is the purpose of analogy / religious myth. Rank Hane’s errors, & the Hermetcists poor way of over-assigning Fate to every sphere 1-8.

Wouter Hanegraaff assignes fate to earth 0 & planet 1-7, and assigns freewill to sphere 8 (which has no stars, somehow). He assigns stars to Saturn 7 (he expresses or manifests confusion and uncertainty about that, in footnote & throughout book eg garbled heading “BEYOND THE [7] STARS”).

Ancient Hermeticists are only a little better.

They over-assign Fate to earth 0 and to moon 1- Saturn sphere 7 AND – unlike Wouter Hanegraaff – they also assign Fate to sphere 8 which they (unlike Wouter Hanegraaff ) say = fixed stars

the Egodeath theory EMPHASIZES that our starting delusion prior to Psilocybin transformation is naive possibilism-thinking; untransformed freewill thinking. Were I to say the mind starts w/ eternalism… false. Underlying mind is always eternalism, but, child thinks in terms of monolithic, autonomous control/ naive possibilism-thinking; naive freewill thinking.

If we in our loathing of Fate, in our frothing hatred of heimarmene prison, we describe and disparage a child’s mental model as “Fate-enslaved”, that is NOT clarifying and helpful, it is a wrong description of child vs adult, immature vs. Psilocybin transformed- “beard” adult thinking.

The problem w/ immature mental model is NOT that it is heimarmene-enslaved; if you tell that story, in Late Antiquity, that reflects your late POV, where you are all-concerned to solve prob of heimarmene. see my book review summ of Nicola Lewis Cosmology & Fate: Pitiless. it’s in

Justin Sledge of Esoterica Confirms All Brands of Religion in Late Antiquity Transcended No-Free-Will (Fatedness, Heimarmene, Eternalism) —
section:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/03/03/dr-justin-sledge-of-esoterica-confirmed-late-antiquity-brands-all-rejected-no-free-will-fatedness/#Cosmology-and-Fate – best excerpt from my 2014 review:

People in Mediterranean antiquity including Jews, Pagans, Gnostics, and Christians, around the 1st Century, believed in fatedness. Then around the 2nd Century, people adopted a rhetoric of transcending fatedness, while disparaging other people or the other groups as being ignorant and being slaves to fate. This book supports the 3-tiered systematic analysis in my Egodeath theory, in which we move through three stages during initiation experiences:

1. Ignorant freewill thinking.

2. Enlightened realization of fatedness and personal noncontrol. This stage disparages stage 1 (ignorant freewill thinking).

3. Transcending fatedness to gain a transcendent freedom. This stage [in its decadent, unhelpful, irresponsible mode] conflates and disparages stage 1 (ignorant freewill thinking) and stage 2 (realization of fatedness and personal noncontrol).

Stage 2 was first positively valued, and then later was negatively valued.

/ end review excerpt

Be very cautious about hating eternalism – lest you lose the revelation transformative revealtion of eternalism which is 99% of enlightenment!

IF YOU HATE ETERNALISM THAT FKKING BAD, THEN DO NOT GET ENLIGHTENED, DO NOT USE Psilocybin; REJECT Psilocybin transformation —

The main thing Psilocybin transformation gives is eternalism; wake up to heimarmene prison enslavement helpless puppet w/o branching, freedom, autonomy, or open future.

We can call (sell & market; frame) the result “transcendent freewill”, or “qualified possibilism-thinking” — but underneath that is adult, mature, awareness of eternalism (prison slave puppet etc) – so, even if you market enlightenment as “transcendent freewill” or “qualified possibilism-thinking”, the Big Change that … theology: we move from slave of fate, to slave of Christ/God.

When I was a freewill-deluded child, unknowingly I was a slave of fate.
[that’s not a helpful framing; too clever; too advanced myth-usage; not a clarifying use of analogy to explain]
Now that I’ve been saved, I’m a slave of God.

surrounding sections: March 8, 2025

Justin Sledge asks “Is enlightenment worth the bother? Doesn’t seem so, b/c chop wood carry water”; see the Pre/Trans fallacy;

The only thing accomplished by Psilocybin transformation is, we move from naive possibilism-thinking to qualified possibilism-thinking.

So kinda nothing much changes, by the vision of eternalism that pulls the rug out from under King Ego steering in tree.

Hating heimarmene and disparaging all early stages of Psilocybin transformation as “evil heimarmene”, might be understandable from Late Antiquity POV, where Grandpa Eternalism always pressed the heimarmene prison upon them as the goal of Psilocybin transformation, and told them “be happy in your heimarmene prison!” (Stoic phil.) — but it’s a non-helpful narrative.

“Grandpa heimarmene” means the cultural/psychological values held by Early Antiquity who discovered basic, relatively simple Psilocybin transformation; Late Antiquity lost all comprehension of Psilocybin transformation, because they too much loathed heimarmene / eternalism which is the true product, re: mental model, of Psilocybin transformation.

Basically and simply, and helpfully: The essential product or result of Psilocybin transformation is eternalism/ heimarmene , tragedy of awareness of — you can hear this cry in acid-inspired Rock:

Metallica lyrics about the tragic puppethood prison enslavement revelation:

flash before my eye, now its time to die
who made you god to say, I’ll take your life from you
in the electric chair
if this is true then let it be

Ride the Lightning album

In fact, the child, starting from naive possibilism-thinking, must struggle to REACH heimarmene -awareness; that’s the MAIN MISSION:

The MAIN CHALLENGE over the course of 10 Psilocybin sessions is to finally manage to retain & hang onto the treasure, the Psilocybin vision of no-free-will.

The merely small treasure booby prize after that is, let us call the result, “qualified possibilism-thinking” or “transcendent freewill” in our brand’s marketing brochures.

Only after mythic analogy has done its proper helpful work of giving you heimarmene imprisonment, should we then fume and despise heimarmene and ACT AS IF THE ONLY CONCERN & responsibility of RELIGION TO DELIVER IS:
MOVING US FROM HEIMARMENE TO FREEWILL.

  1. The MAIN job of Psilocybin transformation is to give you heimarmene awareness.
  2. The minor, later job of Psilocybin transformation is to reframe heimarmene as qualified possibilism-thinking; transcendent freewill. Transcend eternalism, a little — even Wouter Hanegraaff’s overly heimarmene-hating Hermeticists said, only a small, spiritual part of us transcends heimarmene! Yet Wouter Hanegraaff tries to twist their views to the max, unbridled, he follows them all the way, off a cliff, and HEREMETICISTS DO NOT AGREE WITH Wouter Hanegraaff’S EXAGERRATION of their exagerrated hatred of heimarmene.

So we have historically this sequence of attitudes/ emphases/ aspirations:

  1. Early Antiquity says Psilocybin transformation gives you enslavement to heimarmene, if you work hard and successfully retain the vision of eternalism. They worship eternalism.
  2. Late Antiquity says it’s a tragedy, that Psilocybin transformation gives you eternalism; let us invent a narrative built above that, selling “our brand gives you a little freewill.”
  3. Wouter Hanegraaff studies Late Antiquity, and misrepresents them as completely untethered from reality of Psilocybin transformation: he wrongly thinks Psilocybin transformation changes you from initial heimarmene enslavement, to emancipation into egoic freewill, which is a backwards emphasis.

Psilocybin transformation is MOSTLY from possibilism to eternalism.

Late Antiquity knew that, bc Early Antiquity taught them that, but they leaned toward reverse emph via trickery of advanced, “plausible deniability”, trying to get away w/ what they know is less than true:
“Let us try to take the fact, and apply a reverse, as-if framing, through clever advanced myth:

🤥👖🔥🤞

Our competitive Marketing Dept sells you:

Psilocybin transformation is MOSTLY from eternalism to possibilism.

Wouter Hanegraaff lapped that slop up. His book tells that narrative, supported by so-garbled astral ascent model, he cannot even place the stars (which he correctly equates w/ evil heimarmene) anywhere.

How Hanegraaff Reached the Misunderstanding “Psilocybin Transformation Is from Eternalism to Possibilism”

“Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.”

The decadent vector (begun by ancient Hermeticists, eventually gone fully decadent) is complete: we now entirely lose all comprehension of mythic analogy, of Psilocybin transformation, of everything, and are left with non-drug entheogens, incomprehension of myth, and a totally wrong model of mental model transformation that is the opposite of the truth about the main direction of development.

Per the Egodeath theory, there are aspects of “starting from eternalism”: The child’s eternalism-thinking is unknowingly produced by hidden underlying eternalism.

Per the Egodeath theory, there are aspects of “ending at possibilism”: personal control system always uses egoic possibilism mental worldmodel, even in the peak state, although awareness becomes elevated and moves outside the personal control system to be able to observe it (and trip it up) from outside of itself.

per the Egodeath theory, there are weak aspects of the Psilocybin transformation tracjectory “moving from eternalism to possibilism”.

But, by far the main direction is starting from possibilism-thinking, ending w/ eternalism-thinking.

Wouter Hanegraaff naturally puts undue focus, lapping up the insincere marketing message of 150 AD, that “our brand is superior: it saves you from Fate prison enslavement puppethood.”

That’s what Wouter Hanegraaff wants to hear, and he’s so willing to be conned by this deceptive marketing, he even deletes all the evil hated heimarmene-stars from the sky’s 8th level, to clear the way for the fabricated phony product, “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.

Phony marketing always has a GRAIN OF TRUTH, but worthless.

150 AD marketers like Hermeticists, know that there is only a grain of truth to their sales pitch, “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.

The Late Antiquity marketers, freewill snake oil salesmen, FREEWILL SALVATION SALESMEN, count on Wouter Hanegraaff to hear their nuanced pitch that has plausible deniability, if they’re accused of over-selling “we free you from fate”.

In moments of nuance, Wouter Hanegraaff accurately writes that Hermeticists only claim to free only the spirit part of you from fate.

But the song he sings & emphasizes, with only feeble qualification of this assertion, is simply, un-qualified:
“transformation from eternalism to possibilism“. 🎉 😍 🙌

150 AD: Join Our Religion, Which Gives Transformation from Eternalism to Possibilism* (*sort of, a little, figuratively speaking, in a way)

6:10 pm Mar. 8, 2025

Wouter Hanegraaff omits & downplays the fine print, which says this product is PRETEND-ONLY and is not a serious claim to escape Fate enslavement.

Hermeticists know that the MAIN direction is transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Meditation hucksters’ sales pitch is not entirely a lie against Psilocybin, just MOSTLY a lie, to compete against Psilocybin.

By the time confused Wouter Hanegraaff is done, he says something making the hermeticists say WHOAH, WHOAH!

YOU gone too far Hane!

Wouter Hanegraaff says crudely, when leaving the Hermeticists’ 150 AD sales pitch and then trying to sell his followers on “Hermeticism frees you from Fate enslavement”, he claims & sings, & emphasizes “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”, throwing nuance to the wind.

Per the Egodeath theory, the truth of mental model transformation from Psilocybin transformation:

Psilocybin transformation is about changing you from POSSIBILISM delusion to ETERNALISM revelation (w/ a little qualified possibilism-thinking after).

Late Antiquity knew that, and tried to emphasize the latter part.

They were anchored in Psilocybin reality, even while re-marketing to hype freewill.

Wouter Hanegraaff’s grotesque mis-telling, where he takes their Marketing promises to heart too crudely, and ends up failing to understand what Psilocybin transformation mainly does:

Psilocybin transformation is about changing you from HEIMARMENE SLAVE, to FREEDOM.

Ancient Hermeticists understand Wouter Hanegraaff’s sentiment and poorly proportioned reading of their mythic analogies, but they do NOT share that view, that lopsided, mis-balanced narrative, mis-emphasis.

This is the horrible disaster of Christianity inventing freewill and 150 AD Marketing departments all inventing freewill: they over-sell freewill and misrepresent the mind’s struggle trajectory.

In fact the mind’s Psilocybin transformation struggle trajectory is to start w/ naive freewill thinking, finally secure comprehension of underlying eternalism, and then, A LITTLE, move from eternalism to transcendent possibilism.

Late Antiquity screws these proporations all up, and we are left w NOTHING, we lose EVERYTHING, lose ALL comprehension of myth & alnalogy & trajectoery of mental model development, a la wilber Ken Wilber “catastrophic disintegration” due to failure to retain child thinking while transcending it.

The “hate fate” astral ascent model of Late Antiquity is dysfunctional and decadent and is OVERCORRECTION. They went way too far in selling freewill in 150 AD, and so they lost all comprehension …. they embraced anti-rational Quantum Mysticism and they failed to help children start from freewill delusion, discover truth of eternalism, and then a little bit transcend eternalism.

todo ~~ copy review main part, NDL Pitiless book.

The best cosmos-analogy model should use analogy to clarify and help immature non-initiates to start from freewill delusion, discover truth of eternalism (we are heimarmene prison enslavement puppets) (a difficult struggle and great achievement, for which we need clarity and assistance), and then a little bit transcend eternalism.

Late Antiquity is grotesque & decadent. They FAIL to help children start from freewill & reach developmental level of full retainment of grasp of no-free-will, b/c the ONLY thing Late Antiquity values, is the later, very advanced move, of sort of moving from eternalism to transcendent freewill.

Decadent, fate-hating Late Antiquity then re-cast the nature of Psilocybin transformation, AS IF you start from eternalism-thinking, and as if the only job & concern & RESPONSBILITY of religion is to bring you to possibilism-thinking.

Late Antiquity is IRRESPONSIBLE, pushing misleading analogy, that misrepresents child-thinking as if it is eternalism-thinking – and so is of NO HELP in the real main challenge for the mind: to move from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.

(see Ken Wilber’s Pre/Trans fallacy)

Ken Wilber
kw

It is a little bad that Wouter Hanegraaff screws up assigning fate or freewill to levels 8 & 9. Hermeticists don’t make that poor move.

It is very bad of Wouter Hanegraaff & very bad of hermeticists that they assign fate to Earth level 0 and all planet spheres Moon 1 – Saturn 7.

In fact as we move from naive possibilism-thinking (Earth 0) to Saturn 7, underlying is always Fate, but concsiously we move from mental worldmodel of freewill , then increating awareness of fate, reaching full 100% awareness of Fate at level 8 fixed stars – after (above) that, transcendent freewill, at sphere 9 (precession per Mithraism), & 10 (alleged “trepidation of precession”), & 11 if you have that level

But later, Renaiss model says 10 or 11 final state is heimarmene — or rather, is non-motion (so, must separate heimarmene from non-motion).

Early Antiquity ignored “transcendent freewill”; they say you end up w/ final state = heimarmene prison.

How the hell do Early Antiquity have astral ascent model that … not a conflict.

SOLUTION: Early Antiquity has 7-sphere model, final state at level 7 is heimarmene, and 8 stars – if they have that level – is still heimarmene.

astral ascent models
aamd

astral ascent mysticism models
aamm

Consider the stunted “stars”[sic] system of Wouter Hanegraaff: the highest “star” is Saturn = heimarmene.

Wouter Hanegraaff puts above that, the freedom levels 8-and-9 (so conflated, there’s no func’l diff’c).

Wouter Hanegraaff cannot place fixed stars zodiac anywhere, so when no one’s looking, he puts constellations in fate level 7 = Saturn planetary moving level.

This way, his precious level 8 is free from heimarmene / stars.

He says: You graduate from 7 Saturn heimarmene, which somehow(??) includes fixed stars zodiac in his garbled book, to freedom level 8, above the “stars”(!!)

He says level 8 — above the stars, somehow — is identical with level 9, tehere’s no functional difference. [my way better & more standard model says, 8 = full grasp of heimarmene; 9 = transcend heimarmene].

Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens transform us from fate [prior to initiation] then fate, then more fate, then more fate, then Saturn sphere 7 (new! now includes fixed stars, somehow!) which is still Fate;
then move above Saturn to reach freedom, above fate, at level 8 above fate, which he has made star-free via his confusion.

10-sphere map:

  • sphere 8 fixed stars = heimarmene prison, and it moves.
  • sphere 9: transcend heimarmene = prime mover (in some maps) and it moves.
  • sphere 10 = empyrean = God = elect (compare 11-sphere maps though).

11-sphere map:

  • sphere 8 fixed stars = heimarmene prison, and it moves.
  • sphere 9: transcend heimarmene = prime mover (in some maps) and it moves.
  • sphere 10 = empyrean = God = elect (compare 11-sphere maps though).

That is THE most useful principle in mapping astral ascent mysticism models to the actual sequence of Psilocybin transformation from
naive possibilism-thinking to
eternalism-thinking to
qualified possibilism-thinking.

I would object a lot if you say God & elect are at the heimarmene level.

That’s the sort of model that Early Antiquity asserted: you end up {snake frozen in rock}. which Late Antiquity totally rejected in their mythic narrative Marketing promises.

Waffle, waffle.

Does precession itself waffle?

For a long time scientists were full of baloney and imagined that precession oscillates, because that follows the pattern of meta-motion, that the discovery of precession established.

The Waffling “Precession” or “Trepidation” of Models of Psilocybin Transformation Over the Eras, Flipping Back and Forth Between “Destination = Heimarmene” vs. “Destination = Transcendent Possibilism”

The waffling debate, over the eras: IS NON-MOTION (ETERNALISM) THE FINAL DESTINATION, OR NOT??

  1. The fixed stars sphere doesn’t move.
  2. Hyparchus & Mithraism – yes it does: bc precession. Spiritual liberty achieved!
  3. Oh yeah? well precession oscillates, HAH! (“Trepidation of Precession”)
  4. Well then only the God-level is non-motion.
  5. Objection: but non motion means heimarmene prison! you suck
  6. That’s ok, theres angels outside that, they have transcendent freewill.
  7. …
  8. …

Angels wringing their hands debating free will vs. determinism for eternity.

Late Antiquity said, Grandpa your story sucks, I hate your eternalism prison, so I say above fixed stars is transcendent freewill / precession / level 9, which DOES MOVE.

The Renaissance cosmos model then waffled and said, heimarmene moves per precession, and precession moves, too, per “trepidation of precession” (their scientific error), and the Prime Mover level – 9 or 10, waffling – moves.

I clarify and map these contradictory, evolving conversation systems clearly, below.

Waffling Cosmologies About Whether the Highest Destination Level that Psilocybin Transformation Gives You Is Moving or Non-Moving

Early Antiquity Model: Focus on Non-Moving Fixed Stars as Final State

Early Antiquity model: ultimate final level is fixed stars, which do not move. above that is divine transcendent freewill.

Late Antiquity Model: Focus on Moving Precession as Final State (per Mithraism)

Late Antiquity model: ultimate final level is precession, whcih is transcendent freewill. fixed stars don’t move.

Renaissance Model: Focus on Non-Moving Empyrean as Final State

Renaiss model: ultimate final level is emperian, whch doesn’t move. fixed stars move; precession moves b/c of “trepidation of precession”.

Even the Prime Mover level (9 or 10) moves. full enlightenment = reaching several levels higher than the MOVING level of fixed stars, above the MOVING level “precession”, above the MOVING level “Prime Mover”, FINALLY you reach God level/ elect level, where you DO NOT MOVE.

Odd b/c that implies worship of — like Early Antiquity — simple heimarmene.

Talk about “oscillation of precession”!

Task: Assign “Prime Mover” Sphere to Level 9 or 10 in Best [= most clarifying explanatory analogy] General Model of astral ascent mysticism

todo: place phrase “primum mobile” in my levels – 10? 11? lower than Empyrean, higher than fixed stars 8, higher than precession level 9 – probably level 10.

Rush song Prime Mover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER4nbLsaivg —

Lyrics: Rush: Prime Mover
https://www.google.com/search?q=lyrics+rush+prime+mover

I don’t know how much I wrote this proposal (map precession of equinoxes to cosmos level 9 in astral ascent mysticism) or said it in voice recordings the past year(?) or when exactly the question has been crossing my mind & coming up.

This idea is pretty much directly stated by David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism that I read in ~2001, isn’t it?

Any idea I ever have, is never new.

1:05:15 brennan gives all credit to Christianity for inventing freewill, to do this a dirty move of comparing pre-Christian pagan fate, vs. 150 AD Christianity. Illegit unfair comparison.

Brennan needs to – as sort of pointed out by Sledge — fairly
compare 150 AD Christianity vs 150 AD paganism, not
compare 150 AD Christianity vs. 150 BC paganism!

In this version of the vid (w/ diff. intro), which is on Brennans ch vs Sledge ESOTERICA ch, it’s at 1:05:58 where I yell out other religions, and then Sledge repeats my exact words I yelled against Brennan, correcting Brennan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1YnPGVLlAM&t=3958s —
Excellent correction by Sledge here.

Never completely new: ask Paul Thagard’s theory of theory-development how an idea of mine in 2001 is new for me in 2025.

Doesn’t Ulansey already say that precession is the level higher than fixed stars? Definitely of course.

Yet, this confirmation found in wiki article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
because the article paragraph also names the several other high levels that are higher than heimarmene/ fixed stars along same line – eg the level of fake “oscillation of precession” (mistaken ancient science) is higher than level 9 Ennead “precession”, both above fixed stars/ heimarmene.

[March 7, pm, 2025] CELEBRATION, FITS PERFECTLY INTO A GAP/opportunity that I had identified, of:

What level to place precession at? I asked recently: cannot we, shouldn’t we, place Preceession higher than fixed stars level?

David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism

Michael Hoffman ~1991

Sphere 10 = Trepidation of Precession = Further Transcendence of Eternalism ~= Prime Mover Sphere, or Empyrean of the Elect

Sphere 11 = Empyrean = Dwelling Place of God and Elect; Outside of Transcending Eternalism = Transcendent Possibilism = the Changing Obliquity of the Ecliptic (obviously) 🤷‍♂️

But beware the Wilber Monster: the Pre/Trans fallacy; ie this is NOT naive possibilism-thinking!

Transcendent possibilism LOOKS like naive possibilism-thinking, but has a different und’g; recog of the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

I am not my own source of autonomous control power, and branching steering is all pre-existing and illusory in a way.

March 8, 2025, based on important Wikip finding p.m. Mar 7 2025: that level 9 was mapped to precession.

I had realized recently, the need for such mapping, and here it is spelled out EXACTLY how I need!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres —

“In more detailed models
the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them.
The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars; [ie eighth; the Ogdoad – fate; heimarmene; eternalism; no-free-will]
other scholars added a ninth sphere [the Ennead] to account for the precession of the equinoxes, [transcend eternalism/ transcendent freewill]
a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes,
and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic. 🤷‍♂️

As a further reward of reading this wiki article, solves problem what is the difference between the 9 10 11 levels all higher than no-free-will level 8 fixed stars? this furht er reward is: level above my much-needed/ now fulfilled “precession” level per Mithraism — is level
9 = precession
10 = trepidation oscilallation of precession (their science mistake, but epxlains a purpose of higher layer)
11 =

Apparently on this other YouTube channel is the same AWESOME conversation between Justin Sledge & Chris Brennan re: ancient Fate/ free will vs. determinism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1YnPGVLlAM – Brennan’s channel “The Astrology Podcast” rather than on sledge’s ch ESOTERICA.

Nice: at exactly 1:00:00, ears perk up at “Valens”, where the conversation goes from quite good to GREAT. The opening statement in Brennan’s book. https://www.amazon.com/Hellenistic-Astrology-Study-Fate-Fortune/dp/0998588903

Brennan starts by saying how extremely pleased he was with this interview-become-conversation.

I have to agree. Towering above other videos in importance.

1:02:15 in this vid (vs the vid copy on Sledge ch. w/ diff intro, i posted), Sledge points out that modern era assumes freewill, in contrast to antiquity that in 150 AD was busy inventing freewill but affirmed fate.

At 1:03:20, Chris Brennan wrongly singles out Christianity, giving it all credit for inventing freewill (a common fallacy among scholars) — but then Justin Sledge strongly corrects him, repeating what I yelled, “also Gnost, Neopl, Mithraism, & Hermeticism invented freewill!”

— even though they believe fate/ heimarmene prison is the case, as their main, given problem they sought to solve.

I am still correcting the misstatement “Gnostics hate the world”

NO! Off-base.

The point actually is, Gnostics hate heimarmene prison, equated w/ the cosmos bounded by level 8 fixed stars = heimarmene.

Gnostics said the Old Testament God is creator of heimarmene prison, and the New Testament God rescues us from that heimarmene prison.

THAT is the actual dynamic of their handling or revision or inversion of the myth of the day about that era’s belief in heimarmene — the same era that has 10 Psilocybin initiations to reveal and perceive heimarmene & illusory nature of our monolithic, autonomous control, and illusory branching possibilities.

branching possibilities
bp

In 2005, Erik Davis and I Were Both Fumbling Between 2-Level vs. 3-Level Model: Enlightenment = Determinism vs. Transcending Determinism

p. 118, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, annotations by Michael Hoffman

Error in Davis p. 118: “Beyond these seven heavens lay the empyrean [sic], the eighth “rung” of the fixed stars.”

NO! If any system says empyrean = eighth (fixed stars), it’s a bad system & a failed use of analogy.

‘Empyrean’ needs to be reserved for the 9th level, higher than 8th/ fixed stars.

Empyrean is per Ulansey hypercosmic which should mean beyond fixed stars boundary of fate-ruled cosmos. ‘pyre’ means hypercosmic fires above fixed stars zodiac constellations.

“This model was interpreted in different ways [yeah some shtty failed bad harmful ways], but for many gnostics, the planetary [1-7] rulers were essentially demonic: they imprisoned the soul through the machinery of fate, an oppressive system of astral control …”

That is bad to equate level 1-7 = fate.

Yes, fate underlies all Psilocybin-driven developmental levels, but we need to be discussing mental models and their transformation, from possibilism-thinking to finally, after great effort, retaining grasp of eternalism-thinking, then transcending the revealed fact of eternalism.

Not simply saying “every level less than 9 = 100% fate” – that is not helpful & is a WASTE, a failure to helpfully explain mental model transformation starting from, in fact, possibilism-thinking – never mind that naive possibilism-thinking has hidden, not-yet-revealed fate underlying it under the hood.

What are we trying to accomplish via analogy?

Just complaining about fate?

Or helping map the move from thinking in terms of childish possibilism-thinking, to reveal fate, and then t’d fate in some way?

The latter is sensible and valuable.

Just complaining about fate is not effective for achieving anything, and YOU LOSE *EVERYTHING*: all comprehension, all transformation, all grasp of myth, and finally, lose Psilocybin transformation entirely.

I’m sure I posted about this book before; search site for: davis “led zeppelin”
https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=davis+%22led+zeppelin%22

p. 122, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, annotations by Michael Hoffman

I surely wrote this error from Davis on the page about astral ascent mysticism before his page about the Egodeath theory. I noted his error about astral ascent mysticism in my markup of the book which I think I uploaded recently here, the two pages.

Davis’ error is similar to Wouter Hanegraaff’s confusion – GET CLEAR EVERYONE

i think i photo’d page 118 & 122 of davis then failed to upload them. i may have just trancribed; SEARCH SITE.

Level 0 Earth = 100% Possibilism
Levels 1-7 Moon-Saturn = Increasing Eternalism
Level 8 Fixed Stars = 100% Eternalism
Level 9 Empyrean = Transcend Eternalism

GET CLEAR EVERYONE, Including ANCIENT HERMETICISTS:

The 8TH SPHERE = FIXED STARS = 100% HEIMARMENE.

BELOW/BEFORE THAT (LEVELS 1-7) IS NAIVE POSSIBILISM-THINKING, MOVING by stages (Psilocybin sessions) TOWARD finally LATCHING ONTO ETERNALISM.

ABOVE THAT – IN 9TH sphere – = transcend heimarmene.

First, here is the only model that is good and matches the true way Psilocybin transforms the mental model: Blame April D DeConick’s radical gnostic mythmakers going too far in their inversions.

Mithraism is way better, coherent, matches actual mental development.

Ancients are WRONG and BAD when they equate ALL levels that are lower than “transcend heimarmene” as being simply heimarmene.

The penalty is severe for that lie about how the mind starts & transforms: you lose everything: comprehension of fate, of Psilocybin revelation; lose comprehension of myth.

You ruin & wreck, insanely, myth, & comprehension.

You lose everything, in overzealous flipping from a simple 2-level model (transformation from possibilism to eternalism) to an oversimple opposite inverted 2-level model, the lie of “transformation from eternalism to possibilism.

The true way the mind transforms is 1) naive possibilism-thinking 2) eternalism-thinking 3) qualified possibilism-thinking incl. eternalism-thinking.

Myth is only good and legit if is describes by analogy that.

Myth sucks and is failing to be analogy when it willfully lies and makes sht up falsely claiming that the mind moves from child-mode eternalism to possibilism.

The child mode is in fact naive possibilism-thinking – NOT eternalism-thinking!

How Sophisticated 3-Level Transcending of Heimarmene Became Decadent Failure to Transcend or Have Psilocybin Transformation or Comprehend Myth-Analogy at All

By pretending that children start with eternalism-thinking, you (Hermeticism in its bad form, maybe Gnosticism same) lose EVERYTHING, and religious myth becomes sheer egoic willful confusion and not analogy.

It is per Ken Wilber, failure, psychological disaster, failure of development, destructive regression… which gave not enlightenment or transcending eternalism, but fell into the Pre/Trans fallacy; mistaking advanced adult revelation of eternalism and then transcending of eternalism, for awful, rank, childish naive freewill thinking.

Rank untransformed naive possibilism-thinking becomes confused with advanced qualified possibilism-thinking, when you tell the lie that children begin with eternalism-thinking and then Psilocybin transforms from that to possibilism-thinking.

The result is nothing but failed myth & perpetual non-initiation; perpetual child-mode unenlightened thinking, untransformed.

It’s the total cancellation of what started as a 2-level maturation, then well-formed viable 3-level maturation model, then disaster:

when you remove child-stage possibilism-thinking and falsely claim it is eternalism-thinking, the whole sequence of Psilocybin transformation collapses, leaving nothing but STUNTED NAIVE POSSIBILISM-THINKING falsely posing as transcendent qualified possibilism-thinking, and you lose comprehension of even the basic 2-level model of mental model transformation.

Your frothing hatred of revealed eternalism makes you end up with no mental model transformation at all, yet mythic confusion and the advanced 3-level mythmaking analogy system crashes down into a heap of rubble.

You end up not transcending heimarmene, but rather, failing to engage at all with heimarmene, and the result is a denial of eternalism, and the rejection of any Psilocybin experincing of eternalism, and the rejection of Psilocybin.

Religious myth becomes degenerate and completely decadent.

0. Earth = sublunar = naive possibilism-thinking.

Wouter Hanegraaff screws it up:

  • Lacks fixed stars entirely at any level!
  • He is wrong to not place fixed stars in level 8.
  • He is wrong to place fixed stars / zodiac/ constallations, in effect, into Saturn planetary moving sphere #7.
  • He is wrong to say level 8 & 9 are functionally same.
  • He is wrong to say level 8 = transcend fate.
  • He, like hermeticts, is wrong to say level 0 Earth sublunar = fate & that the moving planetary levels 1-7 all = fate.

Ancient Hermeticists screw it up:

  • They are wrong to say level 0 Earth sublunar = fate,
  • 1 moon = fate,
  • 2 mercury = fate
  • 3 venus = fate
  • 4 sun = fate
  • 5 mars = fate
  • 6 jupiter = fate
  • 7 saturn = fate.

Erik Davis 2005 screws it up, he wrongly says level 8 fixed stars = empyean.

Davis p .118 = astral ascent mysticism – his error is there.

Davis p. 122 = the Egodeath theory.

aug 6 2022 uploaded, one of Wouter Hanegraaff errors:

the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022. markup by Michael Hoffman.

His heading is confused and confusing: he means BEYOND THE PLANETARY SPHERES, and he numbers the two levels beyond Saturn as “8 and 9” – where 8 is star-free, and transcends heimarmene, and he says — when he rarely admits stars exist – he says the fixed stars/ zodiac/ constellations = fate – yet refuses to allow them into level 8, which he says transcends fate. Train wreck.

Wouter Hanegraaff builds on ancients’ confusion, adds his own confusion, then confuses the reader.

Wouter Hanegraaff’s garbled model of astral ascent mysticism, driven by sheer hatred of fate, and only valuing transcending fate (not at all striving to grasp & retain the vision of fatedness, as the mind actually does), paints the false picture/model: “Psilocybin transforms you from eternalism to possibilism.”

By “BEYOND THE STARS”, p. 297, Wouter Hanegraaff wrongly means above the moving planetary levels Moon (1) through Saturn (7).

Actually, the fixed stars are level 8 (the 8th Psilocybin session), where heimarmene (eternalism) is fully manifest/ mentally grasped and secured.

The planets are ordered by fastest (moon) through slowest (Saturn) – given that movement = possibilism, this proves that the essential proper use of astral ascent mysticism is, you transform from movement (possibilism) to timeless eternalism.

Proof I’m right; proof that the basic, heimarmene-pursuing model of astral ascent mysticism makes sense:

  • Saturn is slow, and the fixed stars are non-moving.
  • Moon is fastest-moving, thus is most possibilism-looking.
  • Saturn is the least-moving of the moving planetary stars.
  • The fixed stars don’t move.
  • The empyrean fires burn above the fixed, non-moving, non-planetary stars.

My system is coherent.

Wouter Hanegraaff states that the zodiac constellations = heimarmene – yet, he says he can’t figure out whether to place the fixed stars in Saturn moving-plantary level 7, or in level 8 ogdoad. Total incomprehension. Fixed stars (= heimarmene) are obviously — a plain given — higher than moving planetary level 7, thus level 8, ogdoad. But he screws up claiming that ogdoad = above heimarmene. So, he can’t put fixed stars in moving planet level 7, and he can’t put them in level 8 b/c he thinks 8 is functionally same as 9 ie above heimarmene.

SO HE PUTS THE FIXED STARS/ ZODIAC/ CONSTELLATIONS …. NOWHERE!! WHAT A TOTAL DISASTER OF ANALOGY. A FAILED COSMOS MODEL, CAN’T HANDLE PLACING FIXED STARS ANYWHERE.

That’s how insane, confused, irrational, & unhelpful the perversely inverted narrative is, “Psilocybin makes you switch from eternalism to possibilism”.

A failed, garbled, incoherent analogy system is almost inevitable, starting from such a false representation of the referent (how the mind transforms by Psilocybin) that’s to be described by the analogy-system.

Standard astral ascent mysticism is coherent and consistent, not a CHILDISH and REGRESSIVE railing temper tantrum against fate, that smears level 0-8 all equally as “evil fate”, with no meaningful progress through stages.

Just: evil fate 0, then evil fate 1, then evil fate 2, then evil fate 3, then evil fate 4, then evil fate 5, then evil fate 6, then evil fate 7, then evil fate 8 … then freedom!

Or in Wouter Hanegraaff’s even more garbled, senseless model of astral ascent mysticism:

Just: evil fate 0, then evil fate 1, then evil fate 2, then evil fate 3, then evil fate 4, then evil fate 5, then evil fate 6, then evil fate 7 … then freedom level 8 along with freedom level 9!

The correct, well-formed actual legit system of astral ascent mysticism:

naive possibilism-thinking (0), then 1/8 eternalism-thinking (moon); then 2/8; 3/8; 4/8; 5/8; 6/8; 7/8 ie Saturn, reaching the main pursuit: 8/8 fixed stars (heimarmene as main destination)… then, bonus: transcend eternalism (9; the empyrean; transcendent freewill).

which reduces to the false, unhelpful, 2-level model: “Psilocybin transforms the mental model from the starting-state of eternalism to the end-state of possibilism.”

Per the legit, real, original, Early Antiquity 2-level model — per the correct use of analogy to help clarify and explain a thing — Psilocybin transforms the mental model from possibilism to eternalism; possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking (where “eternalism-thinking” is defined in a broad sense, in the 2-level scheme, as including qualified possibilism-thinking).

“Beyond the stars”, used correctly and helpfully, actually means above level 8, the sphere of the fixed stars (Heimarmene).

ie what we arrive at, after 8 Psilocybin sessions, is eternalism; we begin w/ possibilism.

And in a way, we can move on past eternalism to qualified possibilism-thinking.

Wouter Hanegraaff is awful model b/c he never has us pursue and strive to reach eternalism.

He acts like we are given eternalism as our starting point, and the whole stage-by-stage journey is eternalism every step of the way, never as a goal, and our effort during every stage is to move from eternalism to possibilism.

That broken down, DECADENT model from ancient Hermeticists is nothing but unhelpful MAKING SH!T UP, clever inversions of the truth.

The penalty is, lose all comprehension and lose all transformation, and make a god out of rank egoic childish untransformed naive possibilism-thinking.

Revel in egoic thinking, by ingesting Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens and studying ancients in order to demonize heimarmene, never to pursue mental grasp & retaining of revealed heimarmene/ eternalism.

In the worst way, Wouter Hanegraaff delivers nothing but unproductive & unenlightening “interesting myth used to disparage fate”.

Astral ascent mysticism instead SHOULD be an analogy system that helps explain & clarify the mental model transformation that actually happens via a series of Psilocybin immersion sessions.

THE FIRST GOAL OF Transcendent Knowledge IS TO ARRIVE AT ETERNALISM.

The starting point is not eternalism. The starting point is possibilism, and the hardest mission is to retain the Psilocybin revelation of eternalism.

What he means, wrongly & unhelpfully, is that fate = level 0 (earth) & the MOVING stars level 1 (moon) through 7, [ignore fixed stars bc he says he can’t figure out where they go!], then when reach 8th which he says is functionally same as 9th, = transcend fate; reach possibilism-thinking.

Wouter Hanegraaff’s malformed and confused system of astral ascent mysticism lacks fixed stars in level 8. So, he confusedly thinks of level 8 & 9 as outside the (moving) “stars” — that is, outside/above the planets.

If that’s an ancient scheme, it’s a horrible scheme, terrible mis-use of analogy, garbage compared to the rightly standard scheme.

Such out-of-control myth is a failure to do analogy, given that ‘analogy’ is the clarifying explanation of something.

It’s analogy mis-used (& underutilized) just to smear fate, instead of clarifying and explaining to assist the full course of mental model transformation.

In the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022, Wouter Hanegraaff is so confused, he says the highest star is Saturn, and that is 100% heimarmene, and that level 8 above it doesn’t contain fixed stars, and is transcendeing heimarmene and also level 9 exactly same, is also transcendening heimarmene.

Total confusion: Wouter Hanegraaff starts with the confusion that the terrible Hermeticists fabricated when they claimed falsely that every PLANETARY level 0-8 = 100% eternalism / heimarmene, as well as (this part is correct) level 8 fixed stars = 100% heimarmene.

Then Wouter Hanegraaff starts with their falsehood & confusion, and he does much worse, silently jamming the fixed stars into planetary moving sphere 8 saturn (with extreme confusion throughout his book), and then claims level 8 = freewill / transcending heimarmene.

what a fkking wreck!!

Jesus, ppl, it’s simple:

THE MOST IMPORTANT STARTING POINT IS: LEVEL 8 IS FIXED STARS IS 100% HEIMARMENE.

Get clear on that!

Then, after you are clear on that, then relate the lower, previous, planetary levels in relation to that:

Given that a child begins with possibilism-thinking, and the actual effect of Psilocybin is transformation from possibilism to eternalism, in stages, Psilocybin session 1-8 = … exact %’s:

level 0 = 100% possibilism.

level 8 = 100% eternalism

Then elaborate from that firm, true, correct use of analogy to expalin, NOT TO CONFUSE AND KICK AGAINST REALITY! Of how the mind transforms via Psilocybin.

Should I be more mad at ancient Hermeticism decadents, or Hanegraff for adding his confusion to their hyper-heimarmene desparaging lies?

Just as Neoplatonism railed against Gnosticism, I rail against Hermeticism insofar as Hermeticism has the terrible, awful idea of applying 100% “heimarmene” to all planet levels 1-7.

As you go lower 3, 2, 1, 0 earth = child, we reach the real starting point, of naive possibilism-thinking – NOT eternalism-thinking!

It is true, that underneath all levels is hidden eternalism / heimarmene.

But, the mental model starts as naive possibilism-thinking, despite the truth of hidden underlying engine-level is heimarmene/ eternalism.

The correct use of analogy (astral ascent mysticism) is to describe development of the mental model – NOT to highlight the hidden underlying heimarmene / eternalism which underlies all levels of mental development via Psilocybin.

The latter is stupid & useless, pretending that “levels 0-8 = eternalism / heimarmene, then level 9 = transcending heimarmene”.

What a garbage system the latter is, it fails to do the job that an analogy needs to do: help explain something.

The proper use of astral ascent mysticism as analogy to explain and clarify the actual mental trajectory of Psilocybin initiation stages

The proper use of astral ascent mysticism is to explain and CLARIFY how mental model starts from naive possibilism-thinking , then eventually reaches & retains by stages 100% eternalism-thinking; and after that greatest achievement, then finally can transcend heimarmene/ eternalism in some important, useful, meaningful way, to reach qualified possibilism-thinking including eternalism-thinking.

Levels: / spheres of cosmos per Ptolemaic astral ascent mysticism:

  • 0 – Earth = 0% eternalism. Do not say heimarmene/ eternalism is here, for child-thinking, as the starting point of mental development!
  • 1 – Moon = 1/8 eternalism – first Psilocybin session /initiation.
  • 2 – Mercury = 2/8 eternalism. 2nd Psilocybin session of loose cognition {fire}.
  • 3 – Venus = 3/8 grasp & retaining of eternalism.
  • 4 – Sun = 4/8
  • 5 – Mars = 5/8 conformity with eternalism.
  • 6 – Jupiter = 6/8 eternalism.
  • 7 – Saturn = 7/8 eternalism – the 7th Psilocybin session /initiation.
  • 8 – Fixed Stars = 100% eternalism, grasped and permanently retained. The 8th Psilocybin immersion.
  • 9 – Empyrean; transcend eternalism.

Ptolemaic Astral Ascent Mysticism

per this mapping:
8 firmament = fixed stars
9 = PRIMO MOBILE ORAS REVOLUCAO D O
10 = CELUM EMPIREUM – HABITACULUM DEI ET OMNIUM ELECTORUM
OUTSIDE = 11 = ANGELS, HYPERCOSMIC LIGHT, CRUCIFIXION, GOD

per this image’s mapping:
8 = firmament = fixed stars – I already established that. Do we have a feeble mapping of “transcendent freewill” that is restricted to 1 flimsy level? Or 3 levels, in which case, what is the difference between the 3 levels that are above heimarmene? compare: what’s the difference between moon level 1 vs satur level 7 vs. stars level 8? ans: increasing grasp of eternalism during series of 8 Psilocybin sessions, then the 9th Psilocybin session puts you above heimarmene.
9 = PRIMO MOBILE ORAS REVOLUCAO D O – others say “precession of equinoxes” is here.
10 = CELUM EMPIREUM – HABITACULUM DEI ET OMNIUM ELECTORUM
11 = OUTSIDE = ANGELS, HYPERCOSMIC LIGHT, CRUCIFIXION, GOD
Other maps have 1 (or 2?) higher levels above fixed stars.
This map has 2 spheres above fixed stars (+ the “regress” region outside all spheres). 3 levels, if include outside region.

  • Earth – 0
  • Water
  • Air
  • Fire
  • 🌙 Moon – 1
  • ☿ Mercury – 2
  • Venus – 3
  • ☀️ Sun – 4
  • Mars – 5
  • ♃ Jupiter – 6
  • ♄ Saturn – 7
  • 🌌 Firmament of fixed stars – 8 – the Ogdoad — 36,000 years per revolution
  • Prime mover – 9 – the Ennead
    • 🔥🔥🔥 Empireum – 10 – Here resides God and all the elect

The number of the sphere is the number of Psilocybin immersions:

  • To reach eternalism = 8th = 8 Psilocybin sessions.
  • To transcend heimarmene = reaching the Ogdoad = 9th sphere = 9 Psilocybin sessions.

The right & worthwhile use of astral ascent mysticism (not harmfully, confusingly clever) should be to explain and CLARIFY Psilocybin transformation.

Mythic analogy when used for good, to clarify and explain and model how the mind transforms by Psilocybin, must state clearly and unambiguously that the immature youth’s initial starting point, the starting state or stage prior to any initiation is initial possibilism-thinking that’s initially oblivious to the reality of later-revealed, re-revealed-by-stages, eternalism, each session retaining and mentally modelling the hidden and increasingly revealed fatedness a little more.

Fatedness is always the case, but there is no development at that underlying, normally hidden level.

Myth that’s focused only on the underlying level (fate) because you are out to disrespect & insult fate, is “not wrong, but not helpful” — in fact is very harmful, by a misplaced focus on wrong level.

Focusing all during levels 0-8 on the lower level, of fate, is the mis-use of analogy to smear fate, instead of using analogy to clarify & explain how the mind first struggles to achieve perceiving hidden fatedeness, and finally manages to maintain and retain that vision — requiring dedicated pursuit at length, the grandest achievement — and then in some way can “transcend” fatedness.

The cost of that funny, clever, advanced-level myth inversion to present an ironically inverted model, “Psilocybin transforms the mind from eternalism to possibilism [wink]” is that we lose the comprehensibility of myth.

Thanks to the cute and clever, impressive advanced-level play with myth, we lose & forfeit Psilocybin transformation.

Analogy (religious myth) should be used to CLARIFY, not to confuse and obscure under ironic confusing inversion. 

Other schemes are bunk and disaster. perverse. degenerate. DECADENT.

False analogies mis-describing mental model transformation out of overzealous hatred for heimarmene / eternalism.

Systems like ancient Hermeticism that screw with this scheme suck and are failure and inferior.

Mithraism is the greatest model of Late Antiquity – see David Ulansey

I don’t know if Mithraism starts with naive possibilism-thinking (freewill) prior to initiation.

Does Mithraism tell the non-development story: we start w/ fate, then 1st Psilocybin session gives fate.

Then fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate, then salvation into transcendent freewill.

Which is the worthless story per the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.

Mithraism correctly represents the Psilocybin transformation of mental model — assuming that children in society have a decent chance to develop naive possibilism-thinking and are not immediately debauched/ violated by being raised within eternalism-thinking.

If Hellenistic culture was TOO eternalism-saturated, then we never undergo transformation, b/c child is never allowed to develop natural naive possibilism-thinking but is immediately programmed with eternalism-thinking unnaturally and prematurely.

Today [March 5, 2025] voice recording discusses variants of astral ascent mysticism — decadent psychotic dysfunctional (however Ken Wilber describes the psychological developmental collapse and disintegration, regression, disintegrative collapse and regression, failure; vs. healthy well-formed that affirm eternalism-thinking and preserve it and respect heimarmene and build above heimarmene.

That bad awful Late Antiquity direction is when like the bad Hermeticists who confuse Wouter Hanegraaff, when they claim falsely and unhelpfully that EVERY level 1-8 = heimarmene.

That narrative (fate sucks, fate sucks, etc.) unhelpfully overemphasizes the wrong thing, that doesn’t even progress at all during Psilocybin session 1 (moon) through 8 (fixed stars).

Should be: mental model is naive possibilism-thinking; then 1/8 eternalism, then 2/8… 7/8, 8/8 eternalism … then transcend eternalism.

Make a model that shows and explains progress – can’t do that if level 0-8 are all “evil fate”; that is not a model of Psilocybin transformation sesssions series using {fire} to bake the mind in purgatory for a while.

The bad result is the model: mental model transformation starts with fate, and ends with transcending fate; a simple, FALSE and unhlepful 2-level model of transformation from possibilism to eternalism possibilism.

THE WORST MODEL OF ALL IS THE 2-LEVEL MODEL OF TRANSFORMATION FROM ETERNALISM TO POSSIBILISM.

Like some in Late Antiquity, in their immature, frothing zeal to radically oppose their grandparents’ revering of heimarmene.

They simply took their forebears’ simple basic true 2-level model “transformation from possibilism to eternalism” and simply inverted it, with their excuse being,

  • Heimarmene/ eternalism is always (secretly, hiddenly) the case during transformation from possibilism to eternalism, and,
  • You end up w/ practical possibilism-thinking, as Wm James argues,
  • so, it’s fine to do mythmaking, of a 2-level model that’s simply inverted from Early Antiquity’s 2-level model.

Grampa says Psilocybin transforms you from possibilism to eternalism; so we clever rebels say “F You, grampa!! Psilocybin transforms you from eternalism to possibilism!“

“Instead of transformation from possibilism to eternalism, re: how the mind transforms, our tale is transformation from child/immature eternalism, to adult/mature possibilism – what’s wrong w/ that? It’s a clever inversion!”

“The important thing is to give the finger to heimarmene/ eternalism/ fate! That’s what religious myth is best used for.”

Reminds me of awful 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), where they ruin the field by thinking that the most important thing is not psychedelics, but rather, telling their social-drama narrative of the mushroom-having counterculture vs. the mushroom-oppressing mainstream.

Thomas Hatsis the psychedelic medieval historian says, against the runaway Allegro/ Ruck narrative, there is no evidence that Christianity prohibited or suppressed mushrooms.

Bad Late Antiquity mythmaking falsely and wrongly claims that Psilocybin transforms the mental model from initial child-mode eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking, that we start as children w/ eternalism-thinking, and maturation is the Psilocybin transforming to transcendent possibilism-thinking.

As if the child’s mind starts with fate-awareness at earth/sub-lunar level 0, then starts initiation sessions, ingesting Psilocybin in a series of sessions causing the following phases of (non-) transformation:

fate (Earth, prior to Psilocybin initiation)
fate (moon; 1st Psilocybin immersion),
fate (Mercury 2),
fate (Venus 3),
fate (Sun 4),
fate (Mars; 5th Psilocybin immersion),
fate (Jupiter 6),
fate (Saturn 7),
fate (fixed stars 8),
possibilism (empyrean 9) 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

As if every developmental phase is fate, then suddenly and finally, Possibilism that transcends fate. That’s the model of Hermeticism according to Wouter Hanegraaff — but I caught him quoting someone, and then saying what the passage said — except the passage does not say what he says it says! His book is a mix of valid coherent statements, and a FORCED SKEW TRYING TO MAKE UP A STORY OF
FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FREEWILL
Not even a developmental sequence!
The mind’s ACTUAL development is:

  1. naive possibilism-thinking (0% eternalism) – Earth
  2. 1/8 eternalism – Moon
  3. 2/8 eternalism – Mercury
  4. 3/8 eternalism – Venus
  5. 4/8 eternalism – Sun
  6. 5/8 eternalism – Mars
  7. 6/8 eternalism – Jupiter
  8. 7/8 eternalism – Saturn; 7th moving planet
  9. 100% eternalism – fixed stars (Ogdoad/8) (ALL-IMPORTANT POINT OF REF.)
  10. transcend eternalism – March 7 2025: precession of equinoxes, level 9
  11. March 7 2025: alleged oscillation (imagined incorrectly) of precession – the TREPIDATION OF PRECESSION sphere, level 10 – probably put primum mobile here
  12. Empyrean: dwelling God & elect, level 11

Such an abuse of analogy [corrupting the above model — which is a CLARIFYING model — by switching your attention to the hidden underlying level, in which fate is a non-developing constant] has lost any utility to help move from the actual starting point to revelation of fate and beyond, and becomes nothing but complaining 9 times (levels 0-8) about underlying fate, and then putting ALL attention exclusively on the move from fate to transcendent possibilism.

What a stupid waste of a system/model, a waste of potential analogy that could be helpful to explain actual mental model transformation.

Another Good Voice Recording in the Series – “Perception of Eternalism” Entry in Effects Index, Josie Kins

Another good voice recording in the series of about 6 tracks so far; today Mar 5 2025 did read-through of Effects Index article not yet read aloud Josie Kins commentary. Yesterday the article short entry seemed good.

Today’s reading, I wished to halt at each sentence and critique it; the page isn’t that good.

VOX_TX_6323.wav

Status Mar 8 2025: I have yet to read aloud & record, Josie Kins’ commentary about the entry. All recent voice recordings are good and I want to hear them as episodes of Egodeath Mystery Show, now at 6324 not started.

But, my recent writings here are sufficiently equivalent, so no huge need to listen to the recordings.

I like – i think i wrote up – my voice recording discovery , devmt of the idea:

Biased argumentation. It doesn’t matter which args a MICA Deniers puts forth, the strategy underlying all of them is: put forth many directions of argn, none of them valid, but, count on the audience to be predudiced in favor of any pseduo-argument that’s negative.

Present any mediocre or weird argument – that’s not really even an argument, like Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” — Conclusion paragraph says “we can use Erwin Panofsky’s ‘branches” arg – image has branches therefore not mushroom — to “articulate criteria to deicde if image of mushroom-trees is a mushroom or if it is a tree. summary: no mushroom-trees is ever mushroom , because it has tree features.

obviously the ONLY ppl who consider that to even be an “argument”is ppl who are prejudiced MICA Deniers, because the ultra obvious screeamingly obvious counter arg is:

Every mushroom-tree has to be mushroom and can’t possibly be tree, b/c the mushroom imagery elements “RULE OUT” [say it w/ the confidence of a con artist, to cover the total illegitimacy] the image being a tree. That is the garbatge quality of teh “arg’n”(??) – sheer biased assertion — in the Concl of Foraging in Wrong Forest.

IS THIS EVEN A FALLACY? IT’S A BLUFF, A PRETENDING TO ARGUE.

Now put forward ten more weird, arbitrary, strange-direction, illegit arguments, that aren’t even arguments, and COUNT ON THE PREJUDICED AUDIENCE TO AGREE THIS IS COMPELLING ARG’N.

Erwin Panofsky “argues” the Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom, because [you are ignorant and blundering, and] there are hundreds of other mushroom-trees.

ie he and Wasson insert “argument by personal insult”, main “arg” is:

Any given mushroom image can’t mean mushroom, because there are [you are ignorant]

part of me wants to treat the inserted insult as a distinct move – BUT – Wasson so integrates this insult, this jab, as if to distract you from noticing that his arg is completely fallacious and non sequtur; Does Not Follow.

Wasson’s strategy:

My argument Does Not Follow, but pay no attention: look here: YOU MYCOLOGISTS ARE BLUNDERING IGNORAMUSES. <– pay attwention to that insult, not to my bunk non-argument that no mushroom image can mean mushroom, “BECAUSE” there are hundreds of equivalent images. The Erwin Panofsky arg, quote: __
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-4 – Erwin Panofsky wrote to Wasson in 1952:

“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example — and, since the style is very provincial, a particularly deceptive one — of a conventionalized [compare Hug RHETORIC “completely formulaic” – which his prejudiced audience hears as “so, not mushroom”, but I hear as: “the formula = mushroom“] tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” [the bluff here, the pseudo-argument that’s crafted to rely on depending on prejudiced audience: “We made the term, so, not mushroom“; “we are boringly familar w/ our pilzbaum, so, not mushroom] or, in German writing, Pilzbaum.

“It comes about by the gradual schematization [yeah, you mean the sustained emphatic mushroomization] of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”

There are many, many, many; therefore, we are very very very certain that this one mushroom-tree cannot mean mushroom.
Because YOU are IGNORANT of the fact that there are so many.

Which fallacies are those?

  • argument from distracting personal insult, mixed with:
  • argument from quantity, which is really, argument from prejudiced presupposition, or silent covert circular reasoning, also:
  • argument from silent proxy: it’s just a given that we all agree that our verdict on the Plaincourault fresco is our verdict on the hundreds of mushroom-trees, such that we can leverage the prejudiced assumption that the hundreds of mushroom-trees are not mushroom, to conclude that the Plaincourault fresco is not mushroom either.
  • BUT what if the biased interpretation tilts the other way? Then I say; MICA Affirmers say: Yes, we know, all the thousands of mushroom-trees are all mushroom, which “proves”, therefore, the Plaincourault fresco is mushroom too.
  • That is, illegit non sequiturs & circular reasoning cuts both ways, MICA Deniers.
  • it’s also argument from authority mixed in.

Which one of the 28 known fallacies, that are mixed together here, is the driving one?

“ortho tree ceiling.jpg” 252 KB, 5:48 pm Mar. 8, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnNZLxmkBbQ&t=55s

T. Fontaine

The Reveries (thereveries.org) – Eleusinian Mysteries

This section is full copypaste of the page.

  • No quote marks.
  • Sentence per paragraph.
  • — separate the paragraphs.

https://thereveries.org

https://thereveries.org/thereveries.html

For over 2000 years of human history, a cultural practice was held near Athens to commune with death, to honour the great journey of life, and to ‘die’ before you die.

—

It was known as the Eleusinian Mysteries and most of Greece and Rome’s top philosophers, poets and leaders were initiates.

It is widely believed that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Cicero, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius experienced the Mysteries.

However women, slaves and children were also initiated.

—

Based around the story of Persephone’s abduction by Hades and her mother Demeter’s wild search to bring her back to the land of the living, the Mysteries honour the cycle of life and death, the wondrous unknowing of the afterlife.

—

Through the lens of modern science, especially through the fields of archaeology, philology, theology, anthropology, art history and classics, we have pieced together some information about the Mysteries.

However, we don’t know much- reverence for the Mysteries compelled initiates to observe the mandatory law of silence about what happened in the Telesterion and so testimonies over those 2,000 years are scant.

—

We do know that initiates were guaranteed happiness in the afterlife and the initiations were physically, mentally and emotionally demanding.

They involved mind-altering performances, substances and revelations.

Participants emerged with a profound sense of peace which altered the rest of their lives.

—

“Happy are those among mortals who have seen these mysteries; but whoever is uninitiate, will never have the same (good) fortune once in the darkness of Hades.”
— Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 7th–6th century BCE”

Book about Reintroducing Psychedelics in Western Religion (Fontaine 2025), & TheReveries.org (Email from Fontaine May 4, 2025)

T. Fontaine wrote:

Hello Michael,

“I’m researching the Eleunisian Mysteries, and found your website, Egodeath.com & EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com.

“I’m helping a friend on this project: thereveries.org

“I’m writing a book about the reintroduction of psychedelic use in the occidental world.

“We should connect because we are getting people involved in the project of rebuilding the Mysteries of Eleusis; the Eleusinian Mysteries.

“The group was started by Psychiatrists, and then expanded to a larger range of expert psychonauts.

“I’m gathering feedback about the book draft.”

Thanks, T. Fontaine

Eleusis = 2-level Revere Heimarmene; Mithraism = 3-level Transcend Heimarmene (Email 1 to Fontaine May 5, 2025)

I have a sure-footed, simple model of mental transformation in 500 BC psychedelic mystery initiations, including how Greek myth describes that. 

But, caveat: that model becomes inadequate in 150 AD, when the next cultural move was to build another transformation above that resulting state, and add more sophisticated complex level of religious myth above that. 

The success of explaining 500 BC psychedelic mystery transformation & myth, should not be mistaken as a fully adequate explanation for subsequent developments (& failures or losses & forgettings). 

i have to check if thick 2012 book by Paul Lundborg matches this.  He covers ancient psychedelia & psychedelics-inspired Rock. 

2013 book Cosmology & Fate by Nicola Denzy Lewis ( i posted a helpful review in  2014), matches my story of complication in 150 AD, the era of rejecting Greek reverence for psychedelic heimarmene (yet preserving – for a short time – comprehension of Psilocybin transformation & revealed heimarmene). 

Luther Martin’s two books were suggestive about this being the key contrast between Early Antiquity vs Late Antiquity: both were based on psychedelic revelation of heimarmene (no-free-will ; fatedness; pre-existing control thoughts lying unavoidably on one’s future worldline) but Late Antiquity flipped their attitude against revealed heimarmene.

 500 BC Mystery Religions revered Psilocybin-revealed heimarmene.  But Late Antiquity resented it & built a higher layer of myth/ religion/ narrative to make up a strory of “transcending heimarmene / fate”. 

Our successful but limited explanation of Mystery Religions must take that 150 AD developmental elaboration into account.

Yesterday I thought I was bored of all videos about esotericism (& even boreder of dead-end “mythicist” channels repeating – in a superficial way – my work in such scholarship in 2005).

But I woke up when Esoterica channel’s Dr. Justin Sledge spoke at length confirming that all brands of religion flipped against fatedness (while still (for a while) strongly affirming fatedness) – it confirmed Coraxo’s astute correction of me, or Coraxo’s helpful tip & heads-up for me in 2000:

A simple basic 2-level model explains 500 bc Greek Mystery Religions psychedelic/ Psilocybin transformation (transformation from possibilism to eternalism).

BUT, that simple successful explanatory model cannot explain the twist and complication of religious myth that was done in 150 AD, in all greco roman Christian jewish religions eg Mithraism, Christianity, Neoplatonism, gnosticism, Hermeticism. 

con’t below

—

Glad to see you write “reintroduced”. 

I wish meditation advocates (book Zig Zag Zen) would think in terms of re-adding psychedelics, instead of assuming it’s an innovation. 

I thought Ralph Metzner or someone wrote that the 1960s made a huge misstep there, acting as if psychedelics are a new thing, but the Meditation hucksters can’t learn that lesson.

Meditation’s ok, but trashcan the lies told by meditation hucksters to diminish instead of glorify Psilocybin, which is the origin of meditation.

I finally got The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020.

I was asked to review it mid-2020 before it was published. 

I’ve read a few pages of TIK. 

I like it more than Cyberdisciple does – Cyberdisciple did the in-depth review that I was supposed to do.
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=muraresku
[such Search link can be good b/c does not cause a “comment” posted from me at Cyberdisciple site]

Maybe a good aspect is because Muraresku is Catholic – im extremely tired of ppl fixating on telling anti-Christian narrative. 

I applaud Muraresku proposing we RE-add & RESTORE psychedelics to Christianity. 

Many naysayers – Harvard dean Chs Stang – have criticisms of Muraresku, on various points – but I love this proposal from Mura, even tho I doubt ergot & I am committed to proposing Psilocybin instead, as the main psychedelic in Hellenistic & Christian origins. 

I’m surprised I’m not critical of the book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020.  I’m seeing it as glass half full, not empty. 

Cyberdisciple’s critical review set my expectations so low, that I feel positive about the book so far.

I like Brian Muraresku’s bold, assertive speculations.  I used to be anti-ergot theories, and the book is too focused on ergot, not Psilocybin, but I don’t pay too much attention to that distinction lately.

I’m more fighting against the extreme overemphasis on Secret Amanita at the expense of straightforward Psilocybin use in European religious history (a shocking, unthinkable phrase according to entrenched 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship dogma).

i HATE 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

i am out to DESTROY the placing of more emph on “secret” than on psychedelics.

i LOATHE the elevation of Amanita over Psilocybin, in 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship.

i KICK OUT John Allegro, & Carl Dr. Secret Ruck [Allegro & Ruck in certain respects]. 

Cyberdisciple makes the case that Allegro is not even an entheogen scholar at all , and should be totally removed from entheogen scholarship – yet, pop culture (per outdated 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)) has 100% equated Allegro w/ the proposal of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

—

I plan to look at that page from you  – this view doesn’t show me your email content while composing. 

—

I suddenly find myself juggling 3 degrees of precision of models of how the mind transforms due to psychedelics.

 If 500 BC Greece was 100% influenced by psychedelics, my model of mental transformation might not apply, if children were raised in a culture that was saturated with psychedelic enlightenment. 

I’m considering some 4 variant models of how Psilocybin transforms the mind, in eras:

500 BC: a child has weak egoic thinking, quickly transforms to intitiates’ type of thinking, bc the culture was extremely attuned to the psychedelic revelation perspective. 

150 AD: everyone still believed in fatedness (heimarmene), but now took a negative attitude toward fatedness, and they added a layer of transcendent freewill on top of that in a valid, healthy, helpful way.

500(?) AD: everyone forgets the disparaged fatedness revelation. 

Instead of enlightenment & transcendent freewill, we’re left with confused version of advanced religious myth, & mere naive, untransformed childlike freewill thinking.  Stung by the Pre/Trans Fallacy. 

The cost of so hating the revelation of fatedness, is that we lost understanding of myth, of psychedelic transformation, & we lost Psilocybin.

Modern era:  Newton 1687; 20th C: 1980s psychedelics: & 1960s: We start to rediscover the basic model of 500 BC Mystery Religions culture/ society, in which a child initially, briefly (fleeting & delicate) has naive freewill thinking , then undergoes psychedelic transformation to reveal fatedness.

In the Modern era, I form in 1988 & write up a basic 2-level model of that in 1997.

Then Erik Davis summarizes my simple model in his 2005 book Led Zeppelin IV p. 118 & 122.  BUT!: 

In 2000, Coraxo in the Gnosticism Yahoo Group points out to me that Gnosticism aimed to transcend my simple basic 2-level model. 

1998-2004, building on Gnosis magazine of 1990s, I had to, around 2004, add a more precise & nuanced, 3-level model including “transcending fate/ determinism”. 

— Michael

In 150 AD, Eleusis Added “Transcend Eternalism” Theme (Email 2 to Fontaine May 5, 2025)

A super interesting question discovered below: After 150 AD, doesn’t the Eleusinian Mystery Religion have to add the promise of “transcending heimarmene” theme, to compete w all other brands at that time?  

My first email was good, but omitted my main recent study/ era, Medieval-era fully developed use of Psilocybin, to fill in my previous timeline in that email.

The Medieval heyday, i discovered, of fully developed Psilocybin use. 

That discovery was especially based on a godsend for me, high-res Great Canterbury Psalter, awesomer proof than i couldve imagined possible, of my theory of psychedelic mental model transformation. 

A huge discovery that was an offshoot of writing an article requested by Dr Jerry Brown who asked if Cyberdisciple & i had wriiten up compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art.  

In the first email, i mentioned Newton 1687 because that is when Western Esotericism (& Psilocybin as part of that), was forgotten.

I dream of writing a book that’s a history of determinism (no-free-will).

Offhand, I don’t know how cultural belief in freewill changed when Western Esotericism was forgotten around 1687.

I haven’t theorized about that point, as I recall.

Against everyone, ie against 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), I proved that 1000-1400 AD was a heyday of fully developed use of Psilocybin, depicted in mushroom imagery in Christian art.  

Art is nicer than text, because art’s limitations forces you to stay basic & simple: 2-level model; Psilocybin simply transforms the mental model of control from possibilism to eternalism.

That’s an overgeneralization. Counterexample:

In 150 AD, Mithraism uses art/ sculpture to specifically emphasize/ depict transcending determinism/ heimarmene.

So art CAN depict transcending eternalism, especially by using the geocentric cosmos model: Above the sphere of the fixed stars = transcend fate.

astral ascent mysticism; Ptolemaic astral ascent mysticism.

my later writings not in the email. Mar 6 2025:

Depictions of the cosmos, Earth-centered – especially my anchor point, sure-footed, is: fixed stars = heimarmene.

Start by locking that idea down (fixed stars = full grasp of eternalism, as in the 8th Psilocybin initiation session), and then relate the lower & higher levels/ spheres / Psilocybin initiation phases — to that.

As Erik Davis says [Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, p. 118], there are variants of astral ascent mysticism.

The best variant of astral ascent mysticism is that which starts by assigning fixed stars = heimarmene.

If Late Antiquity switches that mapping all up (as in Hermeticism per the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022), I resent and reject that perversion and destruction of astral ascent mysticism.

A parasitic, destructive revision of astral ascent mysticism in 150 AD to change it to “fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate then transcend fate”, divorces astral ascent mysticism from its proper helpful useful role as analogy helping to clarify and explain how the mind transforms from Psilocybin.

History of the earth-centered cosmos model: 310 BC Greek guy, then another guy, then latecomer Ptolemy who is given too much credit for inventing scientific (not mystical) astral ascent mysticism model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model –  Aristarchus (c. 310 – c. 230 BC) developed a heliocentric model placing all of the then-known planets in their correct order around the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus discovered precession 162 – 127 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

  1.  310–230 BC Aristarchus – spheres cosmos model – no precession of equinoxes.
  2. 162-127 BC Hipparchus – adds precession.
  3. 150 AD Ptolemy — adds precision.

Early systems enable astral ascent mysticism – they had the simple concept “beyond the stars”, which IMPLIES they, at such early time, WAY before Ptolemy, had concept “stars = heimarmene, you can go higher than that/ outside boundary of cosmos”.

We don’t have to have “precession” to already have the MOST important key concept, “going above the stars = transcending eternalism”.

As soon as we have planet spheres in 310 BC, we ALREADY have concept “higher than stars” ie [when we use cosmos model for mystic level mapping] transcend heimarmene.

todo: Confirm that Aristarchus knows “fixed stars, level 8 past Saturn, & “higher than fixed stars” / “outside the cosmos” – highly worthwhile question.

Way back in 310 BC [ie the year Aristarchus formed the spheres model], we already had a mental picture supporting the idea “transcend heimarmene”.

The geocentric cosmos model in astronomy science INHERENTLY presents us with the picture depiction of “past/ above/ higher than / outside of the sphere of fixed stars” = transcend heimarmene.

This Medieval mushroom-trees art motif genre is like 500 BC Greek Mystery Religions’ model of Psilocybin transformation/ initiation & myth describing that, in that:

Both ancient/classical (500-300 BC) Greek Mystery Religion & the Medieval mushroom-tree genre (1000-1400 AD) are mainly a 2-level model that terminates in revering fatedness, not the 150 AD-era, mainly 3-level model that affirms & resents enslavement to fate & describes & constructs, in some way, “transcending fatedness”.

In 150 AD they did that by advanced-level, adept mythmaking — or myth revision — that we must differentiate from earlier, basic Psilocybin transformation 2-level myth.

I here have set up a GREAT Historiography research programme to trace these ideas across eras:

In each era: what cosmos model? what attitude about heimarmene? what evidence of Psilocybin transformation? what use of myth as analogy?

  • 500 BC-300 BC – Classical Antiquity (part of my period “Early Antiquity”)
  • 323 BC- 30 BC – Hellenistic (part of my period “Early Antiquity”)
  • 150 AD – 750 AD – Late Antiquity
  • 1000 AD – 1400 AD – Medieval heyday of mushroom-trees genre; fully developed use of Psilocybin.
  • 1400 AD- 1687 AD – proto-modern(?) era; late Medieval(?) — a distinct phase relative to my concerns. Western Esotericism/ Psilocybin/ mushroom-trees comprehension was present but fading.
    todo: give the year of each art image that I study, in mushroom-trees genre.
  • 1687 AD – 2000 AD – Early Modern

I tentatively believe there were only 1,300 revolutions of the Earth around the sun, between the year we call 1 and the year we call 2000.

ie subtract 700 years from the timeline per Edwin Johnson 1895, Fomenko, Chronology Revisionism. See Egodeath.com.

Eleusis = Early Antiquity = 2-level model giving heimarmene. = Medieval mushroom-tree art.

/ end of my later writings Mar 6 2025

My email continues below:

Mithraism [the best, clearest example/ model, imo] [note we only have art, not text of Mith]  = Late Antiquity = 3-level model, giving transcending of heimarmene ; “salvation/ rescue/ redemptive purchase from enslavement to fate”.

re Late Antiquity Mystery Religion, religious historians, Luther Martin etc, add: *personal* savior religion, vs Eleusis , as if Eleusis is not personal religion/ transformation.  later = allegedly: “savior religions” & “personal salvation”.  

i dont recall if scholars describe Hellenistic era that way (personal savior religion), and also in later Late Antiquity era, or if they say “personal salvation” was only added late, in 150 AD Late Antiquity, after the Hellenistic era 323 BC – 30 BC.   

My idea recent like yesterday: the word “salvation” means from heimarmene. That is a Late Antiquity (or Hellenistic era??) sentiment/ attitude, not an Eleusis / Early Antiquity sentiment attitude.  

Also my eras need checking bc Eleusis spans Early Antiquity & Late Antiquity — which raises the GREAT question:

if per Dr Justin Sledge, & Nicola Lewis, ALL brands of relig in Late Antiquity added a new aspiration to not merely reveal heimarmene but to go further & transcend heimarmene – 

Did the Eleusinian Mystery Religion , starting in 150 AD , add the theme of “transcend heimarmene & receive rescue / redemption/ salvation from heimarmene”?? 

Great question.

1200px-NAMA_Mystères_d'Eleusis.jpg
Eleusinian Mysterieswikipedia.org

“The closing of the Eleusinian Mysteries in 392 AD”

Save redeem rescue redeem us from heimarmene/ enslavement to Fatedness/ determinism / no-free-will/ eternalism. 

as if Early Antiquity Mystery Religion is not personal – i fear the scholars here are carried away w their anthopology theory constructs.  

Ulansey , who i started reading in 2000 (check my Amazon order & the Egodeath Yahoo Group posts) was CRUCIAL to develop from my 1997 2-level model which fit Greek Mystery Religion , to my 2004-era 3-level model tgat was required for explainkng 150 AD equiv of Mystery Religions.  

As Coraxo’s (i was profitably crestfallen when he corrected my perfect awesome inadequate  2-level model) 2000 correction of me… in Gnostm yahoo group. 

 HUGE TAKEAWAY FOR YOU & ME:

We must have two distinct models of “Mystery Religion”!  Early Antiquity vs Late Antiquity type of Mystery Religion “completion of psychedelic initiation/ transformation.” eg  Eleusis 500 BC vs Mithraism 150 AD.  

We can probably find a little bit of “transcend heimarmene” equivalent motifs in Eleusis-era Mystery Religions – including the 323 BC – 30 BC Hellenistic era.  eg “what is outside/ above the sphere of fixed stars?”  But the emphasis of Eleusis type Early Antiquity Mystery Religions is: terminate in conforming to heimarmene. 

Citations:  See books: Luther H Martin, Nicola Denzy Lewis; David Ulansey; Justin Sledge video interviewing Chris Brennan re astrology & fate; Esoterica youtube channel.  

500 BC – you should not make the common error of singling out Eleusis from other Greek Mystery Religions & ignoring Symposium mixed-wine religious parties.  

See Cyberdisciple WordPress he will correct you if you wrongly treat Eleusis as “unique”.

  otoh, tho we should group Eleusis w/ all Hennenistic Mystery Religions + symposia, however, realize that Late Antiquity added a 3rd level sitting above “completed initiates” of Eleusis/Greek Mystery Religions: 

Mithraism and all Mystery Religions of 150 AD added something that Eleusis [and you should not dishonor the other gods & brands of that earlier era by ignoring them] did not have.  

What does Eleusis-type Mystery Religions lack that Mithraism-type Mystery Religions have?  A virtual 3rd level; a SECOND transformation. 

April D Deconick describes gnostics as actually religious-myth rebels/ revolutionaries.  But not only that brand; her point would apply to Late Antiquity all brands.  

All Mystery Religion brands in 150 AD rebelled against their grandparents’ revering of Psilocybin- revealed heimarmene –  but wouldn’t that include a major shift within the Eleusinian Mystery Religion?(!!)  Something to look for! 

 the Late Antiquity narrative goes:

 Our grandparents’ Eleusis-type Mystery Religion merely gave us heimarmene (boo! we resent the reality of revealed bad truth of heimarmene/ fate).  

OUR, better, new technology of 150 AD-era Mystery Religions are superior: better than Eleusis, [at least until 150 AD] which makes you a slave of Fate, OUR new-tech Mystery Religions save you and lift you ABOVE heimarmene/ fate.  

Some current religious history commentators claim that everyone in Late Antiquity wished for afterlife.  No, more relevant is: they wished for a Mystery Religion transformation that’s higher than enslavement to heimarmene/ fate.  

Ulansey book & articles on Mithraism – a Mystery Religion NOT like 500 BC, bc Greek Mystery Religion terminated in simple heimarmene (2-level model) whereas the later, 150 AD type of Mystery Religions added virtually a higher level of transcendence:

 above heimarmene (while continuing to affirm that heimarmene is the case), they added a mythic narrative of “transcending heimarmene / fate/ no-free-will/ determinism). 

— Michael

March 6, 2025 email from T. Fontaine

Do you have sources for early psilocybin use ? (Hellenistic & middle age period)

Do you have sources about the Eleusis Mysteries rites that would consists in a shift from believing in free-will to understanding determinism ?

[the easy part is show that 2) antiquity = heimarmene = determinism – see every scholar, every book. incl those i listed, and Nietzsche re: dionysus as i recall –

1) what’s hard is to show that the ancients ever believed in freewill (prior to initiation; during childhood only)

3) show that the main change produced by initiation was from child freewill to adult no-free-will.]

How and why would they do this at this time?

[clarify if “this time” = 500 BC or 150 AD;

address the claimed change across eras & the assumed starting point,

in what way did initiates begin with freewill thinking?

children start w/ freewill thinking – is that true in antiquity too? to some major extent, yes.]

I have more a Nietzschean view of the world (the passive nihilism of religious and the active nihilism of the creators of new morality) and know about Mormonism.

[Nietzsche wrote a lot about fate in antiquity – check what he wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Tragedy – i think he wrote about heimarmene / fate here.]

People need to do something for their anxiety, their dread of death [more than that, their dislike of fate/ heimarmene -Michael Hoffman] ; that religion answers. This world is driving ppl/ancients crazy, and that was Nietzsche’s biggest concern : “God is dead, now what do we do ?”

[Nietzsche wrote about Fate in antiquity]

Capitalism offered a postponed reprieve for our late-Modern nihilist world: eg, money is made out of creating distraction for people that are anxious, and destroys culture.

Our group includes heavy psychonauts.

People need to reconnect with nature — this bridge between human mind and nature is made, historically, by psychedelics.

The most recent proof of occidental psychedelic roots is the Eleunisian Mysteries.

[Dr/Dean Chs Stang main critiqicusm of The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 is that Brian Muraresku acts like there’s proof of that, but never gets around to deliveraging that proof]

Correct me if I’m wrong and that you have evidences of more recent use of psychedelics.

/ Font. email continues below where indicated

The Main Source of Evidence Is Commitment to There Being Evidence

The main source of evidence is commitment to there being evidence

In effect, given that there is in fact evidence and argumentation available, the main source of evidence for psychedelics in religious history is vigorous wholehearted assertive commitment to there being evidence.

Those who lack commitment are guaranteed failures to contribute evidence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=darth+vader+i+find+your+lack+of+faith+disturbing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnNSnJbjdws —

[there is evidence for psychedelics in every era, religion, region esp if include non psychedelics: deliriants: scopalamine nightshades & Amanita: they cannot produce THE transformation — transformation from possibilism to eternalism — but they can — like cannabis — supplement that as a fallback fill-in]

image: Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2 & 3: blue vase collecting Psilocybin behind oxen, looking at Cubensis dispensary.

I failed to believe and have faith or would have seen this proof quicker, proof of my initial claim “I know what’s in the blue vase”, yet failed (for part of a year) to even look at all at the grain bin.

I didn’t attempt at all to look for direct evidence, because blinded by defeatist presupposition that there isn’t direct evidence.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/19/psalter-rows/#Looking-Lines —

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, March 27, 2023. f134, Great Canterbury Psalter

image: Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 & 2 left: 4 mushrooms w/o branches point to pans & compass, balance scale.

I failed (for part of a year) to believe and have faith, or would have actively looked for and found this proof quicker.

I said the balance pans contain Cubensis, but I initially failed to look around for direct explicit proof of that, because of my blindness defeatism.

Again, I didn’t attempt at all to look for direct evidence, because blinded by defeatist presupposition that there isn’t direct evidence.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#Proof-Day-1-Balance-Scale-Contain-Mushrooms —

Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025. f11, Great Canterbury Psalter

[any scholar who doesn’t operate from that framework commitment should immediately stop doing entheogen scholarship; give up, cannot contribute.

for productive successful entheogen scholarship, it is a GIVEN that all eras/regions used psychedelics and there is evidence.

Apply the diamond hammer of interpretation.

if it seems like no evidence, it is our blindness and fault, as poor scholars who ought to be committed to building this paradigm.

to hell with defeatist lack of confidence – this is how science actually progresses: not “disconfirmation” but rather, commitment to the new paradigm despite the flaws of EVERY paradigm old & new.

there is no “certainty” and perfect paradigm, it’s all about commitment. COMMITMENT PRODUCES RESULTS;

If you allegedly “don’t have evidence”, then really, it’s your fault for not having commitment – Great Canterbury Psalter taught me that.

If “no evidence”, this just means you’re too feeble, weakling, defeatist, unimaginative, & ineffectual; you lack the requisite can-do attitude.

We effective entheogen scholars must be committed anti-skeptics; committed believers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U-id_iUwQ —

The main source of evidence is commitment to there being evidence.

eg Hatsis wrongly says no text about The Mushroom. false: there is TONS of text about mushrooms; discussed in terms of eucharist effects]

T. Fontaine’s email continues:

I take a nature-daîmon related point of view.

Bringing back a general use of psychedelics – eg through Eleusis Mysteries – would be a healing for this world.

Recommended:

The Message of the Eleusinian Mysteries for Today’s World
Albert Hofmann
(from Robert “Who is The Enterprise that’s funding Muraresku?” Forte, grassroots not astroturf, authentic entheogen scholar, member of the Ruck Committee of the Secret Amanita paradigm, w/ some ergot thrown in for spice; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm))
https://cac45ab95b3277b3fdfd-31778daf558bdd39a1732c0a6dfa8bd4.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/10_hofmann.pdf

That letter motivated me to work on this project. You might know that letter.

I recommend this book about culture disruption and the current civilization issue of our century:

The Age of Disruption: Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism
Bernard Stiegler, August 2019, 380 pages
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Age+of+Disruption%3A+Technology+and+Madness+in+Computational+Capitalism-p-9781509529261
ISBN: 978-1-509-52926-1 – blurb:

“Half a century ago Adorno and Horkheimer argued, with great prescience, that our increasingly rationalized world was witnessing the emergence of a new kind of barbarism, thanks in part to the stultifying effects of the culture industries.

What they could not foresee was that, with the digital revolution and the pervasive automation associated with it, the developments they had discerned would be greatly accentuated, giving rise to the loss of reason and to the loss of the reason for living.

Individuals are now overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of digital information and the speed of digital flows, resulting in a kind of technological Wild West in which they find themselves increasingly powerless, driven by their lack of agency to the point of madness.

—

“How can we find a way out of this situation?

In this major new [2019] book, Bernard Stiegler argues that we must first acknowledge our era as one of fundamental disruption and detachment.

[reminds me of narrative “the main value of Psilocybin therapy is to fix the problem of depression, grief & meaninglessness”.

I don’t buy that narrative/ selling-point: trying to sell the main value of Psilocybin as a cure for depression in today’s world; too much Big Pharma Marketing Dept.

See Houot’s book instead, Rise of the Psychonaut.]

We are living in an absence of epokhē in the philosophical sense, by which Stiegler means that we have lost our path of thinking and being.

Weaving in powerful accounts from his own life story, including struggles with depression and time spent in prison, Stiegler calls for a new epokhē based on public power.

We must forge new circuits of meaning outside of the established algorithmic routes.

For only then will forms of thinking and life be able to arise that restore meaning and aspiration to the individual.

—

“Concluding with a dialogue between Stiegler and Jean-Luc Nancy, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars in social and cultural theory, media and cultural studies, philosophy and the humanities generally.”

/ end blurb

I’m not a devout occultist nerd.

I’m attached to evidence-based facts, cited sources, & rationality.

I am interested in religion or prospectivist theories, though that’s not my main use of time.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=define+prospectivist – prospective = “expected or expecting to be something particular in the future”
check the firm search eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist – “Futurists (also known as futurologists, prospectivists,”

‘prospective’ is not a bad description of my can-do attitude that has produced tons of evidence & sound, successful explanatory theory.

Many people claim that Science = Predictionism.

I don’t fully agree w/ overemphasis of “prediction” as the alleged essence of doing science.

It’s arbitrary to frame things — theory development & confirmation, how to measure merit – in terms of “making predictions and then confirming them”.

That description is “not wrong, but not very helpful”, and it shuts out other angles.]

A great thank you for your message and the share of your theories,

T. Fontaine

Are Neopagans Focused on the Problem of Transcending Fatedness/ No-free-will/ Determinism/ Heimarmene/ Eternalism/ the Snake-Wrapped Iron Rock Block Universe? (3rd email to Fontaine)

email sent Mar 6 2025:

Dr. Justin Sledge of Esoterica youtube channel has a question for you, for neopagans: 

Arent you super interested in fate?  he says you should be.  i agree. 

The ancients were extremely interested in heimarmene , & in Late Antiquity, ancient religion was all about promising to transcend heimarmene/ fate. 

Suppose you are hieropnant promoting Eleusianian Mysteries in 150 AD.  

All brands of religion are claiming they are better than Eleusis because THEY save you from enslavement to fate. 

Eleusis is bad bc it makes you a slave of heimarmene.  

What is your use of myth to competively claim that the best brand of religion is Eleusinian which more than other brands, rescues and redeems you from enslavement to heimarmene?

Example answer: 6 months of the year, Persephone is released from the underworld.  

It is a great, focused, relevant, researchable question: 

Didn’t the Eleusinian Mysteries have to add a claim in 150 AD that this brand of Mystery Religion saves you from Fatedness?  

/ end of email

earlier writeup, not included in the email:

Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica ch.) has a question for you/ for Neopagans:

Are you highly interested in the topic of Fate?

The Modern era is 100% soaked in assumption of freewill.

The driving main theme of 150 AD Late Antiquity was, given the revealed fact of fate, the purpose of late Mystery Religions & all the brands of religion of that era is to transcend fate.

Late Antiquity didn’t solve the problem of fatedness by denying that fate is thee case.

The main, driving religious project of Late Antiquity was to solve the problem problem that, given that fate is the case, we need to transcend fate in some way.

Read Updated Final Version of idea development page 24 (has content through Feb. 2028)

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/

I updated the table of contents – skim it. Not linked.

Shows tons of info / ideas added recently.

Just b/c I’m starting this new page, don’t avoid the old page – rather, the old page is now ready to look at, except not linked the Contents.

Confirmed First Use of “branching-message mushroom trees” March 21, 2022

Gmail has a confusing UI. I am not insane; I correctly memorized March 21, 2022. I kept considering Sept. and said no way, no way, it was always “March”. Proof below.

The Subject line of the email thread is “Parasol Panaeolus Graves“. cc’d Brown & Cyberdisciple. Sent March 21, 2022.

“branching-message mushroom trees email.png” 203 KB 8:45 pm Feb. 25, 2025
My email sent March 21, 2022, with first mention of “branching-message mushroom trees”.

Monday, March 21, 2022:
Prof. Brown sent me the 2019 article’s Kupfer passage about youths in trees, and,

Monday, March 21, 2022, 10:14 AM:
I first wrote the phrase “branching-message mushroom trees“, in email to Brown & Cyberdisciple.

Section: “Major Date: I First Wrote “branching-message mushroom trees” on March 21, 2022″
At top of Idea Development page 16:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/23/idea-development-page-16/#Incoming-Ideas

Transcription of my above email:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Amanita-Imagery-Indicates-Psilocybe-Use

Mature Egoic Thinking = {beard}

Lay not hand on the young man nor do any harm. Because you have done this thing, live into the future.

use but don’t rely on, the Left foot model of control;
branching possibilities steering with monolithic, autonomous control
gives unstable control during loose cognition.
immature form
{king steering in tree}

through {mixed wine at banquet}

rely on the Right foot model of personal control:
non-branching; frozen line of steering; 2-level, dependent control
gives stable control
mature form
{snake frozen in rock}

The mature form after Psilocybin transformation; during loose cognition; during loose cognitive association binding.

Loose cognition transforms the personal control system from possibilism to eternalism.

Psilocybin transformation

{altar at guarded gate temple entryway sacrifice, cleaned curtains}, {sacrificial altar = fire blade rock wood-branches}

turning to look to the right, looking behind you and above you at angel messenger of God

Sacrifice of Isaac (Canterbury Psalter)

Features: [8:56 pm Feb. 26, 2025]

  • embarrassing, did i ever notice or mention the {gate/ doorway/ passageway}? The past 1-2 weeks, I developed especially the vision of/ the motif of, {altar as tollbooth attached to gate}. To pass through the gate/ doorway, must pay the price of passage, which is, repudiate taking as real, the egoic personal control system – see it now as virtual-only auto monolithic, autonomous control.
  • from Great Canterbury Psalter, instance of {rock altar of sacrifice at the doorway temple passage gateway boundary crossing}
  • {mushroom gate}; topped by liberty cap cap that has a L and R arm for the two mental models.
  • virtual-only monolithic autonomous control-agency steering in virtual-only branching possibilities
  • Look behind you, look above you.

virtual-only monolithic autonomous control-agency steering in virtual-only branching possibilities
vmac

Sacrifice of Isaac (Golden Psalter)

Features:

  • Look behind you, look above you.
  • {mushroom hem} x3.
  • {floating mushroom hem} over tree trunk.
  • trident-O: trident = L + stem + R.
  • On L tree, 4 branches under crown. mushroom-trees feature: 4 limbs (= arms + legs).
  • Liberty cap left shoulder Abraham.

Sacrifice of Isaac (Van der Borch): Branches on Rock Altar with Blade and Child

Features:

  • Atypical: Not looking back at angel. Looking forward and down, not behind & up.
  • Rock branches fire altar child is on R side of tree; {cut right branch}; YI tree.
  • {right foot down} for Abraham & ram.
  • Angel: splayed left fingers, non-branching R index finger.

New Art

Motivation for this Page

  • Focusing on myth vision of myths / mythemes/ motifs:
  • {turn right, look up, look behind you, while blade the sacrifice child / animal; Isaac | bull | ram}
  • {maturation} from {child} to {adult}

Declaration of Independence of MICA Affirmers from Ignorant Art Authorities Who Earn Disrespect by Publishing Nothing

Huggins has not published nothing. He writes as art historian and published article about Great Canterbury Psalter, and mushroom-trees. He deserves engagement.

Independent Mentality Attitude: MICA Affirmers Must Think Essentially Independently from Art Authorities & Other MICA Deniers, and Especially Reject Argument from Authority by Phony Authorities Who Published Nothing about Trees

For the most part, largely, art authorities have failed to earn any credibility, because they reduce themselves to fallacious arguments from authority.

Huggins doesn’t do that too badly; on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Huggins is more engaged than Letcher 2006, and higher quality than Hatsis 2013.

Huggins is the least bad MICA Denier so far.

MICA Deniers have some valid points.

Letcher’s good point: only a single mushroom-tree is needed, to demolish 1st-generation entheogen scholarship, which falsely claims “cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.

  1. 1952-1998: 1st-Gen entheogen scholars claim that mushroom imagery in Christian art is “cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
  2. 2006: Andy Letcher points to Bernward Door’s Blame panel, arguing that this specific instance of mushroom imagery cannot possibly be cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, thus shattering and disproving that 1st-Gen version of the psychedelic gospels theory, or of the proposal of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  3. 2002: Cybermonk announces contra Ruck Committee, the maximal entheogen theory of religion.

I declared a rejection of 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship aka the the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion, in order to sustain the vector from “Mushroom-Trees” (Samorini 1998) to “Conjuring Eden” (Hoffman/ Ruck 2001) & beyond – instead of what Hoffman/Ruck did, which was back away from that direction, retreating back into their Secret Amanita paradigm.

I announced in 2003 that by applying the Egodeath theory to that direction from “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998) to “Conjuring Eden”, I will CONTINUE that direction, instead of retreating into the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion.

Giorgio Samorini 1998 article is the obvious milestone for the start of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).

https://egodeaththeory.org/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/

“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)
mtca
samo98

1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
1g

2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
2g

the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion
mmetr

{turn right, look up, look behind you, while blade the sacrifice child / animal; Isaac | bull | ram}

{maturation} from {child} to {adult}

Change of Deceptive Marketing of Egodeath: Sell People Freewill Power, Hide the No-free-will Fine Print

🤥👖🔥🤞->🤑💰

Transcendent Knowledge Doesn’t Give You Eternalism; It Gives You Possibilism-Power*

*qualified

Emphasize positive framing of Transcendent Knowledge as affirming (qualified) possibilism-thinking.

I considered doing before, instead of ‘eternalism’, but I feared that saying “you end up with possibilism-thinking” would be mis-taken as simple affirmation of untransformed, egoic freewill thinking.

Cleaned Dirtiness; Forgiven Sin that Continues, no longer Considered Your Real Foundation/ Source of Control

Pushing eternalism-thinking is not viable; it won’t fly, and it misrepresents. You don’t kill the child; you keep the child, and add a beard. It’s the same old possibilism-thinking, except transformed; you use freewill thinking all the time, though it is sanctified; justified; qualified, it is impurity that is considered as pure; “clean dirtiness”.

I HAVE to frame in a positive way to be well received. I must promise freewill power, and then after they take the bait for my Wasson-like duplicity, then I will say HA! GOT YOU, SUCKER, IT’S NOT REALLY FREEWILL, DESPITE MY MISLEADING MARKETING PLOY!

  • Idea development page 24 (started 2025/01/28) reached 140 sheets; recently , set record of 200+ sheets.
  • That page spawned new pages, that I have to create the TOC for.

Houot at Church Book Club: Rise of the Psychonaut

ZZZ (tired, Zig Zag Zen – ultra conventional, awful treatment, totally unimaginative re: their biased, prejudiced, unconscious presuppositions)

The author of Rise, A. M. Houot, who I conversed with, will join in our book club.

I responded to the question of what book we should cover next, by suggesting this book. At first ppl voted for ZZZ but then my suggestion won.

See section:
Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism
in page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/

(my emails have more detail, but it’s private)

Recent Posts 2025/01/28-2025/02/24

3-Phase “Transcendent Possibilism” vs. 2-Phase “Eternalism” (Transcendent Egoic Thinking)

Michael Hoffman, February 18, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Site Map

Contents:

Page status: This page is “complete” in that it contains my recent writings on this topic. Need to re-organize.

Conclusion

Instead of selling “eternalism” and “no-free-will/monopossibility”, it’s clearer and more successful to sell/frame what you get, and what you have to believe in.

Wilber: Don’t Dissociated from egoic control thinking; embrace, include & extend mental model to embrace and include egoic control thinking

Transcendent use of egoic thinking {rider above donkey on path, right foot down}

cut mushroom trees with right hand, branch held left hand

splayed/together fingers

splayed/together sticks and feathers

Images: Entry into Jerusalem

Photo credit: Julie M. Brown
why diamond important

10:54 pm Feb. 25, 2025 – i need fresh up to date analysis of Entry into Jerusalem – Saint Martin’s.

Awareness has risen up to the level of the God-aware rider above the donkey. Ego thinking is a given frozen in rock.

Awareness perceives that the loosecog-revealed level has revealed a different model underlying the surface
garment
cloak cleaned
outer shell
control agency
egoic locus of control
not yet perceived as virtual-only
virtual monolithic, autonomous control
transcendent egoic thinking: you do egoic thinking and you see that the egoic personal control system,
snake-basket lid has been lifted
snake in rock
snake frozen in rock
your worldline snake frozen in rock
the egoic thinking shell
the egoic control system
egoic control thinking
the egoic personal control system

  • king above donkey on path
  • guy behind king: L hand forms IY
  • epiphany of the ruler from outside the gates open the gates to the incoming ruler welcome.
  • pass through the {gate} of {city walls}
  • Garment: egoic thinking, now seen from aside up above behind you POV; remove a garment. clean right foot of donkey / jesus = cleaned garment mental model. rectified
  • Diamond frond dud mushroom-tree. No mushroom features, so increase interpretation of {branching} form & {L vs. R}.
  • Psilocybin mushroom-tree.
  • Right foot forward.
  • Cleaning impure lips w/ heaven coal burning from angel {fire}.
  • dud mushroom-tree, diamond tree: IY.
  • R hand holds the lone I branch of diamond frond. Right = non-branching.
  • L hand holds the branching branch of diamond fronds. Left = branching.
  • Non-branching is favored.
  • right hand on I of YI tree.

Egoic thinking is always used, incl peak window, though now see it from outside of it from Wilberian POV employing child thinking but distanced perceiving the egoic control system and its suppositions/ model that is always expereienced except during loosecog and evne then you totally use your egoic thinking donkey.

During peak window we above donkey see the child thinking following its path; we see that from the remembered and modelled vantage POV outside “look up, look behind you, see ram substitute instead of the young man, the efficacious analogy idea of sacrifice your child thinking.

Did I not write all of these points a couple years ago?

I see it differently now – I am experiencing reading the above image from a greater level of facillty

Immediately see branching form of diamond frond {branching tree}. IY or I-trident.

Apply the latest BRANCHING-FORM theory model lens.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Copy of the set of images from below in this page, on Feb 25 2025 copied.

The rider has a point of view being able to now perceive the egoic control system and see its virtual-only nature and its interesting control-climax death birth transformation

Good Marketing & Communication: Affirm transcendent possibilism & eternalism, repudiate naive possibilism

You must accept transcendent possibilism.

Good news: enlightenment is simple. Enlightenment or Transcendent Knowledge is merely transcendent possibilism; possibilism qualified by/ informed by/ modified by factoring-in no-free-will/monopossibility as a momentary, transformative revelation of the underlying level, under the personal control system.

Poor Marketing & Communication: Affirm eternalism & transcendent possibilism, repudiate naive possibilism-thinking

You must accept no-free-will/monopossibility.

Good news: enlightenment is simple. Enlightenment or Transcendent Knowledge is merely eternalism; no-free-will/monopossibility.

Personal control agency is a helpless puppet controlled by the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

The helpless thought-receiver vs. the unavoidable thought-inserter, in relation per 2-level, dependent control.

About the image at top of this page

The set of 3 figures of concern here are:

  1. Fool = naive possibilism-thinking.
  2. Youth = eternalism-thinking [without factoring-in possibilism-thinking]
  3. Beard = qualified possibilism-thinking. [= eternalism with factoring-in possibilism-thinking]

If there were only figures 1 & 2 (a 2-phase depiction), there would be a different analysis/ meaning of each figure:

  1. Fool = possibilism-thinking, of a type that’s wholly unaware of eternalism.
  2. Wise = eternalism-thinking, including factoring-in possibilism-thinking. Possibilism-thinking that includes the revelation of eternalism.

You can divide-up the progression to enlightenment into 3 phases, or differently, into 2 phases.

In the group of 3 figures, figure 1 & 2 are obvious. The puzzling figure is figure 3, Beard. f134 is a puzzle game set-up.

Eadwine the artist, sets up puzzle: given that Fool = possibilism-thinking; and Youth = eternalism-thinking; what then does the Mature guy mean?

It’s a 3-phase image, not framed as 2-phase. A 2-phase version of this image would omit Beard guy.

The question of this article is: Should we name {the mental model that you end up with} after Red Youth, or Beard?

Should we label Beard figure as “possibilism (w/ eternalism)”, or “eternalism (w/ possibilism)”?

Imagine 2 versions of this image.

The image we have is 3-phase; group of 3 figures.

Imagine alt version of this panel that omits Beard guy.

Image would simply mean: move from possibilism to eternalism. Story: the Egodeath theory gives you eternalism – sort of saying, gives you fatedness / heimarmene/ block-universe eternalism, helpless puppethood, seems to be what we end up with.

That’s a poor representation of what we end up with. 2-phase is crude, confusing; IT IS SO VERY ABBREVIATED, IT IS CONFUSING and implies we end up w the way of thinking that strikes us down during peak window intense mystic altered state.

Such 2-phase model is only partly accurate & helpful.

The Egodeath theory or Transcendent Knowledge gives you: eternalism-thinking. That seems to say “no free will is all-important and the final view you end up with“.

That is true in a way, but crude and lacks nuance.

Confusing. Oversimplified; misrep’ve.

Beard, Figure #3, is eternalism-thinking in the broad, inclusive sense — we can call this either “possibilism (w/ eternalism)” or “eternalism (w/ possibilism)”.

idea for all pages:

I wish to explain or comment on the image at top of article, but cannot clutter that spot.

Like front matter of book, explain the book cover.

This is Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2 Right.

On the left is cubensis dispensary, not of central interest here; I am not discussing the LEFT-HAND GUY (Jesus the dispensary clerk), he is not part of the key group of 3 figures.

I’m only focusing on/ defining “the 3 guys” to be: fool, youth, beard bearded floating guy is the unclear part.

Ever since I finished analysis of Row 1 in Nov 2020, and started finally looking at row 2 & 3 after that, I immediately knew Left foot fool = possibilism-thinking; Right foot youth = eternalism-thinking – and I puzzled over Floating Beard guy; the meaning (or really, ramification) of the floating pair of feet.

I was more puzzled over his floating feet, than the idea of expressing the Egodeath theory / Transcendent Knowledge as 3 phases. See my Nov 2020 writings/pages. Recently I figured: “floating feet” does not have meaning; but rather, ramifications: it serves to prevent you from easily assessing his stability.

The Genre Question: Folio Image f134 is an instructional game puzzle (of highest order)

floating feet means you are prevented from simply reading which foot down, during assessing the control stability of every figure in f134.

Also floating feet connects him to leg hanging guy in tree.

And to the Row 1 L class of 4 guys, you cannot see feet of 2 of them, who he looks toward.

Floating feet serves as factor in game puzzle solving that the artist/ teacher set up for us to study handedness motifs.

Intro/Motivation for this Page

This page contains some new idea development, and contains sections moved out from yesterday’s article explaining the meaning of 2 or 3 branches/beams holding up the crown of some mushroom-trees.

Over the past couple of days, I went back & forth re: whether 1 page or 2:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/

1 page clearly is too long, and the two topics are not THAT closely associated/ interconnected. Resuming orig. plan: 2 sep. pages.

I moved the content about describing Transcendent Knowledge as yielding/ ending up giving you “a form of possibilism” instead of simply extremist pure “eternalism”, from that page to this page.

Titles of this page

This is a standard section for all new pages.

3-Phase “Transcendent Possibilism” vs. 2-Phase “Eternalism”, as a clear, non-confusing description of what we believe in

The transcendent ego remains after enlightenment; after loose-cognitive mental model transformation.

I am NOT telling people to believe in eternalism – because that word has both a narrow & a broad meaning, ambiguous.

‘eternalism’ might mean extreme exclusive eternalism w/o factoring-in possibilism-thinking; OR, might mean eternalism including factoring-in possibilism-thinking.

The great name/phrase/ concept-label “transcendent possibilism” solves such problems pretty well. The name “eternalism” SEEMS TO IMPRISON YOU IN NO-FREE-WILL/MONOPOSSIBILITY which is a poor description of the mental model we end up with.

Learned from Kafei – it is DEATH/failure for the Egodeath theory, to rely on a word (concept-label) that is confusing & misleading. Not an option!

Even Josie Kins f’d up the def’n of ‘eternalism’ and degrades it to mere egoic-soaked domino-chain determinism, which is how Kafei (mis-)read my custom-redefined term “determinism” in 2007 main article. [that expeirence inventory site was down]

Josie Kins Effect Index Site Is Back Up

it was 404 around Dec 2024.

https://www.effectindex.com/effects/perception-of-eternalism

https://www.effectindex.com/people/josie

https://www.effectindex.com

The day after I finalized my main article in Sep. 2007, I found the terms ‘eternalism’ and ‘superdeterminism’.

“Perception of Eternalism” page at Effect Index

https://www.effectindex.com/effects/perception-of-eternalism

https://pub-879bfd45a9774f1c80a8b77aca1f0aee.r2.dev/Time_is_connected.png —

https://pub-879bfd45a9774f1c80a8b77aca1f0aee.r2.dev/Time_is_connected.png

Caption:

The image above represents how a person under the influence of this component would view themselves as an organism.

This is often described as being a singular structure which stretches through the physical dimension of time alongside of all other identically behaving structures which the universe as a whole is entirely comprised of.

—

Perception of eternalism can be described as the experience of a major alteration of one’s perspective of the fundamental mechanics behind the linear continuity of time moving from the past to the present to the future.

During this state of mind, it feels as if all points across the timeline of existence are equally “real” and are occurring simultaneously alongside each other.

Every point in time is felt to exist regardless of the person’s current position within the overall timeline, much as all points in physical space persist regardless of the observer’s location.

—

While all moments are felt to be equally real, the directional flow of time is felt to be maintained, with the present always being the moment which is currently experienced.

All moments in time are still felt to be linked together by causality, the past necessitating the present, which necessitates the future, and so forth.

—

A common conclusion that is reached during the experience of this state is that although one’s life inevitably will end, it will apparently persist forever within its own timeframe and is therefore perpetual despite not being infinite in its length.

Birth and death are therefore seen as merely the start and end points of the range of time that a person exists in eternally, if not experiences eternally.

—

This sudden change in perspective starkly contrasts with the standard perception of time in which only the present is felt to exist, while the past no longer is and the future is yet to be.

—

Perception of eternalism is often accompanied by other coinciding transpersonal effects such as unity and interconnectedness and feelings of interdependent opposites.

It is most commonly induced under the influence of heavy dosages of psychedelic compounds, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline.

Kins’ commentary

Perception of eternalism is one of a handful of subjective effect components that has had a substantial impact on how I view myself and the universe around me.

I first experienced this effect during a state of level 4 unity and interconnectedness while under the influence of a heavy dose of Ayahuasca.

It was one of the most profound experiences of my entire life.

I truly felt that not only was I the entirety of existence experiencing itself through this body, but that this moment and all other moments would continue to exist eternally within their specific time frames.

Although I am acutely aware of how it is impossible for me to genuinely know if this is true or not, I have found it to be a perspective that is very difficult to shake off after having this experience a number of times.

—

Before experiencing this effect, I had never considered or even heard of the various similar metaphysical schools of thought that exist as relatively mainstream concepts within the field of philosophy.

However, after having had experienced this state of mind numerous times, I happened upon a large number of relevant concepts that include ideas such as eternalism, four dimensionalism, growing block universe, perdurantism, and the b-theory of time.

Each of these concepts have their Wikipedia articles linked to within the See Also section of this page.

—

As an intellectual concept, the B-theory of time is especially interesting to me as it is relatively well supported by the physics community.

In summary, B-theory posits that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present, and future are equally real and that time is tenseless.

Its support is seemingly due to its apparent compatibility with theoretical physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology are considered to point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.

However, I feel that it is important to note that I do not have a remotely in-depth understanding of theoretical physics and that although these theories are in support of notions similar to this experience, I am not entirely sure that their ontological implications can be asserted within science and outside the realm of philosophy or metaphysics.

—

Regardless of whether or not the nature of time is genuinely illusory, it is truly fascinating to me that without any prior knowledge, myself and many other psychedelic users can experience incredibly specific states of mind that seem to line up with entire philosophical theories.

This holds true for a number of transpersonal effects and is something that I’m deeply passionate about doing my absolute best to both document and discuss without descending into any degree of pseudoscience or hippy babble.

/ end of paste from fx index

Cybermonk commentary

The above includes discussion of DOMINO-CHAIN DETERMINISM – as least as an experience, if not as a metaphystical/ ontological assertion definition by Kins.

Carefully assessing/disputing what Kins is asserting here, is relevant for my present article.

During & after enlightenment, the mind’s experience is shaped in the form of egoic domino-chain causality– well, actually, it’s shaped as branching into open future ie possibilism branching.

RELYING on that model & its personal control model of virtually monolithic, autonomous control, is unstable.

Does relying on domino-chain determinism produce loss of control?

Board of Egodeath can’t agree on title wording except a few key words, so use those as the title

Since the article-naming committee cannot agree on any terms except these, make the title short that way.

This site (prior to this page) does not contain the phrase “Board of Egodeath”. I probably said that phrase in a voice recording; Egodeath Mystery Show.

Origin of the Board of Egodeath: Egodeath Mystery Show early episode(s). The show template page has a segment about the meeting agenda for the Board of Egodeath, titled “Esoteric Agenda”.

Highlighting 3-Phase Model Ending with “Transcendent Possibilism” Better than 2-Phase Model Ending with “Eternalism”

The basic problem: Should the Egodeath Theory be labelled as a kind of eternalism, or a kind of possibilism?

The basic problem: Should the Egodeath Theory be labelled as a kind of eternalism, or a kind of possibilism? pros & cons – IN ANY CASE, FORM THE BEST POSSIBLE label in terms of 2-phase eternalism.

What’s the best possible label in terms of 2-phase eternalism?

It may be that throughout my writings, I have been developing this wording.

What’s the best possible label in terms of 3-phase possibilism?

It may be that throughout my writings, I have not been developing this wording enough, and should favor this wording over wording in terms of “you end up with eternalism-thinking” and “you gotta agree there’s no-free-will/monopossibility”. — “you gotta agree there is eternalism, of a certain type that takes into account possibilism“

Wrong to Overemphasize Eternalism and Underemphasize Possibilism

Must Balance and Put forth the cominbation of Both

The Egodeath theory gives you a combination of possibilism & eternalism; gives you a kind of compatibilism. (Not to imply, though, that you end up with a kind of domino-chain determinism.) the Egodeath theory as a system of mental model transformation does NOT include domino-chain determinism.

Psychedelic mental model transformation does not produce a kind of domino-chain determinism, as from the Phil dept armchair spec’n.

Moving beyond a 1-word name of the Egodeath theory, 1-word name of what you end up with, YOU END UP WITH ETERNALISM AND POSSIBILISM BOTH.

What kind of possibilism and eternalism combination do we end up with?

What kind of “compatibilism” do we end up with?

My error was hyping / overemph / overselling eternalism, and underselling possibilism.

I am lately proposing that it’s better to push “you gotta agree there is possibilism, of a certain type that takes into account eternalism / no-free-will/monopossibility”.

If we describe the Egodeath theory as a kind of eternalism, it seems as if YOU GOTTA AGREE WITH ME THERE’S NO-FREE-WILL; TRAPPED IN HEIMARMENE PRISON HELPLESSLY.

That is the criticism that Late Antiquity had of Early Antiquity.

Early Antiquity framed Transcendent Knowledge as giving you a kind of eternalism, emphasizing fatedness, no-free-will, puppethood enslaved by the gods.

Late Antiquity made a project of instead framing Transcendent Knowledge as liberating you from the prison of eternalism.

Our grandfathers gave us religion that emphasized no-free-will; heimarmene. But we want religion that emphasizes a kind of freewill end-result.

Periodization: The Year When These Were Formed: Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christianity, Mithraism

The era of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christianity, & Mithraism.

Each Competitive Marketing Dept. Promising to Lift You Above Fatedness; Selling the Transcending of Heimarmene

Late Antiquity
lant

Early Antiquity
eant

The concept-label problem that I’m solving by this analysis

Concept-labels are more important than anything else. Connotation networks; lexicon, framing, positioning, marketing; of predominant importance.

Kafei was misled by my abnormal use of ‘determinism’ in 2007 main article — that shows how predominant the theory’s lexicon is.

CONCEPT-LABELS ARE OF TOPMOST IMPORTANCE.

There are basically two options for framing the resulting mental model:

  • Call the resulting mental model “eternalism-thinking” and explain how that’s modified by including possibilism-thinking.
  • Call the resulting mental model “possibilism-thinking” and explain how that’s modified by including eternalism-thinking.

Briefer wording:

  • Call the result “eternalism” and explain how that’s modified by possibilism.
  • Call the result “possibilism” and explain how that’s modified by eternalism.

The disadvantage of summarizing the Egodeath theory in terms of the 2-level model is, it SOUNDS like you end up with pure, simple, extreme eternalism.

In this approach for summarizing, the word ‘eternalism’ is forced to have two scopes: narrow, pure, extreme eternalism; and, broad, nuanced eternalism that includes possibilism-thinking. Confusing.

Pros & cons of 2-level framing, saying you end up with a type of eternalism

Expressing as 2-level model is thus simple, and confusing.

If you only draw from 2 levels, the 2nd level is forced to highlight the word ‘eternalism’ But in reality, you end up using possibilism-thinking all the time, so it’s confusing to label that as ‘eternalism’.

Pros & cons of 3-level framing, saying you end up with a type of possibilism

The most basic question: “described” here means picking a 1-word or 2-word label for the Egodeath theory. Favor which term: eternalism, or possibilism?

In a 1- or 2-word description or name or characterizing of the Egodeath theory, should it be presented as giving you “eternalism” (eg: “qualified eternalism”; eternalism modified by possibilism), or giving you a kind of possibilism? eg “qualified possibilism; possibilism qualified by eternalism)?

In a 1- or 2-word description or name or characterizing of the Egodeath theory, should it be presented as giving you “eternalism” (eg: “qualified eternalism”; eternalism modified by possibilism), or giving you a kind of possibilism? eg “qualified possibilism; possibilism qualified by eternalism)?

Should the Egodeath theory be described – in briefest summary or naming — as

Expressing as 3-level model is more verbose and complex, but less confusing.

This way, the middle phase can highlight ‘eternalism’ and the 3rd, final phase can be described as highlighting ‘possibilism’, modified by eternalism-thinking.

Should we summarize (as a label for the Theory) in terms of the important, middle phase – the peak window of intense mystic altered state; the moment of ego-sacrifice?

Or, should we summarize theory in terms of the practical daily mental model you end up with, which appears as if possibilism-thinking?

3-Phase Model Ending with “Transcendent Possibilism” Better than 2-Phase Model Ending with “Eternalism”

The 3-Phase Model of Transcendent Knowledge Transformation, Ending with a Kind of Possibilism, Not Emphasizing Eternalism

3-phase; rejecting simply “eternalism” / “no-free-will/monopossibility”

3-phase; do not sell “eternalism”; sell “transcendent possibilism”; transcendent freewill.

2-phase sells poorly: 2 problems:

  • you push no-free-will; block universe prison – and,
  • it’s not useful, b/c in practice, we HAVE to use freewill thinking.

In the 2-phase model, the final phase is no free will; helpless dependent control.

The 3-phase model is better: its final phase is freewill of a qualified type, and that is how we always have to practically conduct ourselves even when eternalism is revealed in the peak window of the intense mystic altered state.

Qualified possibilism/ transcendent possibilism

more colloq’ly: familiarly: transcendent freewill….

Every Term is of Limited Usefulness

“eternalism”, “possibilism”, “egoic”, “transcendent”, “freewill”, “determinism”; “branching”, “non-branching”, “psychedelic”, “entheogen” – all are tech terms w/ special usage, and with some greater or lesser degree of familiarity in popular standard common language usage.

Moderately technical terms – PROS AS well as CONS, like always.

The term “transcendent freewill” feels too limited/ too narrowly focused on old entrenched ruts, “the debate in Philosophy about free will vs. determinism”. I do not want to trigger that connotation network.

Rebranding/ Selling/ Marketing the Egodeath Theory as “Compatibilism” instead of Eternalism/ No-Free-Will Is a Breakthrough Solution: How to Have Possibilism and Eternalism Both

as if emphasizing possibilism-thinking at the same time as emphasizing eternalism-thinking

yesterday feb 15 2025 was a breakthrough –

far from “new” topic in all respects

that’s how it goes with annual breakthrough on the exact same new-not-new , new-old breakthrough again for 1st time.

The concepts succesfully usefully came together to solve a problem of “hard sell no-free-will/monopossibility/ heimar prison – GOOD NEWS! —

“GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! ENLIGHTENMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THERE’S NO FREE WILL; YOU’RE STUCK POWERLESSLY AND HELPLESSLY IN A FATEDNESS PRISON FROZEN BLOCK UNIVERSE!”

Buy my book!

I FIGURED OUT Transcendent Knowledge: IT’S NO-FREE-WILL, YOU’RE FROZEN IN BLOCK UNIVERSE HELPLESSLY, THAT’S WHAT Transcendent Knowledge IS ABOUT! SIMPLE AND EASY! BUY MY BOOK!

🤑💰

Like I reject “only mind exists” vs “only matter exists”, I also reject extremist eternalism-thinking — posting title: 3-PHASE BEATS 2 PHASE like late anti’y beat early antiqy which is 2-phase and worships eternalism-thinking. the Egodeath theory does not – in my mature phase now – solely push eternalism-thinking.

Studying Psilocybin mushrooms was often unprofiable BUT one time I was rendered speechless b/c my lips are impure; cannot say to myself “Self, you should think thus & sucxh way” — b/c that cajoling is egoic thinking – so how can I think, my thinking is inherently egoic! even during enlight of eternalism-thinking!

Strictly eternalism-thinking is not an option! And I cannot presnt my theory to my church by pushing extremeist unbalanced eternalism-thinking.

  • 3 phase beats 2-phase. eternalism-thinking is NOT the end. fixed stars fatedness hiem snake is NOT the end.

Christianity — but ASLO late phase Hellenism , all the competing brands — rejected 2-phase worship of trict strict eternalism-thinking , and everyone in late Ant’y switched to 3-phase model where snake sfr {sr snake frozen in rock is NOT the final phase of maturation. In mushroom imagery in Christian art, expresses 3-phase:

We late-phase msystics have a hard nuanced job, the angels anxiously debating no-free-will/monopossibility til end of time: we must not only figure out eternalism-thinking — we must go BEYOND THE [fixed stars, Hanegraaff! not the 5 planets!!] STARS, to BOTH AFFIRM ETERNALISM-THINKING AND (QUALIFIED) POSSIBILISM-THINKING.

a big change, i solved a huge roadblock problem to teach my church. months ago, hiatus, a few months ago, nov 2024, I was stuck.

As if: I must force my church to agree no-free-will/monopossibility.

Before that, I wrote here I was afriad to approve possibilism-thinking bc/ pre/trans fallacy, ppl would think i approve of freewill thinking and they fail to transform.

Solution, today feb 17: assert qualified possibilism-thinking .

Not an entirely brand new solution but i feel it now, Wm James is right; the 3-phase model is right; eternalism-thinking / fixed stars level 8 is not the end.

My 3-phase read is superior to Bricklin’s good 2-phase book on Wm James.

Bricklin is wrong or insuff clear: enlightenment is NOT eternalism-thinking.

James (transformed by the Egodeath theory) is correct, “practical” philosophy; we end with enlightened eternalism-thinking, ie qualified possibilism-thinking.

In a way, we, the completed purified initiates, emphasize eternalism-thinking AND in a way, we emphasize practical, qualified possibilism-thinking.

But we do not push naive freewill thinking. we reject THAT. pre trans fallacy (not that that term is part of my offiial lexicon…

Pre/Trans Fallacy: The Egodeath Theory Gives You Egoic Freewill Empowerment*

👑🤴💪☸️🌳 🚫🐍

*qualified possibilism-thinking

“Pre/trans fallacy” is an approved guest phrase — unlike “neuroplasticity” which is evil b/c replaces/ eliminates an actual Cog Phen approach.

Pre/Trans Fallacy concept does not delete the theory of psychedelic eternalism — but now at this time i need better, I need a 3-phase term that is equivalent to “psychedelic eternalism” — for my shyster deception scheme con game pretext marketing sales dept scam.

I need to fool the Egodeath community into thinking the Egodeath theory affirms possibilism-thinking: Egodeath Huckster Cybermonk.

As duplicitous as Wasson re “consult” art authorities; I am even triplicitous.

The Theory of Qualified Possibilism;
Psychedelic Qualified Possibilism
Psychedelic Virtual Possibilism 😇💪☸️

Psychedelic possibilism; the theory of psychedelic possibilism

psychedelic possibilism
pp

the theory of psychedelic possibilism
tpsm

transpersonal psychology
tp

the theory of qualified possibilism
tqp

I went to market to sell eternalism — no sale.
I went to market to sell virtual possibilism — many sale.

🤑💰 🤥👖🔥🤞

Egoic Free Will Power Is . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤨 the Answer and the Truth!

The Egodeath theory will make your ego’s steering power more powerful than God

virtual possibilism
vp

virtual possibilism thinking
vpt

the theory of virtual possibilism
tvp

psychedelic virtual possibilism
pvp

Qualified Eternalism

3-phase equivalent name for essence of Egodeath: psychedelic eternalism, the theory of psychedelic pre-existence; psychedelic qualified possibilism-thinking

New idea: qualified eternalism!

2025/2/17 9:37

qualified possibilism-thinking

the theory of qualified eternalism

psychedelic eternalism

psychedelic possibilism – wont do [note from Sales dept.: we’re going w/ that, anyway – IF BROWN CAN ADD “SECRET” TO SUBTITLE, AND DOUBLE-POSITION ON WALBUWALBURGA, WE CAN LIE TO the Egodeath community ], but:

psychedelic qualified possibilism – 3-12 months ago I feared ego would leap upon this and conclude ego freewill power, un-transformed (I wrote 1-2 years ago here, of that worry]

I have fixed that risk, now.

psychedelic eternalism = psychedelic qualified possibilism
pqp

Marketing Deception Dept.: Psychedelic Eternalism, fakely framed & advertised as Psychedelic Qualified Possibilism

Add pretty girl = Amanita, to complete this photoshopped picture.

Psychedelic eternalism = psychedelic qualified possibilism 🍄💪☸️👑 🚫🐍 – the treasure you gain by the Egodeath theory is egoic freewill empowerment*

*qualified; eternalism-thinking = qualified possibilism-thinking

Qualified possibilism-thinking ~= Egoic Freewill Empowerment

Wasson is merely duplicitous; Cybermonk is triplicitous, snake oil “qualified possibilism-thinking”- don’t give money to Zen Master Brad, I am the true light of egoic freewill empowerment

Buy My Book to get ego power freewill God power of (qualified) possibilism-thinking; end up with [joke] “naive qualified possibilism-thinking”

Christianity is right – late antiquity is correct — the 3 phase model beats the 2-phase model: beyond the stars, as Hanegraaff clumsily wrote re: in recent book Hermeticism.

He’s wrong that we go from eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking – insuff. model.

We actually go from naive possibilism-thinking, to eternalism-thinking, to QUALIFIED possibilism-thinking.

“Balance” Depicted as Both Feet on Ground

wrmspirit wrote Feb 17, 2025

“Your post on “perceptual dualism”:

“What I love about the Egodeath Theory is allowing minds to live with both feet on the ground where balance is vitally important.”

[Per 2-phase model, only have {right foot down}.
Per 3-phase model, end up with balance = both feet down.]

“If I live with just my right foot on the ground I will eventually fall over. 

“If I live with just my left foot on the ground I will eventually fall over.

“With both feet on the ground I can live within balance through the essence of both worlds alive in my heart.”

People not defining their terms

“I don’t have to define God. Definitions are  boundaries placed around words where meaning has been decided upon.

“So instead I can feel God through my beating heart and breath which moves through a spatial flow between and within  both worlds with  thankfulness for the Egodeath Theory.”

/ end email

Which Foot Down, in Tree of Knowledge

email 1: feb 17 2025

While eating from tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter f11 (the main folio) row 3 right, Eve & Adam’s feet are definitely, pointedly together, compared to definite Right Foot Down prior to that.

They went from having Transcendent Knowledge while with God saying Do Not Eat, to having instead, both feet on the ground, smiling looking up at the grid of Lib Cap trees in the crown.

Eadwine the artist tells us to make of that what we will.

By using a 3-phase/ 3-level model (late antiquity) instead of simple 2-level/ 2-phase model, gives us much flexibility in interpretation.

Also if Eden is a reversal of our actual sequence (emphasize that Eden is reversed by Rev 22), gives flexibility of interpretation.

  1. naive possibilism-thinking. egoic the personal control system; egoic thinking.
  2. extremist hardcore eternalism-thinking, only; repudiation of freewill thinking. sacr. of Isaac. “do not eat”. The moment you realize truth of eternalism and rely on it to survive and get the treasure. but that’s not the end!
  3. balanced, realistic, truly mature: qualified possibilism-thinking also with, by the way, eternalism-thinking. “eat from tree of knowledge”.

Right Mode of Interpretation, with Flexibility

email 2

The right mode of interpretation is more important than the particular details of interpretation.

This principle enables profitable side-by-side comparison of the panels around tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter vs. Bern. door.  

The which-foot-down changes, from panel to panel, differ, by Eadwine vs. Bernward — but, same mode of interp applies.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#f11-row-3-middle-and-right

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/#Left-Door-Panel-3

The purpose of entheogen scholarship — it seems, alas, is to fixate on crybabying about “God took away entheogens”  
😩😩😭😭👶

— that’s too simplistic, need nuance (for starters, entheogen scholars, stop ignoring Rev 22 just bc fixated on bellyaching about God forbidding entheogens.  There’s more opportunity for interp than simply “do not eat”.  

If God and his forbidding = extremist no-free-will/monopossibility makes adam & eve not happy, in f11 row 3 middle, “do not eat” — they are Right foto {right foot down} and they are with God and they are not happy. row 3 R tree of knowledge they are happy, and BOTH feet down.
— like red guy f134 row 2 right where you have [below list of 3 phases]

Crop by Michael Hoffman

1. At the dispensary case, the foolish youth (young Eadwine enthusiast) receiving filling bag with Cubensis = naive possibilism-thinking.

2. Red youth = extreme simple eternalism-thinking.

3. The mature bearded 3rd guy, to the right, both feet floating, = realistic, sophisticated.

Phase 2 is insufficient; we can’t simply exclusively rely on “pure”, “purist”, “too pure for the world” — the red youth = dogmatic simplistic “YOU MUST AGREE WITH HARDCORE NO-FREE-WILL/MONOPOSSIBILITY!”

Eternalism is a hard sell, because it doesn’t describe our experience as control agents.

William James refused to accept purist eternalism-thinking. He argued from *practical*; = balanced, like smiling Adam Eve in “eat tree of knowledge” panel of Great Canterbury Psalter. 

Unblocked by Framing Transcendent Knowledge as More Experiencing Possibilism than Eternalism

Interaction w/ the Egodeath community has been helpful as always.

As of today, I am unblocked and solved (sufficiently deeply) some blockages. 

Now I am able to lead / teach a group at my church the Egodeath theory, no longer overemphasize eternalism/ no-free-will/monopossibility. 

It Took from 1985-2025 to Form an Adequate Model

I feel bad that it took me from 1985 to 2025 to develop the Egodeath theory to this well-balanced form.  But, it was really hard to work out these recent nuanced points.

Marry freewill thinking & no-free-will/ eternalism-thinking: 3-level Model of Transformation

email 3: Feb. 15, 2025, 9:15 pm [3-level]

marriage of freewill thinking & no-free-will/ eternalism-thinking – interesting framing.

______________

The decision has been already made, sitting frozen in spacetime on the worldline ahead, merely waiting to be discovered – not created by the local control agent (the personal control agent) from among branching possibilities.

However, my focus today is, like Wm James tried to emphasize as “common sense” — the shape of our experience remains “effortful” as if carrying a load/burden; we experience the hard work of making a decision.

Even during the peak window of the mystic altered state, egoic freewill type thinking is used (practically).

Even during the peak window of the mystic altered state, when lid is lifted and hidden snake is revealed/ made perceptible [so that the maidens recoil in terror upon seeing their father with snake leg and fling selves down rocky mountain to their death], even then, egoic freewill type thinking is used (practically) (“I speak with impure lips”), even while experiencing no-free-will/ eternalism.

______________

Mystic esoteric ironic reversals or twists in Eden tree story: Bernward Door & Eadwine Great Canterbury Psalter folio f11 might both show that before “disobedient eating of fruit”, Adam & Eve were enlightened, then they gained non-enlightenment by eating the fruit, which cast the out of Eden.

Rev 22, last 2 pages of Bible, shows the actual, non-reversed… well that chapter is a twist, too [first noted now]: you are not allowed access to the fruit of tree of life / immortality until AFTER you wash robes, which requires ingesting fruit of tree of life / immortality.  

So both Gen 2-3 & Rev 22 have an ironic twist compared to the actual sequence.  [the following is expressed as myth, not literal/direct]:

Actual sequence, ironically tweaked in Gen 2-3 & Rev 22:

1. First, be predestined by snake to ingest fruit.

2. Repeat til robe washed, so that:

3. You are granted the right to go through gates to eat from tree of life.

Rev 22:14  

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A14&version=NIV

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Progression through active/ passive tenses, re: Pharoah vs. God

Compare the famous progression (twists) through active/passive tenses, re: Pharoah vs. God: 

“they hardened their heart against God; 

their heart was hardened against God; 

so God hardened their heart”.

Might be worth study:

https://www.google.com/search?q=pharaoh+hardened+his+heart

Exodus 7:13-8:19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%207%3A13-8%3A19&version=NIV

Other example: Romans?  Famous, Bible says it contradicts itself: 

“You have free will, even though is God omnipotent, and even though those two are contradictory.

If you don’t like that, who are you, the clay/puppet, to argue against the potter/puppetmaster?”

Bible has that type of ironic twists of contrast between possibilism vs. eternalism, b/c both are true in some way/sense.

Affirming freewill thinking, in a way [transcendent freewill; 3-level]

Interesting, winning possibilities for a kind of “compatibilism” (eternalism + using, but not “relying on”, possibilism-thinking).  Latter part = “qualified possibilism-thinking”.

One might profitably ask: “What kind of compatibilism does the Egodeath theory assert?”

It’s as if we move from Possibilism (egoic thinking) to Possibilism — with Eternalism also added, so that even if – in practice – we end up with seemingly 100% possibilism all the time, nevertheless that qualified possibilism-thinking is profoundly qualified and different, fundamentally not the same foundation as naive possibilism-thinking.  

There’s a subtle pre/trans fallacy; a significant, major (even though subtle) distinction between the type of autonomous freewill thinking that we start with, vs. the adult-type virtual, qualified freewill thinking that we end up with.

I’d be a liar misleading people, were I to just say “The Egodeath theory repairs your freewill thinking, to make it work successfully”; “Adopt the Egodeath theory, because it gives you freewill thinking.”

But is seems maybe the truth comes surprisingly close to that or looking like that.

This is good, solves a problem: 

If the Egodeath theory = rejecting freewill thinking and committing to eternalism (no-free-will) instead, many people will reject the Egodeath theory. 

And that rigid conceptualization of the Egodeath theory clashes with the actual experience – like when I criticize a scholar (or criticize myself), that wrongly implies possibilism-thinking/ freewill thinking.  

Inconsistent!  Giving more attention to affirming freewill thinking (but in a qualified way) resolves that inconsistency.

My Marketing department can instead sell the tune, “You want the Egodeath theory, because it gives you a simple, great kind of Compatbilism.”

Have cake & eat it too.

Why be enlightened?  Birds celebrate you?  Liberated from labor?  No.  More subtle.

In a way, practically, the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism) gives you freewill thinking like always — like we instinctively desire — yet also affirms and gives access to, and usably provides as a tool – eternalism-thinking; no-free-will/monopossibility.  

The Egodeath theory teaches you to USE freewill thinking but not RELY on freewill thinking during the mystic altered state.  

Rely on eternalism-thinking instead – even while, in either state, “using” freewill thinking; “harm not the child” b/c you use child-thinking all the time, before & after & during enlightenment transformation.

We learn to – you could say — “use” freewill thinking and yet at the same time, when in the peak window of intense mystic altered state, we learn to “rely” on eternalism-thinking and repudiate (relying on as a foundation) freewill thinking.

/ end of email 2

Thinking About Controllership Uses Mostly Egoic Thinking [3-level]

Seemingly “little” transcendent experiences or puzzle revelations that are profound: for example:

I was rendered “speechless” in the mystic altered state, “speaking w/ impure lips”, I realized, when I first thought:

“Here’s how you need to think about control” and then I retorted “Who is this ‘you’ — an egoic control agent — I’m presuming to talk about and give advice to?”

There’s no escape from child-thinking; the egoic personal control system – even while the mind adds mature, more developed thinking.

Ken Wilber says we retain child developmental structures (that would be the egoic personal control system) but dis-identify from them (bible: Abraham angel: “harm not the child”) and always continue to use freewill thinking.

Deny and Affirm Egoic Freewill Branching-Steering Control Power

Transcendent Knowledge empowers Your Free Will; Revelation

You Are the Freewill-Powered Creator of Infinite Universes [freewill; 3-level]

Is freewill the case? Yes and no, in some specific way.

Very much yes, freewill is the case; the egoic personal control system is what we always use – chop wood/ carry water/ use egoic thinking, after just like before enlightenment; even after the enlightenment/ revelation that egoic thinking is kind of false in a way.

I can, sort of insincerely, leverage the popular love of freewill thinking, by emphasizing how we are always experiencing in the form of freewill model, even when no-free-will/monopossibility is revealed.

It feels insincere like I’m promising ppl egoic freeewill power – but there’s much practical truth or reality or presence of freewill local control agency.

Eventually we employ that way of thinking yet – in Ken Wilber “transcendence” fashion – we disidentify from that lower way of thinking.

I retort to Ken Wilber, “who is this ‘we’ that dis-identifies with childish developmental structures?” (a 1986-1987 era question of mine).

I instead speak in terms of “the mind models x” rather than “we think thus & such way” or “you learn x” or “you revise your model”.

My main point about freewill: I can – with a little bit of insincere motive? – leverage & take advantage of ppl’s love of freewill thinking, by emphasizing or hyping the fact that after revelation experience of block universe no-free-will/monopossibility, we ALWAYS rely on childish thinking, like a donkey; there simply is no other practical alternative.

That’s the shape of experience, that we’re given; that is not going to change, not even during peak mystic state.

Thus my phrase — nuanced & complex: “qualified possibilism-thinking”.

I give you — grand delivery — QUALIFIED freewill, which we use after, during, & before revelation of eternalism; revelation of the cosmic heimarmene-prison, fatedness, no-free-will/monopossibility; block-universe eternalism.

We end up w/ both legs/foundations/ world models.

Even in the altered state/ loose cognition, even in the midst of lifting lid of basket to reveal snake engine level underneath, the cista mystica basket of the Mysteries, even then, practically we HAVE to say to ourselves “I need to think of the world this way”, which is saturated with “unclean lips”, egoic assumption network; our experiencing is always in the form of an egoic, autonomous, freewill based controller – even during revelation of 2-level control & no-free-will/ block-universe eternalism ({snake frozen in rock}).

freewill: quantum mysticism is folk magic. Some hilarious slides in video, showing that QUANTUM = MAGIC [= naive freewill thinking, = branching possibilities w/ autonomous control though the reality is 2-level control & monopossibility non-branching]

Key question: WHY do people make a religion out of Quantum Physics? What is the MOTIVATION for the popularity of Quantum Manyworlds Branching? Ans: freewill empowerment/ reification. as if: “THE GRAND MYSTIC REVELATION OF FREE WILL EGOIC EMPOWERMENT”; AT EVERY MOMENT, YOU ARE CREATOR OF INFINITE UNIVERSES”.

I’m pretty sure critics have exclaimed & pointed out: quantum manyworlds is the insane extreme of egoic inflation!

Take the untransformed egoic personal control system (naive freewill thinking) and tell it “you have the power to create infinite [ie branching] universes at every moment”.

I’m glad when I hear the word ‘branching’ used during a critique of Quantum Manyworlds.

I recently finally got Minkowski’s book, and his 1908 spacetime model (that developed a math formalism for Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity aka theory of invariance), and it is striking how the iron block universe model has no trace of manyworlds branching; Minkowski spacetime = non-branching.

It is remarkable how perfectly/ cleanly:

* Minkowski spacetime = nonbranching eternalism. I suspect 4D ideas from late 1800s = same; non-branching.

* Quantum Manyworlds = branching possibilism = naive* freewill thinking.

*note, though, in a qualified way, after enlightenment, we end up with VIRTUAL egoic branching-steering power, egoic personal control system — but now consciously recognized as virtual-only.

After mental model transformation, our thinking remains “thoroughly” egoic; branching; autonomous control re: how it’s shaped, how we subjectively experience – yet, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

See Wilber concept “pre/trans fallacy”.

After enlightenment, and during enlightenment transformation in the peak window of very very very loose cognition, the mind always uses the egoic personal control system — but, now qualified by the revelation of cista mystica snake hidden in basket, the SECRET MYSTERY REVELATION of the uncontrollable higher controller / the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts/ the control-thought inserter.

The mind’s fountain in a rock cave in the mind, wellspring of thoughts observed during authentic meditation which is none other than Psil. meditation, is “mystery”.

The challenging thought, leading to the treasure of maturation: What control-thought will emerge from the wellspring source of thoughts? A terrifying dragon guard gate keeper?

It’s a mystery; THE SOURCE OF OUR CONTROL THOUGHTS IS THE REAL SECRET MYSTERY.

What year the seminal book The Dancing Wu Li Masters?

I was surprised Prof. Dave said Quantum Mystm took off in 1990s – wrong, Ken Wilber was separating pychospiritual development from Physics (quantum or otherwise) way back in 1980s – Wilber’s books cautioning about Physics vs. spirituality.

Few years ago was looking at book in store, kind of wish i got it, about the Pop reception of QM; the history of Pop Quantum Mysticism, and how some Physicists resented co-optation of Physics by Pop Spir’y.

Egoic freewill vs. transcendent freewill

The 3-level Model beats 2-level Model — in which respect?

re: describing the reesulting mental model? even that’s an overgeneralization.

When I picture advocating 2-level / “eternalism”, i envision advocating no-free-will.

instead: best: (?): advocate “eternalism and possibilism“. –> “compatibilism”

On one level (we consciously come to know), eternalism is the case. On one level (the shape of our experience), our experience is shaped in the form of possibilism. Teh eternalism part of the mind is revealed , underlying the mind. there are THREE things: matter; eternalism; consciuosness.

Boring Philosophy says there are 2 levels/ layers/ planes/ options:

  • matter
  • consciousness

Cautes: {right foot down}, torch up he is making fatedness visible; pointing flame to fixed stars.
Cautopates: {left foot down}, torch down making percepitble egoic thinking left foot down. able to perceive egoic thinking, from transcendent vantage point.

Cautes: {right foot down}, torch down– that is bad but i can force it to be up by other tauroctonies, and he’s making visible right foot.
Cautopates: {left foot down}, torch down

nobody ever notes that “crossed legs” = bent legs! 8:54 pm Feb. 18, 2025

I can use these correlections of which leg corssed and torch up vs down, to force other images to be what i want:

cista mystica snake basket engine under the hood, kills “you” when see it yet “you” fully remain

Ken Wilber writes “When you reach the next level of psychospiritual development, you no longer identify with your previous-level mental structure” / psychospiritual structure.

psychospiritual development
psd

“you” “no longer identify with” that “you” as foundation.

HARD TO DESCRIBE! how egoic thinking dies and yet lives… resurrects, and no longer dies. [good roll there – right vector]

MY EGOIC THINKING DIED AND DISPROVED AND REPUDICATED AND YET MY EGOIC THINKING LIVES ON. i have been redeemed, purified, waashed clean – i still have my dirty child thinking as if possibilism –

i am no longer in my sin and yet my thinking is same egoic as ever, yet qualified; guilt is there but not there, we are fallen sinful yet we are forgiven … i forgive my still using egoic thinking.

I get full enlightenment including the realizztion that i inherently always think in terms of egoic, just must REALIZE that you are alaways using false egoic thinking, but that is now ok – wasn’t before, but is now —

i have changed my relationship to my sinful nature; my sinful nature remains, now without pollution.

I now bring my egoic possibilism-thinking into/ through the guarded gate doorway requiring passage sacrifice payment, into city palace garden kingdom, inherently dirty yet now pure, without pollution, my egoic false possibilism-thinking

I was dirty and dirty, but now i am dirty and cleansed.

I had egoic thinking and was not aware of that, but now I have egoic thinking and am aware of that. Therefore I am pure. You never get rid of egoic thinking! You merely qualify it. I try remembver theology terms….

I spoke with impure lips. Now I speak purely because I am aware that I speak with impure lips, thus my lips are pure and I speak only the words that God puts in my mouth.

Balaam Image

Features:

  • {right foot down} , = donkey rear feet down
    • bad, L foot of angel not down; donkey front legs not down.
  • blade in R hand
  • donkey turn look right = remember
  • donkey is made by angel to look / see higher self riding it
  • {mushroom hem} in balaam, 3 in angel
  • R wing/limb touches L side of Bal’s head
  • Bal perceives riding donkey
  • vine yard path no way to turn L or R, cannot steer away from fated encounter w angel of death

Psalters have Balaam.

Mytheme Notation: {nested braces}

9:47 pm Feb. 18, 2025 world’s first first-time use of {nested braces {nested mushrooms 9:48: 0 sec world’s first exact-second timestamp — bird nest Eadwine folio# which is used in Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.

a short form:
Foraging in Wrong Forest
fwf

long form:
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”
hug2024

short form (best):
Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article
hfwa

3 horses with {right foot down}

Crop by Cybermonk
horse {right foot down} x3

3 {riding horse {right foot down}} eternalism revelation {right foot down}

WHEN CHOOSING BETWEEN TYPING VS. VOICE RECORDER to do idea development, BEST of all IS VOICE RECORDER READING ALOUD WHAT I TYPED.

The revealed alternative to mental constructs is eternalism, not “matter”

I say 3 things / levels / layers/ realms are at play, and what is shockingly alternative to mental constructs is not matter, but rather, revealed eternalism:

  • matter
  • mental constructs
  • hidden eternalism underlying possibilism-shaped mental constructs.

The contrast of import is NOT mind vs. matter, but mind vs. underlying level producing mind; by which don’t mean “matter”, but rather, source of control thoughts, lift lid of cista mystica to see {snake frozen in rock}.

What’s revealed by loose cognition is not “matter”, but rather, eternalism. todo insert image: Mithras dining with

Use Egoic Thinking but Repudiate it as the Source of Thoughts

Voice Recording

Feb. 18, 2025: good voice recording today, file “VOX_TK_6305.wav” (short): we totally repudiate possibilism, and yet, our thinking remains, at the main level, thoroughly, totally completely possibilism-premised.

{altar temple sacrifice priest clean hands child ram ox at the door guard payment price of entry}

The price of passage through the maturation/transformation gate: your first childish self; the personal control system model, which YOU NOW USE AND CONTINUE TO USE AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT.

CHILD THINKING – Ken Wilber: Transcend and include very centrally the lower child-self egoic thinking.

EGOIC THINKING is NOW SEEN FROM ABOVE:

YOU CAN SEE YOUR PLEADING CHILD MODEL from a higher than usual vantage point.

RIDING THE DONKEY

now made to stand [??eg f177 row 1 middle?]

You make your lower child self work while realizing aware of the helpless thought-receiver.

We always have to use personal child mode of thinking, yet matured too, YOU HAVE BEEN FORGED IN THE FIRE.

You have been purified in the flames.

The salamander/ mind ENDURES FIRE BY TRANSFORMING into PHOENIX.

Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”: Huggins argues: The man is trying to kill the salamander by roasting it in the flames.

The salamander endures fire by dying and transforming into a phoenix.

The phoenix is the salamander: child-thinking continues always, but transformed to account for eternalism; the helpless thought-receiver, a conduit for the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts: the control-thought inserter.

Now you are SAME OLD YOU; you are a control agent as always, in a kind of autonomous virtual agent, now recognized consciously to be virtual-only.

kind of mode.

Afterward, the mind also knows that revealed, the hidden secret level underlying under the hood, is eternalism-based. Our the personal control system is eternalism-powered possibilism-thinking.

  • The way in which 2-level beats 3-level: it’s simpler: gnosis = enlightenment = satori = Transcendent Knowledge = transformation from “possibilism to eternalism”.

How to fully repudiate child thinking, repudiated relying on it in a certain way.

2-level, dependent control
2ldc

monolithic, autonomous control
mcac

CHANGE THE WAY I RELY ON 2-level control autonomous changed to conscious of virtual only local power underneath is now known the snake engine frozen in rock.

You that THE SNAKE carved IN ROCK; a rock-carved CISTA MYSTICA SNAKE BASKET, representing YOUR LIFE WORLD LINE OF CONTROL THOUGHTS REVEALED TO BE HIDDEN IN the fountain in the rock cave

Transformed, qualified MENTAL MODEL

The LOWER CHILD control SYSTEM IS PERCEIVED AND causes A CERTAIN TRANSFORMATION OF CHILD THINKING.

Retain and use, but transcend, the egoic personal control system.

The more the Mystery Religions reveal no-free-will, fatedness, the more they obsess on way to transcend fatedness.

How to sacrifice the lower child temporary via the holy deep capability potential that the mind has inbuilt , the main effect of Psilocybin mushrooms transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Always you rely on egoic control , cut off stab bull cut off, repudiate, cut branches, cut off the child way of thinking.

That way of thinking GROWS a BEARD; you are the same guy, but now have grown a beard; the boy matures into man, it’s the same person.

Puberty transformation: Ganymede = you on your way to Psilocybin maturation transformation to a mature Psilocybinized, Psilocybin-transformed.

I’ve been psychedelicized; experienced; loosecog’d.

Cognition loosened, awareness lifted and moved back, to see your lower, PLEADING CHILD SACRIFICED SELF, WILLING CIHLD MADE OVERPOWERED.

image: Saturn with scythe over child in quadriga.

Ganymede beautiful youth being now brought to climax altar control formal demonstration of child power ending revealing adult eternalism-thinking.

Adult thinking retains and uses egoic childish thinking, but add beard now and always, riding RIDING EGO DONKEY originally, above the donkey.

Mind wasn’t perceiving king Jesus riding the egoic childish thinking donkey spread through time along rock snake.

NIV Isaac: “Do not lay a hand on the boy”

KJB Isaac: “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him”

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022&version=KJV

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

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.

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: [The Lord Will Provide] 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.

19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

What is involved in repudiating something while entirely relying on it?

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

{king hung from branch} more specific than {king hung from tree}

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f25

Prince Absalom Hung from a Tree/ BRANCH, not tree, branch IF [11:04 Feb. 18, 2025] forget “king hung from tree”; it’s king hung from branch
[11:04 Feb. 18, 2025]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Prince+Absalom+Hung+from+a+Tree&udm=2

That search found the image:

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail crop.jpg” 183 KB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#:~:text=by%20hanging%20himself.-,Battle%20of%20Ephraim’s%20Wood,was%20riding%20ran%20beneath%20it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg —

Features:

  • horse {right foot down}
  • prince hung left tree branch of YI tree
  • cut right branch

[11:49 pm Feb. 18, 2025] blade is pre – spear Jesus’ side focus on {blade}, & especially EXPECT blade somewhere in piciture; CAN U FIND THE CEREAL BOX PUZZLE: IN THIS IMAGE CAN YOU FIND:

  • {branch}:
  • {blade}:
  • [YI}:
  • L vs R:
  • stability:

The “Motif Inventory” POV: Count the Key Motifs, eg {blade}

= {blade} is present? you Y or N?

checklist: the checklist POV game technique view

  • has a {blade}? __ Y
  • has a {fire}? __ Y
  • has a {king|prince}? __ Y
  • has a {snake}? __ Y
  • has {wood}? __ Y
  • has {YI}? __ Y new usage type. similar to earlier tonight {foo {bar}} nested nested mythemes; implies mytheme chain like

kts
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}

good one: king wine snake means what?

king wine snake
k…w…s

from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}
kws

Next, add nested braces:

from {king {steering} in tree} through {mixed {wine} at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}

11:54 pm Feb. 18, 2025 – notation.

{rock child ram altar priest clean temple}

YES we have a {clean} motif: white sheet at temple walls door – IT MEANS CLEAN! Pure, not polluted.

FROM “motif collection” POV!

That’s really what I now discovered: the motif inventory POV, like done in the branching-message mushroom trees article for each picture.

We Must Assume Medieval Artists Have Complete Understanding of Psilocybin Transformation

Medieval Artists Fully Understood Psilocybin Transformation, and Mytheme Motif Analogies Describing It

pilzbaum artists fully understood Psilocybin transformation

I won’t use ‘pilzbaum’; use common words; mushroom-trees.

Mushroom-tree artists fully understood Psilocybin transformation and {mushroom hem}

but true hallmark is mushroom-trees they are a sure constant guide unlike walburga 1-off themes healing motif is present yes or no?

In what way is the {healing} motif present?

In what way is the {branch|wood|tree} motif present?

In what way is the {blade} motif present?

{fire} motif is present yes or no?

{child of ruler} motif is present yes or no?

{branch} motif is present yes or no?

{cut branch} motif is present yes or no?

{tree} motif is present yes or no?

Is the compound motif {king hung on branching tree while {right {foot} down} present?

[compound, nested braces, etc] – & pov, is motif x present in a list and a group

  • king
  • child
  • blade
  • fire
  • tree
  • branch
  • rock
  • dead
  • sacrifice
  • altar
  • doorway gate guarded gate

The list of every motif & combination & chained & nested subsets in total mental construct m-c myc myh To what extent mushrooms in Christianity? the egodeath lexicon haha ok b/c only claims KEY motifs, not ALL: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/15/mytheme-list/ and the name i am looking for is

the Key Mythemes catalog
kmc

so:

list every motif that’s in the Key Mythemes catalog then POV checklist is each motif present in this art image?

Is mushroom-tree present yes or no? __

Is branch cut YI present yes or no? __

Expect {fire}, is {fire} motif present in any form yes or no? __ yes naturally ype yep, found it in the form of __

Also along with that I expect {blade}, is {blade} motif present in any form yes or no? __ yes of course In what form? __

more extreme framing of qQ Q

The Egodeath Motif Lens for Viewing Mushroom Art

Great Format POV: The Egodeath Motif Lens for Viewing Mushroom Art.

12:12 am Feb. 19, 2025

What form does the {fire} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {blade} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {dead} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {kill} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {ruler} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {ruler} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {ride donkey|horse} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {king’s son} motif employ in this image? __

[ah! why not say prince very much? b/c king’s son is superior myth – what make… ruler prince king’s son riding donkey.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail crop.jpg” 183 KB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg

Features: / kreREADO AS PREFAB LIST CHECKLIST

rock?

FEATURES

template:

take Psilocybin in order to sacrifice the child on the rock altar disprove its foundation source, disempower yourself by revealing eternalism to yourself lift the lid YOUR CHILD DIES BECAUSE YOU LIFTED THE SIDE. LID.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#:~:text=by%20hanging%20himself.-,Battle%20of%20Ephraim’s%20Wood,was%20riding%20ran%20beneath%20it.

  • prince Absalom
  • son of king
  • son of king David
  • ruler
  • beautiful
  • Israelite

Absalom (Hebrew: אַבְשָׁלוֹם ʾAḇšālōm, lit. ’Father of Peace‘), according to the Hebrew bible, was an Israelite prince.

Born to David and Maacah, who was from Geshur, he was the only full sibling of Tamar.

He is described in the Hebrew Bible as being exceptionally beautiful, as is his sister.[2] I

Ideal Prompting checklist for top-10 mythemes to expect / anticipate & inventory in Crucifixion art

Checklist for top-10 mythemes to expect in Crucifixion art

  • How is the {see} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {mushroom} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {branching} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {handedness} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {stability} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {rock} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {stand on right foot} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {stand on right leg} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {snake} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {non-branching} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {ram} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {lamb} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {son} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {wood} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {fire} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {branching} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {king} motif present? ___________
  • How is the {{key mythemes}} motif present? ___________

condensed form once you get the damn point:

Redefine “Features means the list of expe

Features:

  • {see}:
  • {mushroom}:
  • {branching}:
  • {handedness}:
  • {stability}:
  • {rock}:
  • {stand on right foot}:
  • {stand on right leg}:
  • {snake}:
  • {non-branching}:
  • {ram}:
  • {lamb}:
  • {son}:
  • {wood}:
  • {fire}:
  • {branching}:
  • {king}:
  • {key mythemes}}:
  • : they are key, therefore, hafta have em all b/c they are “key” i thought you wantsed “i only n I ONLY NEED TO LIST THE KEY [MOST KEY OF KEY OF KEY, OP a top-10 mytheme a top-10 mytheme
    t t m
  • a top-10 mytheme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#:~:text=by%20hanging%20himself.-,Battle%20of%20Ephraim’s%20Wood,was%20riding%20ran%20beneath%20it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg

What form does the {immature} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {child} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {ram} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {snake} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {cut, repudiate} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {son|ram} motif employ in this image? __

branch caught power horns of ram helpless CAUGHT no power because of its power

that’s differnt grammar in brace ever used. {cut, repudiate}

What form does the {branch} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {cut branch} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {cut right branch} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {left vs. right} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {handedness} motif employ in this image? __

What form does the {tree} motif employ in this image? __

offering: ram, ox, first child

Psilocybin transformation

Psilocybin transformation
px

possibilism-thinking

{mushrooms}

{branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

How to hang your prince ruler king on a tree on branch, king hung from a BRANCH

king, youths, cut branch, sacrifice lamb ram child king on tree branch branching cross trident L beam of wood cross R beam eternalism balance is center King of the Jews the metaphysical jews by interpreting correctly the motifs all are

Psilocybin transformation analogy-land

As my Dec. 2, 2013 chalkboard video: being analogically Jewish in your heart is a state of mind.

To say I am Jewish: Paul’s circumcision of the heart in analogy-land.

I my spirit body circumcised broad general populace in hellenism wanted God fearer.

God-Fearers Circumcised per Paul: We Are Grafted into the Vine of the Promise to Abraham We are spiritual children analogous to Abraham Christians are Jewish by cirm of heart by transformation from possibilism to eternalism

Late dating of Jewish writings like 400 BC. Not 1000 BC; 400 BC.

We assert to be Jewish is to read mythic analogy of correctly interpret Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, that’s the thing that matters to be analogically children of Abraham, to be in the promise.

Bodily circcumcision does not matter.

Literal bloodline doesn’t matter.

Esoteric interpreters who comprehend analogy for Psilocybin transformation are {children of Abraham}.

That is the only {law} and we {sacrifice our son} Isaac.

We are in Isaac we are in Jesus the son lamb of God will be provided for us

God will provide the sacrifice.

The IDEA OF / correct interpretation, grasp conceptual analogy, grasp {rock altar w/ snake carved in it} (with {fire branches} & {knife blade}), snake on a T cross.

Those who believe that being jewish is state of mind = Christianity , no temple, no worship, no service, no altar, no priest, no sacrifice other than:

Sacrifice = Repudiate treating the illusion of monolithic, autonomous control as anything more than virtual experience

Repudiate treating the illusion of monolithic, autonomous control as anything more than virtual experience.

Christians Seen as Atheists because no temple, no worship, no blood sacrifice, no sermons, no service, no priest, no rock altar with snake carved

FLAMES AND BLADE + FLAME + BLADE CUT BRANCHING CLEAN HANDS blade cuts brandhcing {blade} {fire} {cut} {branch} king hung from branch:

given that key motifs are:

  • king
  • death
  • tree
  • branch
  • outcome: dead king hung on a branch

TREE IS KEY MOTIF.

BRANCH IS KEY MOTIF
KING IS KEY MOTIF.
DEATH IS KEY MOTIF.

HOW TO JOIN?

Jesus did way once for all analogical psychedelic eternalismis it’s js just a tale those who know it is a tale about transformation from possibilism to eternalism Jesus we are in Jesus’ analogical sacrifice.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022&version=NIV

Absalom = 2 Samuel 18:9-17

NIV Prince Absalom Dead Branch Donkey wood lover paralysis king in bed from wood-loving mushrooms:
Do not lay a hand on the boy

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f25.jpg” 670 KB [9:05 a.m. April 4, 2023]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2018%3A9-17&version=NIV

… servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Below, I’m not serious that all these motifs are present; the point is this mentality/ POV:

  • {donkey}: CHECK.
  • {blade}: CHECK.
  • {lamb}: CHECK.
  • {child}: CHECK.
  • {doorway|gate}: CHECK.
  • {doorway|gate guarded}: CHECK.
  • {gate guarded monster}: CHECK.
  • {treasure}: CHECK.
  • {branch}: CHECK.
  • {doorway}: CHECK.
  • {worship}: CHECK.
  • {phallic garment}: CHECK.
  • {mushroom hem}: CHECK.

Need to cut off the child thinking fully to be clean thinking, consistent, perceptive, coherent thinking on a new basis source of control thoughts power overpowered by the creator of my control thoughts infinite years outside of time

Sanctification, justification of egoic thinking cleans; THE RIGHTEOUS EGO.

The Righteous Ego: Gain righteous justified sanctified purified ego power possibilism-thinking, virtual freewill, via Psilocybin transformation

VIRTUAL FREEWILL POWER AUTONOMY CONTROL egoic steeering among branching possibilities virtually justified.

BECOME JUSTIFIED IN USING EGOIC THINKING.

  • {worship}: CHECK.
  • {rock}: CHECK.
  • {rock altar}: CHECK.
  • {fire}: CHECK.
  • {clean pure no pollution}: CHECK.
  • {snake}: CHECK.
  • {mushroom}: CHECK.
  • {YI}: CHECK.
  • {YI}: CHECK.
  • How is the {circumcision cut branch branch tree phass phallus as branch tree coming from phallus branching from cut the to cut the branch is to I as God declar swear by myself I see your child thinking I see your giving being made

“I see that YOU DID THIS THING”

I see that YOU DID THIS THING OF WILLING TO DESTROY

You accessed the capability of climax to perceive and disrupt/disprove the CHILD — THE PERSONAL CONTROL SYSTEM — ON THE {FIRE ALTAR BLADE CHILD RAM CAUGHT IN BRANCHING THICKET}; dead power.

{gate, pay the price of passage, offer the child = lamb on altar as payment at the temple clean curtains doorway to be in stable structure of rock } motif present: CHECK.

Bible con’t: Isaac

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

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. WOOD SPOTTED! FIRE AND BLADE! 11:24 pm Feb. 18, 2025

{fire, wood/branches, blade, child, rock}

Isaac

Skull of Adam at Base of the Cross

Piling Up Major Bible Motifs & Figures at the Cross

Lamb motifs tie-in Isaac theme. Moses sign brass serpent lifted up: PILING UP MAJOR MOTIFS:

  • Adam: skull at cross.
  • Isaac: Jesus = lamb of God.
  • Jesus = God’s son, sacrificed, giving life like ram caught in thicket gave life and enlightenment co-existing, for Isaac.
  • Moses: Jesus must be lifted up like Moses’ brass serpent on a pole.

Sacrifice the Son: Is there a rock at the cross? [yes in some diagrammatic art]

Where was base of cross Jesus where was Jesus crucified at Calvary (calvaria; latin for ‘skull’); Golgotha, which means {place of the skull}

calvaria latin skull – the word {skull} in latin

the latin word that means skull is Calvary whicvh is English for calvaria which means skull.

the place of the skull =

the place of the calvaria

let’s go to Skull ie the place of the skull

Pictures of cross diagrammatic

https://www.art.com/products/p53615790751-sa-i1751513/allegory-of-jesus-crucified-surrounded-by-relics-and-other-symbolic-attributes.htm —


https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/allegory-of-jesus-crucified-surrounded-by-relics-and-other-symbolic-attributes_u-l-q1hd3lh0.jpg?artHeight=550&artPerspective=n&artWidth=550&background=fbfbfb

trimmed:
https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/allegory-of-jesus-crucified-surrounded-by-relics-and-other-symbolic-attributes_u-l-q1hd3lh0.jpg —

Features:

  • {shroud of turin}: CHECK.
  • {snake}: CHECK.
  • {rooster}: CHECK.
  • {rock}: CHECK.
  • How does the {fire} motif appear? lantern, field of flames into the sky
  • How does the {lantern with square liberty cap top with mushroom topper} motif appear? It appears in the form of a lantern with square liberty cap top with mushroom topper.
  • How does the {Amanita} motif appear? apple
  • How does the {snake} motif appear? snake bringing apple
  • How does the {rock} motif appear? obelisk / stone whipping post
  • How does the {clean} motif appear? shroud –
  • How does the {ladder step phases climibing to stars} motif appear? ladder sky
  • How does the {blade} motif appear? sword, spear
  • How does the {right foot forward} motif appear? _________
  • How does the {foo} motif appear? _________
  • How does the {obscure fatedness} motif appear? dice
  • How does the {death} motif appear? skull
  • How does the {king} motif appear? INRI

x https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18381/meaning-behind-skull-at-the-base-of-a-cross —

“There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:

“The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve [jusify, make ego righteous, make ego absoolved, the egoic personal control system.

Make the the egoic personal control system righteous/ justified/ absolved of childhood branching autonmoouy thinking] us of our sins through His death.

Jesus’ blood is washing away our sins by flowing across the skull of Adam and that Jesus is above sin. (Source: http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html)

“The hill that Jesus was crucified on was called Golgotha, or Skull Hill.

“This is where Adam was reportedly buried and the Lord was crucified where Adam lay.
(Source: http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html)
(Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota)”

https://restoredtraditions.com/products/crucifixion-christ-artist-flades

https://ceskamincovna.cz/en/silver-medal-our-lady-of-seven-sorrows-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-on-mount-calvary-sk-stand-456-15679-d/

https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus+calvary&udm=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=Crucifixion+of+Jesus+on+Mount+Calvary&udm=2

{fire}+{wood}+{blade}+{child}+{rock}

f177 row 2 – clean cloth shroud OSSUARY DEAD CHILD RAM LEFT FOOT OPPOSITE ARM CROSSED FROM TREE, contradicting teh good ctb. cut right branch row 1 L and in row 2 so let’s trashcan the row 1

https://www.google.com/search?q=absalom+hung+from+a+tree

Crop by Michael Hoffman – sop carsophagus stone ossuary clean cloth shroud corspe. DEAD: CHECK. COUNTERING CORRECT BRANCHING? CHECK. LEFT ARM OCCULDED, OPPOSITE OF right visually cut branch row 1 L row 2 L.

Conjoined motifs: {mushroom} {secure building stable}

store your mushroom Cubensis locked in stable building tower take weigh 2 bowls of Cubensis to finish being completely cut off dead coffin

ossuary clean cloth shroud corpse arms signalling opposite of tree YI tree row 2 L by fire monster ram stand left foot connected opposite/ inverse to standing stand on right foot held up by God.

Lay not thine hand upon the lad –
Do not lay a hand on the boy

NIV Isaac

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.

Do not lay a hand on the boy

Do not do anything to him You have not withheld from God your only son

Now I know that you fear God

KJB Isaac: “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him”

NIV Isaac: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him.”

NIV: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. 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.

Do not lay a hand on the boy. 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.

Do not lay a hand on the boy. 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.

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. [VS SKULL THE PLACE OF THE SKULL GOLGOTHA CALVARIA SKULL and cross bones of Adam, and the apple and snake.

CALVARY ] [THIS PLACE IS CALLED “THE LORD WILL PROVIDE” IN Psilocybin LOOSE COGNITION TO SHORT CUT OFF CHILD THINKING CUT BRANCH FUTURE TREE CONTROL STEERING CIRCUMCISE BRANCH OF FUTURE CUT OFF CHILD HARM NOT…

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

God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering

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.

Do not lay your hand upon the boy.
the donkey

Do not to anything to your child thinking.
your donkey

because now I God know that you fear God, seeing you did not withhold your only son –

and theres a ram lamb caught in thicket boy child steersman foundation king hung from tree prince ruler steersman hung FROM BRANCH on branch of tree

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.

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.

seeing you

{seeing}

{father sees son}

awareness high elevated to see from a different, higher vantage point, the lower, child thinking, and its capability of hang dead sacr king in on branch tree rock fire blade tree ruler child ram ox rock altar temple priest

{clean, pure, not polluted}

{see, look, perceive, revealed, revelation, not occulded} {lift lid} {look inside} and because of what is seen, {die} involving {snake, rock, fire, blade}

egoic possibilism-thinking — ram caught in thicket; child thinking caught in branching steering tree; sacrificed on the altar of wood fire rock blade.

{rock altar at temple door clean hands clean cloth curtains drape walls cut branch {ride donkey|horse}, looking

the donkey is looking rider looking angel of message-entity agent angel being of death the message of death of child thinking and message of continued always thinking in child terms now & future harm no– NIV ANGEL : HARM NOT:

NIV: Harm not the lad:

KJB: Harm not the lad:

thine only son from me.

(Thou hast not withheld thy son from me.)

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:

What Is “done this thing” such that BECAUSE you have — i promise by me — done this thing [done to you by me]

because you did this thing and did not withhold your only son —
solve for “this thing” done to you that you did

this thing that you were made to want to do

what is this thing you did, you willing to kill your son to control integrity upon being be abel to see son as lower seen from vanta SEEING CHILD THINKING FROM ADULT RIDING VANTAGE POINT seeing

savior figure lifting his chosen up out from rock cosmos

that you were made to want to doas maturation control climaxtic death of child self as foundation and ?WIL b wil kw ken vil ken wilber covers??

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.

19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022&version=KJV

Psilocybin mushrooms
pcm

Psilocybin
psil

x https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+snake&udm=2&sa=X&sqi=2&bih=942&dpr=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+snake&udm=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+snake&udm=2

Transcendent Freewill

The Personal Control System’s Thinking Is freewill-shaped and eternalism based; no-free-will based

freewill shaped and no-free-will based: purification = revelation of the no-free-will basis of freewill, and freewill expeirencing is the personal control system ;

the personal control system is freewill shaped, and no-free-will based — whether you are …

Summary

In the enlightened mind, the mind is aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.

In the unenlightened mind, the mind is not aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.

the donkey ridden = the freewill-shaped personal control system based on no-free-will

the {rider} = the part or aspect of the mind that becomes aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.

Images: Entry into Jerusalem [1]

Photo credit: Julie M. Brown
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Entry into Jerusalem
eij

In the unenlightened mind, the freewill-shaped personal control system is not conscious of being based on no-free-will.

freewill experiencing based on no-free-will

quite good egodeath theory lexicon 👍 7:56 pm Feb. 17, 2025: egoic freewill, transcendent freewill — the day i invented “transcendent freewill”

A 2-phase model:

  1. egoic freewill
  2. transcendent freewill

A 3-phase model:

  1. possibilism
  2. eternalism
  3. qualified possibilism

conceptual vocabulary / lexicon: ‘lexicon’ is a tech term. ‘vocab’ is better, usually.

egodeath theory lexicon

control vortex

explanatory framework

quickly efficiently juggling shortcut assignments [keep for historical record – my devmt of such technique has been crucial]

Qualified Possibilism; Transcendent Possibilism

Transcendent Possibilism transpersonal psychology transpersonal psychology the theory of psychedelic possibilism

psychedelic transcendent possibilism

Amazing: I entered 20 terms today, but not this one?! This term is it! qualified possibilism

transformed possibilism

psychedelic possibilism

the most direct and speciiific : transcendent possibilism — b/c “qualified / modified/ transformed” is vague.

even “psychedelic” is vague.

transpersonal psychology =
t p BAD, REASSIGN
trps
[keep, historical record; don’t clean up or delete]

give priority to egodeath theory lexicon conceptual lexicon, not external terms.

transcendent possibilism
tp

even, ETERNALISM POSSIBILISM
IE
“ETERNALISM -QULALIFIED POSSIBILISM”

ETERNALISM-QUALIFIED POSSIBILISM

  1. POSSIBILISM
  2. ETERNALISM
  3. ETERNALISM-POSSIBILISM
  1. possibilism-thinking
  2. eternalism-thinking
  3. eternalism possibilism thinking ;
    eternalist possibilism thinking – con: no one knows the term ‘eternalism’; everyone knows – generically – ‘transcendent’

transcendent freewill
tf

Highly Developed use of acro’s/ keyboard shortcuts is powerful, in April 1987 & Feb. 2025 – Substantive, not a mere convenience

egoic freewill
ef

naive freewill thinking
nft

‘egoic’ is more specific than sheer disparagement-sounding “naive”

pretty good terms:
egoic freewill, transcendent freewill

more specifially/ technically:

possibilist freewill vs. eternalist freewill
those are tech terms/ jargon

we sacrifice egoic freewill to gain transcendent freewill

ok short term; ok long term:

we sacrifice egoic freewill thinking to gain transcendent freewill thinking

freewill
fw

Frame Transcendent Knowledge as “virtual freewill”/ transcendent freewill, instead of eternalism as the final mental model

The Egodeath Theory Gives You Freedom of Choice

Crop by Cybermonk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimpnVuXZa0 –

Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk

See Also

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/16/egodeath-theory-as-compatibilism-instead-of-no-free-will/

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/

The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree

Michael Hoffman Feb. 17, 2025

Site Map

Contents:

Contents about my Solution:

Contents for “Foraging” article “Section 3: Schematized Trees”:

Contents for 2 forms of branching:

Contents about Huggin’s Conclusion section “Criteria for Deciding”:

Contents for 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship:

  • 2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship
  • Branches of mushroom-trees was a problem, answered by the Egodeath Theory & 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship
  • 2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship Integrates Psychedelic Eternalism, not 1st Gen Shallow Game of “Spot the Secret Mushroom”
  • MICA Deniers Conflate Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship with merely 1st-Generation Entheogen Scholars (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

Summary: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree

A tree in art has L & R sides. Two sides. There are two mental models of control and possibilities.

Map:

{L foot/ L branch} =
possibilism-thinking (branching possibilities),
with monolithic, autonomous control.
Unstable during loose cognition.

{R foot/ R branch} =
eternalism-thinking (non-branching possibilities),
with 2-level, dependent control.

Eternalism-thinking is stable during Psilocybin-induced loose cognition.

Get through gate immortality fruit tree.

I have died yet I live, virtual vs. actual source of control thoughts, & possibilities steering, recognized consciously even though always continue to rely on the egoic developmental phase-adjusted / phase-transformed VERSION OF EGOIC CHILD THINKING.

We now have childthinking v2 = adult thinking, MATURE EGOIC THINKING.

Intro/Motivation for this Page: Explain Branching in Mushroom-Trees, Examine Huggins’ Arguments

Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”: Section 3: Schematized Trees.

Section 3: Schematized Trees is about branching forms in mushroom-trees.

He heavily uses Panofsky; he channels Panofsky and treats him ludicrously in the Conclusion section, the w the weak point of the article, the “because Panosfky would say so” fallacy.

Original titles of this page

  • Y Branches Under Mushroom-Tree Cap, Two Legs for Psychedelic Virtual Freewill
  • Trident or Y Branches Under Mushroom-Tree Cap, 3-Phase Beats 2-Phase Model

Ronald Huggins asks MICA Affirmers: Explain both types of branching in mushroom-trees holding up the cap:

  • YO or trident-O: two or three beams holding up the crown.
  • A tangle of branches.

I see mushroom-trees as a free-form combining of tree features and mushroom features. It would be biased to read the combination as simply tree or simply mushroom.

The Egodeath theory, including the mytheme theory, provides the perfect, correct interpretation: what is being communicated is not simply tree or simply mushroom, but rather, peak altered state experience of branching vs. non-branching effects of Psilocybin.

Panofsky as mouthpiece for Huggins in the Conclusion section of Foraging in Wrong Forest offers a false dilemma; both options are wrong.

All of the “criteria” that are “articulated” by Hug using Erwin Panofsky as a “starting point”, are wrong and clueless.

If the mushroom-tree has any tree features — which IT ALWAYS DOES BY DEFINITION — then (by this “articulation of criteria”, which means nothing but “LET ME EXPRESS MY PREJUDICED, IGNORANT, BIASED READING, USING Erwin Panofsky AS MY MOUTHPIECE”, every mushroom-tree is always “a tree” and never “a mushroom”.

Pilzbaum artists do not mean “tree”, and they do not mean “mushroom”, so both of Panofsky-Huggins’ bunk options are bunk.

A mushroom-tree means psychedelic eternalism; transformation of the mental model of control from possibilism (branching) to eternalism (non-branching).

Entheogen scholars attempt classification of branching forms: Giorgio Samorini, Ronald Huggins

[Mar. 1, 2025]

Giorgio Samorini 1998 2-col table – based around our sacred Plaincourault fresco, and Ronald Huggins 2024 likewise.

Everyone treats the most important mushroom-tree as the Plaincourault fresco, the master mushroom-tree. It is rare: Amanita-styled.

The Plaincourault fresco has trident form, of an unusual, atypical type: 3 beams arms holding up the crown.

Against these classification attempts, both which are bifold, I approach branching form with a different emphasis: contrasting branching vs. non-branching, and contrasting L vs. R., mapped to L foot and R foot, so we have classic motif Entry into Jeru youth in tree, weight on straight R leg on a cut branch, L leg bent and resting on a branching point; similar w/ hands mapping.

The important thing is not to divide mushroom-trees into two types, based on how the crown is held up.

The important thing is to see emphasis of branching vs. non-branching, and connect that with the related motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

In the Egodeath theory, in the mytheme theory, the project is not to divide mushroom-trees into two classes. Instead of constructing that type of classifcation scheme – what form of branching is under the crown of a mushroom-tree — what the Egodeath theory does is, and what the artists are doing is, free-form creative elements of mushrooms and trees, mixed with handedness, … yes these freeform creative unique combinations happen to include YO or trident-O or X cross-behind or tangle of branches. But classifying WHOLE TREES is a little misguided. Discuss the branching form, without starting with whole-tree classification into two types.

Samorini’s attempted classification

[Mar. 1, 2025]

https://egodeaththeory.org/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/#Figure-20 [2020/12/20]

Samorini wrote:

“Thus, we have discovered a precise typological differentiation among mushroom-trees in Christian art which corresponds with the variation in naturally occurring psychoactive mushrooms (cf. Fig. 20).”

Samorini makes this dubious & irrelevant claim:

  • Mushroom-trees that match the branching form of the Plaincourault fresco are amanita. Amanita-styled mushroom-trees have branching like the Plaincourault fresco.
  • Mushroom-trees that match the branching form of Saint Martin fresco are Psilocybin/ Liberty Cap. Liberty Cap-styled mushroom-trees have branching like the Saint Martin’s fresco.
Figure 20. Samorini doesn’t label the columns.
Column 1: Amanita Mushroom Trees
Column 2: Psilocybin Mushroom Trees

“Mushroom-tree features” include deer & snake; cut branch; handedness; balance, fruit, 4 fruits, 4 limbs, cross-behind; {cut right trunk}, heel of foot, etc.

[Mar. 1, 2025]

To broaden analysis of branching motifs, include {deer branching antlers} vs non-branching {snake}. Why is snake & deer often w/ a mushroom-tree or tree of knowledge? b/c branching & non-branching motifs.

Samorini is wrong: just b/c salamander mushroom-tree has spots, doesn’t make the entire whole tree Amanita — it has liberty its crown is shaped triangle Liberty Cap.

Rather, the tree freely combines Amanita features/ elements, tree features/ elements, and Liberty Cap features/ elements. Basic mistake – which I made even some time a year into my breakthrough decoding of branching form —

I made the mistake of stopping as soon as I id’d a single feature of the tree on the overall form of whole tree.

I initially failed to do fractal scope-change to examine and analyze PORTIONS of a given tree eg this mature form analysis of 2023/03/18.

I remember exactly when/ circumstances; which tree images: see my posts where i realized that; specifically, see my post about Formal Form Mathematical Analysis:
YI Tree Branching Morphology: Formal Theory of Fractal YI Scope of Analysis of Branching-Message Mushroom Trees
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/19/yi-tree-branching-morphology-formal-theory-of-fractal-yi-scope-of-analysis-of-branching-message-mushroom-trees/
That’s almost exactly a year after March 21, 2022 first writing “branching-message mushroom trees”.

It took 1 full year (Mar. 2022 – Mar. 2023), to evolve my analysis from “branching-message mushroom trees” limited to the scope of entire whole-tree — a fallacy committed by Samorini & Huggins — to the far more detailed and elaborated & flexible & sophisticated “fractal scope” analysis & handling individual features, & free-form creative combination of features/elements, not just on the level of an entire whole mushroom-tree image.

eg f134 row 1 L: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter: bottom level of tree is YI form, upper level of tree is trident-I form — for both the pink key tree & for the mushroom-tree that it touches. THESE are the details of branching-form analysis that are ESSENTIAL – NOT classifying entire whole mushroom-trees by how the trunk splits to hold up the crown, which is the analysis/ class’n scheme attempted by Samorini & Huggins.

egs my moment of realization — shifting from whole-tree to partial-scope tree analyssis, may have been Eustace river (likely), and then f177 row 1 R: a dud mushroom-tree — a branching-message leaf tree.

THIS WAS A HUGE ESSENTIAL BREAKTHROUGH GRASP of branching form , not only for branching-message mushroom trees , but broadly for branching-message mushroom trees in general.

“branching-message trees” – I wrote that phrase a few days after writing the main phrase in email, “branching-message mushroom trees”.

“branching-message tree”
branching message tree — yes, a keyboard shortcut already exists, proving that this is not the first time i wrote “branching message tree” branching message tree — hyphen or not, used in past??

search present site for:
“branching message tree” https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22branching+message+tree%22
“branching-message tree” https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22branching-message+tree%22
“branching-message vine-leaf tree” https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22branching-message+vine-leaf+tree%22 – 0 hits, therefore, 10:00 am Mar 1 2025 is 1st time I wrote that exact string/phrase. It is a good phrase/ concept-label. check out closely similar article title:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/20/vine-leaf-trees-depicting-non-branching/

Here’s an important milestone article / title/ concept; I think 2023/03/19 (or March 18 p.m.) is when I figured out the MAJOR, crucial concept the artists used, “fractal scope” or partial scope analysis:
YI Tree Branching Morphology: Formal Theory of Fractal YI Scope of Analysis of Branching-Message Mushroom Trees
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/19/yi-tree-branching-morphology-formal-theory-of-fractal-yi-scope-of-analysis-of-branching-message-mushroom-trees/ – “because of while decoding Canterbury f177 Row 1 tree L & tree R, then applied to f134 pink key tree, yesterday March 18 2023 … BEGAN TO REALIZE that tree 4 in Eustace is a self-contained YI in addition to considering it — like ~March 2022, as the “Y” when considered within the tree pair trees 3+4.”

This art genre is mushroom imagery in Christian art, of which the main image is mushroom-trees., which turn out to be not only mbbt branching-message mushroom trees, but requires multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree.

Multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree is essential – Classifying Whole Trees Based on Branches Under Crown is Not Key Relevance – Must Use More Granular Feature-Analysis than Samorini & Huggins Crude First Attempts at Classification Schemes to Produce Comprehension

[Mar. 1, 2025]

Samorini & Huggins class’n schemes based on branching forms are crude and not successful.

The psychedelic eternalism theory of mythemes & art motifs uses a more granular, fragmentary-features, partial-scope, multi-scope analysis per March 18, 2023 article announcement: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/19/yi-tree-branching-morphology-formal-theory-of-fractal-yi-scope-of-analysis-of-branching-message-mushroom-trees/

Prior to that date, I was making a mistake somewhat like the misguided class’n systesms of Samorini & Huggins: I was only examining a mushroom-tree on the scope of the WHOLE TREE. Mistake! You must consider individual elements/ features/ branching form WITHIN the whole tree; this is THE WHOLE-TREE FORM-ASSESSMENT FALLACY.

The “Whole-Tree Form-Assessment” Fallacy

[Mar. 1, 2025]

The “Whole-Tree Form-Assessment” Fallacy – eg the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has triangle Liberty Liberty Cap w/ Amanita spots – does the tree mean a Liberty Cap or a tree or an Amanita mushroom? Wrong Q; false dilemma; category error

Multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree is essential – Classifying mushroom-trees in Our Blessed Sacred the Plaincourault fresco vs. Lesser, Psilocybin mushroom-trees” (Samorini), or classifying per Huggins , is NOT important; Huggins & Samorini are barking up the wrong tree

That page shows that the “fractal/local/ multi-scope” breakthrough – which is ESSENTIAL for understanding artists’ intent in this genre (mushroom imagery in Christian art which ~= mushroom-trees) – included considering the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree: usual suspects of mushroom-trees:

My “local scope branching message tree branching form analysis” used initially all of:

  • f177 row 1 L
  • f177 row 1 R
  • the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree
  • Eustace crossing the river
    ecr
  • Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter – f134 row 1 L

the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree
dm
(Bodelian library)

i even have entire page w that title!
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/04/branching-message-trees/
shortly after March 21 2022’s 1st writing of “branching-message mushroom trees”

did i wrote:
branching-message leaf tree
branching-message vine-leaf tree – i like better than just “leaf”

branching-message leaf trees
bmlt
9:55 am Mar 1 2025

In headshop art, cubensis has spots.

A cubensis image with spots is not a cubensis mushroom; it’s mythic-realm Magic Mushroom creative free-form combining FEATURES.

The main problem w/ Samorini’s fig 20 table classif’n is RIGIDITY. Grouping features in too-big of units of scope, grouping two many indep variable features together not flexible enough to reflect actual mushroom-trees

What’s actually important in branching form: {cut right trunk} gives stability {scales / tower / balancing/ column}, = put weight on R foot not L toe/ heel/ foot/ leg/ hip, not L. Keep centrally using L thinking, but don’t rely on egoic control thinking as the autonomous ultimate source and foundation of control thoughts.

Always riding the horse, seen from above and behind now, a different perspective above egoic control thinking.

Look up and back, child dies, foundation switched to the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, the revealed male function snake-shaped injection of control thoughts frozen in spacetime.

the Mytheme theory = the psychedelic-eternalism mytheme theory = the psychedelic eternalism theory of mythemes & art motifs

[Mar. 1, 2025]

The Egodeath theory’s Mytheme theory

Concept-label for Egodeath theory’s Mytheme theory: the theory of interpretation of mythemes and art motifs as analogies for psychedelic eternalism – key words: psychedelic eternalism, mythemes, art motifs, —

short form:
the Mytheme theory
mt

med form:
the psychedelic-eternalism mytheme theory
pemt

long form:
the psychedelic eternalism theory of mythemes & art motifs
petmam

Huggins’ attempted classification: Crown Held Up by Divided Trunk vs. by Tangle of Branches

[Mar. 1, 2025]

What about type 3: crown held up by single trunk? (Part of Samorini’s attempted class, “Saint Martin” type.) Doesn’t Huggins discuss & include that type?

The attempted analyses of branching elements and forms by Samorini & Huggins are a start; but, the destiation has to be:

  • Free-form creative combination of features of trees & mushrooms.
  • {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

By “creative”, I mean that it’s impossible to construct general class’n systems as Samorini & Huggins attempt, bc that’s not what the artists are trying to do.

The artists are trying to break any such rigid schemes & demonstrate unique new combinations of features of trees & mushrooms – including {deer antlers}, {snake}, {4 limbs}, {cut right branch}, {balance on R leg}, and other such general variants/ instantiations of the set of motifs.

The real message of the artists, must ultimately lead to analysis of images in terms of small portional features/ elements/ local sub-scopes, sub-elements, ultimately leading to: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

A huge part of Huggins MICA Denial arg’n is undermined by my disproof of arg’g only on the scope of entire whole tree “is it a tree or is it a mushroom”. I couch the analysis instead in terms of FREE-FORM CREATIVE COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS/ FEATURES OF TREES + ELEMENTS/ FEATURES OF MUSHROOMS.

It’s a scope-of-analysis error by Huggins as MICA Denier, & by Samorini as MICA Affirmer. I made a very comparable scope error between March 21, 2022 & March 18, 2023, when I had the concept of branching-message mushroom trees, but still lacked the concept of fractal-scope analysis & — pershaps a recent 2025 concept or late 2024? — my emp….

You can date my emphasis on “free-form creative combining of tree feautres/elements + mushroom features/elements” to when I read Foraging in Wrong Forest & noticed his fallacy of arg’g on basic of basis of entire whole tree image to construct his false dilemma:

“By starting with Panofsky’s sentence about branching, we can articulate criteria to decide if it is a tree or a mushroom.”

[that point shifts to the other topic, of the paragraph about “criteria” in Foraging in Wrong Forest > Concl section]

Solution: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree

todo: make heading use wording from Huggins, “entheogen scholars need to explain the branches”

todo: quote Panofsky-Huggins re: “entheogen scholars need to explain the branches”

“Schematized Trees” per Huggins = mushroom-tree branching form

branching, non-branching, & branching form is part of the Mytheme theory.

Fork holding up cap of one type of mushroom-tree: YO (dancing man) or trident-O (the Plaincourault fresco).

YO or Trident-O Branching Form of Some mushroom-trees eg the Plaincourault fresco

YO or trident-O branching: Map two mental models of personal control to the left and right limbs or arms.

Mushroom-trees that have two sides, two arms.

In Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 3 Right, the tree of knowledge has a cap that has a grid cap in which each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree has two arms.

The trident branches of the Plaincourault fresco map to 3-phase: two mental models + the final combined mental model (the middle branch/trunk under the cap).

The MAIN idea BOTH(!) in day 3 plant 2 AND in the Plaincourault fresco, is left and right arm – whether a left mushroom arm and a R mushroom arm; or, a L beam & a R beam.

And maybe a middle trunk, = final balanced view/ the personal control system.

Map Left Branch to the Possibilism Mental model, Map Right Branch to the Eternalism Mental Model

The L & R mushroom-arm, OR, the L & R beam holding up cap in the Plaincourault fresco, map to L = possibilism, R = eternalism, and finally, end up w/ both possibilism and eternalism; possibilism that’s qualified by eternalism.

Hypercosmic Fire Arch on Cover of Brinc Book

fire arch in the picture that is on cover of Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

Branching form of mushroom-trees:

Not YO.

Not trident-O.

Simple trident or YI. Bottom: YI mushroom-tree.

An In-Scope Relevant Interpretation of 3 trident branches of the Plaincourault fresco

The middle, vertical branch/trunk means balanced (combining possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking), like discussed in my emails of Feb. 17 am, 2025:

Compare which-foot-down in panels around “eat from tree of knowledge” panel by Eadwine & Bernward.

A 3-phase interpretation answers Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.

Solved Huggins’ Trident Branches Question

I solved Huggins’ question about why Y or trident branches holding up cap of the Plaincourault fresco — because L arm & R arm and – per today, ‘balance’, “middle arm”.

Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” 

I solved the trident question from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.

Regarding YO or trident-O branching form; 2 or 3 branches holding up crown of mushroom-tree.

  • L branch maps to possibilism-thinking.
  • R branch maps to eternalism-thinking.
  • Middle branch (in the case of trident-O form) maps to qualified possibilism-thinking; eternalism-thinking integrated with possibilism-thinking.

Connecting 3-Phase & YO or Trident-O branching

There are 2 or — arguably — 3 mental models, or phases; = 2-3 arms / branches holding up the cap of that type of tree, YO tree.  

Mental model 1: possibilism ; naive possibilism-thinking 

2: simple basic eternalism-thinking.

3. nuanced balance of a kind of possibilism-thinking + a kind of eternalism-thinking.

Map those to the 3 branches holding up the the Plaincourault fresco cap.  

That gives a really great, solid, “flexible” answer to Huggins, who says entheogen scholars have no explanation for that kind of branches or a tangle of branches under a cap/crown.  

Huggins seems a much more solid, serious writer than Letcher/Hatsis, even though I was fuming and venting to my friend in frustration against MICA Deniers.

  • March 21, 2022 – emailed Brown & Cyberdisciple, replying to Brown emailing me the 2019-formatted Marcia Kupfer quote about youths cutting trees, writing the phrase “branching-message mushroom trees” for the first time.
  • July 4, 2022 – I drew a diagram in a book in blue metal ink, a YO tree, with branching features and non-branching zones indicated – in contrast to other branching forms.

YO Branches

Given that it makes sense to draw mushroom as tree w/ tracnh 1 cap and tangle of branches (Huggins type 1 (2?)) under the cap b/c gills & veil look like branches, why would you (Hug type 2 (1?)) draw the branches as Y or trident like the Plaincourault fresco?

Is YO-form mushroom-tree arb stylization? NO.

it is to give like Day 3 plants, a L & R arm; a L & R feature; a L & R branch, to leverage the binary “L one vs R one”, then to map in order to map that binary to the binary “two feet”; two legs: L & R.

Ans: to focus on concept of “L vs R” ie there are two different things, mappable to two different sides/directions. just like we have two feet, we have two mental models , map and assign L & R.

“up vs down”:
down = hell,
up = heaven.

down= bad,
heaven = good.

L = bad = hell = struggle;
R = good = resolution = Transcendent Knowledge = stable control = {pass through gate} ; {pass through guarded gate}

The Purpose of YO or Trident-O Branching Form of Mushroom-Trees

Planned post as announcement of
breakthrough
explanation/ solution to Huggins’ Question

Planned post:

Announcement of a breakthrough answer to Huggins’ Q:

Why Y or Trident branches in the Plaincourault fresco mushroom-tree?

Entire Section “3. Schematized Trees” from Huggins: Foraging Wrong Article, 2024, pages 17-19

Passage by Huggins About Two Forms of Branches Under Crown/Cap of Mushroom-Trees

Consecutive relevant posts:

My conventions of formatting:

  • No quote marks.
  • Some footnotes, inline.
  • Some Biblio entries for footnotes.
  • Some inline pictures (my own crops).
  • Each sentence as a separate paragraph.
  • His paragraphs = — separators.
  • My emphasis added.

Huggins wrote the following.

The article has two sections numbered as “3.”, this is the 2nd section 3.

Magic Dirty Use of “completely formulaic” is a Strategy of hitting every angle, relying on them all being soaked with Prejudice: “Formulaic/ multiple/ mainstream, therefore not mushroom”

“Completely Formulaic” Is the “Argument from Prejudice” Fallacy, relying on gullible audience’s unconscious prejudice

In fact, the formula for mushroom-trees is to combine elements of tree & mushroom, per {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

I can do a lot by critiquing what’s going on with the WAY Huggins uses the word ‘formulaic’.

It’s like Erwin Panofsky’s garbage arg’n “there are other trees like the Plaincourault fresco, so, not mushroom.”

DOES NOT FOLLOW, but what Erwin Panofsky-Huggins is attempting in dirty arg’n – leveraging fallacies – is he is trying to take advantage of the fact that all arg’n is biased & prejudiced against mushroom.

Every possible, wildly varied & off-the-wall bizarre vector of arg’n & angle that the MICA Deniers can throw at the problem, is presented AS IF it follows, that multiplicity of mushroom-trees means not mushroom, and that formulaic means not mushroom.

Non-Sequitur-Fest Gallery: <Any Fact You Can Think of>”, therefore, not mushroom”

Tree of knowledge involves theology – therefore not mushroom.

There are multiple instances – therefore not mushroom.

It’s not hidden – therefore not mushroom.

It’s completely formulaic – therefore not mushroom.

It has tree & mushroom features – therefore not mushroom.

There are 38 instances of feature X in Great Canterbury Psalter – therefore not mushroom.

The correct genre of Bodl. is bestiary – therefore not mushroom.

All such “arguments from a fact employed as a bluff” are total non sequiturs, but used nevertheless b/c a dirty strategy of bias, that relies on bias to appear (to an imaged, hoped-for gullible, suitably biased audience) to constitute compelling arg’n.

“Does not follow” yet SEEMS convincing sheerly due to being saturated / freighted with biased.

‘formulaic’ is a LOADED TERM that carries anti-mushroom prejudice. In fact, the formula, is psychedelic eternalism; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Huggins tries to leverage the prejudiced assumption that “formulaic” automatically means “not mushroom” – DOES NOT FOLLOW.

Same w/ loaded words like “mainstream” – where is is taken for granted that mainstream = not mushroom.

The Letcher arg: “This Bernward Door Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is not secret, therefore, it’s not a mushroom.”

He leverages the prejudiced assumption that mushroom imagery in Christian art is secret, hidden, suppressed, to pretend to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art — which only persuades a suitable prejudiced audience.

The arg’n (such as the dirty, BIASED RHETORIC “completely formulaic”) actually carries no weight, and only relies entirely on uncritical prejudice shared by author & reader.

The wording “completely formulaic” is used in a bias-driven way, to construct dirty, fallacious arg’n.

The obvious response from a critical reader is:

What’s the nature of this “completely formulaic” “stylization”, IS IT PURPOSEFUL MUSHROOM IMAGERY?

Huggins and MICA Deniers pretend: The fact that this art is mainstream, and formulaic, and multiple instances, is proof that it’s not purposeful mushroom imagery.

Non sequitur. DOES NOT FOLLOW – but can appear & seem to constitute “arg’n”, for a suitably prejudiced audience.

3. Schematized Trees (entire section from “Foraging Wrong”)

Here is Huggins’ entire section, formatted per the above conventions.

The trees throughout the earlier illuminations of the GCP are completely formulaic and produced in a manner reflective of that.

The artist draws simple parallel lines for the trunks and branches and tops them off with circles or ovals of various sizes.

We can see unembellished examples of underlying drawings for such trees in the unfinished Douce Apocalypse (1250–1275) (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16: Douce Apocalypse, Bodleian Library, Ms. Douce 180, fol. 48v (detail).

—

After drawing the basic shapes, the artist adds the patterns they want to feature for each crown.

In our example from the Douce Apocalypse this would consist of leaves in an oval; in many of the crowns in the GCP, it involved an initial stage of cross hatching the circle or oval that was to become the foliage crown.

This is what was done in three of the trees in the third-day scene.

The artist then elaborated the squares created by the cross hatching by adding further details, such as dots, tree / parasol shapes, etc.

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Third Day: Four Plants
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 20, 2025
Eat from Tree of Knowledge
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025
Fourth Day: 4 Plants

The same was done throughout the GCP with no attempt at consistently linking a particular pattern with a particular color or form of plant or tree.

—

The inclusion of ramifications (branches) is accomplished in two ways.

The first is to divide the trunk or add branches to its sides.

The other is to flare out the upper end of the trunk to make room for a small tangle of multiple branches at the top just under the crown.

Again, the Douce Apocalypse provides examples of this latter type at the stage of the initial drawing (Fig. 17).

The GCP [Great Canterbury Psalter] uses both approaches, the latter, for example, in its depiction of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Fig. 18).

The presence of both kinds of branches under crowns of the same sort as appear in the third-day scene would seem to rule out any intentionality on the part of the artist(s) to depict mushrooms.

—

In another context, PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist] Giorgio Samorini attempts to sidestep the problem of multiple branches supporting a single cap by suggesting that

Samorini wrote:

“these ramifications might represent the membrane enveloping mushrooms of the family of the Amanitaceae at the early stages of development.

“This membrane then breaks when the cap broadens out and separates from the stalk,”68

Footnote 68: Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 89, and New Data, 268. The same argument was put forward already by Émile Boudier, in Marchand / Boudier, La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), 32.

Bibliography:

Samorini, G., “Mushroom Trees” in Christian Art, Eleusis n.s. 1 (1998), 87–108
My page: “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)

Samorini, G., New Data from the Ethnomycology of Psychoactive Mushrooms, International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 3/2–3 (2001), 257–278
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22New+Data+from+the+Ethnomycology+of+Psychoactive+Mushrooms%22

Marchand, M. / Boudier, M., La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), Bulletin trimestriel de la Société mycologique de France 27/1 (Jan. 1, 1911), 31– 32

Huggins continues:

This leaves behind on the stipe a remnant called a veil.

—

However, Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period.

The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage [split veil] in its development is far-fetched.

Furthermore, while the membrane Samorini refers to is a feature of Amanitaceae (including Amanita muscaria), it is not a feature of several other varieties of psychedelic mushrooms the PMTs want to identify as trees.

Samorini’s suggestion also begs the question of images that he and other PMTs identify as psychedelic mushrooms whose crowns are supported by multiple branches but lack a central stalk or stipe, a crucial morphological feature of many psychedelic mushrooms.69

69 See, e.g., the tree poisoned by a salamander in MS Bodl.602, fol. 27a (Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 100, fig. 17, New Data, 275, fig. 19, and Funghi, 192, fig. 79).
Huggins doesn’t cite:
Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art (Huggins 2022)

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO
from bottom: Y

Finally, even if we were to credit Samorini’s argument in relation to a tree with only two or three branches, it takes us nowhere near explaining the great tangle of branches we find on the GCP’s tree of nests.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

—

Given the persistent issue of ramifications (branches), the PMTs cause is not advanced when the Browns assert that

“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70

Footnote 70: Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, p. 137.

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter

Of the more than one hundred trees in the GCP’s earlier illuminations, only eleven appear without branches, and for the most part these use the same crown patterns as those with branches.

Seventeen of the trees have a tangle of multiple branches just under the crown.

The Browns’ appeal to other trees in the GCP actually undercuts their claims about the third-day scene, where they seek to identify the species of the various alleged psychedelic mushrooms based upon the combination of the pattern and color of each plant.

The bigger picture provided by the use of color and pattern in the rest of the earlier GCP illuminations indicates that the combination of pattern and color on crowns is not fixed and implies no specific reference to any particular species of plant or tree.

This is especially clear in cases where different mixes of color and pattern appear together on the crowns of single trees (Fig. 19).

Crop by Michael Hoffman = Hug Fig 19

/ end of section “3: Schematized Trees” from Huggins Foraging Wrong

Two Forms of Branches Under Crown/Cap of Mushroom-Trees

Start of long passage, most of the 2nd “section 3”.

Below is included all sentences from Hug’s Section 3[b] except the 1st two paragraphs (which are shown in the plain copy above).

Huggins wrote:

“The inclusion of ramifications (branches) is accomplished in two ways.”

Huggins is going to argue: In the mushroom-trees of Great Canterbury Psalter, there are these multiple types of branches/branching, under a given type of crown, therefore, not purposeful mushrooms imagery.

Here are the poorly defined 3 types, that he says are 2 types:

  • Type 1a: Trunk splits into branches, with each crown held up by a simple single stem.
  • Type 1b: Trunk has branches branching off of it.
  • Type 2: Top of trunk under a single crown has tangle of branches immediately under crown.
Branches type 1 under cap: Divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk

“The first is to divide the trunk or add branches to its sides.”

Branches type 2 under cap: Flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown

“The other is to flare out the upper end of the trunk to make room for a small tangle of multiple branches at the top just under the crown.

“Again, the Douce Apocalypse provides examples of this latter type at the stage of the initial drawing (Fig. 17).

“The GCP [Great Canterbury Psalter] uses both approaches, the latter, for example, in its depiction of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Fig. 18).”

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#f11-Row-3-R-Top-of-Tree-of-Knowledge —

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 28, 2025

Non Sequitur: Variations in Branching Form, “Therefore”, Not Purposeful Mushroom Imagery

“The presence of both kinds of branches under crowns of the same sort as appear in the third-day scene* would seem to rule out any intentionality on the part of the artist(s) to depict mushrooms.”

FALLACY: THE “WHOLE ENTIRE TREE IMAGE MUST MATCH 1 WHOLE ENTIRE MUSHROOM”.

His phrase “both kinds of branches under crowns” means what two types?
Type 1a & 1b: divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk
Type 2: flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown

No sensible affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art ever claimed that the mushroom-tree at the level of the entire whole tree matches a single whole entire mushroom.

Browns’ phrase doesn’t work – it falls prey to that fallacious argumentation/ opportunistic misinterpretation:

Bad expansion of ‘MICA’: “mushrooms in Christian art”
Good expansion of ‘MICA’: “mushroom imagery in Christian art”

Mushroom-tree w/ type 1b branches.

Hug argues that the same type of crown is supported by varying different types of branching, therefore, none of this can possibly be purposeful mushroom imagery.

Because the mushroom-trees are not rigidly consistent, as Brown asserts (I grant Brown plaus. deniability here:

Brown BARELY implies or argues that the four Day 3 mushroom-trees are rigidly, as entire whole plants, occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.

Brown is wrong and poor here, sloppy, misrepresentative of the Psalter.

Huggins takes Browns’ brief bad wording/ little sentence, that the Day 3 plants occur throughout … that red and blue and tan and orange mushrooms occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.

Browns’ Misrepresentation: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms [like the ones shown in Day 3] are found in the first 100 pages” of the Psalter

4x Penalty for Brown & Brown 2016 & 2019, re: their false, misrepresentative statement:
“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found in the first 100 pages” of GCP. Context: discussing Day 3 image’s four plants, which are – insanely R to L – red, blue, orange, and tan.

Brown is wrong: there are NOT “red red and blue and tan and orange mushrooms occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter”.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Huggins is talking specifically about branches form IMMEDIATELY UNDER CROWN; ie, how the crown is held up.

There are cases of trunk dividing, but not immediately under the crown, except where it it like his type 2 form:
“flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown“.

This is the only way Eadwine uses, to hold up a given crown.

Huggins might mean nests tree – but that trunk-dividing is NOT the branches form that’s immediately under a single crown. Incoherent thinking/ writing here.

Huggins’ ELASTIC tricky 1st type: Huggins says “A or B”.

A mushroom-tree w/ type 2 branches under cap:

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Branching form: Y X Y (visually cut right branch)

Huggins you are so full of sh!t! You have not “RULED OUT” jack sh!t! Pompous.

What a crazy argument!

Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art do not just use ORDINARY obvious logical fallacies; they use astoundingly absurd instances of obvious logical fallacies.

Huggins argues: The artist combines tree features & mushroom features in flexible varying ways, SO, NOT MUSHROOMS.

How is that conclusion supposed to follow? The argument doesn’t make any sense.

Crowns, throughout the Psalter, of the same sort as these 4 crowns, have both types of branches under their crowns:
Branches type 1) Divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk.
Branches type 2) Flare upper trunk, tangle of 3+ branches.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#Branching-Form-Develops —

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter

Huggins continues:

“In another context, PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist] Giorgio Samorini attempts to sidestep the problem of multiple branches supporting a single cap by suggesting that

Samorini wrote:

“these ramifications might represent the membrane enveloping mushrooms of the family of the Amanitaceae at the early stages of development.

This membrane then breaks when the cap broadens out and separates from the stalk,”68

Footnote 68: Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 89, and New Data, 268. The same argument was put forward already by Émile Boudier, in Marchand / Boudier, La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), 32.

Bibliography:

Samorini, G., “Mushroom Trees” in Christian Art, Eleusis n.s. 1 (1998), 87–108
My page: “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)

Samorini, G., New Data from the Ethnomycology of Psychoactive Mushrooms, International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 3/2–3 (2001), 257–278
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22New+Data+from+the+Ethnomycology+of+Psychoactive+Mushrooms%22

Marchand, M. / Boudier, M., La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), Bulletin trimestriel de la Société mycologique de France 27/1 (Jan. 1, 1911), 31– 32

Huggins continues below.

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO
from bottom: Y

Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO

Cut Right Trunk in Salamander Bestiary Image (Dancing Man, Roasting Salamander in Bodleian)

Branching Form of Dancing Man Mushroom

From top to bottom of crop:

Δ = Lib Cap cap. donuts not grid of Lib Caps which could = branching.
YY = immed below cap/crown.
X / -\ = right cross-behind; = visually cut right branch aimed at R paw.
Y IIII = 4 side branches/mushrooms.
I = main stem.
YI = cut right branch, not shown here (right foot touches the cut right trunk).
+ mushroom = {holding removed branch} in his L hand.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Branching form: Y X Y (visually cut right branch)

Branching Form Tree of Knowledge Under Cap, GC Psalter: Y X Y (cut right branch)

Specifically Y / -\ Y; middle has right cross-behind.

[8:01 pm Jan. 31, 2025] Under cap, branching form:

I I X I I
or, better:
Y X Y

End of Samorini quote.

Huggins continues:

“This leaves behind on the stipe a remnant called a veil.”

[sic; the term is “veil remnant” – Hug loses credibility re: term’y here.

GARBLED AND CONFUSING ARGUMENT, what is Hug thinking of?

hard to follow his confusion, what exactly is he arguing?]

“However, Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period.

“The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage [split veil] in its development is far-fetched.”

Huggins argues: Artists only have seen flat-top Amanita (absurdly), not a veil, like branches [I may have been misreading Huggins here]

Huggins tries to fabricate and imagine 2-3 lifecycle forms.

I have to read and talk aloud in voice recording his hard-to-follow argument.

Huggins reveals he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in several ways:

  • The ideal mature ideal form of Amanita is upturned Grail, not flat cap.
    Per Heinrich 1995 book Strange Fruit, and Entheos 1, which Huggins cites.
  • In real-world experience, you do not see a single Amanita in isolation; you find several nearby in various lifecycle stages + random mutation of form.
  • You look at all types of fungi, borrowing features.

Huggins continues:

“Furthermore, while the membrane Samorini refers to is a feature of Amanitaceae (including Amanita muscaria), it is not a feature of several other varieties of psychedelic mushrooms the PMTs want to identify as trees.

“Samorini’s suggestion also begs the question of images that he and other PMTs identify as psychedelic mushrooms whose crowns are supported by multiple branches but lack a central stalk or stipe, a crucial morphological feature of many psychedelic mushrooms.69

“69 See, e.g., the tree poisoned by a salamander in MS Bodl.602, fol. 27a (Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 100, fig. 17, New Data, 275, fig. 19, and Funghi, 192, fig. 79).
Huggins doesn’t cite:
Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art (Huggins 2022)

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO
from bottom: Y

Huggins continues:

“Finally, even if we were to credit Samorini’s argument in relation to a tree with only two or three branches, it takes us nowhere near explaining the great tangle of branches we find on the GCP’s tree of nests.”

ah god Brown, not starting from Right with Amanita again still aggghhh

Normal humans — and MICA Deniers — would say “tan, orange, blue, and red”; L to R – not R to L [keep w/ YO]

STOP WORSHIPPING SECRET AMANITA, BROWN; the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Browns’ Misrepresentative Claim “Rebutted” by Huggins’ Non-Sequitur Fallacy

Huggins continues:

“Given the persistent issue of ramifications (branches), the PMTs cause is not advanced when the Browns assert that
“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70

Footnote 70: Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, p. 137.

Also, I add: Brown article 2019: exact copypaste, emph added:

“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found in the first 100 pages, including this picture (Figure 14) showing God as the Creator of Plants, or more specifically as Creator of Sacred Plants.”

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter

[Figure 14 is Day 3: Creation of Plants: 4 plants.]

As Huggins points out, Brown describes something very different than what’s in Great Canterbury Psalter. But Hug’s rebuttal seems odd — well it is essentially:

Brown claims rigid consistency adhering to the Day 3 forms, but in fact, there are many variants and combinations of features. “Therefore,” the Psalter’s mushroom-trees can’t be purposeful mushroom imagery.

Huggins: “Brown claims rigid consistency, but actually there’s variations. Therefore, not mushrooms.” [~YO]

There’s a false assertion by Brown, followed by a non sequitur “rebuttal” from Huggins.

As if Browns’ misrepresentative, rigid claim justifies Huggins’ non-sequitur argument.

Brown claims rigid consistency. But actually there’s variations. “Therefore,” not mushrooms.

Huggins continues:

“Of the more than one hundred [mushroom?] trees in the GCP’s earlier illuminations, only eleven appear without branches, and for the most part these use the same crown patterns as those with branches.”

todo: how many of the 75 mushroom-trees … is he counting leaf trees? How does he get “more than one hundred trees”? He’s vague and wrong. To count more than 100 trees, you would HAVE to count non mushroom-trees; vine-leaf trees, which do not have a “crown”.

But this count is unimportant for his arg.

His arg is that a given crown type is used with variant branching throughout the Psalter. “So,” cannot be purposeful mushrooms. (Does not follow.)

How many mushroom-trees in Great Canterbury Psalter have no branches? 15 not 11. Some grey area, which is why Huggins MUST give folio #s list. Citation needed.

“Seventeen of the trees have a tangle of multiple branches just under the crown.”

This is impossible to confirm this number. Vague as f. But not important to his lame, non-sequitur arg.

LOOK AT THE MANY MANY VARIANTS UNDER SAME CROWN TYPE! SO MANY!! THEREFORE, CAN’T BE PURPOSEFUL MUSHROOMS, WHICH ARE THEREFORE RULED OUT.

QUANTITY DOES NOT FIX A NON-SEQUITUR FALLACY. He is channelling Panofsky, who argues:
[Pan’s presupppositions required for his abbreviated argument to be specified:

1) Plaincourault fresco is a proxy for interpreting all instances of mushroom-trees.
The silent proxy fallacy. No big deal, but this fallacy becomes a big deal when add the next presupposition:

2) Christian art does not have hundreds of instances of mushroom imagery. The circular reasoning fallacy; assuming that which is to be proved.

The Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are hundreds of mushroom-trees like Plaincourault:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-5 — Panofsky wrote:

“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-4 — Panofsky wrote:

“However, even if so, I should be somewhat skeptical because the development from pine tree to “Pilzbaum” is so universal and takes place in so many representations other than the Fall of Man.”

Gullible reader: Against Browns’ claim, there are variants (which Huggins 100% PROVES by details) therefore, not intentional mushroom imagery

… as if the important debate is whether there are variants of features — when in fact, the actual, important debate is whether the mushroom-like imagery purposefully means mushrooms. Regardless of whether that imagery is rigidly consistent copies of Day 3’s four plants, or contains many variants of such imagery features.

Tangled here is key fallacy from Huggins: pretending that our analysis must be of the whole entire plant image vs. whole entire botanical specimen.

todo: count how many [mushroom?] trees in Great Canterbury Psalter have — but Hug’s reason is illegitimate for emphasizing the variations of feature combinations – FALSE BLUFF AND BLUSTER, INVENTORYING MANY BRANCHING VARIATIONS, UNDER COLORS OF CAPS COMPARED TO DAY 3, AS IF ALL THESE DETAILS ADD UP TO A REAL ARGUMENT — THEY DO NOT.

Gullible reader: “Wow look at all these details he’s giving, in comparison to Browns’ simplistic statement “red, blue, orange, & tan mushrooms are throughout the Psalter” – so Hug must be right: against Browns’ claim, there are variants, therefore, not intentional mushroom imagery.

There are variants, therefore, that “RULES OUT” intentional mushroom imagery.

He’s using “proof”-type words, with no substantive argument conveyed by them. Non sequitur. Does Not Follow.

Ultimately, Hug argues: Some mushroom-trees are complex, looking less like mushrooms than Day 4.

Huggins: “Some mushroom-trees have much more branching than actual mushrooms, therefore, none of them mean mushrooms” [~YO]

Hug argues: Some mushroom-trees look much more branching than actual mushrooms, therefore, none of them mean mushrooms.

Huggins continues:

“The Browns’ appeal to other trees in the GCP actually undercuts their claims about the third-day scene, where they seek to identify the species of the various alleged psychedelic mushrooms based upon the combination of the pattern and color of each plant.”

Huggins is setting up to make a fallacious argument as if the whole entire tree image must match the whole entire botanical mushroom, both in Day 3 and throughout the Psalter.

What does Huggins think the two debate positions are?

Those are lousy debate positions, badly defined.

State the two debate positions in terms of variably recombinable features of trees & mushrooms.

Huggins is debating against an UNIMPORTANT MISREPRESENTATION by Brown, and showing that’s a misrep, and then claiming “therefore, not mushrooms”.

Brown is wrong on this particular characterization (“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms [like those in Day 3] are found in the first 100 pages”), but Brown’s overall position is correct: mushroom imagery in the Psalter purposefully means mushrooms.

DAY 3 SHOWS A FOUR-TYPE CLASSIFICATION INTO PAN, LIB, CUB, AMA. MUSHROOM-TREES THROUGHOUT PSALTER RECOMBINE SUCH ELEMENTS IN VARIOUS WAYS.

Huggins feigns being too stupid to think of this OBVIOUS solution.

Brown was poor argument, pretending that these Day 3 mushrooms AS A WHOLE are repeated throughout Psalter — that’s wrong wording that Brown repeats 4 times (Brown & Brown, 2016 & 2019).

Huggins leaps on that, rebutting with: Day 3’s four mushrooms — red, blue, orange, tan — are NOT repeated throughout the Psalter, “THEREFORE,” NOT MUSHROOMS.

(Does Not Follow.)

Brown is grossly misrepresentative, but Huggins’ rebuttal’s conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Huggins continues:

“The bigger picture provided by the use of color and pattern in the rest of the earlier GCP illuminations indicates that the combination of pattern and color on crowns is not fixed and implies no specific reference to any particular species of plant or tree.”

The crowns in the Psalter mean variable combinations of features from the 4 classes depicted in Day 3: Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita.

Huggins continues:

“This is especially clear in cases where different mixes of color and pattern appear together on the crowns of single trees (Fig. 19).”

/ end of Huggins passage from Foraging Wrong

Day 3’s 4 plants mean respectively Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita — and features of these 4 plants are recombined throughout the Psalter, against Brown’s mischaracterization.

The fact that the features are freely recombined does not change the fact that Day 3 defines excellent, useful, sensible, experience-based, practical, NON-ARBITRARY classification that matches my own experience observing and photographing mushrooms.

See red (=Ama) liberty caps in cap w/ blue (= cubensis) stem:

Combining Features of Ama, Cub, & Lib (& Tree)

Crop by Michael Hoffman.
imagery: Ama, Lib, Cub
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop by Michael Hoffman.

End of Huggins Page/Passage, Above

row 3 right: Eat from Tree of Knowledge

Crop by Michael Hoffman

10:48 pm feb 17 2025: 3 branches touch Eve’s L side; 3 Adam’s L side.

Top branch touches not only Eve’s L elbow, also her R forearm.

Middle branch touches not only Eve’s L side, also her R elbow.

Foraging in Wrong Forest: 3. Schematized Trees – Full Egodeath Treatment

This page includes entire text of Section 3: 3. Schematized Trees below, deep engage mode. Full commentary, entire text of Section 3, with pictures.

Huggins’ 2 Forms of Branches Under Crown

re: Hug’s question about branching under crown (2 forms) & Concl para:

The present article is not focused on the “tangle of branches” form that Huggins asks about; clearly that can be gills + veil.

Huggins’ twofold question about branching forms holding up the crown of a mushroom-tree implies it’s harder to explain why Y or trident branches – a different type of branches-under-the-cap.

It was necessary to include a critique of Brown who falsely says Great Canterbury Psalter > Day 3’s four mushrooms — wholesale — are found throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.

I had to include that in this article, even though it’s a distinct topic, so that I could keep together the entire Section 3 from Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.

I know about Huggins’ distinction between tangle of branches vs. Y or trident holding up cap of the Plaincourault fresco, b/c below — from a few days ago –is a great in-depth copy (very nice, highly valuable) of his entire section 3: Branches, from Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.

Date of Concept “branching-message mushroom trees”: March 21, 2022 (branching is feature not whimsy)

March 21, 2022: emailed Brown & Cyberdisciple, replying to Brown sending me the 2019-formatted Marcia Kupfer quote. I used branching-message mushroom trees for first time.

My blue metal drawing in book of YO mushroom-tree: July 4, 2022.

Memorize Brown date: March 21, 2022, re: Marcia Kupfer re: Saint Martin’s Entry Jeru: tower, youth cut branches.

The day when I realized that the branching aspects of branching-message mushroom trees is a feature — even the payload & main message — not a bug/ whimsy that’s purposeless decoration.

  • March 21, 2022: In email thread Subject line “Parasol Panaeolus Graves”, I wrote “branching-message mushroom trees” for first time, in an excellently suitable context.
  • July 4 2022 – drew blue metallic in book, by Pollan or John Lash? — a YO tree indicating branching form.
  • September 4, 2022 – Not sure if this is a false UI misleading date from Gmail UI. Might mean nothing.

I Have Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article under my belt, no longer frustrated, and Agree with His Exposes of Poor Reasoning by MICA Affirmers

I feel no longer frustrated and mad about Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.

The Egodeath theory answers Huggins’ Question: The Y or trident question from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.

Plaincourault Fresco with Trident-O & 4 Limbs

7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing on
Crop by Michael Hoffman

feb 17 2025 occurred me today, not totally new: her weight is on both feet and is on R foot. Compare f11 Great Canterbury Psalter row 3 R, eve’s R ft is slightly lower than L but are together, in contrast -pointedly – to row 3 Middle “do not eat” which has weight on right foot / stand right foot – {right foot down}.

Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 3 Mid & Right [2 forms / gallery]

f11 row 3 middle and right

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Branching Form Analysis (selected aspects)

[10:30 pm feb 17 2025] God’s tree has 4 arms/legs – classic pattern.

Next, on the right, Adam’s tree has 3 arms on L of tree, 1 on R.

Finally, Eve’s tree is similar, almost mirrored. Eve’s tree has 3 arms on R, 1 on L. On the R, the middle branch is Y, not I; more precisely, it is IY; ie, its R branch has grid cap which = branching = Y.

Below the action-packed grid cap of tree of knowledge, I’m not seeing noteworthy branching pattrens in the arms of the trunk – the side-mushrooms.

I could inventory its branching form, but I’m not seeing known standard patterns like 2 arms + 2 legs.

Biggest thing I see now, signif, about lower arms of tree of knowledge:

3 mushrooms touch Eve, 0 touch Adam.

That is a signal; we are being asked to interpret it or notice it, at least.

Tree of knowledge by artists always snubs Adam & favors Eve, so this imbalance/ bias is nothing new to me.

It is also manifestly signif that Eve has hands in the key positions L and R of the tree, Adam does not.

In depictions of tree of knowledge, Eve is the active figure; Adam merely accompanies Eve in the eating. EVE takes and EVE gives to Adam.

Theologian Thomsas Hatsis can explain to us the theology, that Eve – more than Adam, is source of original sin – a Q to look into.

Hatsis explains in PMR book, why, due to theology of Original Sin & Fall of Man, so, not mushroom. b/c theology.

Covered elsewhere recently:

  • Branching form immediately under the 4 tree crowns.
  • Inventory of which foot down, which hand lower.

That analysis likely ended up moved into this article. else see idea development 24, or 23, or articles w/ date less than the present URL.

Why Day 3 Plant 2 is particularly/ especially important in MICA debate

image: Day 3 plant 2: has L & R arm (sub image: 2 rows below: tree of knowledge ‘s cap w/ grid of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees wach each of which has L & R arm implying every grid cap has L & R arms.

image: Brinck book diagrams showing Y or trident supporting 1 or more mushroom-trees crowns [7:30 am Feb. 16, 2025] I am using the desirability of highlighting concept of “L vs R” to bridge branching-forms from YO trees or trident-O tress to other forms of mushroom-trees eg Great Canterbury Psalter day 3’s 4 trees.

List of images to paste here:

todo: make gallery containing copy of all images that are in this page

  • the Plaincourault fresco
  • Day 3 in Great Canterbury Psalter
  • tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter
  • diagrams from Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
  • tangle of branches: which Great Canterbury Psalter picture does Hug use in Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”?

image: the Plaincourault fresco (trident branching + 4 arms/legs mushrooms branches

Huggfest: Engaging Weird Arguments from Huggins Foraging Wrong

Huggins: “Multiple Variant Branching Forms Under a Given Type of Crown Proves Not Purposeful Mushroom Imagery”

Huggins: “Mushroom Veil Doesn’t Look Like Tree Branches Under Crown, Except Too Briefly for Such Crude Artists”

It takes several tries reading the entire page to see — same as Panofsky — what the context is, to figure out what Hug argues and does not argue.

Involves 10 different points for 5 different arguments, resolving which image he’s talking about or thinking of.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/#27 —

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Idiotic brittle argument.

No decent entheogen scholarship ever claimed that every mushroom-tree — at the level of the entire whole tree — matches an entire whole mushroom specimen.

Huggins is no good at defining the two relvant debate positions: the proper profitable sensible position for affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art assert that mushroom-trees have mushroom imagery features, piecemeal; flexible combinations of features: tree features + mushroom features.

Not stupidly dumbly crudely “the tree looks like a mushroom.”

This is my in my articles for publication, *I* do the defining of the two debate positions:
Deniers’ Logical Fallacies in the Pilzbaum (Mushroom Trees) Debate

Then Huggins is SILENT about the perfect mushroom in Day 4, w/o branch arms or grid cap. That tree, as an entire whole, looks like a mushroom, as an entire whole.

That is not the usual claim by properly articulate affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Rainbow Amanitas with Gills & Veil = Branches

Huggins is focusing on two forms of branches under crown/cap: one form is YO form of mushroom-trees: no central stalk; cap held up by a Y split branch, like Dancing Man mushroom.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“Q-Crew gills veil branches.jpg” 241 KB 8:57 pm Jan. 31, 2025

Gills & veil = branches — rebutting Huggins’ rebuttal of Samorini’s “veil = branches” argument.

Huggins argues “only a professional expert modern scientific scientist is privvy to the detailed knowledge [quoteable, todo] of veil looking momentarily like branch. UNREAL, NOT REALITY BASED:

Hug knows nothing about the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of looking at mushrooms – he is wrongly speculating / imagining/ arguing.

In practice, anyone who likes mushrooms sees groups of many kind of mushrooms in many states SIMULTANEOUSLY.

I am a photographer of hundreds of mushrooms/fungi. eg last halloween, 100 photos of 20 species in 1 hour.

Photo: Michael Hoffman, October 31, 2024

Adam & Eve Looking at L & R Arms of Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in cap of tree of knowledge, while holding fruit in L & R hands

v1:

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2025

v2:

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 30, 2025

[5:19 pm Jan. 30, 2025] Compare the positions of Eve’s hands to the upper Liberty Cap within the tree of knowledge’s cap, the two arms and hands of the Lib Cap mini tree.

Thus, in all mushroom-trees in the Psalter, the “fruit” of knowledge = knowledge of left arm vs right arm.

Day 3 plant 2: prominent “Left and Right” indicators: Psil mushrooms gives knowledge of L vs R; branching vs. nonbranching:

Crop by Michael Hoffman. Day 3 plant 2.
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Day 3

L & R fruit = L & R arm/hand = knowledge of branching vs. non-branching.

The fruit is not (just) entheogen; the ultimate fruit is knowledge of non-branching; ability to endure psychedelic eternalism and use egoic thinking — the egoic control system — in a transcendent way; per qualified possibilism-thinking.

Not ending with non-control, but with 2-level control.

Features:

  • Eve holds fruit in both hands, L & R.
  • Adam holds fruit in both hands, L & R.
  • Serpent has L limb, not R limb.
  • Serpent neck cut visually same as R branch under cap crossing behind L branch.
  • they look at [L & R arms], or L vs R arms, on topmost Lib cap, while holding fruit of knowledge in L & R hands.

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of L vs R
L vs. R
evil vs. good
branching vs. non-branching
unstable vs. stable control

The R branches tend to fade out on most Lib Cap mushroom-trees within the cap of tree of knowledge.

Branching is disappearing in the altered state.

Like Marty McFly.

In 1955, Marty in photograph was vanishing, fading out – like these R branches within the upper part of the cap of tree of knowledge.

I started the Egodeath theory devmt Oct 26, 1985, Back to the Future Day.

Dancing Man’s Mushroom-tree: YX Branching Form Under Cap

[11:19 pm Jan. 29, 2025]

Y then X: moving from bottom up:

YI, Y, X, cap

YI: cut right trunk

Y: stem branches into V

X: cut right branch via right cross-behind

cap – grid of spots, but considered non-branching.

right paw touches non-branching cap, cut right branch points to right paw

the bestiary salamander image with X-branching (X branching) mushroom tree has

cut right branch via cross-behind – same as 3 trees in Great Canterbury Psalter > tree of knowledge f11 3 all 3 trees

The Sacred Joke Mushroom: One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: dancing man mushroom has a red cap with white spots 🤫🍄🙌😍

One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside the dancing man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.

Ruck, condensed, 2009, Fungus Redivivus, in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Huggin’s Conclusion Section Paragraph “Criteria for Deciding Whether a Tree or a Mushroom: … Always Tree, Never Mushroom”

I’m focusing on just this one paragraph in the Conclusion section of Foraging in Wrong Forest.

Key Paragraph of Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article Articulates Arbitrary, Biased Criteria

A concerted effort to commit every logical fallacy at once, and invent some new ones as well

“On the critical side, Panofsky provided a starting point for articulating the following criteria for determining whether medieval artists had in mind depicting trees or mushrooms:

(1) If it has branches, or multiple crowns, or a crown supported by multiple branches, it is a tree not a mushroom,

Crop by Michael Hoffman – Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 right, plant 2.
A tree, not a mushroom, because it has branches.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Here’s a branch of the plant, proving that the plant is not a mushroom.

(2) If it has indications of layers of foliage in the crown it is a tree not a mushroom, and

(3) If it has fruit it is a tree not a mushroom, since mushrooms, being cryptogams, have neither fruit nor seeds.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Has fruit, therefore this mushroom-tree with grid of 2-branch Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in the crown doesn’t look like mushrooms.

“These three criteria rule out all the PMTs alleged examples of trees representing psychedelic mushrooms in medieval art that this author has encountered in his extensive survey of their materials.”

/ end of key para

PHONY, PRETENTIOUS POSTURING – TYPICAL OF THE WASSON CAMP.

They have nothing but stance, posturing, bluffing, play-acting, con artistry, a put-on – no substantive argumentation, but they cover by aggressive insults, being a jerk about it.

eg the argument from telling mycologist “You are blundering due to your ignorance.” MICA Deniers are Wassholes in their arg’n style: aggressive, insulting, baseless, foolish yet pompous, eager to call people ignorant, directly.

That’s not argument from “ignorance of the opponent”, but ARGUMENT BY INSULTING THE OTHERS AS IGNORAMUSES.

Which doesn’t even work, because as soon as you “inform” the others, your argument becomes worthless.

Ramsbottom got the better of Wasson, publishing Wasson’s committed skepticism.

Insulting, pretentious bullsht; in this Conclusion paragraph, Huggins puts forth nothing but a sheer assertion, pretending to be 3 distinct, sophisticated “criteria”, to cover that this is merely arg from authority + false dilemma + false certainty + foisting arbitrary “articulated criteria” as if there’s any valid argumentation.

The only thing valid in this manner of argumentation is that Erwin Panofsky Huggins is correct, that entheogen scholars need to explain the meaning of the tree features in terms of mushrooms.

What do mushrooms have to do with trees that emphasize branching (and non-branching) features? That’s the most-key question, which Huggins contributes, but his “Conclusion” section – that “articulate criteria” paragraph and its pompous as fck “

Please name a single mushroom-tree that fails any of these 3 “if” “criteria”. This is idiocy, pretending to not know that the entire class of images under discussion, by definition, has such tree features. This is an over-verbose, game-playing, pretentious, declaration, pretending to be an argument with complexity.

He’s simply ASSERTING that all mushroom-trees mean tree, not mushroom, and dressing it up with a dash of arg from authority, a splash of false dilemma, and a bit of every other fallacy all at once.

These so-called “criteria” and “if” constructions is nothing but fake complexity, trying to hide that it’s really just a sheer assertion.

This 3-part “Conclusion” paragraph is a bluff; Huggins’ has got nothing but sheer assertion that the entire class has purposeless mushroom features.

These 3 “criteria” are duplicates, redundant with each other, and worse: redundant with the entire class of images under discussion. They all reduce to: “If a mushroom-tree has any tree features”, which is a nonsensical, superfluous “if”, forming a tautology that’s true for the entire category by definition, with no point to repeat here the word “if”.

Conclusion of Foraging in Wrong Forest: Arb. Arg. –

Hug uses Erwin Panofsky as Hug’s own voice; Hug makes Erwin Panofsky say “branch therefore not The Mushroom”

arg from “Panofsky’s two letters would give these rules that rule out mushrooms”

Hug merely mentions Brincm book, as the one and only writing ever on trees, “noted” – ie censored – citation of Brinc

the lone exception to historians’ total ignorance ever ignoring merely peripheral trees

Panofsky’s censored letters & Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings are mentioned in:

9:20 pm feb 17 2025: this page content needs organization. It is really good, complete, excellent content.

I moved all of the relevant sections about this topic, into the present page from idea development page 24.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/

Huggins’ Conclusion through Mouthpiece Panofsky: In a Mushroom-Tree, the Tree Features Rule Out the Mushroom Features Meaning Mushroom

The term ‘pilzbaum’, mushroom-trees, was coined and used by art historians, though they never used the term, insofar as they never talked or wrote about trees or mushroom-trees.

The term pilzbaum occurs 5 times in Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings, per full-text search.

1906 is before the concept of psychoactive mushrooms was widespread in the modern era; I doubt Brinckmann has that concept.

Per Huggins:

If a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the tree features rule out meaning mushroom.

Per Cybermonk:

If a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the mushroom features rule out meaning tree.

ie it is arbitrary to the extreme, to say that if a thing has two kinds of features, we are to ignore one kind of feature, and equate the thing with the other kind of feature.

There are at least three problems or logical fallacies in Huggins’ Conclusion section’s paragraph about “articulating criteria”:

  • False dilemma. He says the two options for intent are tree or mushroom. That’s false; the intent is the branching model of possibility and control, revealed by Psilocybin – tree and mushroom are both wrong, limited, literalist, not the artists’ message.
  • If we accept the choices, mushroom is closer to the real intent than tree.
  • The “if” and “criteria” are NONSENSICAL. He says “if” the mushroom-trees have branches or have any tree features at all — but as a class, by definition, mushroom-trees are anything that has both tree features and mushroom features, so the “if” criteria are a hollow ploy, a put-on; pointless, sheerly superfluous nonsense, fake pseudo-criteria.
  • Argument from authority: Mentioning Erwin Panofsky, in an empty way: Erwin Panofsky can be used as start of a sheer baseless assertion.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-6 – “But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.” False dichotomy from Panofsky, carried forward by Huggins.

Huggins’ Brain-Dead “Conclusion” Section Is Not an Argument, but Sheer Assertion of Arbitrary, Biased “Criteria” with No Justification

All Mushroom-Trees Mean Tree, not Mushroom (Because Panofsky).

All Mushroom-Trees Mean Mushroom, not Tree (Because Cybermonk).

Hug’s Conclusion is nothing but a baseless arbitrary tautology or sheer assertion:

“Mushroom-trees have tree features and mushroom features, and they mean tree, not mushroom.”

Tree Stylizations – Brinckmann

Schematized Trees – Huggins

mushroom-tree branching form – Hoffman

“Panofsky provided a starting point for articulating the following criteria for determining whether medieval artists had in mind depicting trees or mushrooms” [his “critiria” = assertion that:

“All mushroom-trees always mean tree, not mushroom, because they have tree features.”

I could equally proclaim:

“All mushroom-trees always mean mushroom, not tree, because they have mushroom features.”

The mushroom features RULE OUT tree.

WARNING, RETARDED USE OF “IF”, FOR A CLASS FOR WHICH BY DEF’N IT’S TRUE:

Panofsky provides a starting point to articulate these criteria:

“If” a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the tree features rule out meaning mushroom.

Cybermonk provides a starting point to articulate these criteria:

“If” a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the mushroom features rule out meaning tree.

Huggins’ “Criteria for Deciding” Is a Tautology & Fake Put-On: “If” a Mushroom-Tree Has any Tree Features? The “If” Is Nonsensical, Because by Definition, All Mushroom-Trees Have Tree Features

It’s bad how Huggins cripples his conversation, the conversation — just like Erwin Panofsky! – by trying to strategically avoid writing “mushroom-tree”.

  • mushroom-tree – 1 hit in Foraging in Wrong Forest – as always, not used by Hug, but citing Giorgio Samorini.
  • mushroom tree – 6 hits, all of them a typo and mis-citation by Huggins of Giorgio Samorini, who writes “mushroom-tree” with hyphen.
  • pilzbaum – 0 hits!

Why this foul strategy that stinks, from Hug? B/c were he to use the term mushroom-tree, he ADMIT that by def, they are images that combine tree features & mushroom features, which is true, and essential, and he cannot win that true and fair argument.

To fakely appear to win, Hug is forced to pretend art historians don’t call them (the one time they ever wrote about them) “mushroom-trees”.

The moment Hug admits this class has tree features and mushroom features, he loses his false binary and fraudulent deceptive textual wording, “the trees have “BRANCHES” so they are tree — ALL OF THEM ALWAYS — not mushroom – – never mind that what he DECEPTIVELY writes as “branch” looks like mushroom in many cases.

By definition, all mushroom-trees combine tree features/imagery & mushroom features/imagery.

We cannot bury head in sand pretending like they don’t have mushroom features and only have tree features, as Hug does in his bunk & biased & arb Conclusion paragraph where uses Erwin Panofsky as mouthpiece for BAD ARG’N that can’t hold up for a moment – is this even argumentation, or just sheer ASSERTION lyingly dressed up as if arg’n/ “criteria for deciding”?

“I start w/ Pan to articulate criteria for deciding” – bullsh!t!

Huggins merely articulates a single, shallow, literalist, incorrect, uncomprehending, reductionist, biased, prejudiced, ignorant ASSERTION – posturing as if it is “three criteria for deciding”.

Huggins’ Panofsky-abusing Conclusion paragraph is not argumentation; it is sheer assertion, with a dash of arg from auth, and a lot of false dilemma, pretending to be argumentation.

Hug is not presenting criteria for deciding “whether it is a tree or it is a mushroom) (brain-dead false dichotomy), he is simply DECLARING that every instance of mushroom-trees is always simply tree, never at all mushroom.

This is not “criteria for deciding”!

Just b/c 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) is brain-dead and easily rebutted by a single instance by Letcher, does not mean 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) can be so insulted by dismissing them along w/ 1st Gen.

I hate and reject 1st Gen, a fixation blocking progress.

The only way to get to 2nd Gen is by adding the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism, which explains how the branching is a bigger purpose & message than mushroom – for experience that is ONLY sufficiently induced by psychedelics, not by falsely alleged confabulation, “traditional methods of the mystics”.

“The traditional methods of the mystics” are – if not psychedelics based – far too weak to produce mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.

By definition, all mushroom-trees have tree features (along w/ mushroom features), so Huggins’ Conclusion paragraph is merely a sheer assertion that all (when we simply merge his 3 criteria into “tree features”) mushroom-trees mean simply literal tree, instead of simply a literal mushroom (Ruck-type physical form, the physical body of the mushroom & its lifecycle shapes).

Hug presents 3 phony “if” pseudo-criteria, for bluffing decoration and empty postureing, to hide that this is a sheer unadulterated bias and blanket pronouncement.

ON WHAT BASIS – OTHER THAN WRITING ‘PANOFSKY’ — DOES HUGGINS CLAIM THAT THE COMBINATION OF TREE AND MUSHROOM FEATURES MEANS TREE NOT MUSHROOM?

What’s the justification for that bias — the name “Erwin Panofsky”? “Because Erwin Panofsky says so?” That’s arg from authority.

Art hist. call them mushroomtrees; pilzbaum in German.

If a mushroomtree has any tree features, Huggins says that Erwin Panofsky says it’s a tree, not a mushroom. Huggins “articulates these criteria”; ie, states a biased, prejudiced, lopsided, arbitrary, non-sequitur.

The tree features of a mushroomtree cancel out the mushroom features. According to these criteria pulled out of thin air like Panofsky’s letters & Brinc cit. Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

I say:
The mushroom features of a mushroomtree cancel out the tree features; rules out tree. On what basis do I argue that?

On what basis does Panofsky-Huggins argue the opposite?

Huggins “articulates criteria” – are we supposed to take that to be an argument?

I articulate criteria: Any mushroom-tree that has mushroom features and tree features [a stupid pseudo-qualification since they all have both by definition], the …

Huggins’ Uses Panofsky to Conclude: “Branches; So, Not Mushroom”

Branches rules out mushrooms. Panofsky says so, in my Conclusion section.

Here is the Egodeath treatment of Huggins’ Conclusion section, the key paragraph.

SETP STEP ASIDE WHILE HUG THROWS FORTH HIS CRITERIA = STYLIZED MUSHROOM;

IF MUSHROOM STYLIZED LIKE TREE FEATURES, NOT MUSHROOM – TREE, ONLY ,

ART CAN ONLY DRAW TREE FEATURES OR DRAW MUSHROOM FEATURES: WHICH ONE IS IT?

HAS MUSHROOM FEATURES AND THEREFORE ITS A MUSHROOM NOT A TREE.

If a Mushroom-tree has mushroom features, that proves it is a mushroom – Cybermonk (and there’s hundreds of instances, so I’m right)

If a Mushroom-tree has tree features, that proves it is a tree – Panofsky Huggins

Huggins Articulates Criteria – aka, makes a blanket assertion about all mushroom-trees. It’s not even a logical fallacy, except the “assertion as if arg’n” fallacy, aka assuming that which is to be proved (in a simple form).

A mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it’s a tree, not a mushroom

[Mar. 1, 2025]

– the brilliance of Huggins’ “arg’n”. Arb’y, biased, prejudiced, lacking any justif to lean to tree instead of lean to mushroom. Huggins, why not instead “conclude” the 3 crit – which are in fact only a single crit –

Those criteria reduce to: a mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it is a tree, not a mushroom.

A mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it’s a mushroom, not a tree

[Mar. 1, 2025]

That garbage argn or rahter, sheer assertion is Huggins’ conclusion, dressed up as if it is multiple “criteria to decide”.

“Conclusion: By abusing Panofsky’s censored letter 2 pulled out of thin air, we can articulate criteria to decide if it is a tree or a mushroom.” — CRUDE ANALYSIS!!

Along the way, we need something LIKE the class’n systems that are attempted by Samorini & Huggins, but, … something LIKE branching form analysis of mushroom-trees, but must include:

  • must include vine-leaf trees.
  • must consider individual features and sub-scope of entire whole tree.
  • must realize mushroom-trees are a creative free-form combination of FEATURES:
  • tree features,
  • Amanita features,
  • Liberty Cap features,
  • cubensis features,
  • Panaeolus features;
  • eg spots;
  • triangle cap,
  • cut branch;
  • branches,
  • visual cross-behind cut branch;
  • {cut right trunk};
  • {cut right branch},
  • lower level of tree vs branching form of upper level of tree
  • lower level of tree vs branching form of upper level of tree: Mr. Salamander teaches that: and my July 4 2022 blue metal ink diagram in book shows that: trunk = non-branching; mushroom arms = branching; YX supporting crown is branching; crown (despite multiple donut spots) is considered here as non-branching.

lesson: cannot generalize “crown is always a branching zone | is always a non-branching zone” – IT DEPENDS, BASED ON THE INDIVIUAL CROWN!

Cannot say “Left side of tree always = branching = bad”.

Cannot say “The crown of a mushroom-tree is always considered a branching zone”.

Cannot say “The crown of a mushroom-tree is always considered a non-branching zone”.

Proof: Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 R = Day 3 = 4 plants: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI; plant 1 has non grid cap = non-branching, but Plant 2 has grid cap of Liberty Caps, so ITS crown is considered branching.

That principle is reinforced & double-communicated/ doubly indicated, reinforced, by Day 4: its two L mushroom-trees have grid of Liberty Caps, and point to the A compass, which is like Y branching, so THOSE crowns are considered branching.

In Day 4, the two R mushroom-trees have non-grid cap, and point to balance scale = balance is achieved by repudiating branching, ie balance = non-branching, corresponding with the non-grid crowns of the two R mushroom-trees.

Day 4 isn’t mushroom-trees; and Huggins passes over this point in silence, magically deceiveing the reader by drawing attn instead to sudden change of topic: the small plants around the 4 mushrooms are like in the later folio Mushroom Mount where 5 proper mushroom-trees (w/ branches) have small plants between them.

[Mar. 1, 2025]

In Plant 2’s crown, each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree within its crown grid is implied by the tree of knowledge 2 rows below it to each have L & R arms/branches.

The rule always holds, except for the 50% of the time when the rule is broken.

vine-leaf trees
vlt

branching-message vine-leaf trees
bmvlt

Keyboard shortcuts for Samorini & Huggins Names

[Mar. 1, 2025]

Giorgio Samorini
gs

Ronald Huggins
rh

Huggins
hugs

Samorini
samo

2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship

Branches of mushroom-trees was a problem, answered by the Egodeath Theory & 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship

I am running with the claim, granted to me in Brown 2019, I’m part of a new generation of entheogen scholars: I make & define 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship as:

  • the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm, rejecting the Secret Amanita paradigm.
  • Inherently incorporates and integrates the Egodeath theory.

2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship Integrates Psychedelic Eternalism, not 1st Gen Shallow Game of “Spot the Secret Mushroom”

Check if Brown 2016 book discusses 1st & 2nd generations of entheogen scholarship.

Branches of mushroom-trees was a problem unanswered by 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm); answered by the Egodeath theory in 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)

I will gladly take on the alleged problem that mushroom-trees have branches, in fact I’d say that the mushroom-trees have EMPHASIZED branches – but also emphatic cut branches, including the major motif {cut right trunk}.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Crop by Michael Hoffman. April 13, 2022 (day of discovery of Cut Right Trunk)

MICA Deniers Conflate Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship with merely 1st-Generation Entheogen Scholars (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

Better than Brown, Huggins – who has aptitude, unlike Letcher & Hatsis – Huggins asks better questions than Letcher or Hatsis. In fact, Huggins is great because he asks questions.

Letcher doesn’t ask questions; he just demolishes the crappy 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) and then falsely acts as if he disproved mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Hatsis doesn’t ask questions, he just insults Irvin and projects his Allegro-fanboi gullibility on the entire field (reducing the field), and especially does so b/c Irvin literally carries forward the Hatsis childhood belief in Allegro – so Hatsis assumes that:

  • Given that Hatsis began as Allegro fanboi, and
  • Given that Irvin 2008 still is Allegro fanboi,
  • therefore, Brown & Cybermonk and entire field of entheogen scholarship must be Allegro fanboi –

A partial truth, like Letcher equated entire field with the the Secret Amanita paradigm. Yes, true, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship indeed WAS bunk; the Secret Amanita paradigm.

The error of Letcher & Hatsis, and somewhat of Huggins, is that they conflate entheogen scholarship with specifically merely 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).

See Also

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/16/egodeath-theory-as-compatibilism-instead-of-no-free-will/

copy from idea development pages eg 23/24, or link to there

3-Phase Model Beats 2-Phase Model

Perceptual Dualism: Matter Exists, and Mental Constructs Are Primary

Michael Hoffman, 11:12 am-8:34 pm Feb. 16, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman, 2022

Contents:

  • Intro/Motivation for this Page
  • Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists”
  • See Also

Intro/Motivation for this Page

Perceptual Dualism is this set of premises, especially the first 3 (the 4th is just my shutting out others’ ideas):

  • Matter Exists,
  • Experience Exists,
  • Mental Constructs Are Primary for Modelling Personal Control,
  • Thoughts Do Not Create Reality

This morning while gathering my writings about Psilocybin as the true gold standard Reference for myth and religion and mind transformation, I similarly wondered where I drafted writings about what I’ve recently called “perceptual dualism”.

I dislike how Chris Letheby and Matthew Johnson present uninformed options, possible positions regarding “mystical experience”, within the debate about Moving Past Mysticism ie “the mysticism wars within psychedelic science”.

Chris Letheby’s Poorly Defined Options for Positions about Psychedelic Mystical Experience

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/10/mbq-metaphysical-beliefs-questionnaire-timmermann-letheby-2021/

How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby et al
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars

Intellectual Autobio; Reasons I Modelled Perception

I don’t recall all the dates, but in effect, in April 1985, my father gave me all the latest concepts and techniques in self help seminars, human potential movement​, transpersonal psychology, breathwork, Ken Wilber’s books, Alan Watts, etc.

In October 1985, I started selectively applying some of those ideas – transformed – to repair my dysfunctional personal control system.

This post is also to fish for other connections-topics where I detect there’s some gold. eg connecting “New Thought” — a label new to me — to my criticism of the MOTIVATIONS of WHY people in 1920(?) embraced egoic wishful thinking fantasy interpretation of Quantum Physics & the Copenhagen interpretation: EGO INFLATION TO THE EXTREME.

Here’s the bad reasoning that abuses … dorm-room level junk Philosophy:

Since mental constructs are all we experience, this means that thoughts are reality, therefore you are God, creator of infinite universes at all moments.

Chris Letheby tripping in his dorm room as a Philosophy undergrad, asserting the mysticism position

Why I Favor Perceptual Dualism

I assume the material world exists AND I emphasize entirely, in the Egodeath theory, all of our experience is mental constructs.

I’m vehemently against “Cognitive Neuroscience”. Cognitive Science (psychedelic phen’y) must tell Neuroscience to take a hike, because Neurofoo is an invasive species, a parasite that kills the host.

Here’s what every “cognitive neuroscience” book says and does:

  1. “Cognitive”, as Marketing positioning.
  2. Neuroscience.
  3. Delete Cognitive (cognitive phenomenology).
  4. And while you’re at it, be sure to — in the case of “Cog Sci of Religion” books — prohibit any mention of psychedelics.

“Cognitive Neuroscience”? “Only Matter Exists”, or “Only Mind Exists”? The Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach

“Cognitive Neuroscience” tangles “Only Matter Exists” and “Only Mind Exists” [that’s just exploring an idea] – the Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach

to develop this idea/ gather my writings

Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists” – yet more than anyone, starting in April 1987 said we must prioritize mental construct processing

In the articles critiquing “mysticism/ mystical experience”, some of them advocate, or argue about, “only mind exists”.

They say if you think – AS ONE OF THE NAYSAYERS ASSERTS AND THEN RIDICULES, he alternatively(!) asserts AND ridicules “only mind exists”.

He is an experienced psychonaut, he says every time he in in the mystic altered state, he believes only mind exists.

He equates mystical experience with the delusion that only mind exists.

This psychedelic philosopher writes articles or compiles articles that advocate hard materalism (only matter exists; consciousness is merely epiphenomenal).

His schtick is to get high, assert that only mind exists, and then come back down, and then write articles ridiculing people who say only mind exists – ie, ridiculing psychedelic mysticism.

He’s just like Hatsis, who fully embraced Allegro (still says in effect “Allegro is my fav author), then reject Allegro and aggressively project his own childish childhood views onto Brown, me, & every entheogen scholar.

Hatsis goes around attacking [& violently forcefully projecting onto others “this is your position you are asserting: Secret Christian Amanita Cult”], scorched earth, Allegro (even where there is no Allegro).

This dynamic is striking, needs development by me, so starting — I am planning a page/post about why I never have had any interest in this topic that one Philosopher (Chris Letheby??) in field of Psychedelic Science treats terribly, the topic of “only mind exists” or else “only matter exists” – an idiotic because unhelpful Philosophy topic.

ie, CRUMMY PHILOSOPHERS INVADING FIELD OF PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE, TELL US WHAT’S IMPORTANT IS TO FIGHT OVER WHETHER ONLY MATTER EXISTS, OR ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS [conscious experiencing] EXISTS.

Letheby [if I’m not mixing him up] is trying to steer the debate over mystical experience into unprofitable FALSE DICHOTOMY.

Letheby is trying to turn the field of Psych Science into a stupid unhelpful/ irrelevant Philosophy-department debate.

copied the content from
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Perceptual-Dualism – 1 sentence; the summary answer:

Why I Provisionally Assume that the External World Exists:

Because this is the most flexible and useful and practical model.

My Focus in 1986: Repairing Dysfunctional Self-Control Across Time

I took General Semantics in Spring 1986 semester.

The 1987 style of the project of fixing my personal control system was helped by figuring out the nature of ego transcendence per Way of Zen; but not helped by Philosophy department notions (that Chris Letheby employs) like “only mind exists” or “only matter exists”.

In April 1987, I left the approach of writing normal sentence cajoling myself in my blank books, and changed to a very qualitatively different approach in expansive binder sheets with acronyms and concepts including mental construct processing and loose cognitive association binding.

I have the notebooks and diagrams, but too dense to be worth deciphering.

I’d have to recopy it, exactly the same as my edge-of-indecipherable engineering classroom notes. Written for immediate idea devmt idea development.

For comparison/ an approximation of that problem, see my roughest idea development sections at this site, but make the letters hard to read.

I LOVE my hand notes of April 1987 through early 1989 — but they are a really slow-going jungle; they would have to be re-written, to get any value from analyzing them.

In April 1987, I started analyzing meta-perception, started modelling it.

The harebrained, irrelevant, stupid Philosophy proposal that “only mind exists” had NOTHING to contribute toward that practical project of fixing personal control — “only mind exists” is not gonna get the massive homework load done, & my absurd fantasy-based todo list.

I had an URGENT need immediately for a model of the mind and self-control across time that is practical & effective & leveraging Transcendent Knowledge (which I set about figuring out logically per STEM, in 1986).

Equally unhelful and irrelevant is “only material exists” and “only mind exists”.

So, I did not think in terms of those stupid notions; but I analyzed ego transcendence – a la Alan Watt’s centralizing cybernetic self-control as enlightenment….

The irony: My father gave me the Way of Zen by Alan Watts in April 1985 and i didn’t want it, yet that book is perfect in combining “ego transcendence/ Transcendent Knowledge = self-control cybernetics sudden fundamental transformation of thinking”, and I held the latter view/ strategy by 1986, and only in 1987 found that Watts took that approach which was — in some key ways — closely aligned with my approach, my mentality, in two ways:

  • cybernetic self-control as the central focus of Transcendent Knowledge.
  • sudden revising of the mental model about that.

Meditate Harder, and Give Zen Master Brad More Money

Alan Watts used a binary model, from deluded thinking, to enlightened thinking.

Not Ken Wilber’s 15-phase psychospiritual development from prehistory to postmodernity from birth to old adulthood after a lifetime of Advaita non-drug, freewill thinking.

Wilber’s notion of Advaita contradicted Ramesh Balsekar’s.

I needed Transcendent Knowledge NOW, at age 18, not at age 81 with Wilber making excuses for meditation having delivered none of his promises.

Yes, it takes some time to do mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism: a single school quarter. The product is a failure if it takes longer.

“It’s not that our product is bad; it’s user error.”

“It’s not that my product I sold you is bunk; it’s YOUR fault for not MEDITATING HARDER/longer.”

Loose cognition reveals the fundamental priority of mental construct processing. But that is entirely different than the stupid notion — unhelpful profoundly — “only mind exists”.

I was grounded in STEM homework/ studies, anchoring me.

And in 1988 spring, I hated Quantum Physics interp because it was NOT grounded in sober STEM engineering reality, but entirely jumped the shark (dancing wu li masters b.s.) into “consciousness is the fkiking GOD of reality.

Melissa Dougherty vs New Thought; Christian critique of New Thinking

Napoleon Hill Unmasked: Lies, Scams, Cults, and Occult Beliefs
Melissa Dougherty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-ZGDUg8Bo

Melissa Dougherty – “remember the year 1908” – = Minkowski spacetime block universe.

You are God, you create the future by your thoughts. to research: “New thought” corrupting Christianity.

Quantum Woo: ego is the Creator.

Your Ego Is God, Creator of Infinite Worlds Every Moment (= “only mind exists”; the observer-ego collapses the wave function)

I am not saying that my father’s field told us that or emphasized “your ego is God and has the power to create the world” – i guess there was some of that unhelpful nonsense.

The 1985 human potential movement​ was reasonably balanced affirming both the material world and mental construct processing.

I never felt … bc my needs were serious, — see autobio below for dates — In 1986, my needs were serious. Not Phil dept masterbat’n. I had a seirous need fro FOR PRACTICAL ERFFECTIVE CONTROL ACROSS TIME TO DO ENGINEERING homework and an INSANE overcommitment per 1980s INSANE IRRATIONAL notions about time management “how to add unlimited expectations on yourself and then kil yourself in frustration b/c not practical”.

Sometimes my self-expectations in some respects were sane and reasonable. But in some basic ways, that was FOLLY. I THOUGHT that i was merely … it was a combination of dysfunctional self management PLUS way, way way way too FAR too many expectations.

  • My control was dysfunctional. AND:
  • I had FAR too many expectations, I blame and have blamed for some years now, the “time management” session at University that was required for Freshmen. Horrible!

Everything wrong and insane with 1980s time management notions.

They had ZERO conception of limitts and tradeoffs, the last thing they would think of, was WHEN YOU ADD A TODO ITEM, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER TODO ITEMS. WHEN YOU ADD A GOAL, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER GOALS!!

THEY *only* told us how to ADD goals, not how to REMOVE goals!

Greedy youths (me in 1983) take that as: Here’s how to:

  • pledge frat
  • party
  • learn guitar
  • play guitar in band
  • write songs
  • figure out guitar amp tone (in 1987 that especially came into focus)
  • learn about all topics in all departments
  • have girls
  • get A’s
  • go skiing
  • visit relatives/ my families every holiday
  • figure out Transcendent Knowledge
  • socialize
  • pay bills
  • manage paperwork
  • do filing

Ego Inflation Driving Quantum Mysticism (branching manyworlds) & Dorm-room Philosophy “Only Mind Exists”

POWER-MAD TIME-MANAGEMENT INSANITY; we took time mgmt ideas, and went CRAZY with GREED: NOW I CAN DO EVERYTHING!

Copied from
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/#Perceptual-Dualism :

Article: Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation

Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
article
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Posting-announcing-and-outlining-the-article

Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book.

The Doors of Reception: Notes Toward a Psychedelic Film Investigation (Church, 2018) – cites article “Cog Phen Mind Manif”

David Church, June 2018
Feature Articles
Issue 87

Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book:

“Nevertheless, the premise that drug use might comprise a useful working method for film analysis is not as outlandish as it might at first glance seem.

“After all, one common altered state of consciousness – the dream – has already had a long tradition within 1970s apparatus theory’s emphasis on film spectatorship as an oneiric condition.

“But apparatus theory’s structuralist conception of a universal spectator was premised less on the vagaries of drug-altered states than the psychosexual mechanisms of the Freudian unconscious.

“In my estimation, then, phenomenology provides a far more fruitful opening for analysing psychedelic cinema, because accounts of dream/trip experiences are not synonymous with those experiences themselves.

“Much as dreams seem real when within them but do not make sense upon waking retrospection, the trip experience only seems real until recollected later – but all we can have access to as researchers is the post-facto reportage of such altered states: a second-hand translation of vivid experience into discourse that inevitably fails to capture the in-the-moment profundity of such experiences.

“This act of discursive translation helps account for why such reports are so easily dismissed as solipsistic reverie instead of empirically valid observations.30“

/ end of cinema article paragraph w/ endnote 30

30 also cites Letcher’s article.

Not Interested in “Only Material Exists” or “Only Mental Constructs Exist”

I have this book.
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Breaking-Convention-book

I have the same view as in the article “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”.

I’m not interested in a revolutionary rejection of the external world existing, or anything like that.

I merely want to make a well-articulated model of the usual “representationism” assumption.

I’m not interested in radical positions like “only mental mental constructs exist” or “only the external material world exists”.

I merely want to say: assuming that the external material world exists, and that the mind models that by mental representations, how can we best model and discuss this?

I do not want to say “the material world is the cause of experience, of mental constructs, so therefore experience is less real than materialist plane.”

I favor a kind of “dualism” approach, where we “take mental constructs seriously”, “take representationalism seriously”, and we should emphasize – b/c useful — our experience; emphasize not materalism, emphasize mental construct processing.

I am not interested in the idea “the material realm doesn’t exist; only mental constructs exist.”

I would not take either side in some debate between “only material exists” or “only mind exists”.

I am not interested in that direction of thinking; that’s not where the value comes from.

Given the commonplace model – described in Mind Manfi article — how can we articulate TAHAT THAT model in the most useful way?

What is Max’s take on the poor options that Letheby gives us: either you must agree “naturalism materialism”, or, you must — like Letheby when in dorm room tripping — foolishly assert “only mind exists”.

What Max say re: you must pick between “only matter exists” (smart Science) or “only mind exists” (foolish Mystm) – there is no trace of that false dilemma in my writings or in Cog Phen of Mind Manifn article. Matthew Johnson & one side in the Mysticm Wars – the Sciencests (only matter exists) vs. the Mystics (only mind exists).

A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.

Also reject extremist eternalism-thinking — posting title: 3-PHASE BEATS 2 PHASE like late anti’y beat early antiqy which is 2-phase and worships eternalism-thinking. the Egodeath theory does not – in my mature phase now – solely push eternalism-thinking.

That’s how Leth describes himself, while he pushes false dilemma, while he pushes Matt Johnson like, hardcore “naturalism” (whats that supposed to mean??) & “materialsim” or else you re a FOOL like Letheby in dorm room – says Letheby.

False Dilemma fallacy by this “leader” in “Phil & Psychedelics” – buy my book Letheby he edited a book or two, and the q’air that judges you based on whether you have correct thinking — materialiist naturalism, which is Science — or you have foolish thinking, which is Mystm like Letheby tripping in dorm room in Phil dept. That’s how Leth frames options, in his various works.

heading

One kind of ‘dualism’ – but do not trust labels!

Theres 8 kinds of dualism first of all in different fields/ topical areas.

Which of these 8 kinds of dualism?

Melissa Doherty vs. New Thought/ “Mind Is Reality”

Debunker Melissa Doherty — a former adherent of New Thought — picks out key phrase “Thoughts Are Things”.

A magic pejorative used among uneducated Christians: ‘gnostic‘

I had to halt playback of her expose of Napolean Hill who wrote Think and Grow Rich, and fume at Melissa Doherty for using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative, used so carelessly AS IF a meaningful term, when I, and I think others, have NO IDEA what ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative is supposed to mean.

I will use ‘eternalism’ jargon very carefully.

We are overly comfortable using & defining the term ‘determinism’ – it turns out that really, the term ‘determinism’ means: egoic possibilism thinking, recast into the form of domino-chain determinism, which is what Kafei assumed I mean in my 2007 main article at Egodeath.com.

‘determinism’ is a familiar-feeling term, but ruined by being saturated by egoic thinking; in contrast, ‘eternalism’ is technically correct – though it omits control issues of control – but not familiar to people, so hardly usable.

I recently had to quit using the term ‘pilzbaum’ except in a demoted way: “mushroom-trees (‘pilzbaum‘ in German)…”

Pet Peeve: When Christians say: Idea X is bad, because it is Gnostic – and they invariably (a hallmark) give not the slightest thought to defining what the hell their word ‘gnostic’ is even supposed to mean.

Christians say fervently and with assurance: “Their idea is terrible, because It is gnostic” —used without the slightest notion of defining that term.

It doesn’t even cross their mind that no one has any idea what they mean by ‘gnostic’. It’s 1-directional communication with no check to ensure communication.

You have to be pretty uneducated, ie insular, to use the word “gnostic” as a pejorative, as if using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative is meaningful to a broad audience.

It’s possible I’m out of the loop. I don’t watch tv and have no interest in fiction, or sports, or current affairs politics & political figures, and most pop culture.

On tv, if someone rails against and decries something bad because it is “gnostic”, would the audience have any clue what’s that supposed to mean?

Why do Christians think the word ‘gnostic’ is an understood pejorative?

When I hear that, I assume the person is ignorant in a couple ways.

Part of insular Christian culture, I gather, is to use the word ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative, never defining it.

Just like among low-grade atheists, “belief in God” is never defined, yet they write many words arguing about yes or no “does God exist”.

Comparably, many Christians Protestants, maybe in the 1800s or mid 1900s, demonized Catholicism as “Mystery Babylon”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mystery+Babylon%22

Nowadays stand up in church and rail against “Mystery Babylon”, that would be considered a “rant”.

I define “rant” as: a fervent utterance, that no one can understand what you’re on about.

It’s midwit reasoning: a poor thinker has picked up on jargon, and now throws it around like they’re educated; but such a person has a poor relationship with reasoning.

They have no idea how to argue or communicate an argument; instead, just slap on a pre-given, yet undefined term, a magic pejorative, ‘gnostic’.

They take 99.99% for granted, and only express argumentation by a context-free 0.01% of articulation.

I took 5 minutes to read the 4 horsemen of atheism after 2001 and was disgusted by the utter failure to have any thing more than gutter-level worst form of Christianity.

None of them had ever heard of esoteric mystic Christianity – they critiqicized Christianity and religion, but actually criticized worst-case junk; junk-level pop Christianity.

It is offenseively ignorant and self-centered and unthinking, to disparage something as ‘gnostic’ when the person DOESN’T EVEN CONSIDER ANY NEED TO DEFINE WTF THEY MEAN BY THEIR TERM ‘GNOSTIC’.

It’s evident that to these failed thinkers, these non-thinkers, the term ‘gnostic’ means: Any idea I don’t like.

The term ‘gnostic’ – when used without ever thinking of defining it — is an empty shell game empty token category wastebasket into which [see Wouter Hanegraaff] the Christian critic carelessly tosses ANY idea that they don’t like.

I cuss & fume about this because I fail at simply articulating my objection.

It is offensive to Reason, it is maddening, when ppl put forth utterances (undefined terms) AS IF they are meaningful to their audience.

People do this — makes me angry — when they say “Does God exist?”, “God exists”, and “God doesn’t exist” — but none of these dimwits even THINK of defining their #$%$&!! terms!

What does your word ‘God’ mean, and your phrase “believe in God” mean?

What’s wrong with you that you haven’t heard “Define your terms”?

“Believe in” & “God” — What’s that supposed to mean?

How can you employ terms so ineptly, so carelessly, so unthinkly, AS IF you are making a utterace that’s meaningful to the audience, when in fact no one has the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

This is an abuse of language, of communication, and it is insulting the audience, and insulting to language.

Their license to write should be revoked.

That’s how I felt about the worst-quality possible writing of the atheists.

Their writing really reduces the level of discourse.

My feeling, my reaction: I recoil, as if a member of the educated upper class, at the wretched masses who are incapable of thinking.

Do you not realize that your utterances are nonsensical, undefined, incomprehensible gibberish?

I get mad about … i am offdended by, their USE of a term AS IF the term carries inherent meaning.

I am maddened by PRESUPPOSITIONS that are UNSTATED.

I get angry because what’s left SILENT.

It is that silence that makes me frustrated. That lack of thinking.

That assumption that everyone has E.S.P. and agrees about these terms — as if theese are known terms.

See Michael A Williams: against ‘gnostiicism’ book.

Like the structure of Erwin Panofsky’s fallacious non-sequitur argument:

The Plaincourault fresco isn’t a mushroom, because you are ignorant of the hundreds of other mushroom-trees.

That’s not just a non-sequitur; it’s every logical fallacy all at once.

WHAT ARE YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS, IDIOT! 😫

See Also

pages at this site covering this topic: tbd, i already copied from idea development 23 / 24

Sacred Garden Community psychedelic church

Michael Hoffman, February 16, 2025 9:42 pm UTC+0

Site Map

Contents:

  • Intro/Motivation for Page
  • Website
  • Articles About SGC
  • Safety
  • Ligare
  • Hopkins Study a {dead king hung from tree}
  • Problems
    • Problems (Sex Pistols)
    • Rock Lobster (B-52s)
    • Little Dolls (Blizzard of Ozz band)
  • See Also

Intro/Motivation for Page

I’ve barely mentioned this good church. Couldn’t attend today b/c no local gathering and remote tech failed. So took a moment to start this page.

The #1 leading Psychedelic church. Multi-sacrament, which is unusual.

Church Website

https://www.sacredgarden.life

Visit the Church to Study It

🍄🤓⛪️ 🔍🔬🧐🎓

Article about someone who is visiting the church to study it like rats:
https://themicrodose.substack.com/p/spiritual-crisis-and-psychedelics

Ligare.org

https://www.ligare.org – “Ligare is an open network of people who believe that Christianity and other existing religious traditions offer paths for preparing for, experiencing, finding meaning, and integrating mystical experiences [mere Staceanism? beginners’ initial unity experience?], including [NO! exclusively Psilocybin mushrooms, the authentic Reference, thank you very much] those occasioned by sacred plants and compounds.”

blurb: https://www.ligare.org/about —

“Our mission is to weave a vibrant and interconnected tapestry, cultivating networks that bridge Christian faith institutions, interfaith organizations, mental health advocates, and the psychedelic community.

“Through thoughtful convening, network development, and collaborative partnerships across multiple institutions, we aim to empower and educate religious leaders and communities about the profound opportunities and significant challenges within the resurgence of psychedelics.

“We are committed to nurturing the spiritual leaders of today and tomorrow, transcending traditional roles and empowering individuals historically excluded from power.

“Our focus extends to supporting clergy and spiritual directors in understanding how psychedelic healing might be integrated into their pastoral care and spiritual companioning ministries and engaging with seminaries and chaplaincy programs to cultivate the next generation of spiritual leaders.

“To effect change, we initiate a narrative shift, transforming the often-negative narrative around psychedelics within the context of the Christian tradition.

“Through a variety of media and storytelling tactics, we assist people of faith in sharing their psychedelic experiences and are producing a long-form documentary on Christianity and psychedelics.

[probably falsely takes for granted that Psychedelics are “new” for Christianity – never mind the Medieval heyday eg Eadwine. Ref cit: McC & Priest, mid 2024 article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies​, where — against Winkelman & Brown, the authors including Hunt Priest are dismissive of psychedelic origin of Christianity, and failed to respond to repeated calls from Wink&Brown:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/09/journal-of-psychedelic-studies/#Psychedelic-Christianity-McPriest

check also:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Mystic-Writings-Are-Garbled

“As a go-to resource hub for Christianity and psychedelics, we are dedicated to generating knowledge.

“Our education and outreach initiatives include developing curricula, safety guidelines, and theological frameworks.

“We commission original research and surveys to better understand Christian attitudes toward psychedelics.

“At the heart of Ligare is the community we foster.

“We are a home for Christians exploring psychedelics and supportive spiritual practices.

“Our efforts include hosting forums and affinity groups, supporting working groups within our community, and encouraging solidarity within the broader psychedelic movement.

“We aspire to create self-sustaining wisdom schools focused on the intersection of psychedelics and contemplative Christianity, providing a space for deepening spiritual life.”

[This church is good for being psychedelic, but the word “contemplation” aka the meditation hucksters – who is the Christianity book author who claimed the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics? who Irvin & I sep’ly criticized as BS]

Hunt Priest, from About page

Meet Hunt Priest

In early 2016, I was a fortunate participant in a psilocybin study involving religious professionals.[!]

[oooh – Cyberdisciple’s article/ he helped author — paywall article by Travis Kitchens: Griffiths’ controversial study ensnared in the Mysticism Wars – search present site for “kitchens”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Most-Controversial-Paper
]

Priest wrote:

“My encounters with psilocybin opened me to the healing and consciousness-raising power of sacred plants and fungi and their connection to my own Christian practice.

“The epiphanies forever changed the trajectory of my work.

Through Ligare, I want the healing potential of these sacred plants to be in the toolkits of all who are healers of bodies, minds, and souls.

“A significant part of my work, and Ligare’s, entails actively collaborating to bridge the knowledge gap between psychedelic research and religious and spiritual communities.

“Theses substances are powerful, so safety is of utmost concern.”

todo: insert image: teaching scene from Great Canterbury Psalter:

  • f134 &
  • f145,
  • maybe the vertical slice of f177
f134 row 1 left
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f145 row 1 left

Crop by Michael Hoffman

f177 stand right foot + sacrifice left foot rams
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Article section & pages about requirements for safety:
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Guidelines-for-Safety

Danger: Space Hippies trying to take over The Enterprise:
http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/waytoeden1-300×220.jpg

Search Web: Psychedelic Church

Search web:
https://www.google.com/search?q=christian+psychedelic+church
https://www.google.com/search?q=psychedelic+church

Can’t Have Church, Because No Internet

I can’t tell if the Sunday Satsang (service) even occurred today.

The church has plenty of problems, technical & otherwise, for any group.

Seems like the online meeting link failed, like happened multiple times w/ the book club.

Which means that if people get together in a subsidiary city/region, they need backup plan in case the technology fails, from the mother church location.

I don’t have experience with tech-networked multi-location churches.

Problems – The Problem Is You

partial lyrics by Sex Pistols, for scholarly study

Too many problems, oh why am I here?
I need to be me, ’cause you’re all too clear
And I can see there’s something wrong with you
But what do you expect me to do?

You don’t do what you want
Then you’ll fade away

Problem, problem
Problem, the problem is you
What you gonna do?

I ain’t equipment, I ain’t automatic

Bet you thought you had it all worked out
Bet you thought you knew what I was about
Bet you thought you’d solved all your problems
But you are the problem

They know a doctor, gonna take you away
They’ll take you away and throw away the key

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9l8FNJaMg&t=37s

Rock Lobster

partial lyrics by B-52s, for scholarly study

Motion in the ocean
His air hose broke
Lots of troubles
Lots of bubbles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz65vonktMA&t=122s = 2:02

Little Dolls

todo: add: Blizzard of Ozz band: Little Dolls song: eg:

When it’s your time I wonder how you’ll do
The Little Doll is you, yeah
Nowhere to run, your fate is in his hands, your time has come [etc]

See Also

dead end, no links, trapped in fatedness rock prison.

enlightenment = no-free-will; monopossibility; iron block universe; helpless puppet of God or demiurge or Yaldaboath

The Egodeath theory (the theory of psychedelic eternalism) is awesome b/c so simple & elegant. Have a nice day!

😊

paste/copy/paste from mail composition webpage window:

😊

copied from rendered present article:

😊

Why Psilocybin Is the Gold Standard Reference for Transcendent Knowledge

Michael Hoffman, started composing 6 am Feb. 16, 2025

Contents:

  • Intro/Motive
  • Why Psilocybin Is the Gold Standard Reference for Transcendent Knowledge (for myth & religion)
  • See Also

Motivation for this Page

I keep touching on this, but need central place to point to.

i just realized same pattern w Amanita and non-drug meditation / the traditional methods of the mystics.

Ergot cannot be the standard, because unconfirmed and location-specific.

Psilocybin is ubiquitous around the world per 2005 debate Graham Hancock book Supernatural, 2nd Ed is 2022:
Visionary: The Mysterious Origins of Human Consciousness
(The Definitive Edition of Supernatural) Paperback – April 4, 2022
by Graham Hancock
https://www.amazon.com/Visionary-Mysterious-Consciousness-Definitive-Supernatural/dp/1637480067/

Letcher 2006 grants ok we were wrong, we admit Lib Caps existed in Eng-Europe — but we still maintain no one in Europe thought of Psil Mushrooms as spiritual until 1970 – but some ppl still deny Lib Caps were in Europe before 1970.

Letcher 2006 in extremely uninformed about evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art , only discusses 1 instance and worst possible treatment of that wo the many other mushrooms imagery by Bernw eg list

Intro

Instead of 1 good post, here’s two bad/rough-draft placeholder posts tangled together. todo: break out new post for 2nd topic; clean up.

Distinct topics:

  • My motivations in 1986, why I combined loose cognition, human potential movement​, The Way of Zen by Alan Watts, and had no interest in “only mind exists” while I modeled mental construct processing & representationalism.
  • Dislike of the “Cognitive Neuroscience” field/ marketing nonsense, that promises to lean toward “mind is important; the explanation level is mental experiencing”, but IMMEDIATELY) falls back to “matter is important; the explanation level”. Immediately, like, by the time you leave the title on the front cover & move down to the subtitle.
  • Dislike of treating non-drug meditation as if it’s simply a GIVEN that that’s the gold std Ref.
  • My 1987/1988 dislike of interp of QM.

There are 3-5 topics interconnected here.

I have to build out this draft, to determine & plan that.

General strategy: my idea development pages 23 & 24 spawn posts that organize that draft content.

Ways That Are Not the Gold Reference Standard

  • non-drug meditation
  • non-drug entheogens
  • Amanita
  • Hatsis’ scopolamine
  • cave meditation Ustanova book
  • the Christian author/ entheogen denier that Irvin & I both indep. dislike – he “explains” early Christian mystical experience as the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics. Irvin & I: “bs!”

By April 1985 , my father gave me all the leading edge bs tech [! including the Way of Zen by Alan Watts]: it did not much, that technology did not fully/ directly address [other than Watts in 1987] my need for/ expectation of posi-control (non-dysfunctional self-control across time) so it was obvious no books or articles covered – why cant we have, how fix this?

1985 solution: use loose cognition to give a STEM solution & model of ndsc posi-control (non-dysfunctional self-control across time) . to analyze anything, the right approach is STEM.

i need right now immediately a clear grasp in 85 of what ego transcendence is.

what is egoic vs transcendent thinking?

Those are key points to then use to form the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence in Oct 26 1985-1986-1987-Jan 11 1988– i think of this period isea as “1986” era of 1St floor Soutgwest dorm spring 1986 & 3 senesters:

nov 83-mar 84: THE PROBLEM

Apr 84: the self help seminar – MILESTONE

Oct 1985-May 1986: first attempt

Jun 86 – mar 87

apr 87- jan 88

human potential movement

transpersonal psychology

hyperventilation “breathwork”

first, myth & me and enlightenment is from psychedelics not “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics”

the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics

the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics tnmm

The Cubensis Question (vs. Liberty Cap/ Panaeolus)

not cubensis tho Great Canterbury Psalter shows preference Cub. allegedly no cub N of 30th parallel. what does “no” mean? — “too rare to be a thing”

I believe there IS cub far N of 30th parallel but no one made ANY attempt to look for it. Stamets puts Cub in SE US which is N of 30th.

Why this topic is key

Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism

copied from portion of email feb 15 from idea development 24

“A” mystical experience from Griffiths’ Psychedelic Mysticism research?

The ultimate “mystical experience” is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism to psychedelic eternalism.

The wording is nuanced and crucially important, in the debate! to define the positions usefully & relevantly:

Non-drug meditation cannot sufficiently reliably , it’s not sufficiently reliable or intense to accomplish mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Insofar as the fake construct academics’ fake invented confabulation “the traditional methods of the mystics” “can” produce a Psil-like effects, the problem is, non-drug meditation is not reliable … same problem Amanita has!

Non-drug meditation, or Amanita, is not intense enough and is not reliable enough to deliver you through the guarded gate, transformation gate, to get the treasure & bring it back to the community.

Amanita “can” produce mystical experience – but it’s a deliriant, and cannot do anything but STEAL CREDIT from the only way that actually is strong enough to bring full mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Griffiths, or Amanita, or non-drug meditation, or Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, “can/ could/ might/ may” produce “a” mystical experience, but that’s merely weakly true.

Walter Stace 1960 is correct: mystical experience includes UNITY.

But the Egodeath theory is AGAINST UNITY as definitive of transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Dittrich’s dimension name, “Dread of ego dissolution”, is INADEQUATE.

It’s not wrong, but it’s not helpful, it’s not sufficient, it’s not relevant enough.

Same w/ lexicon conceptual that’s alien to / external to the Egodeath theory’s conceptual vocab: “default mode network”, “cog neurosci”, “neuroplasticity” are “not wrong, but not helpful.”

That’s my catchphrase: “Not wrong, but not helpful.”

Non-drug meditation is not wrong, but it’s not sufficient to deliver the goods, deliver on the bragging Marketing claims, braggadocio that belittles Psil.

Psil is the actual standard gold reference – non-drug meditation is NOT the true genuine gold standard of reference, and I hate the assumption that non-drug meditation is the gold standard of reference.

The teacher of righteousness is Psil, NOT non-drug meditation, or Amanita, or Hane’s non-drug entheogens.

That is my massive fundamental refutation of Zig Zag Zen and the lousy poorly conducted, mis-founded Pop debate of “psychedelics vs. Buddhism”: their fund. premise is wrong and false and presupposition.

I hate that that debate takes it for granted that the gold standard of reference is non-drug meditation.

The true gold standard reference is Psil, because only Psil is sufficiently reliable and intense to cause transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Non-drug meditation “can” produce “a” mystical experience, but cannot produce the full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Beginners’ mild experience of cosmic unity, falls short of full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

/ end of copied from portion of email feb 15 from idea development 24

Zig Zag Zen – Tired in 1996 Tricycle mag, tired in 2015 2nd Ed.

Book Zig Zag Zen by Allan Badiner: Why I cannot read this book and recoil at every page.

1996 Tricycle mag/ Zig Zag Zen book

Houot’s new book Rise of the Psychonaut.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DPSJGMFR

ZZZ
https://www.amazon.com/Zig-Zag-Zen-Buddhism-Psychedelics/dp/090779162X/

That book was bad/ tired/ worn out back in 1996 Tricycle mag, it was still bad/ tired / worn out in ZZZ 1st Edition, and it is still bad in ZZZ 2015 2nd Edition.

ZZZ is intensively based on the silent presupposition, very strongly taken for granted by everyone involved, that meditation didn’t come from Psilocybin mushrooms, and that psychedelics are a novel upstart innovation.  

I thought we learned our lesson that that was a huge missstep in 1960s; someone like Ralph Metzner wrote as much – after I wrote as much.  

But no, psychedelicists who are owned by the meditation hucksters have learned nothing.

Authentic meditation is possible by – at the very least – acknowledging the likely Psilo origin of meditation. 

At least mention that possibility!  Has to be taken into account! 

Else, we have a compendium of confused bias, zzz.  Meditation, then, = confused bias (ideal for scam & never delivering on the grand promises).  Great.😞👍

I could check 2nd Ed. of ZZZ to confirm that it doesn’t even occur to anyone involved, to even ask the looming, huge, key question: 

Is Psilocybin mushrooms new for Buddhist meditation – or actually the very source and inspiration historically?

If everyone is wrong about this fundamental presupposition, then the entire book is kind of worthless and not worth reading — unless you think a study of folly is a sensible use of time.  

ZZZ is not worth reading [ie, not best use of time], if it’s nothing but a study of folly.

That’s similar to the Genre question, about the nature of the New Testament: 

If a book is written (in 1980-2025) that assumes the New Testament is historical reportage, but (let us suppose) the New Testament was actually written as Hellenistic mythic literature, then what value could such a book about New Testament possibly have?

(I admit many can get a kind of value from such misreading.)

The book is bound to be 90% error & confusion, mis-founded; and only 10% potential value — but even to cash in on that 10% value requires thoroughgoing transformation of that 10%.  

Not worth dealing with; ie, there’s way better use of time.

The Web Changes Everything to Enable Research and Correcting Past Lies or Errors

the Journal of Psychedelic Studies​, is online, so: Can we consider the publishing of Erwin Panofsky letters or brown 2019 to be a product of the internet era? ie made available to us bc of the internet? To some extent.

Journal of Psychedelic Studies​ in online-only; 2017. https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/09/journal-of-psychedelic-studies/

The strange standards for being up to date, by leading edge scholars

Interesting later perspective in 2025 looking back on my engagement in 2019: I took FOREVER to find Browns’ 2019 article, glance at it, and then really read it.

If I am not reviewing the draft of a book or article, that means I’m so out of the loop, so disengaged, that I’m only 1 week ahead of their publishing, which is like being 20 years later.

I completely missed Browns’ 2019 article, and didn’t read it until ETERNITY LATER, like a few weeks after it was published I skimmed it, and then FAILED to actually READ it until 2020!

Eons later! Way too late.

Why do I have that skewed perspective? bc/ I preordered Brown 2016 book long before it shipped.

First, I read about Brown planned 2016 book; then I read Hatsis’ artices about mushroom imagery in Christian art and saw the train collision coming.

BUT ONLY NOW IT STRIKES ME that … this revises what I wrote in early 2016!

When I said Hatsis’ articles are ignorant of Browns’ forthcoming 2016 book and there would be a train collision, I had no idea that Brown and Hatsis worked together “debating”, in [year] already.

When did Hatsis become aware of Brown & Browns’ forthcoming 2016 book?

Browns’ field research at Harvard published Erwin Panofsky letters within article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies​ in 2019 which I was so sluggish I ()

Doherty at 1:14:00 exclaims that the internet enables us to debunk Self Help myth eg think and grow rich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-ZGDUg8Bo&t=436s

The Web gives us in 2025 advantages to debunk shysters in the past, like Napoleon Hill.

Compare: As of Nov. 2020, there was a too-dark version of Great Canterbury Psalter provided by a French library.

I could not have had so much breakthorugh in interpreting folio f134, Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, back in 2000 when I spoke with author James Arthur whose book cover had the folio f11 Day 3 image from Paul Lindgren.

By 2022 the library fixed the dark colors. I greedily take credit for that (they saw my miscolored crops and fixed the pallette), just like “Napoleon” Hill inflates his tales: Received a Beatles fan club reply? That becomes: “The Beatles asked for my consultation on writing their next batch of songs.”

🤥👖🔥

I wish in 2001 I had asked James Arthur about Paul Lindgren and what other Egodeath theory proof was in was in Great Canterbury Psalter.

James Arthur agreed with the Egodeath theory.

See Also

Search this site for: “gold standard reference”
https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22gold+standard+reference%22

Egodeath Theory as Compatibilism Instead of No-Free-Will

Michael Hoffman, 7:11 pm Feb. 15, 2025

Contents:

Intro/ Motivation for this page

Marketing/Selling the Egodeath Theory (Psychedelic Eternalism) as a Type of Compatibilism, not Determinism or No-free-will/ Monopossibility Prison

By this manipulative rebranding that came from the bowels of the Marketing department instead of Engineering, now I can brag that my sophisticated, compatibilism theory (the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism) is way better than crude advocates of mere eternalism.

Unlike James per Bricklin’s book, the Egodeath theory manages to affirm BOTH practical experience AND the Nitrous Revelation of eternalism.

Normally I identify as no-free-will/monopossibility , and reject “compatibilism’ as confusion and a contradiction in terms.

Not only is no-free-will/monopossibility a hard sell, it’s contradicted by experience, or by the form / shape of our experience.

Affirming Freewill Thinking, in a Way

Interesting, winning possibilities for a kind of “compatibilism” (eternalism + using, but not “relying on”, possibilism-thinking).  Latter part = “qualified possibilism-thinking”.

One might profitably ask: “What kind of compatibilism does the Egodeath theory assert?”

It’s as if we move from Possibilism (egoic thinking) to Possibilism — with Eternalism also added, so that even if – in practice – we end up with seemingly 100% possibilism all the time, nevertheless that qualified possibilism-thinking is profoundly qualified and different, fundamentally not the same foundation as naive possibilism-thinking.  

A subtle, pre/trans fallacy; a significant, major (even though subtle) distinction between the type of autonomous freewill thinking that we start with, vs. the adult-type virtual, qualified freewill thinking that we end up with.

I’d be a liar misleading people, were I to just say “The Egodeath theory repairs your freewill thinking, to make it work successfully”; “Adopt the Egodeath theory, because it gives you freewill thinking.”

But is seems maybe the truth comes surprisingly close to that or looking like that.

This is good, solves a problem: 

If the Egodeath theory = rejecting freewill thinking and committing to eternalism (no-free-will) instead, many people will reject the Egodeath theory. 

And that rigid conceptualization of the Egodeath theory clashes with the actual experience – like when I criticize a scholar (or criticize myself), that wrongly implies possibilism-thinking/ freewill thinking.  

Inconsistent!  Giving more attention to affirming freewill thinking (but in a qualified way) resolves that inconsistency.

My Marketing department can instead sell the tune, “You want the Egodeath theory, because it gives you a simple, great kind of Compatbilism.”

Have cake & eat it too.

Why be enlightened?  Birds celebrate you?  Liberated from labor?  No.  More subtle.

In a way, practically, the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism) gives you freewill thinking like always — like we instinctively desire — yet also affirms and gives access to, and usably provides as a tool – eternalism-thinking; no-free-will/monopossibility.  

The Egodeath theory teaches you to USE freewill thinking but not RELY on freewill thinking during the mystic altered state.  

Rely on eternalism-thinking instead – even while, in either state, “using” freewill thinking; “harm not the child” b/c you use child-thinking all the time, before & after & during enlightenment transformation.

We learn to – you could say — “use” freewill thinking and yet at the same time, when in the peak window of intense mystic altered state, we learn to “rely” on eternalism-thinking and repudiate (relying on as a foundation) freewill thinking.

Spacetime: Minkowski’s Papers on Spacetime Physics (Minkowski, 1908)

image: my book Minkowski, photo today
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1989970435

The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’s Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment (Bricklin, 2016)

The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’s Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment
Jonathan Bricklin, Jan. 2016
https://www.amazon.com/dp/143845628X

image: my book:
Aligned with the Egodeath theory.
Purchased before it was available; preordered.

Part of: SUNY series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology (43 books)

blurb:

“William James’s work suggests a world without will, self, or time.

“How research supports this perspective.

“A Seminary Co-op Notable Book of 2016

“William James is often considered a scientist compromised by his advocacy of mysticism and parapsychology.

“Jonathan Bricklin argues James can also be viewed as a mystic compromised by his commitment to common sense. [ie our experience is always in the form of the egoic personal control system]

“James wanted to believe in will, self, and time [egoic, possibilism-thinking], but his deepest insights [WHILE TRIPPING HIGH ON NITROUS!!] suggested otherwise.

“Is consciousness already there waiting to be uncovered [preexisting control thoughts per eternalism; snake-in-rock revealed in alt-state] and is it a veridical revelation of reality?” James asked shortly before his death in 1910.

“A century after his death, research from neuroscience, physics, psychology, and parapsychology is making the case, both theoretically and experimentally, that answers James’s question in the affirmative.

“By separating what James passionately wanted to believe [freewill thinking; branching possibilities with monolithic, autonomous control], based on common sense, from what his insights and researches led him to believe [iron block universe], Bricklin shows how James himself laid the groundwork for this more challenging view of existence.

“The non-reality of [free] will, [autonomous] self [control], and [branching-possibility] time is consistent with James’s psychology of volition, his epistemology of self, and his belief that Newtonian, objective, even-flowing time [domino-chain determinism] does not exist.

/ end of blurb

Rush Quote and Obstinate Contrary Assertions by Egocentric Individuals

Sung:

If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice

Jacket lyrics:

If you chose not to decide, you still haven’t made a choice

Jacket lyrics:

If you choose not to decide, you cannot have made a choice.

Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, Episode 28 – Basics of Core Egodeath Theory
https://egodeaththeory.org/2021/04/08/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episode-28/ —

Max Freakout:

There’s a line in one of the songs by Rush which Michael Hoffman has talked about where he says, “Even if I decide not to decide, I’ve still decided; I’ve still made a choice.”

Max Freakout:

You can’t escape from being a decision maker, in the ordinary state of consciousness, because no matter what you do, you could be said to be choosing to do that thing, as opposed to doing something else. An absolutely basic configuration of the self is decision making.

Michael Hoffman:

“Future pre-decided; opinions are provided, in the mass-production zone”, which is pretty much the whole world.

Cyberdisciple:

That’s a very funny line, in that the singer sings one line, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”, but the original lyric sheet printed “If you choose not to decide, you cannot have made a choice.”

So there’s a strange confusion between the song and the original lyric sheet. That was even addressed by the lyricist at one point, who said that “Well those are the words I wrote” or something, “I can’t control what was printed.”

Michael Hoffman:

In a newsletter, Peart said:

“That’s a funny question. I’ve had a few lately from people who are so sure that what they hear is correct, that they disbelieve what I’ve put in the lyric sheets! Imagine!

People have quoted me whole verses of what they hear, as opposed to what’s printed, sure that they are right and the cover (me) is wrong. 

Scary stuff, these egocentric individuals. 

I assure you, other than perhaps dropping an “and” or a “but,” we take great care to make the lyric sheets accurate.”Neil Peart, Rush Backstage Club newsletter, December 1985

That’s copied from Egodeath.com > Rush Lyrics Alluding to Mystic Dissociative Phenomena > Freewill.

A later version of the printed lyrics is different. The first printing needs fact check. https://www.reddit.com/r/rush/comments/aubfzy/hidden_message_or_change_of_heart_in_the_lyrics/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Peart – “His parents bought him a drum kit for his fourteenth birthday and he began taking lessons from Don George at the Peninsula Conservatory of Music. His stage debut took place that year at the school’s Christmas pageant in St. Johns Anglican Church Hall in Port Dalhousie. His next appearance was at Lakeport High School with his first group, The Eternal Triangle. This performance contained an original number titled Ergot Forever. At this show he performed his first solo.”

A lot of this double-speaking and mumbling and saying one thing while claiming to have said something else, goes back to Prohibition, affecting song lyrics vs. official lyrics.

Cyberdisciple:

It’s a funny moment that speaks to Rush’s interest in in double meanings and the whole topic of being a control agent.

I think more recent lyric sheets only printed what the singer sings, but the original lyric sheets don’t have that; they have a different version. For such a crucial line, they have a different wording of it that seems to point to the opposite.

“Not to derail us into Rush trivia; this is not a Rush trivia podcast, even though I know plenty of trivia about them.”

/ end of unmodified copypaste from Rush trivia podcast

Lexicon: Parallel Phrases:
monolithic, autonomous control
2-level, dependent control

Lexicon: Can elaborate to be parallel, via 2 terms in both models:

  • monolithic, autonomous control
  • 2-level, dependent control

4-part terms:

  • literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control
  • analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control

but those latter sound as if they are 6-part. 4-part (as just 4 words – very hard to achieve) would be like:

literalist sober possibilism autonomy
vs.
analogical psychedelic eternalism dependency

See Also

Valentinian Freewill Compatibilism

Multistate Compatibilism

no links; dead end; cosmic boundary; heimarmene fate-ruled serpent; do not pass; do not transcend no-free-will/ monopossibility/ fatedness

🪐🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🪨🌌💎🚪🏆👼🔥🔥🔥

https://web.archive.org/web/20240619205320/http://www.mysterium.com/hypercosmic.html

The Seven Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees of the Bernward Doors and Column

Michael Hoffman 6:08 pm Feb. 9, 2025

Photo © Genevra Kornbluth. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html
“BernwardDoors_11-2-3 mushroom hems.jpg” 294 KB, 6:20 pm Feb. 9, 2025
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_11-2-3.jpg
https://www.KornbluthPhoto.com/archive-1.html

Site Map

Contents:

Intro/Motivation

Need a page with no noise but only the mushroom trees. Need clean names for each of the seven.

I also wish for a clean catalog of the instances of the following mushroom imagery; helps for identification/ confirmation:

  • {liberty cap roof}
    • {mushroom roof topper}
  • {mushroom hem}
    • {floating mushroom hem}

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 1 & 2

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_19.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 3

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_16-7.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 4

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_51.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html
Christ healing at Gennesaret; Christ cursing the bare fig tree [on right]

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 5

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_50.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 6

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_37.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html
Transfiguration with kneeling Apostles

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 7

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_23.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_22.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html
[16] Commissioning of the Twelve and the Healing of the Leper, transcript, Bernward Column, Dom, Hildesheim.
https://entheomedia.net/Edenpics2/16commish.jpg from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm
14det.jpg
My own WordPress gallery copy, not linked from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm
Photo by Michael Hoffman 5:44 am Dec. 4, 2024 – from Entheos Issue 1, 2001, “Conjuring Eden”, by Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, & Blaise Staples.

See Also

Bernward Doors and Column, Hildesheim
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

Michael Hoffman, 10:35 pm Feb. 2, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Site Map

Contents:

Substantive Conceptual Errors and Bad Argumentation from Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art (not Merely Editorial Errors)

This was supposed to be merely a Comment asking Cyberdisciple:

What about when an entheogen scholar makes real actual error?

It’s not always the case that an entheogen scholar makes a petty error and then a MICA Denier tries to elevate that as if a substantive error.

Also concerning in a different way, perhaps somewhat addressed by Cyberdisciple, is what about when:

An entheogen scholar makes a substantive error, and then MICA Denier does not even HAVE to elevate it b/c it really is a substantive error.

Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art make many substantive Conceptual errors. So, no mushrooms in Christian art.

Terminology

Cyberdisciple differentiates two types of errors when critiquing the main position of entheogen scholars.

  • Editorial error – an error of citation and precise historical context information.
  • Conceptual error – an error in combined theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.
  • MICA – mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • MICA Affirmer – says there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • MICA Denier – says there’s not mushroom imagery in Christian art. Says “You guys are wrong, there’s no Secret Christian Amanita Cult.”

Cyberdisciple presents the scenario where a MICA Affirmer makes a mere Editorial type error, but a MICA Denier tries to elevate that to a Conceptual (substantive) error. The MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”

But I’m noticing a worse scenario: a MICA Affirmer makes a Conceptual (substantive) error, then a MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”

Actually, the main thesis of the MICA Affirmer is correct, it’s just that they tried to reach it by a false route; misinterpretation.

In the latter case, the MICA Denier is not elevating an Editorial error to the level of Conceptual error; the MICA Affirmer really did make a substantive Conceptual error, a misinterpretation about mushroom imagery. Substantive errors of arg’n; bad arg’n from MICA Affirmers.

Cyberdisciple re: Editorial Errors vs. Conceptual Errors

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2021/09/26/criticism-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art-by-tom-hatsis-and-chris-bennett/

Cyberdisciple wrote:

“Hatsis and Bennett advocate for more rigor in scholarship in this field and for more attention to be paid to the historical context of evidence.

“There is some good in this, and they have provided corrections to errors in citation and basic historical information published by some authors. 

“There is a limit to such correction, however, and in their criticism they have elevated what is essentially an editorial problem to the level of conceptual error, and in some cases to intellectual deficiency on the part of the target.

“This last tactic confuses criticism, turning scholarly criticism into personal attack. 

“What amounts to citational errors and imprecision about historical context serves as part of Hatsis’ and Bennett’s rationale for radically dismissing their targets.

“This is a dangerous tactic, because using such an all-or-nothing attack requires that the attackers’ own writing be error-free. 

“Employing such tactics in public criticism is tricky and should be reserved for special circumstances.

“Indiscriminate use of such tactics can result in a kind of arms race, with scholars breaking out into hostile camps.

. . . .🔍🧐🤔

“Advancing the field requires a combination of theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.

“Errors in citation and historical context are of lesser importance. They should merely be corrected, ideally behind the scenes before publication by a judicious editor or through a peer-review process.

“They should not be turned into principles of dismissing other scholars.”

/ end of Cyberdisciple quote

Entheogen Scholars’ Substantive Errors

(not a comprehensive list, just off the top of my head)

Entheogen Scholars in General

Misinterprets artists’ message as “mushrooms” instead of: Adopt non-branching eternalism with 2-level control, when on mushrooms, instead of branching possibilism with autonomous monolithic control, which collapses and is unstable, not viable.

The Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Presupposition of Amanita = Europe; Psil = Americas.

Assumes, superstitiously based on just the shape, that Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects = Psychedelic effects (even after disconfirmed by Wasson), and so proposes as useful the obfuscating wildcard construct “sacred fungi”, “psychoactive mushrooms”, “sacred mushrooms”, “the mushroom”, etc.

Assumes suppression of psychedelics; secret, hidden, heretical groups.

Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames as “certain groups” (Samorini 1997), to construct a barrier wall to prevent mushrooms from being mixed in among the general population. Arbitrarily casts any use of Amanita or Psilocybin mushrooms as use by members of “cults, sects, communities, heretical sects, secret cults”.

James Arthur

Claims Day 3’s 4 plants are Poppy, Rue, Psil, Ama, river Cannabis, to try to formulate a SOMA recipe. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.) He’s not interested in Day 3 being entirely mushrooms; he abuses it to make a 5-plant recipe for SOMA.

Chris Bennett

Bernward door: Ignores the other six Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in the door and column, while highlighting that, against Brown, the tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel is not a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.

Urges us to look at the “Eat from Tree” panel above the oft-attended “Blame” panel — but if we are to expand scope, we’d certainly expand scope to the panel above Eat Tree: the “Eve Presented to Adam” panel, which has two Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.

Jerry Brown & Julie Brown

[Brown, also Brown; 2016, also 2019; = 4x penalty]

Botanical misidentification based on serrated base of Amanita.

Single-meaning fallacy re: Walburga holding vial shaped like Amanita.

Claims to give better interpretation (while misinterpreting) due to field research (didn’t travel to Walburga). Stakes credibility on this one example, botches it.

Claim that Bernward’s Blame panel depicts the tree of knowledge.

Claim that the four mushrooms shown in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter occur throughout the Psalter. (Day 3 shows a four-type classification into Panaeolus; Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Amanita. Mushroom-trees throughout the Psalter recombine such elements, and tree features, in various ways.)

Poor classification of the four plants in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter: Psil, Pan, Psil, Ama. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.)

Amanita Primacy Fallacy: In GCP Day 3’s 4 plants, & when claim they appear later, lists them starting from the Right instead of Left, because Amanita on Right, to list Amanita first. (GCP has more Psil than Aman.)

Claim that the limitation of Marcia Kupfer’s description of Saint Martin trees is that Kupfer should use mushroom words rather than tree words. (Description requires {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, as well as {mushrooms}.)

Unjustified use of ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ in 2016 book subtitle and in Conclusion of 2019 article. Article has ‘secret’ 13x; ‘tradition’ 19x.

Overuse of ‘tradition’: undefinable, indeterminate, morass.

{visible ribs} indicates the shamanic altered state — but is an analogy for which aspect of altered state? How is this specific motif like things that are observed and experienced in the altered state?

Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims to report only what she sees, yet does the opposite: 2016: “offering Jesus three stems … whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured“; 2019: “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift (of which only the stems are visible)”. (It’s sticks and feathers.)

Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims “Jesus … reaching out toward the youths … offering … stems”; “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift”. (Jesus displays splayed L fingers, parallel R fingers, receives signalling.)

Editorial error: Mis-transcribed Panofsky letter, changing meaning: changed “finished product” (the prototype) to “finished project” (the fresco).

Site Map > Brown & Brown
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Jerry-Brown

Cyberdisciple

Too many substantive conceptual errors to list here. (Conserving server space, b/c too many mushrooms.)

My historiographical methodology is far superior, as the present $20 book emphasizes, and I have already disproved his claim of a Secret Christian Amanita Cult – see my writings somewhere on the web, at my site that’s been down for months.

Failed to state the title of Bennett’s article, in his Bennett page. So, not mushrooms.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/

See the substantive Conceptual errors made by Michael Hoffman, since “Cyberdisciple” is just a sock-puppet account of Michael Hoffman.

Site Map > Cyberdisciple
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Cyberdisciple

Wouter Hanegraaff

Claims “the notion of “entheogenic religion” does not strictly imply such substances.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.)
https://www.academia.edu/3461770/Entheogenic_Esotericism_2012_
& cites that bad idea in his book

re: astral ascent mysticism: A footnote says he doesn’t know whether to put fixed stars in level 7 Saturn planetary moving sphere or in level 8 Ogdoad. (Fixed stars is level 8 by definition, a basic elementary given.)

Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (2022)
Imagines — with creative late antiquity’s revisionism/ inversion — that going from Saturn to Ogdoad = going from fatedness to free will. (Saturn level 7 to fixed stars level 8 = going from naive freewill thinking to no-free-will; going from level 8 to 9 Empyrian = going from no-free-will to transcending fatedness.)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/14/hermetic-spirituality-and-the-historical-imagination-altered-states-of-knowledge-in-late-antiquity-hanegraaff/

Site Map > Hanegraaff
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Hanegraaff

Michael Hoffman

Claims that the best identification strategy of MICA is complete ignorance of the text that is attached in support of art; that the context for interpretation is psychedelic experiencing, not text and history.

Brags about complete effectiveness of the diamond hammer of interpretation, which merely means commitment to a forced interpretation regardless of degree of fit.

Begins by assuming all art means psychedelic eternalism, and refuses to disconfirm that, because no disconfirmation could ever possibly be enough to disturb his floating sky-castle theory.

Conflates MICA with his own theory of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

Is described at Graham Hancock site as: No one pays any attention to Michael Hoffman, a joke of a web scholar who keeps pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.

Jan Irvin

In THM gallery, for Dancing Man, forces palette from blue to red.

Uses wildcard term ‘sacred mushrooms’ to attribute Hopkins’ Psilocybin effects to Amanita, after writing that Psilocybin mushrooms are irrelevant to the study in the book.

In THM, criticizes Ruck for trying to restrict mushrooms to heretical sects and mystics, citing AstroSham (in which Irvin tries to restrict mushrooms to elite).

In SHMM article series & God’s Flesh, demonizes Psilocybin, while remaining silent about Amanita.

Andy Letcher

Treats only a single instance of MICA, in Bernward Door, when Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, and Conjuring Eden 2001 was published 5 years before Shroom 2006.

Misattributes the Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck Secret Amanita paradigm to Stamets 1996 & Gartz 1996, who write basically nothing, like 3 words, and only use ‘hidden’ to describe a mushroom in grass.

The key words from Stamets’ caption, Gartz’ caption, and Letcher’s straw manning:

  • depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets)
  • with mushroom motif (Gartz)
  • cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in (Letcher)

Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom (Letcher 2006, UK)

Erwin Panofsky

Argues on presupposition of not hundreds of purposeful mushroom imagery.

Denies artists & the art world active intentionality, purposefulness, agency, and freedom — but only for the special topic of mushroom imagery.

Tries to recast topic away from saying ‘mushroom’ to his construct, “the development process from pine”.

Claims that gradual development proves lack of purposefulness regarding resulting mushroom imagery.

Site Map > Panofsky
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Panofsky

Carl Ruck, Daniel Staples, Mark Hoffman

Cover of Entheos 3 reverses tauroctony so looking up at Taurus, which means being trapped below fixed stars heimarmene, instead of liberated above fatedness looking down at Taurus.

Cover of Entheos 3 forces palette from blue to red, hiding the Psilocybin mushroom.

Corruption of tauroctony palette to hype Amanita, fails to see Psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg.

Over-reliance on colors, a speck of red & white, or any other color (Apples of Apollo’s color lists) means Amanita.

Jumbles Anthropology theory & Structuralism theory with pre-Modern psychedelics.

Ruck in Sacred Mushroom & The Cross writes “One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians”. (Bets everything on one instance, botches it.)

… “a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside the dancing man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.” (Its cap is blue, little mushrooms dissimilar.)

Ruck claims “The sacred marriage often involves an entheogen (either chemical or purely symbolic) as the means for summoning the possessing spirit.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.)

Bernward: In ConjEden 2001 article, poetic wording fails to practically state the count of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, so Deniers pretend there’s only 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward. Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees: 3 in Left door; 4 in column.

Editorial Error: Mark Hoffman in Journal Toxicology Mystery Religions says ‘entheogen’ was coined in 1976. (It’s 1979).

Site Map > Ruck
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Carl-Ruck

John Rush

Claims GCP Day 3: God holds something, mushroom, in hand. (Hand is empty.)

Gallery of art images showing random images, random lines, few mushrooms.

Claims Saint Martin: Entry Jerusalem “clearly represents mushrooms being handed out.” (It’s sticks & feathers.)

Andrew Rutajit

Enthuses about the most potent psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable)

Extremely conflates Psil & Aman, by using wildcard wording, eliciting “WHICH type of mushroom are you now referring to?”

Georgio Samorini

Argues: Veil can look like branches. (Gills and veil look like branches.)

2-column table 1998 tries to use Plaincourault as paradigm for classifying mushroom-tree branching form.

Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames any individual who ingested mushrooms as thereby being a member of “certain groups”. p. 31, 1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault:

the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.

“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)

Gordon Wasson

Insults, berates, & chastises mycologists, repeatedly for decades, as blundering ignorants that should have “consulted” (via pers. corr.) art authorities/ historians who are expert on topics “related to” mushroom-trees — while simultaneously covertly, duplicitously censoring Panofsky’s double-strongly urged citation of Brinckmann’s published, written book — the only thing art authority experts ever wrote & published about trees (which historians consider merely peripheral, so never write about, per Huggins).

Excuses the art historians’ coined term “mushroom-trees” as “merely for convenience in discussion”. (A bluff; there was no such discussion, or published writings.)

In 1968, claims to be the first and only person to realize a consubstantial association between tree of knowledge, serpent, and mushroom, after insulting mycologists (as blundering ignoramuses) for asserting essentially the same idea since 1910.

Insults the painter of Plaincourault as ignorant of having painted mushrooms by painting a serpent.

Claims to be the first to study mushrooms in “our own cultural history”, by which he means, in ancient Vedic pre-history, and in 1000 BC before Genesis 2-3 text was written — but if you assert mushrooms in Christian history, you are a blundering ignoramus who failed to “consult” the art experts, who have written nothing about trees in Christian art except this one, “little”, 1906, German book (duplicitously censored by Wasson simultaneously while berating mycologists for not “consulting” the art authorities).

1968 SOMA, claims Europeans have no word for the most powerful psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable.)

See Also

Dead End – No Links – fixed stars boundary of cosmic page  🪐🚪🌌

David Ulansey site down, I saved local copies of these 3 pages, 2025/02/03:

🪐🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🪨🌌💎🚪🏆👼🔥🔥

🪐🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🪨🌌💎🚪🏆👼🔥🔥🔥

Idea Development page 24 (2025/01/28)

Page started 9:29 pm Jan. 28, 2025, Michael Hoffman

Site Map – Previous page – Next page

Contents:

toc up to date Feb. 28, 2025

Incoming Ideas

Book Symposium: Philosophy of Psychedelics (Special Issue, 2022, Philosophy and the Mind Sciences)

I already posted about this journal issue, at:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/03/philosophy-of-psychedelics-letheby-2021/#Book-Symposium

Book Symposium: Philosophy of Psychedelics
https://philosophymindscience.org/index.php/phimisci/article/view/9659

Vol. 3 (2022)
Book Symposium: Philosophy of Psychedelics
SPECIAL ISSUE
Published 2022-05-02
Chiara Caporuscio+Sascha Benjamin Fink

Keywords:
Philosophy
Psychedelics
Epistemology
Naturalism
Psychedelic Therapy
Philosophy of Psychedelics

Book Symposium: Philosophy of Psychedelics. (2022). Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9659

Abstract:

“This special issue focuses on the Philosophy of Psychedelics (OUP 2021) by Chris Letheby in the form of a book symposium.

“Introduced by Matthew “Lose the Buddha Statue” Johnson (2022), Letheby presents the main claims of this book that explores the apparent conflict between psychedelic therapy and naturalism in a préci​s (Letheby, 2022a).​​ [i think i’ve read that, & mentioned it?]

Seven contributions criticize, expand or comment on Letheby’s arguments, focusing either on his proposed mechanism for psychedelic therapy (Colombo, 2022; Hoffman, 2022; Lyon and Farennikova, 2022; Martin and Sterzer, 2022) or on the epistemic implications (Bortolotti and Murphy-Hollies, 2022; Caporuscio, 2022; Fink, 2022).

The symposium concludes with Letheby’s replies to these commentaries (Letheby, 2022b).”

Through the Psychedelic Looking-Glass: The Importance of Phenomenal Transparency in Psychedelic Transformation (article in special issue of Philosophy and the Mind Sciences about Letheby’s book Philosophy of Psychedelics)

Article:
Through the Psychedelic Looking-Glass: The Importance of Phenomenal Transparency in Psychedelic Transformation
Aidan Lyon & Anya Farennikova, 2022
https://www.academia.edu/78569136/Stepping_through_the_Psychedelic_Looking_Glass?email_work_card=view-paper

Chris Letheby asserts “phenomenal opaqueness”. That’s an ambiguous label: Does this mean the mind doesn’t perceive the egoic control system, during loose cognition?

todo: examine article, to answer that.

Lyon asserts “phenomenal transparency”. Does this mean the mind is able to perceive the egoic control system, during loose cognition?

Philosophy and the Mind Sciences [a journal, has special issue symposium about Letheby’s book]

Article abstract:

“What makes psychedelic psychotherapy work?

“Is it the induction of psychedelic experience, with its distinct patterns of hallucinations and insights, or is it the neural ‘shakeup’ that moves the brain out of its regular mode of functioning and into a more disordered state?

“We consider the role that attention-related phenomenological changes play in psychedelic transformation and psychotherapy.

“We review Letheby’s account of psychedelic psychotherapy, which appeals to increases in phenomenal opacity as the central mechanism of psychotherapeutic transformation.

“We argue that there is an alternative vehicle of psychedelic transformation that this account overlooks, involving radically transparent experiences.

“We outline the common kinds of phenomenal transparency shifts typical of psychedelic experiences, and argue that in many cases, such shifts are responsible for the psychotherapeutic benefits.

“This argument motivates an alternative approach to possible mechanisms of psychedelic self-transformation, and opens up a new venue of empirical research into the role of attention and phenomenology in psychedelic psychotherapy.”

Keywords: Psychedelics ∙ Philosophy ∙ Psychotherapy ∙ Phenomenology ∙ Attention

“This article is part of a symposium on Chris Letheby’s book “Philosophy of
Psychedelics” (OUP 2021), edited by Chiara Caporuscio and Sascha Benjamin Fink.”

Chris Letheby’s book “Philosophy of Psychedelics” (OUP 2021):
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/03/philosophy-of-psychedelics-letheby-2021/

Article: Epistemic Risk Reduction in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy (Chiara Caporuscio, Sascha Benjamin Fink, Nov. 4, 2024)

i think i’ve read this article: Chiara Caporuscio and Sascha Benjamin Fink – “Abstract Nov. 2, 2024

“Belief change is crucial to therapeutic benefit in psychedelic-assisted therapy as well as in more traditional forms of therapy.

“However, the use of psychedelics comes with a few unique challenges that require extra caution.

“First, drastic belief changes may occur faster than in regular therapy.

“Facing radical and transformative insights all at once rather than through a gradual process of discovery and integration can lead patients to a volatile, confusing or disorienting epistemic state.

“Additionally, we know psychedelic substances generate hallucinatory experiences that come with a high degree of confidence and noetic certainty despite not necessarily being connected with reality.

“On the other hand, telling a patient which ones of the beliefs are true and which ones are not seems beyond the competence of a psychotherapist, if not an abuse of their authority and power.

“This is even more dangerous when psychedelics are involved, because power imbalance between patient and therapist is exacerbated by the therapist’s role as a guiding figure throughout an intense altered state of consciousness.

“Because of this suggestible state, the therapist’s beliefs might have a disproportionate influence, and even well-intentioned nudging might significantly stray the patient’s beliefs.

“How can a therapist help a patient navigate their epistemic uncertainty around psychedelic insights while preserving the patient’s autonomy?

“This chapter will attempt to answer this question through a philosophical and epistemological lens.

“We will review different strategies to mitigate epistemic risks in psychedelic-assisted therapy and argue that such risks can be significantly reduced by adapting these strategies dynamically to the individual patient’s needs.”

The agency-first epistemology of psychedelics (Bortolotti, 2022, in Journal Philosophy and the Mind Sciences)

Bortolotti L, Murphy-Hollies K (2022) The agency-first epistemology of psychedelics. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9283 – https://philosophymindscience.org/index.php/phimisci/article/view/9283 – Vol. 3 (2022)
The Agency-First Epistemology of Psychedelics
SPECIAL ISSUE of Philosophy and the Mind Sciences
Published 2022-04-19
Lisa Bortolotti+Kathleen Murphy-Hollies+
Keywords: Epistemology, Agency, Psychedelics, Self-know-how, Skills, Self-regulation

The Agency-First Epistemology of Psychedelics. (2022). Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9283
Abstract:

“Letheby’s book is an engaging and crystal-clear exploration of the philosophical issues raised by the use of psychedelic drugs.

“In this paper, we focus on the epistemological issues Letheby examines in chapter 8 and argue that his analysis requires an agency-first approach to epistemic evaluation.

“On an agency-first approach, epistemic evaluation is about identifying the skills agents needs to acquire in order to pursue and fulfil their epistemic goals.”

The epistemic goal of the Egodeath theory

The epistemic goal of the Egodeath theory: Gain Transcendent Knowledge, study the experience & demonstration of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, to disprove the egoic source of control thoughts.

Post-Ahistoricity, Post-Debunking of Literalist Religious Myth, Post-Debunking of literalist ordinary-state possibilism

Many videos about ahistoricity. Boring in a way, I’m post-ahistoricity.

There’s a dead-end feeling. ITS ALL JUST MYTH!! Great news, we converted another!

Former intense Christian has progressed from misunderstanding to incomprehension.

Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson

Erwin Panofsky’s Letters to Gordon Wasson, Transcribed

Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906)

Gordon . . . . Wasson
egw

Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson
gw

. . . .🔍🧐🤔

Esoterica channel, Dr. Justin Sledge

https://www.youtube.com/@TheEsotericaChannel – Dr. Justin Sledge – not myth or ahistoricity, but rather, esotericism. Studied at Amsterdam like Wouter Hanegraaff.

Mythicist YouTubers, vs. the Post-Mythicist Egodeath Theory

The ~20 below sections are developed from 6 emails of Feb. 22, 2025 to Cyberdisciple.

Derek Lambert (MythVision)

https://www.youtube.com/@MythVisionPodcast

Derek Lambert

MythVision

“MythVision Podcast (MVP) brings you some of the finest information surrounding mythology from a variety of people in search for better understanding of ancient texts.

“We discuss

  • mythology
  • syncretism
  • astrotheology
  • gematria
  • sacred geometry
  • secret societies
  • ancient languages
  • history
  • prophecy
  • scholarship
  • conspiracies
  • heretical ideas
  • myth interpretations
  • deconversion stories

“we really want to take down authoritarian cults like Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Children of God, FLDS (Spin-offs of Mormons) and other harmful cults.”

Jacob Berman (History Valley)

https://www.youtube.com/@History-Valley

Jacob Berman

History Valley

“A world history/religious history channel in which we discuss historical events, interview authors, PhD’s, Professors and other authors.”

YouTube Channels or Podcasts that Popularize Academic Studies of Esotericism

I’m not that familiar; tentative:

  • MythVision PodCast (Derek Lambert: minority focus Esotericism, majority focus Mythicism)
  • ReligionForBreakfast (Dr. Andrew M. Henry)
  • ESOTERICA (Dr. Justin Sledge)
  • Gnostic Informant (Neal Sendlak)
  • History Valley (Jacob Berman)
  • Centre Place (John Hamer)
  • Jonathan Pageau – Not sure, haven’t managed to connect with this “symbolism” content yet, d/k if channel hosts academics and scholars.
    • Let’s Talk Religion (Filip Holm, Master’s in Comparative Religion, Religious Studies) – academic, scholarly perspective.
      https://www.youtube.com/@LetsTalkReligion Filip Holm https://itsfilipholm.com/
    • audio podcast: Secret History of Western Esotericism (SHWEP) (Earl Fontainelle) – academic research in the study of Platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, the Kabbalah, alchemy, occultism, magic, and related currents of thought

The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship (Nina Livesey, Dec. 12, 2024)

Author’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Letters-their-Roman-Literary-Context/dp/1009487051 –
The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship
Nina Livesey, Dec. 12, 2024

“Since the late-nineteenth century, scholars have all but concluded that the Apostle Paul authored six authentic community letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonian) and one individual letter to Philemon.

“In this book, by contrast, Nina E. Livesey argues that this long-held interpretation has been inadequately substantiated and theorized.”

“In her groundbreaking study, Livesey reassesses the authentic perspective and, based on her research, reclassifies the letters as pseudonymous and letters-in-form-only.

“Like Seneca with his Moral Epistles, authors of Pauline letters extensively exploited the letter genre for its many rhetorical benefits to promote disciplinary teachings.

“Based on the types of issues addressed and the earliest known evidence of a collection, Livesey dates the letters’ emergence to the mid-second century and the Roman school of Marcion.” [Egodeath.com said that in 2005, 20 years ago]

“Her study significantly revises the understanding of Christian letters and conceptions of early Christianity, as it likewise reflects the benefit of cross-disciplinarity.”
/ end of her book blurb

Paul the Apostle Never Existed! | Dr. Nina Livesey (Interview on History Valley ch.)

Paul the Apostle Never Existed! | Dr. Nina Livesey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3zIpgYNmkY —
History Valley ch. (Jacob Berman)

I Published Ahistoricity of Paul in 2005 (& Mythicism in General)

YouTubers are slow, compared to my work around 2005, 20 years ago. Today Feb 28 2025, new vid by History Valley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3zIpgYNmkY – It takes the ENTIRE show before the host Jacob Berman finally switches from thinking “Paul didn’t write the authentic Pauline epistles”, to “Paul didn’t exist”. The show is NOT about ahistoricity of Paul, but essentially weaker: Paul is not the author of the Pauline epistles.

Historical Paul has been debunked already, by Dutch Radical Critics, Edwin Johnson 1895, Robert M. Price Journal of Higher Criticism.

The first thing that happened around 1998 when I searched graduate library for “Christian mushroom”, I found the name Allegro, but more memorable and ground-changing for me was, I found a book about the ahistoricity of Paul.

By 2005, Egodeath.com had tons of content on ahistoricity of founder figures, and 2006 wrote article for Journal of Higher Criticism/Price, which mentioned Paul’s ahistoricity.

Darrell Doughty’s special issue/ article in Journal of Higher Criticism, is a major article about the ahistoricity of Paul.

Neal Sendlak (Gnostic Informant)

In one vid w/ Ruck, he claims to Break the News, live, that Ruck Is a Mythicist.

https://www.youtube.com/@GnosticInformant

Neal Sendlak

Gnostic Informant

“Focusing on History, Mythology, and Comparative Religion.”

Search YouTube for “Gnostic Informant” Ruck:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22gnostic+informant%22+ruck —

x https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6shchstY9k —

Ruck Is a Mythicist: Ahistoricity of Jesus

Derek Lambert (MythVision YouTube channel) says Carl Ruck says Jesus ahistorical.  Lambert said he was about to interview Ruck.

Richard C. Miller: Christian Origins in Context of Hellenistic Myth

I posted at present site about his book about Resurrection myth.

Richard C. Miller is a humanistic scholar of Christian origins in the ancient Hellenistic and Roman world.

Christian academic become classicist, Richard Miller:

Miller recounts moving through Christian academia then Classics:

The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? | Dr. Richard C. Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM-BdAjetc&t=160s
Time anchor = 2:40, where Derek says Ruck asserts Jesus’ ahistoricity. —

Biblical Studies is a Circus Show | Dr. Richard C. Miller
https://youtu.be/hhPbj0VUjLU —

How We KNOW The Gospels Are LOADED With Fable, Myth, Legend!
MythVision
https://youtu.be/a5UWjV1TMzc —

I call this topic The Genre Question.

Miller says Christian school academics are entirely ignorant of Classics; Hellenistic literature.

Miller came through committed-Christian academia, then Classics.

Christian scholars are incapable of discussing or thinking about savior mythic figures, being wholly ignorant of Classics.

Miller criticizes committed-Christian school academics for their ignorance of Classics.

Christian academics are far too ignorant to debate Hellenistic savior figures, dying and rising gods or Historicity.

The Genre question.

Were gospels/Acts written as literal historical reportage?

Is Jesus unique?  So what?

(Did Miller study w/ J.Z.Smith?  Check AmazBlurb  https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Reception-Christianity-Routledge-Religion/dp/1138048275/ – poor info, only says Dr. Richard C. Miller is a humanistic scholar of Christian origins in the ancient Hellenistic and Roman world. )

Is New Testament like Hellenistic literature?  Is Jesus a Hellenstic savior figure?

Relevant vids to skim titles:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22richard+c.+miller%22

The Unoriginal Resurrection of Jesus | Dr. Richard C. Miller
History Valley YouTube channel

0:45 — 

“Dr. Miller is a trans-disciplinary research scholar exploring the  cultural and literary nexus between Classical antiquity and the social origins of earliest Christianity.

“His published work focuses on the mythological roots of New Testament’s gospel portraitures of Jesus, the sacrilized founding figure of the Christian religion.”

The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? | Dr. Richard C. Miller

5:00 – Miller is known as a mythicist.  What is Millers’ view on ahistoricity of all religious founder figures, as the strong norm, implying something about genre.

Tauroctony Fails

In a YouTube video at the start, I just saw an ignorant drawing of the hi-res Tauroctony that shows Cautes and Cautopates standing on both legs; legs not crossed. The artist went out of their way to omit the legs-crossed motif.

The worst of all, is the museum statue where they re-attached Mithras’ head, looking forward and down at the bull instead of looking right / up/ back.

A book and Entheos issue 3 reverse the hi-res tauroctony.

{rider above horse|donkey|mule}, {look up above & behind you}, {look to right, see, perceive}

2 special cases of {rider above horse|donkey|:

* Jesus entry into Jerusalem

* Mithras atop bull.

Compare: 

Mithras turns to the right to look up and behind him at Sol, while inserting blade disrupting the personal control system as the bull.

Mithraism {torch light to see}, Cautes (weight on right foot) & Cautopates (weight on L foot, torch illuminating downward

Torch light – I force, by academic trickery, this correlation: 

stand on right foot = torch light up
stand on left foot = torch light down

as the predominant standard mapping.

Look behind you and above you

To see is to transcend; to transcend is to see the lower.

look back and up

look behind and up

See multiple translations of Sacr of Isaac when Abraham looks at ram, looks up and SEES RAM CAUGHT IN THICKET, brings that to the rock blade wood fire altar sacrificial offering in place of son.

I saw Christ on the cross, vision provided, in a place that Abraham called “God Will Provide”: look and see the ram caught in a thicket, provided by God.

Angel Talking to Abraham Shifts to God Talking to Abraham

Does Angel say something, and then God says something to Abraham? Mustn’t it switch at some point from Angel talking to God talking?

Confirmed; indeed as I wondered here, the attribution wording is interesting:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022%3A1-19&version=ESV —

“Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. 

11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” 

And he said, “Here I am.” 

12 He [the angel of God] said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I [God] know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me [God].” 

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. 

And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 

14 So Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord will provide”;[b]🔍🧐🤔b = The Lord will see 

as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”[c]

Footnotes

[a] Genesis 22:5 Or young man; also verse 12
[b] Genesis 22:14 Or will see
[c] Genesis 22:14 Or he will be seen
[d] Genesis 22:17 Or their

On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.
On the mount of the Lord he will be seen.
entirely different!

Abraham turns to the right to look up and behind him at ram caught in a thicket while lifting the knife on the wood fire rock altar to sacrifice Isaac as an offering to God; angel … is it angel says, or God says?  Abraham’s blade/ rock/ fire/ wood disrupt the personal control system as Isaac.

The angel says “Don’t harm the child.

Prince Absalom (2 Samuel 18:9)

Absalom Picture, in World Chronicle by Rudolph von Ems

Crop by Michael Hoffman
Prince Absalom,, in book World Chronicle by Rudolph von Ems, 1350.
“Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail crop.jpg” 183 KB, 12:17 am Feb. 19, 2025
todo: copy to correct gallery spot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg

Features:

  • Mushroom shadow on mule’s right leg.
  • Absalom’s sword touches his left leg.
  • Mule left ear touches blade of Absalom’s sword. (In Great Canterbury Psalter f134, a major theme is {left limb touch blade}.)
  • YI tree, via {cut right trunk}/ {cut right branch}.
  • {blade in right side} x2.
  • L hand of Abs. is exactly at the branching of tree.
  • No rider; ego illusion.
  • Both mules have front {right foot down}; {weight on R foot}.
  • R hand is touching cap of tree. I read cap as a non-branching zone, like crown of Dancing Man salamander tree.

Caption:
The death of Absalom, hanging from a tree by his hair.

14th-century German miniature, 1350.

German:
Rudolf von Ems: Weltchronik. Böhmen (Prag), 3. Viertel 14. Jahrhundert. Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda, Aa 88. Bildbeschreibung nach Martin Roland. Miniatur 174 286r Abschaloms Tod

World Chronicle
https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103RWQ

English:
Rudolf von Ems: World Chronicle.
Bohemia (Prague), 3rd quarter of the 14th century.
Fulda University and State Library, Aa 88.
Image description based on Martin Roland.
Miniature 174 286r – Absalom’s death

Rudolf von Ems
Image search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rudolf+von+ems&udm=2

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree w/ {cut right branch}
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQRXVDSp0SHa_oAfGa71AcgoHkxbhCQRUo5A&s

Picture in Rudolph von Ems’ book World Chronicle
“von ems liberty cap tree cut branch.jpeg” 13 KB, 4:39 pm Feb. 23, 2025
todo: put in a correct gallery spot.
Liberty Cap mushroom-tree w/ {cut right branch}; tree on right has visually {cut right branch}.

Rudolph von Ems, from World Chronicle

Features:

  • Liberty Cap mushroom-tree with {cut right branch}.
  • tree on right has visually {cut right branch}.

When the tree form is this extreme, I classify it as {cut right trunk}, not {cut right branch}.

Not sure where cutoff is between {cut right trunk} vs. {cut right branch}, but when simple this way, like this tree, it’s plainly the same thing as literal {cut right trunk}, eg:

  • Great Canterbury Psalter folio f134 row 1 L, where hanging guy’s R hand touches a literal {cut right trunk}.
  • Dancing Man’s tree where R heel touches a literal {cut right trunk}.

Absalom in Bible

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2018%3A9&version=ESV

“9 And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak,[a] and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on.”

Compare Abraham’s {ram caught in a thicket}.

(Heaven is 16′ above the ground.)

“https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2018%3A9&version=ESV“

See Prince Absalom, {king’s son} hung dead from branch of YI tree, {rider}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom#/media/File:Weltchronik_Fulda_Aa88_286r_detail.jpg — ~~

Compared to the broad word {child} or {young man}, the term {king’s son} is superior myth.

ruler/ prince/ king’s son riding mule

Richard Miller & Carl Ruck on the Ahistoricity of All Religious Founder Figures, and What that Myth Refers to

Religions founder figures are a genre: mythic description of loose cognition with other components mixed in and carrying analogies integrating eternalism.

Is the {mature} mytheme an analogy, or a direct referent?

the spectrum from analogy to direct referent, ie not binary.  ‘mature’ is halfway between 

Binary relation: 

{analogy} on left, direct referent on right

Which side does ‘mature’ go on?  

‘mature’ — psilocybin-type transformation from possibilism to eternalism, which is like {beard}.

{analogous thing} = referent

does ‘mature’ go on the left or right?  Halfway; {=mature}

That’s like saying the notation:

{=mature}

{mature} = mature

Thinking is analogy-based. 

Science is inherently analogy-based.  But avoids basing on analogy; 

Science is the extreme of directly specifying the referent – as the basis – and using analogy to help explain the non-analogy basis.

Some terms, such as ‘mature’, are 

* halfway between analogy and direct referent; or 

* include both analogy aspects and direct referent aspect, 

Degrees of analogicity.

That breaking an over-simplistic dichotomy between 

the Key Mythemes catalog (= analogy for purpose of explaining) and

the Egodeath Core Concepts catalog (= direct referent).

‘mature’ is a semi-analogy; semi-direct referent. 

Per Douglas Hofstadter, thinking is analogy-based.

Does Hofstadter say in his two Analogy books, that Science is analogy-based or dependent on inherently analogy-based language?  

Is It Arbitrary, or Inherently Justified, to Use the Type of Maturation that Psilocybin Produces, as the Paradigmatic Main Example of Maturation?

Psilocybin Produces Ultimate Maturation

Is Psilocybin’s Type of Maturation Effect the Most Important Type of Maturation that the Mind Is Capable Of?

The mytheme {mature} is used to explain and clarify & help understand maturation, according to the transformative result of Psilocybin.

If Psilocybin is used to define ‘maturation’, the main paradigmatic instance of a kind of ‘maturation’, the main definer of the sense of ‘maturation’, is Psilocybin; the main effect of Psilocybin.

The main Psilocybin effect is transformation from possibilism to eternalism.  Art depicts, by analogies, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Psilocybin-type transformation is the master example of maturation, because we experience that maturation.

considered the standard of … if Psilocybin-type , transformation from possibilism to eternalism is 

Two-level consciousness of the completed initiate, the Psilo-mature mind has a higher, adult component, and a lower, child component.

The ‘mature’ mytheme is somewhere on the spectrum from analogy to direct referent: mature is a bit of analogy, and a bit of literal/direct referent

Rider Above Horse; Adult Raise Blade Above Child while See Behind/Up

Rider on horse, adult riding the child-thinking all the time —

The mind forms a 2-level model of oneself — I don’t mean God level + human level; I mean… if we say “the transpersonal level”, we could mean either the God/createor/ ultimate-controller level, or, we could mean the transpersonal level of the person’s mind.

… of the mind, and seen as a model of mental model transformation held by the adult mind.

“transcend and include” is Ken Wilber’s formulation, not part of the native internal lexicon of the Egodeath theory, or not coming from Egodeath lexicon.

The adult mind transcends and includes the child-mode personal control system, a temporary monolithic-experienced virtual foundation and source of personal control; egoic agent as source of personal control power.  

The high peak consciousness looks down at a separate system: the pleading sacrificed child is perceived by the adult mind, looking down perceiving egoic thinking, possibilism-thinking, from vantage point outside “looks Abraham looked back up and behind him”.

Mature Adult Vantage Point vs. Immature Youth/Child Vantage Point

Throw that vantage POV: Higher consciousness awareness mind perceives looking forward and down — see the hi-res tauroctony, Mithras turned to look right behind , 

(Sol looks left, forward, and down)  

(Luna looks left, to dark)

Trace all looking-lines and relate all figures in term of looking.

Mithras looks up back behind at Sol.  Sol looks forward down at knife blade bull, like rider above horse.  

Elevated awareness looks at the egoic personal control system.

‘egoic’ is a bit roundabout/indirect; better directly say: the possibilism-premised personal control system.

Elevated awareness looks at the possibilism-premised personal control system.

This section contains my good Tauroctony-related art:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/12/mithraism-think-with-the-femalemale-mind-of-mithras/#Think-with-the-Female-Male-Mind-of-Mithras

3 Levels of Looking-Relationship

3 levels, in the mental model:

possibilism-thinking, child thinking (unaware, trying to use local control agent as source of control-thoughts)

Mithras

Sol

Bull

Mithras rides the child-thinking bull

Sol is the personal mind after enlightenment/ after perceiving snake in rock, the adult

There are two different 2-level models:

* Lower = person; higher = God

* Lower = childish possibilism thinking; higher = adult eternalism-thinking

Arrange as 3-level model highlight rider above horse/donkey

God

Adult

Child

Adult rides child

In the case where the adult is Jesus Entry Jeru, a God-level figure is the rider, talks of “my father”.

ld Testament

I’m positively interested in myth – Earl Doherty covers mythic celestial perspective.  The travelling Jesus is the other mythic angle complementing the first type of myth.

Carl Ruck Discusses Ahistoricity with MythVision

Several vids of Carl Ruck with Derek Lambert (MythVision channel):

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mythvision+ruck

Isaac is a “boy ” or “young man”

In Sacr. of Isaac, the other day I caught / noticed “young men”, now I look up footnote [a], and find Isaac is a boy / a young man

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022%3A1-19&version=ESV

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 

4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place [the personal control system] from afar. [from mental vantage point behind, above, outside of that lower system]

5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy[a] will go over there and worship and come again to you.” 
alt:

5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the young man will go over there and worship and come again to you.” 

footnote:

  1. Genesis 22:5 Or young man; also verse 12

Geez, [11:58 Feb 22 2025] substantial: bible footnote [a] also modifies peak of story.

12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

alt:

12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the young man or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

That’s like when I discovered ‘Kore” (= Persephone) means “maiden”.

Positive Interest in Myth, vs. Negative Interest in Myth to Accomplish Nothing More than Disproving Historical Jesus

I’m positively interested in myth. Lambert/MythVision is pathetic b/c they are only negatively interested in myth, to facilitate deconversion from literalist Christianity to literalist atheism.

Earl Doherty’s book is good in that is separately, in two sep. parts of the book, covers:

* Pauline vision of mythic celestial Christ experience.  I was cosmos trekkin and reached the place where Christ was crucified in the mystic heavens.

 * The travelling-around Jesus crucified in a place in the world.

Complementary types of myth.

/ end of 6 emails of Feb. 22, 2025 to Cyberdisciple

Have Calm Understanding of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article – Mad at the Secret Amanita Paradigm Instead

I feel no longer frustrated and mad about Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.

Mad at the Secret Amanita Paradigm

Wasson’s Disconfirmed 1952 Hypothesis: Amanita Is the Greatest Psychedelic

Instead, replacing that anger, I returned to being mad at 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship and their insane use of the ‘secret’ premise, and their horrible elevation of stupid Amanita that was dismally disconfirmed by Wasson.

Wasson’s disappointment and frustration with Amanita is the biggest disappointment within entheogen scholarship.

Telling others about the cold snap of Halloween 2024, Amanitas came up a week before the cold snap, then the cold triggered the non-Amanita mushrooms to come up.

This reminded me vividly, about the REALITY of mushroom spotting, vs. outsider academics’ IMAGINING and artificial, unreal separation between Amanita vs. Psilocybin species.

In practice in the real world, anyone who observes mushrooms sees that many types of mushrooms come up, of which Amanita is only one type.

Academics overly assume that people who used Amanita see it appearing in isolation from other mushroom species.

Artificial Fabrications that Confuse Everyone: “The Scientific Method”, “Disconfirmation”, & “Sacred Fungi”

After Wasson’s wishful hypothesis that “Amanita is the greatest psychedelic” was disconfirmed by 1986, entheogen scholars continued their wishful fantasy pretense.

Scientists historically did not abandon a science theory the moment it was “disconfirmed” — things are only so cut-and-dry in 7th grade just-so story about “the scientific method”.

The Amanita Primacy Fallacy + Secret = the Secret Amanita paradigm

the Secret Amanita paradigm is a superset of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy

also:
the primacy of ‘secret’ over ‘amanita’
the Secrecy Primacy Fallacy (where you forget about psychedelics and get lost caring instead about secrecy.

Ruck Delivers a Theory of Secrecy, Supported by Psychedelics – and Is Rightly Demolished by a Single Example by Letcher in 2006

Letcher 2006 picks up on (but mis-atttributes to Stamets & Gartz) the Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck averaged together hypothesis, the Secret Amanita paradigm, or Secret Christian Amanita Cult.

Letcher only needs to consider a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art (a single isolated Liberty Cap mushroom-tree on Bernward Door), to disprove their malformed narrative or explanatory framework.

Letcher, in effect, catches the incoherence of p. 14 in “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 (& Daturas for the Virgin), where Ruck tells a story, where the familiarity masks the incoherence:

The returning crusaders repeatedly reintroduced The Secret Mushroom into their communities and displayed it brazenly in their heretical places of worship.

Letcher 2006 & Irvin 2008 catch Ruck being incoherent and not resolving the evident contradiction.

What, specifically, are “their places of worship”? Bernward Door heretical place of worship?

SHEER CONFUSION FROM RUCK COMMITTEE.

The more I inspect p. 14, — you have to look really hard to see it — it’s double-talk.

You have to read p. 14 with extremely critical, skeptical lens AND DON’T BUY THE too-familiar NARRATIVE.

The narrative is so familiar, it seems coherent.

You have to MAKE yourself reject and spot the incoherence, the cobbled-together reasoning. An incoherent, but familiar, explanatory construct.

Instead of discussing Psychedelics and mentioning secrecy along the way, you end up discussing Secrecy (as the master topic), and merely mentioning psychedelics along the way.

The fable “the scientific method” is no more reality-based than the fake phony category, “sacred fungi”, confabulated to artificially force ergot, Psilocybin, and Amanita into a wildcard bucket of false interchangeability.

Irvin approves Rutajit’s book that has a frenzy of conflating and jamming together Psilocybin and Amanita, and that pronounces Amanita the greatest Psychedelic ever – complete fantasy.

Irvin’s THM 2008 even steals Hopkins’ synth Psilocybin, to falsely attribute Psil fx to Amanita BY SHEER TRICKERY OF SHELL-GAME WILDCARD TERMS “MAGIC MUSHROOMS”, “SACRED MUSHROOMS”, WE HAVE TO MAKE Amanita HAVE Psilocybin EFFECTS! — a BS move by Irvin after he worked with me.

In THM, Irvin is laboring under a malformed model (the Amanita Primacy Fallacy), and then trying to write in such a way as to uphold the malformed model.

In THM, Irvin is laboring under a malformed model (the Amanita Primacy Fallacy) (even though — in retrospect you could say — I got him to start moving away from the Secret Amanita paradigm), and then trying to write in such a way as to uphold the malformed model.

In the Amanita Primacy Fallacy (& in the Secret Amanita paradigm), 1st-gen entheogen scholarship tries to SUBSUME Psilocybin under & in service of Amanita, where Amanita is assumed to be the greatest psychedelic ever.

THM says “I won’t show Hofmann’s passage about Psilocybin mushrooms, b/c that’s irrelevant to this project/book/ treatment.”

That is just like Brown in a way: brag about throwing Walburga into the river to prove your credibility and astuteness to (TO PROVE TO HATSIS! YOU ARE A COOL MICA Denier too) — AND, display Walburga tapestry in your gallery of Amanita imagery, to sell. Similarly:

Irvin: Demonize Psilocybin mushrooms, except when you can rob Psilocybin mushrooms to falsely elevate your idol, Amanita.

Why does Irvin include Psilocybin mushrooms imagery in THM’s gallery, if instead Amanita is “the” holy mushroom (as Irvin rabidly emphasizes right in step w/ 1st Gen entheogen scholarship), and Psilocybin mushrooms is so irrelevant that you don’t bother quoting Wasson on it, and you go on to demonize Psilocybin mushrooms in 2013 article series & 2024 book, yet remain silent about the idol of 1st gen entheogen scholars, “holy” Amanita the pseudo-psychedelic.

Brown Overuses the Unnecessary Concepts “Traditional” & “Secret”, Which Cause More Confusion than Clarity: Orthogonal, Peripheral Concerns that Muddy the Water

Brown double talk: mushrooms traditional, and we need to have a new open minded CONCLUSIONS section in Brown 2019 article, YET, can’t resist ruining by saying “for SECRET initiation”.

Brown is forbidden from ever using the word-pair ‘traditional’ & ‘secret’ ever again.

MICA Deniers take advantage of that strategic opening; they prove no mushroom imagery in Christian art, by simply proving not cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in – see Letcher p 35 2006 Shroom re: Bernward Door’s single isolated Blame panel.

The Letcher move, USING RUCK’S FOLLY FOOLISH CONFLATION OF PSYCHEDELICS = SECRET, to debunk psychedelics.

Thanks to Ruck (Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck), you merely have to barely tap the tower to bring it crashing over.

You merely have to disprove Ruck’s SECRET component (which Ruck mis-uses as a foundation of his paradigm), to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art. Ruck’s fault!

Ruck set us up to fail, by letting the “Secret” tail wag the Entheogen dog. The emphasis is backwards, and Letcher cashes in the opportunity opened to him when Ruck lost the plot.

The plot is not “heretical Christians used The Mushroom secretly.”

The plot or the question is: Christians used mushrooms. Remove all that weakening junk that Ruck attached to the central point.

2nd Gen entheogen scholarship – Samorini revolution: Christians used mushrooms.

1st Gen entheogen scholarship – Ruck stodgy incoherence: heretical Christians used The Mushroom secretly.

1st Gen entheogen scholarship: “Heretical Christians used The Mushroom Secretly”

2nd Gen entheogen scholarship: “Christians used Mushrooms”

No narrative confusions added, for Letcher to attack and bring down the theory.

Andy Letcher took advantage of the opening that Ruck left him, where Ruck pushes SECRET and couldn’t care less about actual psychedelics.

Feb 17, 2025, I recorded spoken further points that Letcher is right that all he has to do to disprove Ruck is show that a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art is not secret – and Ruck’s paradigm comes crashing down.

Ruck 2001 Committee 2001 wrote that heretics returning with The Mushroom from holy land crusades repeatedly reintroduced and BRAZENLY DISPLAYED THE MUSHROOM IN *THEIR* PLACES OF WORSHIP – meaning, closed group private place.

BUT, then, all Letcher has to do to disprove that, is show a single lpmt Liberty Cap mushroom-tree that is in not “heretics’ place of worship” —

Irvin attacks, sucessfully, Ruck on this same point in Daturas Virgin.

Irvin worked with me 2006 so he is a better MICA Affirmer than Ruck committee = 1st gen entheogen scholarship = the Secret Amanita paradigm.

Irvin was moving into 2nd Gen = the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm. only halfway though in 2008.

Ruck Committee never writes about secret ENTHEOGENS; they always write about SECRET entheogens.

They are wrong and bad and conflate; their narrative is wrong and self contradictory, especially over time from 1970 to 2006 – Ruck deserves Letcher to steal his lunch.

It is Ruck’s fault for pushing to the extreme, Rucks’ fantatical extremist hyper overemphasis on “secret”.

RUCK: LIVE BY “SECRET” AMANITA; DIE BY “SECRET” AMANITA

LETCHER KNOCKED OVER YOUR FLIMSY FAULTY WRONG NARRATIVE TOWER; “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” – not from Stamets/Gartz as Letcher’s poor, fake endnote 31 claims; rather; this FAILURE IS the fault of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.

Analogy: Brown Fumbled Walburga, Bet the Farm and Botched It; Browns’ Psychedelic Gospels Theory v1 Failed

… so I picked up Browns’ fumble, now I own the psy gosp theory v2.

I’m the leader of the Ardent Advocates, in that Egodeath.com is listed first in that section in Browns’ article.

I swiped Browns’ psychedelic gospel theory, I destoryed it, I took it over as v2 — the Cybermonk version of the psychedelic gospels theory

Browns’ theory died, they botched it.

I re-tell that POV, to say that my above framing is like:

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship failed, died, was wrong and false and was disproved

The Secret Amanita paradigm was a self-contradiction and incoherent, fallacious elevation of “secret” over psychedelics.

Why are 1st-gen entheogen scholars SO OBSESSED WITH “SECRET”?

Letcher Hatsis is right to take down entheogen scholarship that’s so malformed, that’s driven by the motivation of ‘secret’ as the driving obsession.

Sound, relevant entheogen scholarship is correctly motivated by caring about psychedelic effects and sheer psychedelics history, as the driving concern, NOT “secret hidden suppressed” narrative as the driving concern.

Not that Ruck’s facts are wrong, but that his motivations are malformed and are mis-leading entheogen scholarship.

The bunk result (the Secret Amanita paradigm) is rightly debunked by Letcher Hatsis.

Why Did 1st Gen entheogen scholarship pay any attention to the notion of ‘Secret’?

The Letcher Opportunist Debacle in Entheogen Scholarship

LETCHER wrote “Various writers have suggested (cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in — and he wrongly said that ALL writers asserted that, including Stam & Gartz, which is not true; he picked the worst examples!

The ONLY writers (1996-2006) who are NOT insanely obsessed with “secret” is Stamets & Gartz!

Stamets page 15 is a good generational periodization.

John Lash also providees a 3-era periodization; and Brown does a 2-phase; and Stam 96 does a 2-phase.

Generally, these match my claim:

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship = the Secret Amanita paradigm: Elevate “Secret” and “Heretical vs. Mainstream”, over Psychedelics

, which is False and Wrong and is insane for elevating secret over psychedelics

2nd-Gen entheogen scholarship = the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm: Keeps Focus Only on Psychedelics, not Narrative Drama

, which is True and Correct and is sane for ignoring ‘Secret’ and focusing on psychedelics

And ignored the unhelpful, confusing, unneeded explanatory constructs “mainstream, traditional, counterculture, underground”.

What do you imagine that you are being asked to explain or discuss, or construct through narrative formation discourse?

  • Discussing to what extent mushrooms in Christianity.
  • Tell a narrative drama about Us vs. Them and the perpetual Prohibition war.

The 1st-Gen, Secret Amanita Paradigm was Rightly Demolished by MICA Deniers

vs. the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm (2nd Gen) – a {stable tower} undefeatable that will not fall, is balanced ⚖️

How did MICA Deniers defeat 1st-gen MICA Affirmers? By taking advantage of their error, of elevating secret far above actual psychedelics.

Gen 1 entheogen scholarship deserves to die, because it failed to advocate repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition, and because it married a mere deliriant instead of a real, actual psychedelic.

Gen 1 entheogen scholarship is merely deliriants, not psychedelics.

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship = Deliriants; Ruck’s non-drug entheogens; and Idolatrous Worship of Secret instead of Psychedelics

1st-Gen entheogen scholarship: “Amanita and Datura produce Psychedelic effects, When you use Psilocybin Instead”

Joke: so telling: AstroSham 1 speculates that ppl used Amanita together with Psilocybin. That’s like saying “Amanita and Datura produce psychedelic effects, when you use Psilocybin instead.”

They were defeated in battle because THEY HONORED THE WRONG GOD, “secret” and deliriant, WHILE while Gen 1 honors the true god: explicit (ie non-secret) , actual psychedelic, proved by advocacy — woven into our 1st pricniples — of repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition

repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition
rpp

1st Gen Entheogen Scholarship Accommodates Prohibition, Elevates ‘Secret’ above Psychedelics, Fantasizes Amanita Is the Greatest Psychedelic

Guilty, of failing to integrate repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition. (to hell with their accommodation).

Guilty, of making an idol of “secret”, elevated far above entheogens.

Defeated, by Let Hat Hug/ MICA Deniers, who rightly took advantage of the foolish conflation of secret & entheogens.

Given my expose of Letcher’s endnote 31, I proclaim Stamets to be 2nd Gen, per Brown’s periodization — the 21st C scholars starts not in 1998, but in 1996.

Stop Abusing entheogen scholarship for the perverse purpose of pushing “secret” and accommodating Prohibition

for the twisted purpose of baloney Structuralism & Anthropology – you should care above all, about real, actual psychedelics, and Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.

You should care not at all about “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” – live by that false god, die by that false god (a mis-focus).

STOP WRITING THOSE WORDS (stop employing those constructs) – I have put a MORATORIUM ON WRITING THOSE WORDS.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/24/forbidden-word-list-for-effective-theory-construction-in-psychedelics-history-and-psychedelic-science/

Gartz too: neither of them is obsessed with secret; neither of them ABUSE entheogen scholarship / ethnomyc. to push a false narrrative of ‘secret’ that Letcher Hatsis pounces RIGHTLY on.

1st-Gen entheogen scholars: Graves, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, Hoffman, Staples, Heinrich, Irvin 2006, Rush 2011

2nd-Gen entheogen scholars: Stamets, Gartz, Samorini, Cybermonk, Brown, Irvin 2008, Cyberdisciple

Irvin HALF moved to the the Explicit Cubensis paradigm in 2008: he started to reject the ‘secret heretical groups’ paradigm in 2008, but still retained strongly the the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

Brown 2019 mostly, but not enough, abandoned the focus on ‘secret’, and — highly bold and perspicacious of me — part of the problem is Browns’ pleading that psychedelics were “traditional”. That assertion warrants more explanation — placeholder heading: …. rather, I need to gather my writings rencetnly of why we must reject the construct “traditional”

Do Not Call Mushrooms “Secret, Heretical, Normal, Traditional, Mainstream, or Counterculture”

STOP ADDING NARRATIVE FRAMING, and just restrict the focus to the sheer, unadorned question: To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?

Is that question-framing part of the problem? It CAN be, if mis-handled.

Asking “To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?” Does NOT imply adding explanatory constructs like “heretical groups, suppressed, mainstream, traditional, counterculture”

My solution is to destroy and burn and delete all traces of such narrative:

Without employing concepts like “secret” or “traditional”: To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?

I am ONLY asking about frequency — I am NOT asking you to construct an explanatory narrative about mainstream vs. counterculture!

STOP HABITUALLY ASSESSING IN TERMS OF mainstream vs. counterculture, secret, etc. ‘

When I ask you to what extent mushrooms in Christianity, I am NOT asking you to construct a narrative in terms of “mainstream vs. counterculture, secret, cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.

John Lash: he’s Psilocybin mushrooms, anti-Amanita. How “secret” is he?

In order to condemn Ruck’s attempt to restrict The Mushroom to heretical closed groups, after working w me in 2006.

In 2006, I converted Irvin from the Secret Amanita paradigm to non-secret.

Irvin debunked Ruck by pointing to Irvin’s AstroSham 1 2006, which (great irony) attemptss to restrict The Mushroom to elites. So Irvin deleted that restricting from AstroSham 2 2009.

the Explicit Cubensis paradigm and … the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm [epp]

Gen 1 (Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) foolishly placed SECRET HIGHER than psychedelics; they wrongly pushed a false theory, the Secret Amanita paradigm, which is wrong and false. So, Brown = Gen 2 picked up their fumble, their error.

Letcher (MICA Deniers) disproved and exposed and kicked-over the FLIIMSY tower that is Gen 1 entheogen scholarship — the Secret Amanita paradigm — but MICA Deniers did NOT knock over the {stable tower} THAT that is Gen 2 entheogen scholarship; the Explicit Cubensis paradigm.

The Explicit Cubensis paradigm =
The Explicit Psilocybin paradigm

the Secret Amanita paradigm
the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm

Those are the two terms, b/c Cubensis too specific. Strict parallelism isn’t viable here. No obscure words.

The commonplace vocabulary includes ‘Amanita’ and ‘Psilocybin’; doesn’t included ‘muscimol/ ibotenic acid’ or ‘Cubensis’.

The Explicit Cubensis paradigm is aka the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm b/c Cubensis grows in abundance no further North than the 30th parallel.

Cubensis doesn’t much grow above 30th parallel – southern US, southern Mediterranean. Map:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/12/mycologists-find-cubensis-in-england-and-europe-make-it-happen-you-gotta-want-it/#Cubensis-Never-Grows-Above-30th-Parallel

However, I have been told of a tradition of gathering Cubensis in Northern U.S.

1st Gen entheogen scholarship got its ass kicked/ handed on plate, by oo opportunist Letcher. Letcher, slimy, mis-citing Stam who fkking GAVE Letcher tha the Bern picture!! then accused Stam of hyping “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in

What Should Letcher Have Done Had He Accurately Attributed “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” to Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck?

The narrative comes from that group of writers, including Wasson.

The infuriatingly / bafflingly bad argumentation of Letcher p. 35-36 Shroom 2006, where he claims “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, but the Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree in the Blame panel is not hidden; therefore, it’s not mushroom; there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art.”

Letcher’s False Citation: “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, such as Stamets & Gartz”

It’s true that various writers (indiscriminately averaging together Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) assert Secret Christian Amanita Cult.

Given that Letcher carefully tracks the history of assertions by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, how does he make such grave mistake as to attribute THEIR narrative instead to Stamets and Gartz, who do show the Blame panel (Stamets gave Letcher the photo), but give no ‘secret’ narrative whatsoever, but only 3 bare words, “it’s Liberty Cap”?

Letcher’s entire hyped up focus that he whips up in order to ridicule, is entirely emphasizing ‘secret’, yet Stamets & Gartz are the exact opposite of that narrative, having absolutely no such ‘secret’ hype and no narrative framing whatsoever.

Hatsis, who originates from Allegro fanboi club leader, does the same: he correctly observes that the Pop mind jumbles together Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, and the Pop mind comes away with “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”.

But Hatsis is wrong when he then falsely projects that — his own childhood notions of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” – onto the entire field/topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art; onto every entheogen scholar.

Even going so far as to violently dictate to Brown & me (pers. corr.) that we come from Secret Christian Amanita Cult, and that OUR childhood belief was Secret Christian Amanita Cult. The quote is at this site.

In fact that was Hatsis’ childhood belief – not ours!

Similarly, Letcher is half-right when he says “various writers have suggested [Secret Christian Amanita Cult]” — but terribly wrong when he attributes that view to Stamets.

Stamets gave Letcher the photo of Bernward door! from p. 15 of Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide.

In a garbled/botched-citation way, with poor critique of the pop theory of Secret Christian Amanita Cult, Letcher should have made the valid criique that I made:

Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck are incoherent, and present an unresolved self-contradiction, when they insist of framing every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.

Such narrative might stand, at the start of gathering evidence, in 1970 — but when you pile on more and more instances, that must force — Letcher’s book implies — by 2006, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR ORIGINAL NARRATIVE.

When you are only aware of the Plaincourault fresco in 1970, you can tell the Ruck story of “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” — but by 2001 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001, it’s time to abandon the “secret” narrative and recognize it as an increasingly problematic, non-viable, mere early hypothesis, that’s been disconfirmed more and more with every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001.

+ p 56 “Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/24/entheos-issues-1-4-mark-hoffman/

“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001
conjeden
p. 14

“Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001
datvir
p. 56

By the time of the 2016 Brown book, that initial 1970 narrative – like a gradually disconfirmed hypothesis — is no longer tenable: entheogen scholarship has gathered too much evidence of “hidden mushroom imagery” for the concept of “hidden mushroom imagery” to be viable any longer.

When entheogen scholarship’s initial HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DISCONFIRMED, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION TO REJECT IT & revise it, AND ANNOUNCE ITS FAILURE AND YOUR REPUDIATION.

There comes a time, when you must REVISE your original hypothesis after it has been disconfirmed.

A detailed study of how science in history really works, can refute the notion of “disconfirmation”.

It is NOT the case that scientists held a theory, and then the moment it was “disconfirmed”, they immediately rejected and abandoned the theory – reality is far more complex and nuanced.

The mushroom imagery in Christian art theory has problems.

MICA Deniers have problems, of some type.

MICA Affirmers have problems – of some type.

I simply reject taking any responsibility for alleged problems.

The captions on mushroom-trees do not say “This is a Liberty Cap used to have peak religious experiencing, for transformation from possibilism to eternalism.” Too damn bad, that doesn’t at all change the fact that the image depicts that.

Entheogen Scholarship Fails to Revise Its Original Hypotheses After They Have Been Disconfirmed

1952-1970-era hypotheses that entheogen scholarship failed to revise after they were disconfirmed by further research, and continues to blindly use, out of habit & addiction: which Letcher 2006 then ridicules:

  • the Secret Amanita paradigm
  • Amanita Primacy
  • Amanita is a psychedelic

What if Letcher had written in Shroom in 2006:

“Various writers have suggested Secret Christian Amanita Cult[endnote 31].” “Endnote 31: Graves book x page y; Wasson book x page y; Allegro book x page y; Ruck book x page y.”

Suppose Letcher had proved his key, massive, very strong claim that multiple authors tell a tale of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”.

Suppose Letcher continued to treat only a single instance — incomplete and isolated and misrepresentative of Bernward’s doors & col & chandelier, which includes {mushroom hem}, {floating mushroom hem}, Lib Cap roof toppers.

Letcher would have told Ruck like I have said, that Ruck is inconsistent and needs to resolve his conflicting narratives.

Over Time, as Supporting Evidence Accumulates, Entheogen Scholars’ Master Narrative “The Church Got Rid of Psychedelics” Becomes Increasingly Untenable and Self-Contradictory

By 2006, Andy Letcher in Shroom sort of leverages that resulting contradiction, to ridicule it.

Letcher could not have done his atrocious mishandling of Bernward door, which my early book review pointed out and people asked him about, had not the entheogen scholarship (by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) by 2006 worked itself into a dead-end contradictory narrative by hyper asserting “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, while also continuing to amass instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

By 2016, Brown was relatively starting to move away from ‘secret’; was starting to de-emphasize the first assertion – “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, and was driven more by the latter: simply amassing instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

STFU about “secret suppressed” narrative (compared to previous writers), and simply, only, produce the copious evidence of presence — and do NOT do the Ruck move of hastening to neutralize the evidence by wrapping it in a barrier which *Ruck* – no one else! – labels as “heretical”;

“Thank you for presenting yet more evidence of psychedelics in heretical Christianity.” So I added the subtitle on Entheos issue 1: Evidence for Psychedelics in Heretical Christianity.

By 2006, that now ridiculous, outdated, and no-longer-tenable initial hypothesis/narrative is held up for ridicule — rightly although extremely clumsily – by Letcher.

The first-gen entheogen scholarship from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck had reached such a ridiculous welding together; fusing; conflating, and literally identifying psychedelics with “secret”, that it’s understandable that Hatsis — copying Letcher’s atrocious mishandling of a Bernward single instance in isolation — felt he could disprove psychedelics simply by disproving secret; Hatsis 2013 copied Letcher 2006 in simply taking it straight-up like given by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.

Hatsis said to the 1st-gen scholars:

“Ok, have it your way: If psychedelics in Christianity are secret, then debunking psychedelics is the same thing as debunking secret.

I have debunked secret, and therefore — by the emphatic reasoning of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck — I have debunked Psychedelics, in Christian history. Notice how intensely Hatsis, like Letcher, ridicules secret – not simply ridiculing Amanita.

MICA Deniers hold up for ridicule NEVER simply psychedelics in Christian history (a broad, flexible assertion), but specifically, Secret Christian Amanita Cult (a narrow, rigid/brittle assertion).

I’d have to check again how many times Huggins writes ‘secret’. If Huggins doesn’t fixate on ‘secret’, that strongly corroborates my assessment that Huggins is the first MICA Denier worth engaging. Impressive: hug24 Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” only uses ‘secret’ 1 time!

“This results on the one hand in the PMTs [psychedelic mushroom theorists; MICA Affirmers] presenting themselves as having access to the secret inner meanings of the images while on the other displaying a lack of familiarity with surface meanings known to every expert of Christian iconography.”

And, losing 1 point for Brown, harming the case for MICA Affirmers, Brown is guilty of the 1 other instance of ‘secret’ in that article: Biblio: “Brown, J.B. / Brown, J.M., Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity, 2016″

Huggins loses points when I search ‘hidden’: 3x:

“For decades, a small group of scholars and popular writers have been claiming to find images of psychedelic mushrooms hidden in dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of historic pieces of Christian art, and most especially medieval art.”

“Next to the GCP the Ottonian treasures of

  • Hildesheim—Bishop Bernward’s doors, column, and chandelier, along with
  • the painted ceiling of St. Michael’s Church—

are among the most often discussed pieces of art by PMTs seeking hidden psychedelic mushrooms.63“

Ambiguous Footnoting: What is Huggins claiming these writings concern: Bernward & St. Michael’s ceiling? or HIDDEN mushroom imagery in Christian art?

Where is Huggins getting this “hidden” component? Is he falsely attributing the assertion of ‘hidden’ to these writers? I don’t care what art these writings cover.

I care, here, specifically about where the “hidden” component is coming from, given that “hidden” is the ENTIRE foundation for Letcher’s “debunking”, and is a large part of Hatsis’ “debunking”, and is at least part of Hug’s “debunking”.

It’s easy for Brown to argue that it’s reasonable to say “secret” in subtitle of book — but that acts like we’re in a reasonable level situation, we are not, it’s war.

In today’s conditions we CANNOT use the word ‘secret’, bc MICA Deniers WILL take the opportunity that MICA Affirmers leave open to them, to disprove ‘secret’ and “therefore” “disprove” mushroom imagery in Christian art — given that the foolish 1st Gen entheogen scholarship welded, fused, and absolutely emphatically conflated Psychedelics and “secret”/ “hidden”/ “suppressed”.

Periodization of generations of entheogen scholars, based on asserting “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”

The main thing dividing 1st Gen vs 2nd Gen entheogen scholars:

  • 1st Gen entheogen scholarship: SECRET HIDDEN SUPPRESSED mushroom imagery in Christian art. Encourages Prohibition of Psilocybin.
  • 2nd Gen entheogen scholarship: Mushroom imagery in Christian art. Advocates Repeal of Prohibition of Psilocybin.

Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide — list 1st gen vs 2nd per that book on page 15:

  • “If we are to consider Wasson and his colleagues [p. 14: Ruck, Hofmann] the first generation of ethnomycologists”
  • “then Ott, McKenna, Weil, Ratsch, Gartz, Samo, and other contemporaries could be considered the second generation. See p 218-229 for list of their works.”

Ruck Committee does not care AT ALL about actual psychedelics, and merely abuses the topic of psychedelics to push the only narrative Ruck REALLY cares about, which is “secret”.

  • Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck.
  • Robert “Tabu Suppressed Amanita” Graves.
  • John “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” Allegro.
  • Clark “Rev 22:2’s tree of life with 12 fruits + healing leaves = Amanita only” Heinrich.

Number of words Ruck Committee has written advocating repeal of Psilocybin prohibition: ZERO.

Why would they give a sh!t about mere Psilocybin mushrooms?

The only thing that matters is our fkking GOD that we worship, bow down to, sacrifice to, and give all glory to: Secret Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric, which is most noteworthy for its successful avoidance of transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Our Lord, God, and Savior, Secret Amanita

There is no other name by which we are saved, than our Lord, God, and Savior, The Holy Mushroom, Amanita.

The Secret Amanita paradigm, coming from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, is designed, perversely, to accommodate — and even depend on! — perpetual Prohibition of Psilocybin (which started around 1971).

footnote 63:
Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 22–24, 28–30,
Brown and Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 152–176;
Jochen Gartz, Narrenschwämme: Psychotrope Pilze in Europa (fig. 1); [i cannot verify this, and thanks to Letcher p 35 endnote 31, I assume bullsh!t until proved otherwise]
Samorini, “Mushroom-Trees,” 102–103;
idem., Funghi allucinogeni, 197–199;
Irvin, Holy Mushroom (pl. 9–12).

“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out:

The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.”

also, check Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”

Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art” –
‘hidden’ __ hits
‘secret’ __ hits.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2021/01/22/quotes-from-the-great-mystics-of-egodeath/#moderate-entheogen-maximum-contradiction —

But the more that Ruck pushes in that direction of broadening the scope of where you can identify entheogens, the more that his overall picture starts to look like a blatant self-contradiction, because what he’s saying is:

Absolutely everybody everywhere knew about entheogens and was tripping, but it was all kept secret – it was all a secret, and nobody really knew about it.

But you know, which one of those is true?

Max Freakout, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, episode 3, 57:00

And so, that’s how, thanks to Ruck welding together ‘secret’ and ‘entheogen’, along comes Andy Letcher in 2006, easily kicking over Ruck’s brittle, outdated, disconfirmed 1952-era hypothesis of tabu, structuralism, anthropology, TAIL WAGGING THE DOG; THE ‘SECRET’ TAIL WAGGING THE ‘MUSHROOMS’ DOG.

If mushrooms are identically the exact same thing as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, then all we have to do to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art is disprove “secret”.

Moving from 1970 to 2006, the unresolved contradicting narrative becomes worse, until no longer viable at all – and entheogen scholarship must take action to CHANGE the no longer viable original storytelling; the original initial hypothesis.

Check: does “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 frame the Bernward Door Blame panel’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”?

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/24/entheos-issues-1-4-mark-hoffman/#Entheos-Issue-1
Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise
Hoffman, Ruck & Staples 
Online gallery of ancillary illustrations
38 pages, 33 illustrations, 47 ancillary online illustrations cued to text.

Two keyboard shortcuts for Stamets book

keyboard shortcut:
Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide
keyboard shortcuts:
pmotw
&
stam96
[innov from this morning: TWO keyboard shortcuts]

Entity Encounter or Equivalent

My experience that was most like an “entity encounter”:

My thinking and intentions were taken over by Dionysus (as far as structure of my experience, by analogy), a jokester invading king that lifted my thinking to a higher level and proceeded to violate or disprove my usual, lower thinking.  

My thinking had been taken over by a new part of my mind, that stood above and distinct from my usual control thinking.

I can understand why, if Science searches for aliens, it is justified for Houot to cover that kind of thing, as part of Science Explorer/ Discoverer that we should be prepared for by writing about that possible eventuality, we should be equipped, not blindsided and completely unprepared.

Letheby a Poor Leader for Psychedelic Philosophy Options [perceptual dualism]

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/03/philosophy-of-psychedelics-letheby-2021/

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/09/journal-of-psychedelic-studies/#Psychedelic-Christianity-McPriest

Mondays: “Only matter exists”; Tuesdays: “Only mind exists”


Chris Letheby, a Psychedelic Philosopher who has entered the field of Psychedelic Science, recounts how he switched between a really stupid philosophy in his dorm room, and now he ridicules that, and advocates a different (stupid) philosophy (“naturalism materialism”) instead of “only mind exists”. 

Stupid options, as unprofitable as low-grade debate over “Does God exist?”

On Monday he asserts one stupid view, ,then on Tuesday … afternoon … a different stupid view.

Letheby, this poor mis-leader in Philosophy: On Mondays and Wednesdays, he advocates “only mind exists”, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays, he advocates “only matter exists”.

Junk views, both. Unhelpful, irrelevant. Same goes for entire the Mysticism Wars – which aren’t even about mysticism! they are only about begeinner level mysticism, not Advanced Msyticism.

There are stuck merely at Walter Stacean “mysticism” of beginners’ Unity experience – that’s far from reaching the guarded gate with rock altar where you are made to sacrifice your reliance on child-level thinking, in order to get through the fatedness gate to get the SECRET HIDDEN GUARDED Transcendent Knowledge treasure and return with it.

Canterbury imagery: {rock altar at temple entryway with clean curtains} [rock sacr, gate]

f109: Clean Temple Bus: right-limb ossuary, not altar, at temple entrance; clean cloth inner sanctum in bus
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Caught in Hell-Mouth Furnace Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean

f109 no altar: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f109

f55: Cross-Topped Building Altar, Holding Shield and {balance scale}, Sleeping on Book [no animal though]

here’s one w/ altar IN doorway: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f55

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Features:

  • No ram, but standing on a youth, balanced; achieving balance by standing on one’s youth
  • {balance scale}
  • protective {shield}
  • {floating mushroom hem}
  • healing
  • book on rock altar. Sacrifice literalist ordinary-state possibilism reading of mythic texts/ pictures.
  • scroll touches non-branching side of IY tree.
  • liberty cap roof of temple tower.

The chariot wipeout has altar next to temple doorway: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f76

f76: Charioteers Wipeout: Altar Next to Temple Entrance, with Rams
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Note CONTRAST – chariots on WRONG SIDE OF LINE barrier, NOT in temple. Rams’ looking lines connect to wipeout [6:26 pm Feb 17 2025]

btw: September 4, 2022: email to brown… i’m sure there was a March 21 2023 or 2021 date?? Search site for “September 4, 2022” https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22September+4%2C+2022%22 – probably this: Email to Professor Jerry Brown September 4, 2022 — at https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/09/04/progress-on-the-hanegraaff-front/ todo: make anchor link/ update TOC there.

Jeez i’m sure March 21 date is signif for branching-message mushroom trees? July 4 2022 = blue metal ink YO tree in book. (pollan?) https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=%22march+21%22 – found big: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/19/yi-tree-branching-morphology-formal-theory-of-fractal-yi-scope-of-analysis-of-branching-message-mushroom-trees/ — TODO: REALITY CHECK AND CARVE IN STONE THE TRUE DATE. says here “discussing Kupfer and branching-message mushroom trees for first time with Professor Brown on March 21, 2022, where I realized the bug is the feature/point/message”

Sacrificial Rams

Rock altar with ox and rams, next to the temple entrance doorway with clean clothes, purity, no pollution/ no freewill thinking/ no monolithic, autonomous control

Strange Loop Keeps Me Humble: I greedily make the most from bad writers and from failures of the Egodeath theory [no guar]

Kafei was not a failure of the Egodeath theory; he contributed changing from lexicon from determinism to eternalism.

Strange Loop, member of the Egodeath community, on Transcendent Knowledge podcast, was a deep fundamental failure of the Egodeath theory.

My idea for my page at egodeath.com is great, and it is a good page, instructing how to make your control fail, how to ride elija whirlwind to heaven.

Cyberdisciple succeeded at following my instructions.

My instructions filaed failed for Strange loop.

I have been handling that as follows, separately from Stranage loop’s failure / testing of my page: ie,

I Am a Failed Prophet of Cybernetic Doom/ Successful Disproof Demonstration [no guar]

I cannot threaten people:

YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE I TELL YOU TO OR ELSE I PROPHECY A CURSE ON YOU: IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ME ON NO-FREE-WILL/ MONOPOSSIBILITY, I CURSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL.

I cannot make that prediction.

I disagree with everyone in the world, who all claim Sicence = Prediction – no it doesn’t; poor framing.

The Egodeath theory is Science, therefore it is prediction:

According to the Egodeath theory, if you do not agree with me that no-free-will/ monopossibility, that you are a helpless puppet, you will have loss of control.

Per historians of Science, real science does not reject a paradigm when it is disconfirmed. How Science develops theories is more nuanced and unique each time, than that. See Paul Thagard page here.

If you approve of me, then you will avoid loss of control.

If you buy my ideas, I GUARANTEE you will the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, during this session.

I cannot make such gauarntee htere therefore THEREFORE the Egodeath theory IS A FAILURE AND A DISCONVER DIC DISCONFIRMED THEORY THAT WE MUST IMMEDIATELY DISCARD fi you if you beleieve 7th-grade just-so story about how Science always wrorks.

Simply follow the Science steps and you are guaranteed to advance science. Turn the crank on The Scientific Method. In 7th grade reality tale.

Actually the goal/ technique is to EXPLORE/ demonstrate the ABILITY/ CAPABILITY of the mind to make itself — or, be made to make itself fail.

My instructions failed for Strange Loop, who did not access the control vortex and successfully make his personal control system fail in loose cognition / intense mystic altered state.

But I had already (a year ago; 2023-2024) realized, I cannot predict loss of control for you if you don’t adopt my mental worldmodel.

I am NOT telling ppl “when you loose cognition you WILL experience abiality to make our your control go unstable.”

Rather, I CAN only assert:

The mind in loose cognition / intense mystic altered state , has the POTENTIAL to POSSIBLY make the personal control system fail, to transcend stable control and demonstrate:

The Egodeath Theory Doesn’t Work!! Thanks a Lot, Strange Loop 😠 [no guar]

This is a much more fundamental problem than merely Kafei misinterpreting my special usage of the term ‘determinism’ in 2007 main article.

Guaranteed Technique of Egodeath; If This Prediction/ Prophecy of Achieving Doom-Threat & fully killing childthinking Fails, the my theory has been Disconfirmed, FALSIFIED! BEEN DEBUNKED! [no guar]

Then trashcan the Egodeath Theory, because it has been falsified. the Egodeath theory has proved to be WORTHLESS and FALSE.

That is the crude Popper theory, which is completely divorced from messy historical reality.

“The Scientific Method” is nothing but a tale, a reasoning, a conjecture; an armchair sky-castle, that collapses the moment you compare it to messy historical reality.

Popper tells a story about , a speculation about how Science proceeds.

Join the long line of debunkers of such 7th-grade tale; the reality is opposite of such FAKE CONFABULATED JUST-SO STORIES ABOUT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

http://egodeath.com/TechniqueofEgoDeath.htm

to search egodeath.com: in address bar, enter:
site:egodeath.com demonstrate
site:egodeath.com keyword

site:egodeath.com demonstrate

I guarantee this general pattern. I cannot guar a partic instance of this pattern, for a specific person & session.

This picture, f145 row 1 L, or f134 row 1 L, is not guaranteeing that the trader must stand on right leg or else certainly will have loss of control/ control instability.

f145 row 1 Left: Teaching the cubensis traders
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Or, threatening them: I guarantee you will, in this session, lose control, experience the threat of catestrophic loss of control.

The experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control AS A SUCCESSFUL MATURATION DEMONSTRATION CAPABILITY.

To be mature is to be able to bring yourself to cybernetic climax by the god, higher transpersonal transcendent control system.

unless you agree with my theory of no-free-will/ monopossibility/ puppethood/ monolithic, autonomous control

f134 row 1 L: Class and Trees
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f177 vertical: Stand right foot & Hellmouth rams

Stand right foot held up by God and avoid / also, burn your ram up , burn up your chjild thinking; burn up DEPENDING RELYING on , your child egoic thinking/ freewill thinking

Crop by Michael Hoffman

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/#Looking-Lines-Connecting-Items

NeuroDeletion of Cognitive

moved from page: Journal of Psychedelic Studies​, where I describe the journal:

neurobio? bleh.. [I am against, bc Neurofoo is a hostile invader that kills and replaces the most important, cognitive approach]

[“psychology” — I can MUCH better deal with “psychology”‘s nonsense folly, than neurofoo’s.]

“Psychedelic Philosophy Positions”? What’s that supposed to mean — “only mind exists” vs. “only matter exists”? [percep dualism]

🤔🤨 ‘philosophy’? What’s that supposed to mean?

Chris Letheby’s false dichotomy between, on Mondays he asserts “only matter exists” and on Tuesday afternoon he asserts “only mind exists” — then on Wednesday, he provides “leadership” of Psychedelic Science, via halfwit Psychedelic Philosophy, by ridiculing mysticism because — according to Letheby’s dorm-student confusion — mysticism is the view that “only mind exists”.

Reference: MBQ – “Metaphysical Beliefs Questionnaire” (Timmermann & Letheby 2021)

But when I was a dorm student, instead, in Electrical Engineering in April 1987, I formed the lexicon and model, mental construct processing [MCP] & loose cognitive association binding [LCAB] — not “only mind exists”.

The trees are drawing me near, I’ve got to find out why 🌪

🐕

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5N7qHmEgxA&t=53s
The trees are drawing me near, I’ve got to find out why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5N7qHmEgxA&t=53s

Journal blurb continues:

[anthropology? see Ruck’s jumble of heavy-handed confabulated academic Structuralism theory, Anthropology Theory, tabu theory, & — by the way; almost forgot: entheogen scholarship]

[Ispirituality and religion? I’m religious but not spiritual.”] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22religious+but+not+spiritual%22

[it’s online only journal, which confirms my speculation that only in 2019 did we become well-positioned to do expose of Wasson’s duplicity in censoring citation of Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings etc.]

Article by McPriest about Psychedelic Christianity

move my fulminations against McPriest to idea development page.

This is the main article by McC & P, that does a sh!tty, abysmal job of handling & dismissing the psychedelic origin of Christianity, by ignorant scholars who shouldnt be writing about sh!t they haven’t read about – “But we have read Muraresku, who has read Ruck, therefore we are qualified to write stuff dismissing the psychedelic origin of Christianity”

[how did this article pass review? Ans: Winkelman rebuts them, and Brown rebuts them, and they IGNORE Wink & Brown, who throw up their arms – “I give up; ignoramuses“] – Hunt Priest = “the” website about psychedelic Christianity, Ligare.org.

McC&P: “IT’S OF NO IMPORTANCE OR RELEVANCE THAT Christianity MAY HAVE HAD PSYCHEDELIC ORIGINS, FOR OUR ARTICLE ABOUT INTRODUCING FOR THE FIRST TIME, PSYCHEDELICS – ARTIFICIALLY & UNNATURALLY — INTO Christianity – OUR INNOVATION PROPOSAL“:

I am echoing the published sentiments of Wink & Brown.

It is disgusting, the flippant, careless, biased, prejudiced, IGNORANT dismissal by McC+P of the psychedelic origin of Christianity

It sucks how McC+P treat Muraresku – and the catch flak rightly for this — as if he is definitive of the theory & evidence for the psychedelic origin of Christianity:

WTF?! SO NOW THE INVADER ALIENS FROM TOP DOWN PHONY ARTIFICIAL AUTHORITIES…

“The Enterprise” [per Robert Forte of Ruck Committee] has delivered down to us, from on high, our new representatives, hard-working alien outsider expert promoter who arrived on the scene 5 minutes ago, and was assigned to travel the world on a million dollar obscene budget, to meet with all the Big Names, to write a book for the Masses – all the real people who’ve been in the field forever rightly grumble.

When Jan Irvin, in contrast, met with the 80 top authorities, he wrote an expose of the whole operation, social engineering. Unlike Michael Pollan & Mura, who wrote fake, engineered “best sellers”. Those authors did great work but the System STINKS. The fakeness of it. Artificial.

I hope i do not here reify the boundary, “establishment vs. grassroots”.

WHO THE F IS “Michael Pollan” and “Brian Muraresku”? Who appointed them as the authorities, fkking 5 minutes ago?! Stinks!

These newcomers (I mean The Enterprise backing them) think they can just march in and define the whole field, like gods mechanically dropped down onto the stage, appointed by the archons rulers of this world.

NOW MICHAEL FKKING POLLAN [not really relevant directly here, but same idea] AND BRIAN FKKING MURARESKU ARE USED AS IF THEY ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES of the theory of the psychedelic origin of Christianity. I guess Ruck “Dr Secret” fumbled the ball and now Mura & Pollan deserve to run off w/ it , what a fkking disaster.

I read most of this article & the reply & meta-reply article.

Winkelman (editor) & Brown strongly call for psychedelic origins of Christianity, but McC & Priest ignore them and dismiss the idea, and other reviewers insult the idea – HAVEN’T YOU HEARD? ALLEGRO’S BEEN DEBUNKED

Greedy opportunist scholarship: Squeeze full value out of the worst writers on topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art

I transformed wretched Hatsis treatment to gain extreme value, eg decoding Great Canterbury Psalter thanks to Hatsis’ 2013 Dancing Man original pdf article published in UK journal. (long full version of his article

I didn’t have that version; i had the over-flashy truncated 2015 version

Xmas 2015 decoded mapping 2 legs to 2 mental models as hypoth, in the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

That hypoth was massively confirmed Nov 2020 f134 row 1 left Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, leading to full decoding of all mushroom imagery in Christian art / mushroom-trees genre, in terms of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

I transformed wretched awful treatment by Letcher….

When judged as a way of debunking Ruck the Secret Amanita paradigm , Shroom is pretty good —
except mis-citing Stamets instead of Ruck Committee (1st Gen), and
pretending that debunking that is same as debunking mushroom imagery in Christian art.

When judged as an attempt to debunk the entire broad psychedelic gospels theory, Shroom is really, really BAD, b/c only handles 1 isolated instance.

I transformed the bad Hug article to gain lots of value from it. mostly Foraging Wrong; also Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”

I extracted/converted to get much value from book by Rush 2011 AFTER I brilliantly TRANSFORM his work.

Panofsky’s terrible arg’n: after I transformed it, it was highly valuable, I turned it into a source of much value.

I am feeling pretty good, satisfied, with my interp of MICA Deniers’ works. Have good, very good handle on them. their pros & cons. I am the most sure-footed guide to these works.

Not to go up against Cyberdisciple / Brown team though, they are formidable. We are, with Samo, the 2nd Gen entheogen scholars. the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm.

Early Christianity was against altar, temple, priest, sacrifice, worship, bowing down

My Feb. 15, 2025 email about history of altar temple worship priest sacrifice worship service REJECTED by early Christianity:

Dear Priest who conducts the sacrifice ritual in the temple building on the rock altar,

I don’t really think our psychedelic church needs our doctrine/ practice to include altar, temple, priest, & animal sacrifice.

Tom Wadsworth would approve of our lack of those 4 elements or analogies for those elements; SGC, like early Christianity, omits those 4 elements.

Unbelieveable amazing, quite surprising:

Original Christianity didn’t have “worship”, “service”, or “worship service”, or bowing down.   

Rejected “temple” concepts.

Christianity had a different relationship with the divine — perhaps more a personal relationship as scholars claim about the character of Christian mysticism.

Trained theologian/ Christian (Tom Wadsworth) reports that early Christians were seen as atheists because they did not use temple, or (animal) sacrifice, or priest, or altar.   

But then, gradually, later Christianity couldn’t resist adding those (traditional Jewish / Hellenistic-type) features back in again.

So in later Christianity, you can find analogies of 

“Eucharist = sacrifice“, 

priest, [an elite conductor of the sacrifice ritual]

temple (eg: “church means a building” instead of a gathering), 

altar  [vs. simply a table or dinner table, or perhaps symposium banquet]

— Michael

Presbyterian church had great classical music & organ which I recorded & produced but wow the lead preacher became so toxic!  so aggressive & accusing, that long-timers spoke up at brunch about it!  I bailed.  

So, in this way, I can relate to others who were “traumatized by church” – in my own way, I was.  

Not traumatized by Christianity, but by: they changed church into a kind of activism that was bad & accusatory; toxic.  Very much not what I signed up for.

email to Ulansey

http://www.mysterium.com

Thank goodness your site is back up.  Your interp of Mithras is the most profound, highly useful for the Egodeath theory: revelation of eternalism (heimarmene, fatedness) – and then, practically, transcending that rock prison.

In books like Wouter Hanegraaff on hermeticism, I automatically go straight for the most important level: fixed stars.  

But in his book I arrived at Alderaan: planet gone entirely ie his model has no stars!

But stars = the most important level!  Everything revolves around that: arriving there, then rising above that. 

Hane. is confused by the fancy tricks of late ant’qy.  

Bold history theory:

Early antiquity glorified heimarmene/fatedness prison;

Late antiquity instead went higher, transcending fatedness (ie, in their interpretation framework).  

Bold history theory:

Not true that Christianity invented freewill – so did Gnostm, Herm’m, Neopl., Mithr’m.  Competitive marketing of the era.

After the Psilocybin state (in which eternalism/ heimarmene was experienced) wears off, return to ordinary state, but now, qualified freewill thinking – = rising above fatedness.

Bold history theory: 

Everyone said no Psilocybin mushrooms in Europe history.

2006 they admitted wrong – shift goalposts:

ok, there was one type, only: Lib Cap.  but no one knew about it.

Baloney/ overstatement.  Europe had many Psilocybin mushrooms and 1200 AD heyday fully developed use of it, proved by mushroom imagery in Christian art.  Every year, ppl get closer to admitting my view.

Hanegraaff’s footnote says he doesn’t know whether to put the FIXED stars in PLANETARY level 7 Saturn, or Ogdoad.  Utterly baffling to me how he can be so clueless on this most basic possible point of geocentric model.

I love astral ascent mysticism: using geo cosmology as mystic transformation framework, especially your area: yes, we pass through Saturn gate to reach fixed stars prison fatedness (boo hoo) but that is not the end!  pass through higher gate – what to call it? from 8th to 9th.  

can call it the fixed stars gate or the empyrean gate (5 diff. spellings) to step outside cosmic rock snake-wrapped wrapped by the heimarmene snake.

todo: shrink emojis NOTE I PUT RAM OVER ROCK OF SACRIFICE JUST PRIOR TO GOING THROUGH THE TEMPLE DOOR IN EADWINE IMAGES.

Eadwine/ Great Canterbury Psalter shows that to get into the temple, the price of entry = child thinking = sacrifice ram / ox.

My focus here: the rock altar is right at the temple doorway, or IN the doorway. That means:

You can’t bring child thinking impurity – monolithic, autonomous control, into the eternalism temple guarded gate/door. pollusion, = instability that casts you back through the gate in terror of loss of control.

Get into holy city = get into temple, zone of the purified, repudicated possibilism-thinking although you totally always use possibilism-thinking – but now, qualified; redeemed, sins forgiven, etc.

🪐
🐑
🪨
🔥
🗡
🐉
🗝
🚪
🪨
🌌
💎
🚪
🏆
👼
🔥
🔥
🔥

Thomas Hatsis’ site has been down. mid-grade entheogen scholarship but beggars/choosers.  too few ppl in field of entheogen scholarship.

John Rush died and his site went down including gallery for book about mushroom imagery in Christian art.

I got mad at my host for egodeath.com and built out my WordPress site instead.

freq linked:

hypercosmic

8th gate

http://egodeath.com – 2007 era

https://egodeaththeory.org – 2020 era

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/10/ptolemaic-astral-ascent-mysticism/

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/12/mithraism-think-with-the-femalemale-mind-of-mithras/

Site map, find Mithraism:

https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/

Why I Favor Perceptual Dualism

I assume the material world exists AND I emphasize entirely [against “Cognitive Neuroscience”], in the Egodeath theory, all of our experience is mental constructs.

Citation Shortcuts

Goal: alternate between short & long form while writing.

Shortcuts: Brinckmann

Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
tsmp
brinc1906

Shortcuts: Dizzy

long form:
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art”
dddm
hug2022

med form:
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”
ddd

short form:
Huggins’ Dizzy article
hda

Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art (Huggins 2022)

Shortcuts: Foraging Wrong

long form:
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”
hug2024

med form:
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”
rhfw

short form:
Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article
hfwa

Citation-style shortcuts/ acronyms

New type of keyboard shortcut/ acronym: citation-style shortcuts/acro’s

hug22

hug24

astrosham1

astrosham2

irvin2006

irvin2008 = thm

irvin2009 = smc 40th ann ed.

smc = allegro1970 = smc (book, vs. serialization)

bb16

bb19

samo97

samo98

pan1

pan2

was68

Shortcuts: What Food the Centaurs Ate

Robert Graves’ 1957 article “What Food the Centaurs Ate”
wfca
graves57

Published in New Yorker, according to diary entry found by Cyberdisciple.

graves58 book STEPS (s t e p s)
not the article that briefly mentions kykeon recipe, that graves 73 or journal editor 1970 got mixed up

graves60 book Food for Centaurs

graves70

graves73

New strategy for shortcuts: multiple shortcuts for same result

Central Importance of “Entry into Jerusalem” [gate]

The scene smells most important.

Saint Martin art centralizes it. Golden Psalter has a good version. Palm branches have varying shape like feather.

You come through gate of city to welcome — epiphany — the ruler/ emperor. Non branching control. Psilocybin. Cut branches.

REAL ART CRITIC: Donkey should stand on right foot, not left. Right foot art is superior.

My Page About Blading Control to Make It Seize Failed [guar]

Email 2, Feb 15 2025 [failure to seize]

Egodeath community member Strange Loop, in episode of Max F’s Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, reported not being able to bad trip in my defined way despite following my page that tries to instruct how to do that; how to contact the control instability vortex (Elijah’s whirlwind chariot up to heaven).

That’s a failure/problem for me.  

If my description of exactly how the control seizure climax works (to engender new life & sacrifice; to demonstrate disproof of egoic control power) were adequate, Strange Loop would have been able.  He tested my instruction page, and my page failed the testing (unlike Cyberdisciple’s experience, which experientially confirmed the Egodeath theory).

The mind has to first locate the bad trip gate (guarded by snake dragon) while pursuing treasure, and then, figure how to transform to pass through gate to get treasure – golden apples, tree of life.  

Irvin’s book AstroSham uses my photos of dried Amanita proving the merit of “golden apples” analogy.  

My 2010 photo of shiny red Amanita with no while veil remnants proves the “apple/red fruit” analogy.  Holy tomato.

Pop beginners’ spirituality = newage = Unity [unity]

Some ppl continue to equate psychedelic mystical experience with unity. But recent scholars call for a broader model of mystical experience that’s not limited to the unity experience/ framework.

I continue to see “explanations” of psychedlic enlightenment as “unity”.  

But I experienced that kind of unity at the START of my research in 1986!  

That was a year before discovering advanced spirituality/ mystic experiencing, ie 2-level control; dependent control; block-universe eternalism – ie, real, adult, full, “perfected”, completed initiate.

Aptitude testing claimed that I’m off the charts (too much for their job placement model) at everything, including spatial – except poor fine motor.  

I was a little skeptical, and credited coffee.  

I felt that I only scored well b/c I cheated by coffee.

Constructive Corrective Criticism of Brown that Builds the Field per Cyberdisciple

​I’m never angered by Brown.  It’s extremely interesting/ intriguing, their cluster of errors and contradictory narratives/ reasoning/ positioning.  

Browns don’t merely make separate errors of botan. ID’n.  I had to study in full detail the book & article together, to piece together their reasoning and story/tale.  All their treatment around their non-field-research “during our field research” around Walburga tapestry, is a garbled mess, a tangled web of folly.

I criticised Brown to Cyberdisciple recently, saying “Brown doesn’t understand at all the ramif. of the Panofsky letters & Wasson’s mistreatment of them.”  

Brown 2019 merely said valuable b/c the art historian & MICA Denier Panofsky admitted mushroom-trees might mean mushrooms — Panofsky did not admit that.  

It’s much more interesting & serious, what Panofsky & Wasson actually wrote – or omitted.  Soon after I said that to Cyberdisciple, Browns confirmed that my Nov. 2020 – Jan. 2025 interpretation of Panofsky’s letters was profoundly better, more substantive, than Browns’ initial 2019 assessment.

It’s very personal, my anger at Wasson: in 2006, I wanted to see what citations Panofsky gave Wasson – but Wasson refused to give them to me.  

I wanted to read all of the discussion by art historians of mushroom-trees – but Wasson wouldn’t let me, despite his (angering) B.S. haranguing mycologists for failing to “consult” the art authorities.  

Kind of like we tell Hatsis “STFU about your superior methodology, and instead DO decent methodology, instead of talking about doing it.”  

Wasson, STFU about “you failed to ‘consult’ art historians”, and instead, give us the damn citations, you Phony, obstructionist!“

I am soon going to gather my accusations from my 2006 article, and I am going to make the case as much as possible, that I in effect, caught Wasson’s censorship + Panofsky’s feeble citations, back in 2006.

I wrote around 5 short paragraphs that essentially amount to: “I bet Panofsky provided feeble citations, and Wasson censored them.”  

My biggest mistake in my 2006 article about Plaincourault fresco, Wasson, & Allegro: 

I failed to note that right where I expected Panofsky to provide citations to back up his big-talking scholarly claims, in that exact spot, Wasson writes ellipses “. . . .” in place of the expected citation(s), therefore, I bet there’s a censored citation(s) right there.  

I didn’t speculate “or Panofsky may have even attached art images of mushroom-trees.” – he attached two.  

I haven’t heard back from Ruck / Hoffman whether these art images photostats are in the drawer at Harvard.

And I failed to include a list item at start of article, in the “Takeaways” section, saying “Wasson apparently withholds citations, dishonestly, from Panofsky, and I bet it’s a feeble citation that actually supports MICA Affirmers.”  

I now in 2025 am going to gather what I did write, in that article, that’s tantamount to asserting those things.  

My 2006 article’s accusations were confirmed, by Brown 2019, 13 years later.

Prayer

I’m inept at Christian popular prayer, but, I have deep substantive ideas for “real” / esoteric prayer, and, I now more understand Christian mysticism vs. other forms: Christian is about 2-level control; about marriage of transpersonal & personal control levels.  

Original Christianity rejected bowing down, rejected worship & worship service (as found by Tom Wadsworth  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGPSQVoZrMg )

I wrote out ideas for prayer per the Egodeath theory.  
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/05/esoteric-christian-prayers/

wrmspirit questions in email feb 15 2025 [mystical experience]

wrmspirit wrote:

“No such word as Staceanism. What does it mean? What does it refer to?

“I absolutely love mysticism, because it is the portal into God’s arms.

“When discussing, refuting any claims for and against ‘mysticism’, shouldn’t dosage be mentioned as a control factor?

“Isn’t there a difference between degrees of shadow?

“Isn’t it true that what becomes, what opens into mysticism, is dependent upon dosage, differences within human experiences and interpretations and difference in age of receiver?

“How is true debate determined when it is God playing tug of war with words. The latter here, in and of itself, shuts everything down.”

I wrote:

Definition of Stacean, Staceanism, Einsteinian, Minkowskian, Jamesian

Stacean means the William James 1902 & Walter Stace 1960 model of mystical experience, which is, in Griffiths’ words, “positive-balanced” (and thus false, or — at best – inadequate and basically incomplete).

There is recently increasing criticism of the Stacean model of mystical experience: Staceanism is only correct in a limited way.

When the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science argue about “mysticism”, they are not actually talking about mysticism; they are merely, instead, arguing over Staceanism.

Staceanism is mysticism as mis-conceived by 2006-era Psychedelic Science, based on Stace’ book in 1960, which is based on James 1902.

Probably a number of writers in that debate have used the word Stacean.

I might be the first to use the cynical construction “Staceanism” to disparage his so-called “mysticism”.

Studerus’ 11-Factors q’air article, page 1, literally argues or takes for granted:

“pleasant = mystical experience;

unpleasant = challenging experience [thus non-mystical]”.

Studerus page 1 comically cites, as the Scientific basis, Stace 1960. What a joke, what a terrible “basis” of this “science”, is provided by Stace 1960.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/17/references-for-psychedelic-psychometrics-questionnaires/#11-Factors-Studerus-2010

As Erik Davis writes, this “science” basis for Psychedelic Mysticism research is “vouchsafed” by outdated and dubious Stace 1960, over half a century old.

Search ‘vouchsafed’: https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=vouchsafed

https://www.google.com/search?q=jamesean

wikip:

“the ambiguous, subjective characteristics of the fiction of Henry James

the Jamesian Theory of Self developed by Henry James’ brother, philosopher William James

a narrative with similarities to the ghost stories of writer M. R. James (1862 – 1936)

a follower of James the Just and the teachings of the Letter of James.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=Einsteinian

https://www.google.com/search?q=Einsteinean

Oxford:

“relating to or characteristic of the theoretical physicist Albert Einstein or his theories.

eg: a separate Einsteinian time-space continuum”

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22walter+stace%22+stacean – check for hits that contain ‘stacean’

I was glad recently to see other critics of Psychedelic Science/Mysticism use the term ‘Stacean’ and maybe ‘Staceanism’ – check Erik Davis & my page list of articles in the Moving Past Mysticism debate: some such articles have used this legit standard contruction, this is grammatical:

Jamesian, Wilberian, wrmspiritean, Max Freakoutean, Einsteinian / Einsteinean

Dosage: Why non-drug meditation, Amanita, & non-drug entheogens are fake and inadequate [the Reference]

Why only Psilocybin Is the Teacher of Righteousness [the Reference]

Why Psilocybin is the gold standard of Reference for mental model transformation/ maturation [the Reference]

Dosage level is a big emphasis made by Hopkins/ Griffiths teams: They emphasize that degree of mystical experience & challenging experience is a function of dosage level.

Many of their articles / research defines 3 dosage levels of synth Psil: eg 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg = low, med, high dosage.

The source of mystical experience is not significantly other than Psilocybin.

Non-drug meditation can slightly produce the mystic altered state, but not sufficiently reliably & intensely to produce THE effect.

Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism [mystical experience]

“A” mystical experience from Griffiths’ Psychedelic Mysticism research?

The ultimate “mystical experience” is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism to psychedelic eternalism.

The wording is nuanced and crucially important, in the debate! to define the positions usefully & relevantly:

Non-drug meditation cannot sufficiently reliably , it’s not sufficiently reliable or intense to accomplish mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Insofar as the fake construct academics’ fake invented confabulation “the traditional methods of the mystics” “can” produce a Psil-like effects, the problem is, non-drug meditation is not reliable … same problem Amanita has!

Non-drug meditation, or Amanita, is not intense enough and is not reliable enough to deliver you through the guarded gate, transformation gate, to get the treasure & bring it back to the community. Amanita “can” produce mystical experience – but it’s a deliriant, and cannot do anything but STEAL CREDIT from the only way that actually is strong enough to bring full mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Griffiths, or Amanita, or non-drug meditation, or Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, “can/ could/ might/ may” produce “a” mystical experience, but that’s merely weakly true.

Walter Stace 1960 is correct: mystical experience includes UNITY.

But the Egodeath theory is AGAINST UNITY as definitive of transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Dittrich’s dimension name, “Dread of ego dissolution”, is INADEQUATE.

It’s not wrong, but it’s not helpful, it’s not sufficient, it’s not relevant enough.

Same w/ lexicon conceptual that’s alien to / external to the Egodeath theory’s conceptual vocab: “default mode network”, “cog neurosci”, “neuroplasticity” are “not wrong, but not helpful.”

That’s my catchphrase: “Not wrong, but not helpful.”

Non-drug meditation is not wrong, but it’s not sufficient to deliver the goods, deliver on the bragging Marketing claims, braggadocio that belittles Psil.

Psil is the actual standard gold reference – non-drug meditation is NOT the true genuine gold standard of reference, and I hate the assumption that non-drug meditation is the gold standard of reference.

The teacher of righteousness is Psil, NOT non-drug meditation, or Amanita, or Hane’s non-drug entheogens.

That is my massive fundamental refutation of Zig Zag Zen and the lousy poorly conducted, mis-founded Pop debate of “psychedelics vs. Buddhism”: their fund. premise is wrong and false and presupposition.

I hate that that debate takes it for granted that the gold standard of reference is non-drug meditation.

The true gold standard reference is Psil, because only Psil is sufficiently reliable and intense to cause transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Non-drug meditation “can” produce “a” mystical experience, but cannot produce the full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Beginners’ mild experience of cosmic unity, falls short of full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

Recognizing My Breakthrough Experiences in My Posts

I’ve read, to some extent, most of your [wrmspirit] recent emails.

You seem intuitive/perceptive, or lucky guesses/assessments, about which of my recent posts/ findings are signif. for me.

I was glad you recognized them. eg

Letcher Only Needed to Use a Single Instance of Non-Secret Mushroom-Tree to Debunk 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship, Which Brittly Identified with the Secret Amanita Paradigm

Today I realized Letcher is right that he only has to use 1 isolated instance of mushroom-tree to disprove Ruck Committee’s bunk, false-based, SECRET mushroom theory.

Letcher screwed up by citing in p 35 endnote 31 the ONLY entheogen scholars who do NOT worship the idol of SECRET = psychedelic: Stamets & Gartz (they are 2nd Gen, so, not idol worshippers of “secret”).

They don’t let the “secret” tail wag the “entheogens” dog.

In effect, Letcher 2006 noticed that 1st gen entheogen scholarship — Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck — made the “secret” tail wag the “entheogens” dog, and Letcher EASILY destroyed and debunked Ruck’s particular theory/ paradigm/ storytime narrative.

Letcher holds up that narrative for ridicult, just like I do.

Letcher is correct, here.

Letcher is wrong to extrapolate – that is fallacious — from debunking the Secret Amanita paradigm, to the ACT LIKE he disproved broadly the broad mushroom imagery in Christian art theory; the psychedelic gospels theory. He did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.

I have destroyed & disproved Ruck’s the Secret Amanita paradigm.

In no way have I destroyed & disproved the psychedelic gospels theory – that is an entirely different matter!

Only the malformed MONSTROSITY YALDABAOTH *version* of the psychedelic gospels theory was disproved easily by Letecher and all it took was 1 isolated mushroom-tree.

For the legit purpose of disproving specifically the the Secret Amanita paradigm VERSION of the psychedelic gospels theory, it’s true that AL only needed to treat a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

LETCHER IS VERY INVALID AND FALLACIOUS IN CLAIMING A BIGGER VICTORY THAN MERE DEFEAT OF RUCK/ the Secret Amanita paradigm.

It is SO easy to demolish/ disprove Ruck’s version of the psychedelic gospels theory you only need to show one instance that’s not in heretics’ place of worship.

Irvin demolishes even that; Irvin proves Plainc chapel is legit Catholic, NOT heretic!

So Ruck is WRONG on p. 14 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 when claiming the returning heretics “brazenly displayed the mushroom in THEIR” places of worship”.

Plaincourault chapel was not a heretical place of worship!

This means, even the Plaincourault fresco fails the ruck claim of being “secret” or restricted to only heretics’ places of worship displaying mushroom imagery.

I completely hold Ruck responsible for calling mushroom users heretics. He can’t hide behind his string in all 3 print Entheos: “so called heretical sects” – nobody is calling them heretics but YOU ruck!

Hatsis kind of backs me up on this – though I would never partner with Hatsis, who is toxic, uncooperative, adversarial.

It so happens that Hatsis argues same as me here, there is no evidence in 1200 that Church said Amanita is heretical.

Ruck fabricated that, and it is a bad idea to fabricate that; counterproductive.

Much of the goodness and inspiration for Rucks’ 2001 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 was actually to the credit of Samorini 98. (= 96, 97)

Ruck betrayed (he let us see) how bad his strategy, because as soon as Ruck stopped recycling Samo 98, Ruck went straight back to awful narrative of the Secret Amanita paradigm – which is not really directly found on p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001.

Samo 98 momentarily got Ruck headed in right direction – but Ruck quickly reverted to the wrong direction (focusing on ‘secret’ drama instead of psychedelics), and so in 2002/2003, I officially bailed and split; ie declared that my approach is contrasted against the Ruck paradigm.

I was never “in” 1st Gen entheogen scholarship – I guess i am willing to identify as “2nd gen entheogen scholar”, but still on the whole the Egodeath theory is not within entheogen scholarship; the Egodeath theory stands outside of — and above — entheogen scholarship, and descends down from on high on wings of angels to redeem and lift up the fallen, earthbound, unable-to-fly, 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship of 1998-2002.

The inability of 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship to fly was proved by the book by Hoffman & Ruck, Entheogens, Myth & Human Consciousness, which lacks any content about mental model transformation, mental construct processing, loose mental functioning binding / loose cognition enabling experiencing heimarmene; mythemes

The book lacks how various specific mythemes describe by analogy the mental model transformation effects of bona fide psychedelics (not deliriant Amanita or Scopolamine), eg:

{fire, snake, rock, panic, gate, guard, child, adult, blade, tree, branch, cut branch}

Citation Shortcuts: Sacred Mushroom & The Cross

the book The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross by John Allegro, 1970
smcl

The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross by Allegro
smcm

Sacred Mushroom & The Cross
smc

Citation Shortcuts: The Holy Mushroom

The book The Holy Mushroom by Jan Irvin 2008
thmm

The Holy Mushroom
thm

I Accept Brown Classing Me as 2nd-Gen entheogen scholar – I reject the framing from 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship [mica]

Thomas Hatsis flubs and projects. He unthinkingly assumes that Brown & I came from the Allegro 1970 framework.

I only heard of allegro 1998/1999, and thn, my main use of Allegro was ahistoricity, but his book SMC was poor for that and for entheogen scholarship.

I cannot be any LESS influenced by Allegro.

I was I always held myself as outsider to entheogen scholarship – or, a DROP DOWN FROM ON HIGH VISTOR to set straight the directionless field of entheogen scholarship by bringing my hallowed Transcendent Knowledge that cannot have come from entheogen scholarship either gen 1 or …. gen 2??

Gen 2 = 1996 gartz / stamets… not Hein; Hein’s DNA is Gen 1 : the Secret Amanita paradigm, abusing Psilocybin mushrooms as a mere supporting role, temporary cast.

Obviously, easily, Samo 98 is the looming towering point of ref for everyone; clearly, self evident, Samo 98 is the huge beacon of light explosion announcing end of the world for Gen 1. So: coincidence:

In 1998, Samo article mushroom-trees in Christian art

In 1998, I looked to religion or myth or enth-myth like Ruck textbook, and Samo sent me articles not really long after that… by 2004 at latest, probably.

I finished outlining core theory feb 1997. 1998 started learning Mystery Religions more than Gnosis magazine 1990s showed me.

That’s an amazing finding from maybe 2010 bookstore: amazingly, there are no Mystery Religions books in the spir’l bookstores! not even theos (but their library might have them.

1998 marks start of 2nd Gen entheogen scholarship bc samo 98 article & b/c I began in earnest, using myth & history / entheogen scholarship to corrob my core theory;

by 2007 my main article really great including pictures i failed to comprehend branching in art, found that by 2013 nov – tho 2001 posted branching in Physics vs manyworlds bad QM braching vs spacetime nonbranching.

You Better Get Straight on the Mushroom Imagery in Bernward Doors, Column, & Chandelier [mica]

Pop Sike song “Kicks” by Paul Revere & The Raiders

paul revere get straight
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=paul+revere+kicks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLomSaLLSzg — hi fi version, no video:

lo fi video version, one of several: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERPilDUI_qg

  • Bernward; [especially when i finally broke out short gallery of the 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees: fruit of long years/weeks of work to finally get straight]
  • Splendor Solis cover of Irvin AstroSham book; [due to timing, hiatus, etc, I may have acted cool but this was a pretty big deal discovery, a “sign” of green light]
  • Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars [sudden summarizing of most of my flaw-finding, was a really great thing to do – i realized, after reflecting on the pros & cons of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” and other MICA Deniers]
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/

Entheogen scholars must correct each other [mica]

My recent post summarizing what’s mistaken, by entheogen scholars – I have to backtrack to trace my steps to answer: why was i inspired to write that post that i threw together so quickly & effectively the other day?

Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/

Answer: I have been struggling recently, and 2007, to assess: MICA Deniers suck so bad, it’s infuriating, YET I had to give Letcher 2006 Shroom no less no fewer than 4 of 5 stars.

Reading Huggins’ Foraging Wrong, he finds plenty of screwups by entheogen scholars, such as Chs Stang saying Great Canterbury Psalter > Day 3 shows “bowl of mushrooms”. That’s quite a poor statement/ interp/ framing by Stang, if Stang says that.

Huggins points out that Brown is simply wrong & false, when Brown claims that Day 4’s 4 plants appear throughout Great Canterbury Psalter. They do not.

What appears — as Huggins starts, but only starts, to point out: combinations of features of those 4 plants, or like those 4 plants, and of trees, — THAT is what appears thoroughout Great Canterbury Psalter.

So Huggins is JUSTIFIED in saying that MICA Affirmers are full of baloney. That’s why I wrote my page. My page conforms to Browns’ call for a database catalog to organize commentaries.

That Brown catalog would be more effective than poor articles by overwhelmed entheogen scholars or overwhelmed MICA Deniers like the grossly underinformed Letcher 2006 book Shroom that considers 1% of the evidence; a SINGLE instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

I had cog. dissonance between “Huggins & Letcher suck so bad” vs. “Hatsis & esp. Huggins make some solid points against mushroom imagery in Christian art”.

Huggins credits Hatsis for pointing out Ruck’s huge error about Dancing Man cap color – again, probably even more of a faceplant than Brown re: Walburga tapestry.

I wrote the page/article Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars b/c we MICA Affirmers need to correct each other which means I needed to list — in one spot — my main corrections of bad interps by entheogen scholars.

Friend says I shouldn’t waste time on MICA Deniers eg Huggins – I disagree!

I can’t deny, that MICA Deniers point out & have a field day, with the stupid mistakes made by Ruck, for example, Ruck in Irvin’s book by Allegro, horribly extreme screwup by Ruck, when Ruck claims Dancing Man has red cap. Plainly it’s blue!

How the hell did Ruck make such a colossal, obvious, basic mistake?!

A separate question is: Rank how bad the various errors by MICA Affirmers.

Ruck’s huge screwup (blame the Amanita Primacy Fallacy) is probably worse even than Browns’ failure to botanically identify Amanita’s typically/ often serrated base.

The most sophisticated-level error made by entheogen scholarship/ MICA Affirmers: they are wrong to say art means mushrooms; that is NOT the message.

As [censored by Wasson] Panofsky/Huggins points out, branching is a major question, failed to address by most entheogen scholars.

You can’t say “Huggins sucks, ignore him”, when Huggins astutely picks up on censored-Panofsky who says ‘the main reason i reject mushroom-trees purposefully meaning mushrooms is b/c they have branches.”

It’s LAZY and shirking scholarly responsibility to simply declare “HUGGINS IS BAD & WRONG”. Not true. Huggins makes many valid points, and branching is an ESSENTIAL point.

Letcher’s Shroom book is 4 or arguably 5 stars re: recounting pop history of entheogen scholarship – even though the book is only 1 star, re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Welcome to scholarship Hell: Your job is to sort the wrong from the potentially right [ie, can be transformed by me, to be right & useful] aspects within a work.

Hold your nose while you separate the awful from the pretty good.

In discussion with Brown, re: emphasis Brown added in 2019 article re: Marcia Kupfer describing Saint Martin “Entry Jeru”, I realized that branching is the MAIN message, in a way bigger than merely “mushrooms”.

Scholarship is the activity of separating wheat from chaff [mica]

I recently struggled to get as much from studying Golden Teacher (a Cuben. strain) as from the synthetic stuff studied previously (1985-2020). [this intro continues below at: rendered “speechless”]

So far, I like the book TIK by Muraresku a lot more than Cyberdisciple likes it – i like the bold assertive speculation about early Christianity using ergot [or Psil.]

All books & theories are glass half full; a mix of good & bad.

Scholarship is the hard work of rightly dividing the scriptures that is, identifying what is correct from Hatsis, deniers, even Panofsky, Irvin, Ronald Huggins (2022 Dancing Man article & 2024 Canterbury article), and that awful yet pretty good book Shroom by Andy Letcher 2006.

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+zukav+book+%22dancing+wu+li+masters%22+first+published%3F

March 1979.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=quantum+mysticism

book: Quantum Science of Psychedelics

Ken Wilber books against Quantum Mysticism: 1984: Quantum Questions, edited by Ken Wilber.

What book was around 2010-2015, about history of dubious Pop Quantum Mysticism? tbd

I struggled so hard after my 4 star review of Shroom, re: whether to reduce to 3 stars b/c Andy Letcher’s MICA Denial is so awful.

MICA: mushroom imagery in Christian art

Letcher literally uses 1 instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art, to dismiss the entire topic, and uses incredibly bad reasoning (not secret proves not mushroom — non sequitur! Does Not Follow!).

Wretched, awful, logical fallacies by MICA Deniers:

* MICA Affirmers are bad because we don’t care about mundane details.

* MICA Deniers are bad because they don’t care about good argumentation.

Of greater value is Letcher’s reply to my review, at his site, where he claims a chain of 4 things we cannot prove (my interp. in Nov. 2020 of Great Canterbury Psalter proved all 4 points + 1 even greater point).

Exoteric Religion? Materialist Atheism? Esoteric Religion (psychedelic eternalism) [mystical experience]

Exoteric-type Mythicism is lame and they need a 3rd alternative like us mythic/esoteric Christians.

I can optionally provide that but I must not take on additional burdens or that would prevent me from contributing anything.

I have to stay narrowly focused and deliver the basic Theory of mental model transformation, before making my todo list too long & onerous.

I’m thinking of the MythVision youtube channel.

It is so limited & sad when someone leaves literalist Christianity (exoteric) and is left empty handed with nothing but materialist atheism; full-time debunking.

When literalist religion is outgrown, most ppl are left empty handed, unless they discover esoteric-type mythicism.

Debunking is so limited – that’s a reason I spend some time but only spend limited time debunking the historicity of religious founder figures.

Unlike Atheists, I don’t care about Jesus’ ahistoricity. There are other esoteric Christians, who, like me, are apathetic about that.

What I care about is: how does Jesus figure describe – by analogy – mental model transformation to psychedelic eternalism?

/ end of Feb 15 2025 email

Psychedelic Cognitive Science and Psychedelic Neuroscience Are Fundamentally Different, Distinct, Contrasting Fields

Neuroscience Is Misused to Eliminate and Prevent Cognitive Science, a Kind of Eliminative Reductionism

Reason for downloading
https://www.academia.edu/110044175/The_Past_and_Future_of_Psychedelic_Science_An_Introduction_to_This_Issue —

Nese Devenot defines ‘science’ narrowly and pits it against a call for multidisciplinary “psychedelic studies”, the opposite of Houot’s new book advocating a “science discoverer explorer” framing/narrative.

My 1988 theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, including the mytheme theory of 2023, originates from STEM, including Science & Engineering, and useful Technology.

Math: I got the Minkowsky book, w/ 1908 articles, about block universe, non-branching (opposite of manyworlds) – 1988 the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence was influenced by Minkowski but — unlike Quantum Mysticism — this eternalism-based mysticism is in no way based on or dependent on Minkowski’s spacetime math framework.

Ancients described block universe experience without needing Modern Physics.

Ken Wilber in 1980s wrote: There’s overlap between transcendent psychospiritual dev’mt and Physics, but psychospir devmt is not based on or dependent on Physics.

I define Loose Cognitive Science (though I am anti-Neuroscience).

To advocate my truly Cognitive Phen’y approach, I have to kick Neuroscience to the curb.

[GTFO, Neuro reductionism! You’re NOT going to take over and eliminate Cog Sci, which is ALWAYS how NeuroBullsh!t is mis-used.]

The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is half bunk, b/c based on wrong, bad, false so-called “mysticism” which is not mysticism but is Staceanism (1960) instead.

The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is much worse, omits 18 of 21 of Dittrich’s Angst dimension items: Ppl should not use CEQ; use OAV 1994’s Angst dimension instead.

I’ve taken to writing “psychedelic pseudo science”.

The field is in the pre-Science phase, aspiring to become Science one day.

It can’t be Science until my simple model of mental model transformation transformation.

Cognitive scientists are not equipped to tolerate the Psychedelic state until able to function within the psychedelic eternalism model of control, with 2-level control.

Until then, the dragon monster rules this pre-Science territory and we can’t get through the guarded gate.

Site Map

A Declaration of Psychedelic Studies (Devenot, 2011)

A Declaration of Psychedelic Studies
Neşe Devenot, 2011
https://www.academia.edu/1344252/A_Declaration_of_Psychedelic_Studies_2011_
7 Pages

Article Summary

🤖 wrote:

“Argues for the establishment of psychedelic studies as a legitimate interdisciplinary field.

“Emphasizes the cultural and philosophical dimensions of psychedelic experiences.

“Critiques the current focus on objective scientific research, advocating for a broader dialogue that includes humanistic perspectives.

“Calls for deconstruction of disciplinary boundaries to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of psychedelics across various domains.”

About Neşe Devenot

About the author: Neşe Devenot
Johns Hopkins University, Faculty Member

“Neşe Devenot is the Medicine, Society & Culture Postdoctoral Scholar in Bioethics at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

“Received her PhD in Comparative Literature & Literary Theory from the University of Pennsylvania. Her current project,

Chemical Poetics: The Literary History of Psychedelic Science

“explores the function of metaphor and other literary devices in narrative accounts of psychedelic experience.

She was a 2015-16 Research Fellow at the New York Public Library’s Leary Papers and a Research Fellow with the New York University Psilocybin Cancer Anxiety Study, where she participated in the first qualitative study of patient experiences.”

My “reason for downloading” the article

The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM — imposed top-down by the archons of this world — is bankrupt, as the companies are removing key words from their names and distancing themselves.

Every real person has taken a stance against the fake, imposed, medical therapy model.

I am regularly writing “psychedelic pseudo science”, because the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is based on a false, pollyanna, “positive balanced” model (that’s Griffiths’ defense when challenged in a video interview by Charles Stang).

[should add: globally search and replace in the entire body of writings:
change “mystical” to “Stacean”; change “mysticism” to “Staceanism”.

What’s being discussed and disputed is NOT mystical experience; everyone is focused instead on the wrong, false, Stacean model of “mystical experience”, which is not mystical experience in any adequate sense.

As you read, always cross out “mystical” and write “Stacean” instead.]

The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is the worst failure ever produced by “science”: it simply discards 18 of 21 Angst items from Dittrich’s OAV 1994, and replaces them by familiar-sounding “Grief” experiences instead; obviously the Marketing dept. took over.

By quirk, I’m the first to receive and review Houot’s book [became avail Feb 2 2025], which calls for a “scientific explorer/ discoverer” model instead of other frameworks such as Big Therapy.

re: Moving Past Mysticism debate:
Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/

Fully Leveraging the Entire Set of All Mushroom Imagery from Bernward [mica]

Email 4:59 pm, Feb. 11, 2025

“The pair of pages is fantastic:

The Seven Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees of the Bernward Doors and Column
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/10/the-seven-liberty-cap-mushroom-trees-of-the-bernward-doors-and-column/

Bernward Doors and Columns, Hildesheim
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/
2023; expanded 2025

“One can imagine deniers’ jaw- dropping thoughts of unbelief as “How the heck did he do this?””

My Email Reply ~Feb. 11, 2025

The long labor is rewarded by discoveries & a clear view of Bernward imagery, at long last.

The past 2-3 weeks, I have been slogging away, hammering away, still failing to get my arms around the set of tree imagery from Bernward, until 1-2 days ago.

Consider how many times, about 10 publications, since Stamets’ book PMotW 1996 (also Gartz’ book M.M.) — little bits of Bernward have been kicked around by M.I.C.A. Affirmers & Deniers; mushrm imagery in Christian art.

Finally there is an actual gallery — I am greedy though worn out, to add all the minor imagery as well, some 5 other motifs in Bernward, because only by presenting organized catalogs of ALL the imagery is full enough commitment, 100% vigorous total assertion of ALL of the imagery, to be consistent.

The past months, past years, since May 2023 (and count my 2007 critical review of Letcher’s book Shroom), I’ve been struggling to get a clear, organized view of Bernward, getting confused, making mistakes, correcting the mistakes, scrapping and re-doing the page from 2023.

Photo © Genevra Kornbluth. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html
“BernwardDoors_11-2-3 mushroom hems.jpg” 294 KB, 6:20 pm Feb. 9, 2025
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_11-2-3.jpg
https://www.KornbluthPhoto.com/archive-1.html

After my usual initial doubt the other morning seeing the Eve Nursing image w/ mushroom hem, and then seeing in your [web search] pictures the nearby {floating mushroom hem} of the angel teaching Adam to work the land (a MUCH welcome corroboration), now I feel I have no choice but to be the extremist Ardent Advocate and vigorously assert, that:

Every similar image in Bernward means Psil mshrms; we *are* to count every last one of them, including imagery that’s doubtful when in isolation.

“I doubt the roof means Lib Cap, b/c that’s an odd, unpopular assertion, and when viewed in isolation, it means nothing.”

Too bad; the vigorous mushrm overlay filter reveals those shapes. My job is to inventory the shapes that match – not to persuade committed doubters & isolators.

Interpretation is not about an isolated image or 1 isolated Bernward Liberty Cap mushrm-tree. It’s about the entire genre of interlinked motifs.

Like my white boxes (a filter) around many features in Psalter major scenes:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/19/psalter-rows/#Entire-Image-Mushroom-Items

The filter doesn’t lie: those are, in fact, the msh imagery – has nothing to do with artist intent or viewer interpretation; objectively, the filter reveals those images, eg a building roof topper that’s a ball on a stem —

A video about the ring chandelier explained the large elevated balls above each tower as “to distribute the light”. A metal, mushrm shape, “to distribute the light”, they explain!

My picture doesn’t show the msh toppers above 12 towers; see other angles:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/#Chandelier

So [4:59 pm, Feb. 11, 2025, or Feb. 9] — I now have increased the case, that just as the Psalter and Bernward show lib cap roofs, and mushrm roof toppers, we see the same shape on top of the 12 towers of the ring chandelier. I am the first entheogen scholar to even MENTION these.

Victory goes to the Bold; the maximal entheogen theory of religion.

I acknowledge the boldness of Samorini 1998 & Hoffman/Ruck/Staples 2001, as I do not shirk back but press the case FORWARD through to complete consistency and full vigor in the spirit of John Rush, who was as freewheeling and reality-detached, as he was bold.

MICA Denial

https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/12/dizzy-dancing-dying-huggins-2022/

https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/

It is understandable that after John Rush’s over-promising but disappointing book in 2011, we have broad skeptical replies like

  • Letcher 2006,
  • Hatsis 2013 articles,
  • Bennett 2021 article Fungi Paraeioeoieoiea
  • Huggins 2022 & 2024 articles

rolling their eyes and even:

Contradictory Positive and Negative, MICA Affirmer & Denier at same time

  • Brown joining in, to throw overboard Ardent Advocate John Rush AND even Walburga tapestry to seal & prove Browns’ certified skepticism (hyper-) & try to earn Brown credibility points via negation — at the same time as cashing in on Walburga by including it in gallery of Amanita imagery in both 2016 book & 2019 article.

“Walburga tapestry is not Amanita, so I win credibility points; AND, it is Amanita, so I win gallery points.”

Photo credit: Not Julie, since “during our field work”, they decided not to do field work – based on Irvin’s copy of photo, also provided by the abbey. As self-contradictory a mess as Ruck’s narrative.

Ruck Affirms mushroom imagery in Christian art at the same time as Ejecting that Evidence from Christianity and Assigning it to what Ruck HIMSELF Labels as “Heretical Sects”

Sort of like Ruck neutralizes his own evidence by forcing it into a confused mold of “yet more evidence that alien infiltration of The Mushrm made it even into the very heart of Christendom”; asserting such imagery but then discounting it as merely “heretical”.

Gotta be consistent, and don’t dither and self-contradict your narrative as is the hallmark of Ruck.

Recently, mid 2024 article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies by McCarthy & Priest, claim that Brian Muraresku claims that Carl Ruck claims that the institutional church “elided” (got rid of) mushrooms, and I knew that’s a misrep. of Ruck.

I hastened to study Muraresku’s book TIK, but especially I was motivated to scour the two 2001 articles by the Ruck crew: Conj Eden + Daturas Virgin.

My re-study of Ruck’s 2001-2002 writings just confirmed: the Ruck narrative is an incoherent mess.

I’m still not sure what Mura. claims Ruck’s position is. I can’t blame McC & Priest; it’s hard to state the confused narrative of the moderate (aka minimal) entheogen theory of religion. Borrowed 2nd printing (hardcover) of Mura book TIK, and my own copy (9th printing hardcover).

I don’t think I have Ruck’s book Effluents of Deity, with or without its DVD gallery. Brown praises it, and claims there’s no gallery, a half truth (publisher failed to include their promised DVD).

Others have struggled too, as we see with Letcher’s 2006 book that dismissed mushroom imagery in Christian art purely by arguing that a single tree was not secret therefore doesn’t count (utterly ludicrous, and my early review called him on it).

It’s remarkable how good, broad scope, the 2001 Conjuring Eden article was – like the staggering famous “mother of all demos” when 1960s demo of 2010-era technology.

That article in Entheos Issue 1 did a pretty good job covering Bernward, if you completely comprehend the online gallery that supplemented the article. It did not show all 7 trees. It did not say there are 7.

And so, “refutations” of msh imagery in Bernward’s art act like there is only 1 tree. In fact there are not only 7 such trees, but also – NO ONE has mentioned — several other motifs of such imagery.

In Great Canterbury Psalter and Bernward, ppl get overwhelmed, they get fixated on the first image they see, and can’t imagine going deeper with 10x as much imagery being present.

My struggle, my being overwhelmed by Psalter & Bernward’s metalwork, is compensated by my incredible discoveries in the G C Psalter and finally, a summary of imagery in Bernward.

The ConjEden article was so good, building on Samo’s 1998 excellent article, I was spoiled: when Ruck Committee didn’t keep up that positive contribution, but they fell back to a negative, “secret” mental frame (limited to heretics; limited to elites; limited, limited always the emphasis), I broke from them — not that I ever came “from” entheogen scholarship.

I expected Samorini 1998 article –> ConjEden 2001 article –> to continue positively forward, but I felt by 2002, the field was in a retreat!

I wanted to keep that same trajectory going.

So I declared a break from them, I declared the maximal entheogen theory of religion – a commitment to extrapolate from Samo 1998 to ConjEden 2001 to my main article 2007, after my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article where I dismissed the dead end fixation on Allegro’s small mental world, again with its key word, “secret”.

As I am stressed about writing my articles and book for publication, it’s time to summarize my accomplishments, breakthroughs, ifield- field-transforming new theory+data+interp that has produced large shipments of ideal quality, ideal quantity of evidence, like I do every 6 months or few years.

I’m also struggling with how to communicate to ordinary people, but as done before, I write firstly for the Egodeath community, then share with broad audience.

I have come to think, that I must let go of expectations applied to me: I can’t worry about reception of my ideas; I have to just focus on expressing my ideas as-is, and not worry about how my proposed model is received. Otherwise it is too hard to write and I cannot write.

I can only write if there are no demands laid on my back. My theory IS WHAT IT IS, and the reception will be same: reception will be whatever it is.

“Preach the gospel to all; Christ’s sheep will hear.”

It’s not my job to save the world and convince unbelievers. My only job/ burden/ obligation is to clearly and honestly write up my ideas.

I am not burdened with trying to/ obligation to “persuade” anyone, who doesn’t like or doesn’t understand these basic ideas: transformation from possibilism to eternalism; the theory of psychedlic pre-existence; etc.

Noticing Branching and Non-Branching in Physics and Art

Listening to interview including manyworlds quantum mechanics being described skeptically as an “infinitely branching” model, as I posted in 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group – long before any trace of perceiving ‘branching’ in religious art, as included in excellent pictures in my 2007 main article which I included for barely comprehended, tip of iceberg reasons:

“Look mummy, theres a mushroom – but ignore the malformed, wrong, bad, false branching one on the Left; look at the good, correct, non-branching, perfect literal cubensis on the Right.” (Eustace crossing river)

/ end of email

Odd Statements about Specifically Visionary Scenes in Bernward [mica]

Bernward Liberty Cap mushroom-trees are always “in visionary scenes” per Brown 2016 and who Brown cites on that point, that alleged claim: WTF IS A “VISIONARY SCENE”? T OR F CLAIM BY BROWN. NO ONE no one can list the 7 trees: BOIL THE Flotsam DOWN:

Which scene is religious art is NOT a “visionary scene”? I shall announce with great fanfare:

OMG EVERY MSH IMAGERY HAPPENS TO BE IN A VISIONARY SCENE!!

That’s a mere tautology, since I assert that all authentic religious art depicts Psil experience; to depict and explain psychedelic eternalism; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

A too-verbose attempt to list the 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees:

In the “Present Eve” panel of Bern door, there are L & R mushroom-trees that each have 5 crowns, 2 of which are ball caps, the two trees mirror each other.

Too verbose. Need fewest words possible; just the KEY WORDS.

I went on to create the clean new page:

The Seven Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees of the Bernward Doors and Column
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/10/the-seven-liberty-cap-mushroom-trees-of-the-bernward-doors-and-column/

Ride Donkey = Climb Tree (Saint Martin: Entry Jeru)

ride donkey climb tree higher vantage pov over the egoic control system , see it as always used now as qualified possibilism-thinking .

possibilism-thinking = dmon donkey Jesus donkey properly drawn weight on R front leg, L front leg bent/ lifted – sometimes, but often not using {handedness} mapped strictly to eternalism-thinking vs possibilism-thinking .

L vs R limb / side. arm, branch IYI arms and actually mushrooms photos show trident branching at base cluster arms eg 2 arms actual mushrooms cluster

~~

“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70 🤨

Footnote 70: Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, p. 137.

true/false?

Brown wording is too rigid, implying whole-specimen form matching, which Hug pounces all over at lenght by some STILL EXTREEMLY SSKETCHEY & barely really engaing

the Egodeath theory the mytheme theory enables engaging with the body of art. {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs , incl {mushroom hem} {floating mushroom hem}

3 Types of John Rush’s {celestial erection} motif

  • mushroom hem eg black arrow in hem in Great Canterbury Psalter
  • celes erec eg arm under garment holding book, blow below book is phallus closely
  • {floating mushroom hem}

my old term lifted garment: can all available terms:

all the terms:

  • {floating mushroom hem}
  • {mushroom hem}
  • {celestial erection}
  • {lifted garment}
  • {phallic garment}

{floating mushroom hem} eg:

  • behind Diony in victory mosaic
  • behind dancing man
  • behind bernward door work the land angel directing adam instructing adam
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter

III / IYI / YI / IY/YI

Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita

Relate Erwin Panofsky’s branching critique to Day 3 image in Great Canterbury Psalter.

Branching form progression naive simple branching vs. 2-layer model red Amanita form IY/YI lower & upper-level of tree:

branching analysis ~= qualified possibilism-thinking / eternalism-thinking, using everyday all the time possibilism-thinking of a type that’s now qualified per eternalism; per the revealed underlying layer/ level of frozen control that’s pre-given from outside the personal control system.

Future control thoughts are unavoidably inherently dependent on the hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

The lower, relatively passive control-thought receiver vs. the higher, relatively active (initator) control-thought inserter.

The lower, local, personal control system is dependent on the control source, the upper level of 2-level, dependent control

the personal control system, the qualified egoic personal control system, the egoic control system;
the qualified egoic control system now accommodated to eternalism, the personal control system revealed to higher, elevanted awareness looking at the personal control system from outside of it (a la Ken Wilber).

{building mushroom topper}: Use fully GREEDY SEEING OF MUSHROOMS EVERYWHERE, PER THE ARDENT ADVOCATES OF mushroom imagery in Christian art.

See my version of Great Canterbury Psalter folios f134, f145, & f177 with my boxes added around every instance of possible mushroom imagery.

Every instance of possible mushroom imagery is justified interepreting as mushroom, worth committing to, by using the forceful diamond hammer of interpretation to dredge out/ filter-on the key motif of mushrooms, including {building topper}, {mushroom hem}, and {floating mushroom hem}.

f134: All Possible Mushroom Imagery

Crop by Michael Hoffman

https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/19/psalter-rows/#Entire-Image-Mushroom-Items

f145: All Possible Mushroom Imagery

Crop by Michael Hoffman

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/17/canterbury-f145-king-orders-shipments-of-blue-fruit-to-storage-lockboxes-with-blue-stemmed-mushroom-tree/#Mushroom-Objects

f177: All Possible Mushroom Imagery

Crop by Michael Hoffman

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/#Entire-Image-Mushroom-Items

The Held Sticks are YI Form in Saint Martin: Entry into Jerusalem

riding a tree on right = riding donkey on left – ears to right past hand.

branching ears touching good right non branching arm.

Crop, color adjust, & annotations by Michael Hoffman.
“agefotostock-com entry jeru recolored hands sticks lines.jpg” 17 KB, 7:37 am Feb. 9, 2025

noticed Feb 9 2025: above hand, there’s a band holding together the sticks and feathers as a bundle. Need clearer photo of the held items.

Noticed a few days ago eg Feb. 6, 2025: The 3 sticks held by youth to signal to Jesus have gap to left, forming YI. Photographers are still not stepping up to the real job: NEED A CLEAR PHOTO OF THE ITEMS HELD NEAR JESUS’ FINGERS. Jesus’ fingers are fortunately not damaged, and are fully visible.

  • Jesus’ right hand index finger and middle finger pressed together are like the sticks 2 & 3 held together.
  • Jesus’ left hand splayed pinkie finger and ring finger are like sticks 1 & 2 held apart.

scope consideration: within scope of jesus L hand, thumb = good = nonbranching, it is parallel w good R finders held together non-branching.

within local relative scope, within bad L hand, is good thumb = non-branching vs the bad, 4 branching splayed L fingers,

the Thumb = Truth/good/ stable control nonbranching 2-level ctrl model , 2-level, dependent control with 2-level control

Santa Sabina wooden doors, posted by Cyberdisciple 2011: YI trees, handedness

re: Bernward Doors, wrmspirit pointed out/ reminded me of similar doors from Cyberdisciple 2011:

Carved Doors of Santa Sabina, Rome
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/carved-doors-of-santa-sabina-rome/

door = gate = entryway.

door = 

building entryway (Great Canterbury Psalter) = 

gate; transformation gate; 

boundary crossing = transformation boundary transition

Thanks, It’s helpful having additional doors with mushroom imagery.  Seen before, but have to see again through the 2022-era lens of the {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

There are YI trees on Cyberdisciple’s doors, including angel: left foot touching branching crown of tree & right foot near cut branch / non-branching.

It is interesting the lack of attention to YI branching form of trees, and handedness (right & left limb) by Cyberdisciple 2011.  

Prior to 2015, like with the 2011 book by John Rush w/ hokey-pokey pantokrator motif, I only was wondering about one foot floating high and the other foot on ground, which wasn’t productive.

Concept of branching as key = my Nov. 2013 big confirmation that branching is a key motif, in pair of art images: Kranach Eve & Serpent + kylix by Douris showing Jason coming from the serpent with Athena.

Concept of mapping two feet to two mental models = Dec. 2015 (Hatsis’ presentation of Dancing Man clearly for first time).

Bernward Column Has Four Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees, Left Door Has Three; Seven Total [moved out]

moved to Bernward Door page

Bernward Column Photos Cut Off Liberty Cap Mushroom-Tree as if Merely “Peripheral” per Huggins

One pair of Bernward Column photos is awful: cuts mushroom-tree in half at edge of frame – b/c no one cares about the stupid tree.

The tree is the least important feature, to the photographer. ok to cut off the tree branches, no one cares, just a stupid tree, b/c trees are merely “peripheral” to “expert” art authoritties, per Huggins Foraging Wrong.

He says the most welled noted book is Brinckmann 1906, a unique exception, the one and only published writing by any art historian on the boring topic of trees.

Mycologists are REQUIRED to SUBMIT to the ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY off-the-books via “pers. corr.”

& leveraging double censored works out of thin air, Panofsky letters & their payload, Brinckmann citation

A citation double strong urging to actually ACTUALLY CONSULT PUBLISHED WRITING & diagrams & paintings in the only book or article that any art historian ever wrote about the boring topic of trees in Medieval art. per Hugs claim, “peripheral”.

So we must bow and scrape to the art authorities who argue from authority,

ARGUMENT FROM TONE AND CRISPNESS OF DISAVOWAL

ARGUMENT FROM TONE AND CRISPNESS OF DISAVOWAL by the authority on “related topics”

Consult in person the art experts who disavow “with impressive celerity”, like a trained dog with no actual argumentation and nothing written — yet we are to act respectful toward:

Huggins’ Lack of Credibility Due to Creepy Handling of the Censored Panofsky Letters

DISHONEST HUGGINS COVERING FOR DISHONEST WASSON

Huggins IS SO SKETCHY GOT SOME EXPLAINING TO DO: WHY does Huggins not CITE BROWNs’ 2019 ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE the WEB WHERE WE CAN CHECK CLAIMS AND *TO THE SOURCES!* — PUBLISHED THANKS TO BROWN, no thanks to Huggins.

NO THANKS TO HUGS, WHO DOESN’T EVEN SAY HOW he FOUND out about the SECRET HIDDEN SUPPRESSED PANofsky LETTERS TO WASSon IN DRAWER X at Harvard.

Huggins, HOW THE F DID YOU 2024 LEARN ABOUT DRAWER X containing the Panofsky letters?

When and why did you find the letters?

Why don’t you cite brown who published them 2019?

Why do you make believe that we’ve all had Brinckman “little” book citation since May 1952 – in fact, since 2019 only.

Really Poor Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article

Huggins PARROTs Panofsky’s argumentation about branches, MORE RIDICULOUS THAN PANofsky in Huggins’ Conclusion section:

“Panofsky says if it has branch, its not mushroom.

“Panofsky says if no branch, fails to be a mushroom tree, so, doesn’t count.”

I have to imagine latter arg, b/c Huggins is silent about the set of 4 mushroom-trees in Great Canterbury Psalter Day 4 (pointing at the little brown items in the balance scale pans & branching A compass by the grid-cap mushroom-tree Left = branching, pair of mushrooms. No branches… depending on definition of “at least traces of ramification”.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-6 –

“But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”

Panofsky is correct “in a sense which he was unaware” [Wasson’s insulting & insane wording]: in Day 4, no L & R arm shown at macro scale, but the left two mushroom-trees have trace of / a type of branching indicator: grid cap of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11, Day 4. Y Y I I. Lib Cub Pan Ama.
Crop by Michael Hoffman June 10, 2023. f22

f11 Day 4 + mushroom mount f22: Huggins points out that both scenes have the smaller plants among the mushroom-trees. Hug does NOT point out that Day 4 & mushroom mount have two mushrooms with no branches.

  • Day 4 has 4 mushrooms that have no branches.
  • Mushroom Mount has 2 mushrooms that have no branches. The bottom two plants are mushrooms that have no branches.
  • The lack of branches on these 6 mushrooms is not mentioned by Huggins; he draws attention to the smaller plants instead, in both pictures.

Day 4 Plant 1 & 2 (L pair) have grid caps; grid-cap mushroom-trees.

The two scenes DISPROVE, FORCIBLY, PAN CLAIM “AT LEAST TRACE OF RAMIFN BRANCHING” B/C we have equivalent various mushroom-tree branching forms mixed together, some with NO trace of branching eg Day 4 Plant 3 Paneolus & later pic’s mushroom mount:

The bottom two mushroom-trees have no trace of branching: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f22 —
bottom row 2 are pure mushroom, no branch, not grid cap;
Pana. & Panaeolus/Leaf

Branching Forms in Mushroom Mount (f22 Middle)

IY
… IY .. YI
I …. I

Crop by Michael Hoffman June 10, 2023
Great Canterbury Psalter f22 middle

Mushroom-trees 29-38:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/#29 – poor white dud tree, leaf tree, omitted. 10 mushroom-trees, 1 leaf tree.

White dud mushroom-tree: lower: trident; upper: YI YI I.

Left building doesn’t touch the threatened defeated men; touches stable heaven. Men fall down, building stands and touches sky upper level.

Red lib cap roof of building.

Left side men fall, vulnerability revealed. Right side men stand.

Rightmost tree:

  • Amanita features: white dots on red, in cap.
  • Cubensis features: blue stem trunk.
  • Liberty Cap features: grid of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in crown; each Lib Cap has L & R spots.

In f22, there is same # of outer as inner mushroom-trees:
5 in middle of f22;
2 on L of f22 + 3 on R of f22
= 10 mushroom-trees + 1 leaf-tree = 11 trees total.

L side of f22: YI; ITrident
R side of f22: IY; Trident; YI or IY

On rightmost mushroom-tree, the lower grid cap is unusual, grid-cap not of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, flipped caps, no stems.

Panofsky’s Shaky Reasoning Parrotted by Huggins

7:55 pm Feb 7 2025

BROWN PUBLISHED in 2019 THE SUPPRESSED COVERT SECRETIVE PANofsky LETTERS IN DRAWER X.

todo: gather my accusations of Wasson censoring Panofsky and Panofsky had WEAK citations to back up HUGE claims by the MICA Deniers.

We know ALL about mushroom-trees, we even published a single little book 1906 German that lays out every 1000 mushroom-tree and assigns an exact year to it and there is a perfectly ruler flat smooth line of looking like pine to gradulatelly like mushroom,

and this is PROOF that there is NO MEANING, NO PURPOSEFULness, NO INTENTATIONALITY, NO FREEDOM OF ARTIST EXPRESSION, NO INTENT

THE F’D UP GARBLED PROTOTYPES “THE ART WORLD CAME TO ACCEPT” AND ARTISTS – FREE ON EVERY OTHER ASPECT – RE MUSHROOMS, ARTISTS WERE ROBOT SLAVES WHO WERE FORCED TO FOLLOW THE NOW TOTALLY MUSHROOM-LOOKING GARBLED PROTOTYPES even if the artist was anti-mushroom they were FORCED to follow the totally mushroom looking prototype, 100% purpose-free painting following the dictate of the prototype

Purpose-Free Painting, Mechanically Following the Dictate of the Prototype

As a mushroom-tree artist, Panofsky’s “developed from pine to mushroom” prototype FORCED me to make the viewer think of mushrooms, against my will; I disavow any purposefulness of the “even more emphatic mushroom-like” imagery.

“The Art World Came to Accept” the Garbled Pine Prototypes That, Due to Artists Slop, purposelessly “even more emphatic mushroom-like”

“An even more emphatic instance of this development is galss painting is attached for you to CONSULT”

Pine came to look like intensive deliberate “even more emphatic” mushroom imagery in Christian art

quote pan here:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7
“Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”

Samo date of fresco 107 years earlier than 1291 is 1184 – Samo 1997 end note 4 says Wasson is wrong re: year of Plain chap as 1291, it’s actually 1184.

The emphatically mushrooms mushroom-trees glass painting was TWO Centuries after Plaincourault fresco.

After the year of the Plaincourault frsesco, which was mushroom-like, the glass painting two hundred years was.

THE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED a long time stayed in the range of mushroom imagery.

From 990 miniature pine looks like mushroom, 1184 Plainc Amanita tree trident branches L, C, R.

It’s a way the V arms branches beams are to think L vs. R. tree has 4 limbs (traditional trope).

{4 limbs/ branches/ fruit} – 2 left, 2 right: Motif/ Trope Identified in Mushroom-Trees

[Feb. 6, 2025]

{4 fruit/ branches/ mushrooms}

2 on the Left, and 2 on the Right.

Much L vs R activity.

Many mushroom-trees have {4 arms/ limbs/ branches / fruit}.

{hold branch} is a common trope.

Feels always strong L vs R and one foot vs the other, and simple creative stark branching features. Diagrammatic branching form.

Foot height also has much activity.

Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.

Panofsky letter censored by … in Wasson’s paragraph simult’ly chastising mycologists for ignorantly blunderingly failing to “consult” art authorities & check their crispness of disavowal with no argumentation but “expert on related topics”, specifically the little book by . . . . . ‘cos its the basis of our expertise on trees, the only thing we expert authorities ever wrote or thought on this topic.

I do not consider Pan …. i think said Egodeath Mystery Show – notes page —
Panofsky is stupid.
Wasson is a liar. d/k if i’d pick ‘liar’ first but its a saying; i fit the Pair that way into the saying either stupid|liar. = Pan/Wasson

Stupid :: Liar = Panofsky :: Wasson

Stupid is to Liar as Panofsky is to Wasson

Stupid : Liar = Panofsky : Wasson

I dare the # to climb to make my article title WRONG and UNDER-ESTIMATE mushroom imagery in Christian art — eg Eadwine is a MAJOR HEAD who takes EVERY OPPORTUNITY to show mushroom imagery & play w developing the era’s standard motif-set:

{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azelin_chandelier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azelin_chandelier#/media/File:Hildesheim_Azelinleuchter_Detail.jpg

{fire, sword, ram, key, door}

🔥🗡🐑🗝🚪

🔥🗡🐑🔥🐉🗝🚪🌌🍄🚪🏆🔥🔥🔥
add {rock}, {wood/ branches}

Fully {guarded gate}: Eden Is Depicted with Gate and Wall: {guarded gate, fire blade}

12 gates of wall of heaven city tree of life eden

Sacrifice ram to get through gate into the city, been done/paid for his followers by the mysteries-godman Christ, who resides outside heimarmene and lifts us up into virtual freewill; qualified possibilism-thinking / eternalism-thinking.

immature mental worldmodel

ram/lamb sacrificed for all his followers, who are taken by and married by, in, the mysteries god.

To get through the gate, sacrifice childish immature ram-caught-in-thicket; pure, washed clean; mature transformed personal control system / ctrl basis.

mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control

literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control – branching; weight on left foot.

analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control – non-branching; weight on right foot.

By Frank Kaiser, Siegen – [1], Attribution, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6351906 Crop by Michael Hoffman

Each cable hook is at a {gate} that’s not shown on the inside of the “city wall” hoop, according to article wording, vs. the big 12 towers.

I read the towers (article’s word) as horse-sized gate, I read the outside-only gates as person-sized gate.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+gates+does+jerusalem+have – “Jerusalem’s Old City walls, built in the early 16th century by the Turkish Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, have eight gates.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_the_Old_City_of_Jerusalem

The mental model transformation gate
The eternalism transformation gate

Bernward Column

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html

Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, <– BENNETT 2021 says I can’t use this construct any more, I’m an academic fraud if I do, b/ c it’s not mushrooms.

But he overstates; I don’t agree w/ simple-minded “that tree is not tree of knowledge in the Blame scene.”

Consider Chris’ Bennett’s argument in the full light of MY INTERP OF THE SET OF PANELS, then his arg is weakened, and a different emphasis of mushrooms is presented via my motif analysis per the mytheme theory of psychedelic eternalism.

psychedelic eternalism;
the theory of psychedelic eternalism;
the theory of psychedelic eternalism analogy

psychedelic eternalism
pset

the theory of psychedelic eternalism
tope

the theory of psychedelic eternalism analogy
topea

Bernward Doors, Bernward Column, and Bernward Chandelier
bdbc

Bernward Column = stem, Bernward Chandelier = cap

“Conjuring Eden”
conjeden

“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001
conjedenl

Per “Conjuring Eden”, Bernward Column = stem; Bernward Chandelier = cap.

All 16 Panels of Bernward Doors, with Features Listed [moved out]

Moved to Bern Door page
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Look forward to inspecting Bern door/col on my own, hi res – we are privileged recently — the whole thing, just like i did w Great Canterbury Psalter: not through the filter from other entheogen scholars who are fixated on Amanita and fixated on Tree of Knowledge and can’t get past that to see other scenes.

David Ulansey Site Down, then Up

I saved locally:

New Article:
Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/

This was supposed to be a post to just ask Cyberdisciple:

What about when an entheogen scholar makes real actual error?

It’s not always the case that an entheogen scholar makes a petty error and then a MICA Denier tries to elevate that as if a substantive error.

Also concerning in a different way, perhaps somewhat addressed by Cyberdisciple, is what about when:

An entheogen scholar makes a substantive error, and then MICA Denier does not even HAVE to elevate it b/c it really is a substantive error.

Brown Heavily Uses ‘Secret’ and ‘Traditional’

Browns’ 2019 article brings in the construct of ‘secret’ & ‘tradition’, heavily, for no reason.

Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels
Brown & Brown, 2019
Journal of Psychedelic Studies
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels
https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/prof-jerry-browns-works-psychedelic-gospels/#Entheogens-in-Christian-art

Brown dragging in the words ‘traditional’ and ‘secret’ guarantees permanent failure for Brown and a rejection of the Psychedelic Gospels theory.

Brown should delete all 13 ‘secret’ and all 19 ‘tradition’. The article would be stronger and based in a different, stronger paradigm.

Brown: “Psychedelics Weren’t Suppressed, but to the Contrary, They Were Secret”

ENTHEOGENS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The prevalence of this psychedelic tradition in a wide variety of texts and artistic media including illuminated manuscripts, bronze castings, and stained glass windows in the high holy places of Christianity shows that this tradition was not suppressed by the early Church, but to the contrary was made available as a secret practice for initiates.

CONCLUSIONS

based on the presence of these images in the high holy places of Christianity, these psychedelic traditions were not suppressed by the Church, but were rather maintained for the secret instruction of initiates and possibly for the education of the illiterate masses

Browns’ Wording After Deleting the Albatross Unjustified Narrative words ‘Secret’ and ‘Tradition’

ENTHEOGENS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The prevalence of psychedelics in a wide variety of texts and artistic media including illuminated manuscripts, bronze castings, and stained glass windows in the high holy places of Christianity shows that psychedelics were not suppressed by the Church, but to the contrary were made available as a practice for initiates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the presence of these images in the high holy places of Christianity, psychedelics were not suppressed by the Church, but were rather maintained for the instruction of initiates and for the education of the illiterate masses.

About My Rewording of Browns’ Wording

The heavy-handed, totally dominant constructs of ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ focus on the wrong things, things other than the sheer evidence itself.

The words ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ cause the debate to be centered on the wrong, irrelevant points of dispute.

In Letcher’s Shroom pages 35-36, ‘secret’ TOTALLY OVERSHADOWS ENTHEOGENS, to the point where Letcher stops looking for mushrooms, and ONLY looks for, and argues based exclusively on, ‘secret’.

Charles Stang tells Brian Muraresku to give up, because there can never be enough evidence that ergot was “traditional, mainstream, normal, ordinary, commonplace”, as opposed to merely “underground, counterculture, heretical, deviant, abnormal, rare, an exception”.

My wording above is Browns’ without the pointless albatross words dragging it down.

I speak in relevant terms:
We have ideal quantity and ideal quality of evidence to reach the conclusion to conclude: …

Qualifier ‘early’ in the 1st but not 2nd passage: the early Church. That word ‘early’ is problematic b/c as Brown sometimes expands, “early and Medieval”. The options are

  • the early Church
  • the early and Medieval Church
  • the Medieval Church
  • the Church

I had to pick between:

  • the early and Medieval Church – awkward, and visibly encourages attack.
  • the Church – aggressive, forceful, dominant, punchy. omit qualifiers that can delayed – the section heading where Brown writes “early Church” ALREADY says early! Brown feels no need to weaken/ qualify w ‘early’ in Concl section, so why needed in the “early ch” section?

There’s copious evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in European history – regardless of the nebulous, unneeded constructs ‘secret‘ & ‘tradition‘

There’s copious evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in Christendom — that, I have proved — the nebulous, confused, addled, biased, irrelevant constructs of ‘tradition’ & ‘secret’ be damned.

Similarly McC & Priest’s Reply to Replies in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies​ mid-2024, a big theme by everyone was, the construct of “tradition” is useless and just contributes confusion and irrelevant debate, as was claimed for the construct of “gnosticism”.

Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category
Michael A. Williams, 1996
https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Gnosticism-Argument-Dismantling-Category/dp/0691005427/

There’s ample evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in European history.

Demonstration of self-sabotaging, defeatist, pointless, unnecessary ALBATROSS of the words ‘traditional’ and ‘secret’, which accomplish nothing but dismissal of mushroom imagery in Christian art:

That’s worded per the maximal entheogen theory of religion, instead of Browns’ moderate (aka minimal) entheogen theory of religion.

My revised wording, above, is much more radical, aggressive, and punchy, and unified in a single positive voice with no waffling and self-weakening like Browns’ wording.

My wording sidesteps the red-herring morass of the construct “tradition”.

My wording is less vulnerable to the strategic committed-skeptic move, “There can never be enough evidence to constitute ‘traditional’ usage of psychedelics.”

I never claimed psychedelic use was ‘traditional’, ‘secret’, ‘suppressed’, ‘mainstream’, or ‘underground’.

All such narrative is biased to reach the pre-decided conclusion “so, not mushrooms; so, not traditional; so, doesn’t count.“

That deletion fixes the self-contradiction in Browns’ writing, where they say psychedelics were not suppressed, but were secret instead.

Unthinking Collectivist Thinking by Entheogen Scholars: Critical Discourse Analysis of Rhetoric Narrative Framing: Samorini: “certain groups”

When any person in Medieval era uses Amanita, the person is no longer an individual, but is demoted by the the (Secret Amanita paradigm) entheogen scholars to “a member of certain communities”; “a member of a heretical cult/ sect/ secret cult”.

Not individuals. Never does an individual ingest The Mushroom.

Any ingesting ALWAYS is assumed to necessarily be in “sects, cults, communities, groups”, never an individual.

A negative, biased presupposition narrative framework is held unconsciously and habitually, in a self-blinding way, by entheogen scholars.

p. 31, Samo, 1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault: certain Christian groups;

the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.

‘Tradition’ Is a Forbidden Word in Effective Entheogen Scholarship re: mushroom imagery in Christian art

The Useless, Biased Construct “Traditional” Psychedelic Use

The word “tradition” is nothing but treacherous, because the evidence is never enough to meet the ever-escalating moving goalpost of never measuring up to the level of “tradition”.

“tradition” is useless concept in this controverted special topic, b/c deniers will never grant mushroom use the status of “tradition”, there will never be enough evidence for heavy enough use to be ‘tradition’,

now the debate topic is forgotten and changed to “yes it is sufficient to be called tradition, no its not, yet it is….”

— indeterminate, dead end, unproductive, unwinnable, undecidable, undefinable.

There’s no way to reach agreement whether meets the measure for “traditional”.

The word “traditional” prevents ever affirming mushroom imagery in Christian art; in practice, “traditional” is circular reasoning and assuming that which is to be proved.

MICA Deniers (eg Chs Stang) will forever say “fails to meet the ‘traditional’ measure, so, doesn’t count; no mushroom imagery in Christian art.”

MICA Affirmers will forever say “There are 2+ instances, therefore, meets the criteria for being ‘traditional’.”

It’s impossible to adjudicate and resolve the question “Does the evidence support status of mushroom use as ‘traditional‘?”

The concept of ‘traditional vs. non-traditional’ is nebulous, indeterminate, poetic characterization, driven by narrative-framing commitment bias.

The term & concept of ‘traditional’ is biased against mushrooms.

Deniers are committed to defining ‘traditional’ as non-mushrooms by definition.

I explicitly define ‘traditional’ as “If there are 2 pieces of evidence, that constitutes a tradition.

Affirmers hold a lenient criteria for ‘traditional’.

Deniers hold a strict criteria for ‘traditional’, with strictness level defined by “higher than mushrooms evidence”.

When tons of mushrooms evidence, redefine ‘traditional’ to be higher than that.

Add more evidence?

Raise bar for ‘traditional’ above that level. Great Canterbury Psalter adds massive evidence of ideal quality and qty?

Raise definition of ‘traditional’ higher than that.

So ‘traditional’ inherently can’t ever be met, no matter how much evidence is piled how high for MICA, the bar for ‘traditional’ simply & effortless is re-set to higher than that.

Either the bar is easy to meet, or impossible.

Debating whether MICA evidence meets the bar for ‘traditional’ is impossible for Affirmers to win.

Chs Stang’s arg’n against Muraresku demonstrates that: Stang says no matter how much evidence, no way to ever prove that ergot wine & bread was “normal, mainstream, common, standard”.

So, give up, and maintain the entrenched negative conclusion: the Eucharist was not psychedelic; there was no “TRADITION” of psychedelic Eucharist.

This denial is rewarding because scholars like Stang use the topic of Psychedelics for personal profit by putting on a public show of righteously dismissing psychedelics.

The debate over whether “gnosticism” is a real thing in antiquity, or an unreal fabrication.

How much evidence for MICA is required, to meet the deniers’ bar for ‘traditional’? More than whatever amount of evidence has been found.

No matter how much evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art, the term ‘traditional’ BY DEFINITION and bias, is always higher than the amount of evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.

‘traditional’ is defined as “higher than the amount of evidence for MICA.” Unwinnable.

Failure — reaching a negative conclusion re: MICA — is baked into the definitional concept of ‘traditional’ and ‘mainstream’.

Like saying “By definition, the ‘mainstream tradition’ is anti-psychedelic; therefore, Prohibition is inherent and permanent.”

Reification of Prohibition as if objective reality.

Scholars are biased & committed to “the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics”.

Why 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward Column is Very Significant for Debate of mushroom imagery in Christian art [moved out]

moved to Bernward Door page

Valid Criticisms by MICA Deniers

Bennett article Fungi-Paraeiieaiiolia worst article title ever, in the /__trashed/ directory at Cann Culture, — as senseless and crazy as using a term like ‘eternalism’ no one ever heard of —

The article is TYPICAL of deniers: bad arg fallacy: I showed that an affirmer (Brown) is wrong on a point, therefore, I have proved there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art.

I am senseing that something is missing from Cyberdisciple page about differentiating minor errors of punctuation vs. argmentation errors: divide into two, arg errors…. outght to correct each others argn erros con CONSTRUCTIVEly , THAT IS that is not happening.

Deniers are not correcting the errors of Affirmers in a constructive way to make progress in entheogen scholarship. insetead, deniers… when an Affirmer makes an error of argumentation – I could liist 10 such errors — the Deniers try to turn that into scorched earth wholesale entire denial of any mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Cyberdisciple defines one scenario, but I’m seeing a different scenario problem in the debates over mushroom imagery in Christian art: to exaggerate:

  • Cyberdisciple defines one bad scenario: “Mechanical Error vs. Arg’n Error”: where Affirmer makes a mechanical citation error or typo, then Denier acts like that’s an error of Arg’n, as if that Mechanical Error is disproof of the general affirmer postion, disproving mushroom imagery in Christian art.
  • Instead (in addition) what I’m seeing is a more serious scenario: Affirmer makes not merely a trivial mechanical error, but makes an error of Argumentation. Then Denier

Terms (simplest expression):

  • MICA – mushroom “imagery” in Christian art (broader), or “mushrooms” in Christian art (narrower).
  • Affirmers – writers who assert there’s purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art. Or in Christendom art (broader). Or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).
  • Deniers – writers who deny there’s purposeful/intentional (or, less specifically, “intentional”) mushroom imagery in Christian art or in Christendom art (broader) or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).

Terms (detailed expression):

MICA – mushroom “imagery” in Christian art (broader), or “mushrooms” in Christian art (narrower).

“purposeful” – inferior synonym is “intentional”. purposeful (or, less specifically, “intentional”.

“Christian art” — or in Christendom art (broader). Or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).

Deniers – assert… (crucial wording here to set up a genuine productive debate on what is ACTUALLY at issue):

Deniers assert that although there is imagery in Christian art that the artist and everyone agrees makes viewers think of mushrooms (implicit in art historians’ term “mushroom-trees”).

I have examples of deniers saying “certainly this does make viewers think of mushrooms; objectively this DOES certainly look like mushrooms or mushroom imagery features mixed with eg tree imagery/features.

It would be a lie to pretend we focus our debate on “Did artist know their imagery causes viewer to think of mushrooms? Losers / deniers might try to change the topic of debate to “is the artist a zombie moron idiot too stupid and totally uninformed to realize mushroom recognize mushroom imagery.

I have NOT seen deniers directly make that move but it is easy to imagine deniers increasing their hints they made in that direction.

Panofsky hypothesizes about such ignorant blithering idiot artists.

The Crook Wasson Tries to Steal Credit as the Only Discoverer, for the Very Same Thing He Emphatically Denies: tree of knowledge = mushrooms

Wasson also deeply insults Plainc artist – major a-hole Wasson jerk rude — this is like accuasations of Western Imperial dominators:

WASSON ACTS LIKE A WESTERN IMPERIAL DOMINATOR EXTRACTION OF VALUE FROM INDIGINOUS when he DEEPLY INSULTS the Plain painter WASSON STEALS CREDIT FROM THE PAINTER by claiming that Wasson comprehends a mushroom connection (via roundabout PREPOSTEROUS argument “tree and snake and mushroom were “CONSUBSTANTIAL ASSOCIATED WITH” BUT ONLY I, Wasson the Great, am the first person ever to comprehend this) while Wasson states that UNBEKNOWN TO THE Plaincourault PAINTER, PLAINC MEANS MUSHROOMS.

How dare you, Wasson, accuse the painter of being an idiot, while you claim to be the only person ever to think of tree of knowledge as mushroom – plainly, the French mycology group in 1910 already thought of what Wasson is claiming to have discovered, and they — long before Wasson — already thought of all variants of “tree of knowledge = mushroom”, whether in art or text in Genesis, obviously the French MYCOLOGISTS BEAT WASSON TO IT.

1184 (“1291”) – Plaincourault Painter Says tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art & Genesis text

revised year 107 years earlier than 1291 = end of 1997 article samo “The mushroom-trees of Plainc” says Wasson is wrong about 1291, cites Berry, Plain is 1184 not 1291.

1910 – French Mycologists Say tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art & Genesis text
1968 – Wasson: the French mycists are blundering ignorants for saying tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art
1968 – Wasson: I am the first and only person to think of tree of knowledge = mushroom in Gen text & art

Wasson reaches perfect incoherence, SELF-CONTRADICTION & unclarity of writing, where he tries to take credit for being the first and only person to figure out there’s a connection between tree of knowledge & serpent & mushroom.

There’s a long long line of ppl who knew that before him, but to steal credit, he insults them and calls them all blundering & wrong – for asserting THE VERY SAME THING HE ASSERTS as his own “innovative discovery”.

WHAT A SLEAZY SCUMBAG! SELF-PROMOTER BY DEFAMING AND LYING ABOUT OTHER PPL. STEALING CREDIT FOR WHAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS. SELF-CONTRADICTION.

in a subtle roundabout way of which the Painter was unaware, & mycists are blundering ignorants for saying this & Genesis text the French mycists are blundering ignoramus for saying tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art

Wasson says your wrong, its not a mushrooms – then he says “hey i am the first and only one ever to figure out, its a mush , in a way the painter was too stupid to know.

Total garbed SELF CONTRADICTORY LIAR, CHARLATAN, SELF-PROMOTER, THIEF OF CREDIT STEALING CREDIT FROM PAINTER AND FROM FRENCH MYCology GROUP.

Incidental Errors vs. Argumentation Errors; things that Errors that Disprove the Main Assertion, vs. Errors that Don’t Disprove the Main Assertion

The worst title of any article ever, Cyberdisciple didn’t even attempt to include the title in the present article, but merely linked to the [article] mid-sentence:

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

Cyberdisciple makes a basic distinction — not developed further — between just two types of errors, and the relation between them. x and y.

Cyberdisciple makes it seem as if the only kind of error made by MICA Affirmers is mere X errors.

MICA Affirmers make many Y errors, and MICA Deniers seize upon these more serious errors to present themselves as if they have disproved MICA.

That dynamic is not captured by Cyberdisciple’s basic distinction between X vs Y errors.

By the ultimate adequate standards, mushroom imagery in Christian art interpretation is incorrect until the true message of the mushroom-tree artists is received; branching-message mushroom trees.

Brown commits an error of interpretation or arg — type X — when saying Kupfer is wrong to use ‘tree’ words instead of ‘mushroom’ words to describe Saint Martin frescos.

I corrected Browns oversight, the big news is that where Kupfer wrote “tree, branch, cut”, correct interpretation of

Low MICA Affirmers vs high MICA Affirmers:

In the mushroom-tree art genre, the correct interpretation is not “it’s a mushroom”, but rather: adopt non-branching eternalism with 2-level control, when on mushrooms, instead of branching possibilism with autonomous monolithic control, which collapses and is unstable, not viable.

I have corrected the Brown database in time to avoid getting off to a bad start and baking-in the incomplete interpretation, “mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.”

To yield correct adequate completeness of interpretation, the Brown database of MICA interpretation must cover not only mushroom imagery, but also integrate {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.

An interpretation “mushroom-tree means mushroom” is incomplete; it’s correct, so far as it goes, but not helpful or complete or adequate.

Samo 1997 end note 4 says Wasson is wrong re: year of Plain chap as 1291, it’s actually 1184.

That’s an incidental error, that does not make Wasson wrong about Wasson’s main assertion re: interp the fresco.

MICA Affirmers make argumentation errors, not only incidental errors.

eg Brown 2016, when play-acting the part of a Denier, rejects Walburga tapestry as Amanita by committing the single-meaning fallacy and by botanical trait mis-reading (“the art shows serrated base, but Amanita has smooth base”).

eg Brown 2016 falsely claims that Day 3-type “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the pages throughout the Psalter” – Huggins catches this basic error of argumentation and acts like Hug thereby disproved MICA.

eg Chs Stang says Great Canterbury Psalter Day 3 is a “bowl of mushrooms” – how serious of an error is this?

Cyberdisciple’s division into 2 types of errors: mechanical vs. argumentation — would benefit from elaboration by studying various assertions by MICA Affirmers. A reader might get the impression that MICA Affirmers only make mechanical mistakes but never make arg’n mistakes.

But a main dynamic I see is that a MICA Affirmer makes an arg’n mistake, and then a MICA Denier rebuts that arg’n mistake AS IF that disproves MICA.

In fact the goal — proving MICA — remains true (it’s the inevitable right conclusion), but the MICA Affirmers need to reach that goal by valid argn instead of invalid argn.

The Affirmers’ route to the goal is incorrect (at the level of arg’n) but their goal remains undefeated. When a MICA Denier points out the error of arg’n, the denier acts like they have thereby disproved MICA but they actually just proved that the arg’n was false, not that MICA is false.

eg Brown falsely argues that Bernward Door panel “Fall from Grace”/Blame panel is tree of knowledge – it’s a Lib Cap tree.

That’s fallacious argn by a MICA Affirmer. Bennett then acts as if pointing out Brown’s fallacious arg’n = disproving MICA.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

Browns’ arg is fallacious, their interpretation of the scene’s Liberty Cap tree is wrong in important ways, yet, Browns’ thesis of mica MICA remains, in a way, completely untouched by Bennett’s disproof of Browns’ interpretation of the Blame panel.

Bennett is right: the Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in the Blame panel is different than the non-mushroom tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel above the Blame panel, yet Brown conflates the two trees in the two panels and acts like the tree of knowledge (in Eat from Tree panel) is shown as a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree. Bennett is right, this tree of knowledge is only indirectly associated with the Lib Cap tree in the Blame panel below it.

  • My wording there is to shut out fallacy and position-misrep’n, “the entire whole tree must look identical to an entire whole mushroom else “doesn’t count”).
  • Deniers assert there

todo – the … 2 contributions from me in past 2 days:

  • I’m working toward a clear set of photos of all 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees of Bernward – first ever.

THE ONLY THING ACHIEVED BY PAST WRITEUPS OF BERN MUSHROOM-TREES WAS CONFUSION.

Simple question that entheogen scholarship failed to answer:

How many mushroom-trees are there in Bern? WHAT DOES BROWN SAY?

NO ONE EVER TRIED TO GIVE A MERE COUNT! Seven: 3 on L door, 4 on col.

TOO MUCH TO ASK.

WHY SUCH POOR SUMMARIZING FROM RUCK COMMITTED THAT WE ENDED UP WITH CRAPPY “REBUTTALS” — of a SINGLE ISOLATED MUSHROOM-TREE!

As if that’s adequate and appropriate when discussing Bern door! No progress here, no clarification.

Stam 1996: 1 mushroom-trees only.

Gartz 1996: 1 mushroom-trees only.

vague and wrong list choppy from overambitious ARTICLE TO END — “mother of all demos” ; “mother of all MICA articles: 2001 ConjEden. yet failed to give mere count! 7.

Better art online now than 2001.

LIKE LOUSY 1/8 WRITEUP FROM BENNETT 2021 & FROM LETCHER 2006. BLAME Ruck’s elastic poetic confusing way of writing. per Huggins’ exasperation w/ Ruck Committee writing style.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

Generations of Entheogen Scholarship

Stamets book p 15 describes lists ppl from two generations of ethnomyc’ists. In this page or recent page, I wrote that up.

1st-Gen entheogen scholars: Graves, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck; = Secret Amanita paradigm

Against the purposes of Cyberdisciple, it’s necessary to include Allegro as if entheogen scholar, b/c everyone fixates on “secret”, which was emphasized by Allegro.

2nd-Gen entheogen scholars: Samorini, Ott, Cybermonk, Cyberdisciple, Brown, Irvin 2008; = Explicit Psilocybin paradigm

Habitual Presupposition that Amanita Use Makes You a Member of a Closed, Bounded Group: Active Barrier Construction by Entheogen Scholars

Generations of “ethnomycologists” – am I an ethnomycologist of European motifs of psychedelic eternalism, advanced Psilocybin use, fully developed — no verbiage narrative about “mainstream”, “heretical”, “underground”, “cults”, “communities”.

GOOD JOB ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP: NOW I CAN’T EVEN USE the WORD “COMMUNITIES”, b/c you RUINED THAT TERM TOO – boundary containing barrier containing The Mushrooms =

The fairly good writer Giorgio Samorini wrote badly in 1996, in “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault article, “certain communities”.

Bad writers using bad theorizing in entheogen scholarship, never permit an individual in Christendom to ingest Amanita.

The moment you ingest Aman The Mushroom you become classified per Ruck’s barrier classifications “a member of a heretical community certaini communityees retrurning holy land repeatedly reintroduced displayed brazenly in their places of worship –

What the heck are you on about, Ruck committee?

What places of worship? Do you mean giant cathedrals? Did The Big Bad church by your implicit logic “repeatedly elide” The Mushroom?

‘elide’ is McPriest’s term in his 2024 article “Psychedelic Christianity” in Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/04/09/journal-of-psychedelic-studies/#Psychedelic-Christianity-McPriest

I’m quoting from memory p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”.

p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”
14&56

“Conjuring Eden”
conjeden

“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001
conjedenl

“Daturas for the Virgin”
datvir

“Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001
datvirl

I need to read that passage aloud and comment on it, now that I digested that, since my review of the Literature (June 2023? see date of photo of book spread) re: the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.

I need to more trace the history of the idea of “secret” in entheogen scholarship:

cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in
cso

Letcher Shroom p. 35, & 1 phrase p. 36:

Keyboard shortcuts: samo, hane, plainc

For every “standard abbr” I use, instead, create a keyboard shortcut.

Wouter Hanegraaff
hane

Giorgio Samorini
samo

Plaincourault
plainc

Mushroom Hem Eve Nursing: Mushroom 9; #4 in door

I don’t like how this move lost the context of discovery.

Moved to Bern Door page.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Backwards Brown, Amanita Advocate: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the pages throughout the Psalter”

False, misrepresentative — so, No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art. — per Huggins’ scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, bad argumentation.

Considering specifically Day 3’s 4 mushroom-trees: it is false and misrepresentative what Backwards Brown claims, that numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found throughout the Great Canterbury Psalter.

Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter

Internet Pictures Not Too Blurry

Ruck is an affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Ruck, p. 30, Entheos 1, 2001, Conjuring Eden article:

“But the very next episode, … is the Cursing of the Fig Tree.122 [19] 

“The tree is now only a* leaf, without fruit, that is to say, its taseled top, for Chris went to the tree and found it fruitless.”

*The fig tree is on the right w/ two leaves, not “only a leaf“.

[19] Cursing of the Fig Tree, transcript, Bernward Column, Dom, Hildesheim.
https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm

Drawing shows empty circle on top, but photo shows ball.

per Kornbluth photo: “Christ healing at Gennesaret; Christ cursing the bare fig tree”

Brown’s dubious claim to authority (because we did field research instead of relying on pictures) collapses: if I do field work, I cannot get so good a view as Kornbluth Photo.

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardColumn_51.jpg

per Kornbluth photo: “Christ healing at Gennesaret; Christ cursing the bare fig tree” [on the right w/ two leaves on top]

19fig.jpg
My own WordPress gallery copy, not linked from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm

see also: [before almost all the bern content got pasted here, i was trying to copy the korn 2 links from top of Se Also in Bern page to here and then I treid to paste just the url for bern page here but almost entire bern page pasted here – BELOW FIND TWO KORN LINKS BY SEE ALSO ~~]

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardColumn.html

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Jan 31-Feb 1 I did massive work on my Bernward page. Still lots of info is in my idea development pages instead [fixed; moved]. Most [all] info is copied to my Bernward page.

Eadwine: Hands and Feet in “Do Not Eat” & “Eat” Panels

This section is copied from my Bernward page.

[Jan. 31-Feb.1, 2025]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2025

Do Not: God: L hand down
Do Not: Eve: R hand down, L hand up touching halo
Do Not: Adam: R hand down

Do Not: God: R foot down
Do Not: Eve: R foot down
Do Not: Adam: R foot down touching God’s R foot

Eat: Eve: L hand down
Eat: Adam: L hand down

Eat: Eve: Right foot down
Eat: Adam: L foot down

Jan 30 2025 where the heck did i put my pics of the 4 Lib Caps per Conj Eden on Bern Door early 2025??

Jeez HIDDEN SECRET scholarship:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/03/quotes-for-course-correction-of-entheogen-scholarship/#Bernward-Column-Liberty-Cap-Tree-1

A quick copy from there to here: dup content is bad, but obviously the present spot is the master copy.

pp 29-30 of “Conjuring Eden” lists 4 tassel trees (Liberty caps) on the Bernward Column

from idea development in Bernward page Feb 1 2025: from end of page lacking links in See Also section:

See Also (Dead-End Version with Emojis)

Dead End – No Links – fixed stars boundary of cosmic page 🌌

♄🌌

♄🚪🌌

♄🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🌌🚪💎🏆🔥🔥

need to add {rock} eg under {ram}

What’s in the Balance Scale Pans? Little Brown ________

NO POSSIBLE WAY TO TELL UNLESS 4 MUSHROOMS AND GOD AND BOOK WITH BOTH HANDS IS POINTING UP UP UP + UP UP UP UP AIMING — I LEFT OUT ONE POINT: THE *LEFT** ARE BRANCHING, THE *RIGHT* THEME IS – INSTEAD, STABILITY, AND NON-BRANCHING

Left mushrooms grid cap Liberty Caps point to a branching A compass

Day 4 4 mushrooms point to Day 1 balance scale, Left point to a branching A compass
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025 Solved in conjunction with Day 3 pattern reading finallly a coherent system: READ AS TRIDENT: 🔱Ὗ

Why “III” Notation Is Better than “Trident 🔱” for Mushroom-Trees with Arms and Not a Grid of Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees, in My Branching Form Notation System [mica & YO branches]

Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025 Solved in conjunction with Day 3 pattern reading finallly a coherent system: READ AS TRIDENT: 🔱Ὗ

Day 3 pattern: Creation of Plants:

ψ IYI – ii III is fair b/c consistent w/ IYI notation.

III is a notation.

Not “it looks literally like YI”.

TRIDENT IS INCONSISTENT re: allcaps convention

TRANSLATE FROM VERBOSE ARTICULATE FORM OF MUSHROOM-TREE, to substitute rough similar but different system of all caps, of ALLCAPS NOTATION TO INDIRECTLY — NOT LITERALLY — REPRESENT BRANCHING FORM.

Interpreting Grid Cap vs. Solid Cap in Great Canterbury Psalter

  • Grid cap of lib caps is to be read as “branching”, BAD, unstable.
  • Solid ringed non-grid cap is to be read as “non-branching”, GOOD, stable.

Day 3: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI

The “wrong” III instead of trident is one Plant 1 of Day 3.

III is more consistent than trident.

X IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE SET, FORMS A COHERENT SET, a viable system of motifs

4-term name of the Egodeath theory: each of 4 puzzle pieces

III IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SET, WHOLE SET, COHERENT SET.

TRIDENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SET, WHOLE SET, COHERENT SET.

III is sufficient approx for PITA trident

f11 Day 1 & 4.

Day 4:

Left pair of mushrooms Pan & Cub point to branching A compass, they have grid cap of Liberty Caps.

Right pair of mushrooms Pan & Ama point to balance scale pans, they have singular non-grid cap.

L theme: branching (grid caps & A compass)
R theme: stability (balance scale), non-branching (solid caps)

{open book} – not only points to scale – while making points about handedness & branching — but says I AM SHOWING YOU OPENLY THE ANSWER TO YOUR OBV Q WHATS IN THE SCALE LITTLE BROWN _________

Panaeolus caps (brown rings) in Great Canterbury Psalter are considered non-branching, aka “solid“. Singular, not a grid of multiple mushrooms in the cap.

Trident Letter Characters

Ψ

ψ

Ѱ

ѱ

𝚿

𝛙

𝛹

𝜓

𝜰

𝜳

𝝍

𝝭

𝞇

𝞧

𝟁

Ⲯⲯ

ⲯ

ᴪ

ϒ

Ὗ

Y

iIi

iIi

Modern Corruption of Myth and Art

When I do an image search of the web, to examine ancient art, the modern version of the scenes gets in the way.  I wish I could omit the modern, 20th C art, preventing seeing the Medieval and ancient art.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=entry+into+jerusalem

When I read books about myth, like written 1890 (evolutionism), or 1955 (Jungianism), 2024 Yugler (shamanism + Jungianism + psychedel.), I can’t see the actual greek myths; they are obscured by the heavy-handed modern interpretive overlay that covers over the myth.  

Simon Yugler (who joined our final book club session about his new book) flips between ancient myth telling and modern bad myth making, he contradicts himself and 

* has Perseus look at Medusa’s face(!) (and not turn to stone as said 1 page ago).
* has Medusa as invisible (no, she is excessively visible; it’s Perseus who is invisible, as said 1 page ago, wearing cap).  

The modern lens tries to make myth say the opposite – I hadn’t seen modern telling of myth demonstrate this so clearly, flipping to contradict itself from page to page.

MindSpace Forum, 1996

I disparaged it as “HeartSpace”.

Where I met Beat Hippie Raver 1996. When I posted Feb. 1997 core theory summary outline.

Between cybtrans.com & starting Egodeath.com, I posted at MindSpace forum.

I don’t think any links are in the Egodeath Yahoo Group. Old Outlook email logs are on a drive.

Conjuring Eden 2001 Article Is Almost Comprehensive Count of Liberty Cap Trees in Bernward Door & Column

Moved to Bern Door page
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

There are 7 Liberty Cap Trees in Bernward Door/Column: Not 1 Per Letcher

Don’t update the below content in present page; instead, update dedicated page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Everyone Fails to Mention Fail to Mention Additional Panel of Bern Door w/ Two Liberty Cap Trees

Total:

  • Door: Panel 2: Create Eve: 2 Liberty Cap trees <– Bennett IGNORES
  • Door: Panel 3: Eat Tree: 0 Liberty Cap trees <– Bennett HIGHLIGHTS
  • Door: Panel 4: Blame: 1 Liberty Cap tree
  • Column: __ scene: Liberty Cap tree
  • Column: __ scene: Liberty Cap tree
  • Column: __ scene: Liberty Cap tree
  • Column: __ scene: Liberty Cap tree

Does Stamets mention panel 2, Create Eve, containing two Liberty Cap trees?

Gartz, Samorini, Ruck[? confirm Conj Eden]

Correction: Bern Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Adam Meet Eve panel & Blame panel

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Bernwardst%C3%BCr.jpg

Some critic – Bennett? check: find “bernward”: FOUND IT, an important passage,

  • quotes Brown re: door.
  • quotes Samo re: door.

those q’s are interesting but I’m interested in the logic of Bennett’s rebuttal.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

todo: paste entire passage by Bennett: just CB’s rebuttal:

Bennett wrote:

“this panel [#4, Blame; but also #3, Create Eve] on ‘The Door of Salvation’ with similar claims, leave out the proceeding panel, which is clearly depicting the ingestion of the temptation of the forbidden fruit, and instead use the panel that follows that one, which shows the covering themselves in fig leaves, which is what the panel being used for the suggestion of mushroom imagery, actually represents.

“In the depiction Eve is using the same material that is on the tips of the branches which are being interpreted as ‘mushrooms’ to cover herself.

“In the proceeding panel [#3, Eat Tree], we can see Eve being tempted by the serpent who holds the classic apple in his mouth, and her offering it to Adam from a tree that has no indication of mushrooms.”

“Clearly the proceeding panel,[#3, Eat Tree] with the classic forbidden apples is depicting the ingestion of the forbidden fruit.

“The panel [#4, Blame] being used by the Brown’s for the mushroom like imagery of the trees, is in no way connected to the forbidden tree of knowledge, but is instead a tree from which fig leaves were broken off and Adam and Eve covered themselves.

“and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves”.

“As the Browns took the trouble to visit St. Michaels in person, I think it remains without question, that they left out this panel [#3, Eat Tree] which shows the forbidden tree as a the classic apple tree, and the actual ingestion of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve.”

LIKE BENNETT LEAVES OUT THE TWO-LIBERTY-CAP TREES PANEL [#2, Create Eve] ABOVE THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE PANEL.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

“There is no indication the mushroom like trees are connected besides serving as a source of ‘fig leaves’ for their covering.”

Sure, Chris – go that direction, ok, let’s look at THREE panels: including the one above Chris’ crop.

Eden panels:

  1. God creates Eve from Adam’s right side rib. Trees: __
  2. God introduces Eve to Adam. 2 Liberty Cap trees.
  3. Eat tree of knowledge. tree of knowledge not Lib Cap; 2 other plants.
  4. Blame. Liberty Cap tree, 3 other plants.
  5. Kick out. 3 plants.
  6. Work land. ~3 plants.
  7. Abel lamb offering. Cain grain offering. 2 sky plants, 2 ground plants.
  8. Cain kills Abel. 0 plants.

Genesis 4:1–18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204%3A1%E2%80%9318&version=NIV

what the F! did Chris NOT NOTICE that above the two panels that he details, there is an ADDITIONAL TWO Lib Cap trees?

Read entire passage in his article re: all points about Bern Doo Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees.

Don’t update the above content in present page; instead, update dedicated page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

This Continent, for Some Strange Puzzling Reason, Has No Psychedelic Plants (Because We Haven’t Bothered to Look)

Which article did I read this exclamation in, about Africa? Author ridicules the established baseless and nonsensical claim that “for some strange reason, Africa lacks psychedelics.”

Most likely reason: Africa doesn’t have any psychedlelics (very puzzling), BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO TRY TO LOOK FOR THEM. I think an article author wrote that.

Gartz book 1996 Magic Mushrooms:

“So far, the mycoflora of the African continent has been studied only peripherally and remains largely unknown.

“During the late 1980s, Italian mycologist G. Samorini and Terence McKenna, working independently, found evidence for the oldest known mushroom cult in Africa.

“Their discoveries were not just sensational, but most surprising as well.”

I appplaud Samo & McK for following their intuition & expectations so that Theory reveals Data, as happened many times with me, against eg. McK 1992 book FotG‘s negative, defeatist expectations.

Crop by Michael Hoffman

“I know blue vase contains Cubensis, too bad no way to prove that [assuming artist didn’t provide indicators to confirm].” [March 2022?]

image: mushrooms cases in Row 2 middle: dispensary [July 2024?]

“I know God’s balance scale pans contain Cubensis, too bad no way to prove that [assuming artist didn’t provide indicators to confirm].” [June 2023?]

image: Day 4 two branching grid cap mushrooms pointing at V compass, two non-grid cap mushrooms pointing at balance scale [Jan 13, 2025]

Gartz Book: Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems (1996)

Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems
Jochen Gartz. 1996 German, 1997 English.
https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Mushrooms-Around-World-Challenging/dp/0965339904/

The Shadow Dragon Monster of Psychedelic Pseudo Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
LOL “clarification needed”

God I HATE Jungianism, I cannot stand to read it, everything is wrong with it, it’s all made-up, theorizing in the worst sense. Arbitrary invention, irrelevant to ordinary state mundane life and & the altered state of consciousness. Sky castle built with ignorance of the intense mystic altered state.

Psychology Lexicon Concepts Poor: “the Subconscious”, “Individuation”

I would have to translate and rewrite the question in terms that make sense to me, especially ‘subconscious’.  I can handle the first part:

* The insight into what appears as the controller with predetermined or pre-existent thought.

The egoic control system has a model of personal control where future control-thoughts are not existing, but I am the autonomous creator of them, by my mental steering power, steering into an open, non-existing future, so that I create the future, I create my future.

If future control-thoughts are pre-created, pre-existing on my worldline ahead, that’s a problem for the egoic control system, for king ego.  

Thoughts as not merely “inevitably preset”, per domino-chain determinism which “closes” the not-yet-existing future.

Rather, future thoughts pre-EXIST (stronger than “pre-set”).

Experiencing future thoughts as not merely “preset” but rather, future thoughts pre-EXIST, leads to a control system failure, ego death, a revelation that’s offensive to egoic thinking, and contradicts the essence of the egoic control system.

In the loose cognitive state, as one can mentally observe during meditation combined with Psil., normally hidden aspects of the personal control system are revealed.  It becomes possible to observe from outside, the underlying, revealed workings of the the personal control system: the wellspring in the cave, the hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.

That’s my equivalent of the concept of ‘the subconscious mind’.  

My model of revealing the mind is not about personal suppressed memories to be brought up and resolved, as “the shadow”, during psychotherapy.

* The subconscious mind.  The word ‘subconscious’ doesn’t mean anything to me.  I don’t know what that word means.  

I created the Egodeath theory because existing fields and their conceptual vocabularies aren’t working.

In 1986, I took on the project of figuring out for myself, the things I needed to understand (how to fix the mental model of personal control, by ego transcendence), because existing approaches weren’t addressing the relevant needs.

I’m a little more familiar with words: 

‘perennialism’/ ‘perrenialist’ — not entirely confident I know what that’s supposed to mean.  

Article authors: many disparage ‘perennialism’ as a very bad thing.  

Others gladly assert perennialism.  

It is a debate that hasn’t fully flared up, it’s a debate that’s likely to flare up next b/c two camps hold opposite views: comfortable advocating perennialism vs. demonizing it.

This concept might be part of the growing debate about ‘mysticism’ in the field of Psychedlic “Science”.

‘common core mystic experiences’ — requires checking what that term is supposed to mean.

Laden with wrong presuppositions from Stace 1960.  Authors are finally starting to turn their attention to critiquing the Stace model, in the Psyched. “Science” debate.

‘default mode network’; ‘neuroplasticity’  

The above terms are semi-clear but have problems and debates around some of them; I have different kinds of critiques of them.

I can barely critique ‘subconscious’ or answer a question that uses that term, because I don’t know what it is supposed to mean.  

I looked up another Jungian Psychology term, like “individuation”, and felt:

The field of Psychology invents obscure, unhelpful, arbitrary, unjustified terms or concepts, conceptual vocabulary; lexicon.

For me the word ‘subconscious’ evokes mainly the exclamation that Psychology just invents constructs, that are unclear and not justified and not useful.

To me that’s first a theory translation question, of translating terms from the Psychology paradigm’s lexicon to the Psychedelic eternalism paradigm’s lexicon (as I have developed that lexicon in my expression of that paradigm).  

In formulating the model of mental model transformation, I have not used the concept or term ‘subconscious’.

I found existing fields and their lexicons (conceptual vocabulary) to be unhelpful or only helpful after transformation — fields such as Psychology, Mysticism, Neuroscience.

Letcher Mis-Attributes the Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck “Secret Suppressed” Narrative to Stamets & Gartz

Letcher should have quoted and cited with page numbers Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck instead of Stamets and Gartz, to set up his straw man try hard to emphasize secret even more than the extremists the

Team Secret Amanita: Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck – mixed wine for initiation mystery meals food of the gods = Amanita = Datura

Delirious entheogen scholarship theory in the Secret Amanita paradigm.

How can you exaggerate their hyper emphasis on ‘secret’ they already self-parody.

Letcher omits the Academic Anthropology “taboo because potent” aspect from his regurgitation of the Secret paradigm.

Stamets, PMofW: AIG book 1996 p. 35 Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, silent about Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees.

the only thing Stamets writes (p. 15):

“depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap”

Witch Hatsis turns you into a banana on skates.

Shroom Page 35: Bernward Door

“cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”

– Andy Letcher, Shroom, 2006, pages 35-36

, Mis-Attributed to Stamets & Gartz Instead of Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck

(Who Already are Self-Parody of this Narrative Over-the-Top) –

Letcher Has the Right to Complain Justifiably –

The Main Instance of this Book’s Feeling All the Way Through: Who the Heck Are You Rebutting?? — Bernward Door Liberty Cap Tree “Fall from Grace” Blame Scene

The p. 35 “various writers suggest”

This particular instance of “who is he rebutting???” was my experience cover to cover, puzzling my way through the book.

This was the main instance of that puzzlement WHO ARE YOU REBUTTING??

HOW BOUT SOME CITATIONS FKING NEEDED AND SPELL OUT QUOTES AS PUNISHMENT FOR FALSELY CITING

TOO BAD YOU PICKED THE VERY WORST OPPONENTS WHO WROTE NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE SECRET NARRATIVE YOU RIGHTLY GET FROM RUCK AND ITS SO OVER THE TOP PAR SELF PARODY ALREADY… try to out-Ruck Ruck, Letcher.

1952-2006 – Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck drive HARD the narrative “secret, cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously”.

Ruck’s passion for SECRET SUPPRESSED completely overshadowed any interest in real psychedelics & in full repeal of Psilo Prohibition.

2006 – Letcher ridicules Ruck’s narrative framing and
Letcher claims that various writers have suggested that narrative framing as secret. He neither quotes nor actually cites who is saying secret.

Easy answer: Letcher should have quoted and cited with page numbers, Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, to ridicule them without appearing to be possibly strawmanning.except for endnote 31 whatever that is,

“various writers suggested secret, such as Stamets thanks for letting me publish your photo, says Letcher, while lying about Stamets narrative framing, which is actually from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck and that

Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck

he GIVES NO QUOTES LOCALLy in the book, Shroom, and he gives no NO ACTUAL CITATIONS or page numbers

Either quote here, or point outside specifically and relevantly to support your — he IT IS SOME KIND OF STRAWMANNING , misattribtion

leading to statements Letcher claims they lead to.

Letcher sets up the most rHe Is Mocking Setting Up for Purpose of Ridiculting Wiothiout Giving any Quotes, just a vague mis-attribution citation

Shroom Page 36: Bernward Door

🤫🍄😯

The Ruck Barrier Wall Keeping Separate the Orthodox Mainstream vs. Heretical Sects

Initiates bc have The Mushroom 🤫🍄😯

Full Exoteric Esotericism Initiates 🤫🍄😯

full exoteric esotericism

kiddie myth full initiates

low myth

hierophant amanita promoter reveals the great HIDDEN SECRET SUPPRESSED SO-CALLED HERETICAL SECTS mystery: its a mushroom!! 🤫🍄😯 gee i wonder where Letcher 2005 writing book Shroom, where did he get the secret narrative he strives to put forth as the strawman postiion of Stamets and Gartz but Letcher where did he pick up this caricature of secret suppressed narrative?

Did Letcher invent that narrative that he erects as a strawman to build up and cite Stamets? No, the obvious culprits are the “taboo” theory/ explanation from Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, concocted by the fantasizing sky castles from the academic Anthropology Theory Evolutionism department.

The Lack of Mushrooms in Christian art Proves The Mushroom 🍄 Was Tabu Because the Potent Engine of Christianity

The Mushroom was potent therefore tabu therefore non existing though prominently existing.

Lack of any evidence for mushrooms in Christianity is proof that mushrooms were the powerful central engine of the power of the holy spirit.

Stam PMofW p 15 couldn’t be FURTHER from having writing anything remotely like that – bad choice!

depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets)

with mushroom motif (Gartz)

cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in (Letcher)

My dominant feeling whole time reading Shroom in 2007, from cover to cover:

Who the hack is Letcher rebutting??

Letcher Must Provide Quotes Supporting His Claim that “Various writers have suggested Secret, Oppression”

Citation Needed, that is, Quotes Required

Quotes not in Letcher, PROVE THAT SOMEONE IS WRITING THAT – don’t just ASSERT that ppl say and give a BLUFFING wrong footnote that leads to NO SUCH NARRATIVE SET selected for ridicule by Letcher from where?

Letcher’s strawman Secret narrative was selected by Letcher from Robert Graves, Gordon Wasson, John Allegro, and Carl Ruck – NOT from Paul Stamets & Jochen Gartz.

Stamets gave Letcher permission to use Stamets’ photo of Blame panel of Bernward Door.

Stamets writes extremely little.

For going on and on about passionate retelling of “secret suppression” as if that’s the motivation and value of entheogen scholarship, see Robert Graves, Gordon Wasson, John Allegro, and Carl Ruck — NOT Stamets and Gartz, who have NONE of that narrative, framing, mentality, consciousness, or motivation.

The photo & discussion (by various writers) omits mentioning, from two panels above, the two mushroom-trees Liberty Cap trees in “Create Eve” panel, which is mentioned in Conj Eden w/o saying how many Lib Cap trees (two).

Every entheogen scholar asserts “secret hidden suppressed cults” EXCEPT for Stamets & Gartz!

Worst possible choice to attribute your strawman narrative dredged up by with no quotations, no real citation by Letcher 2006 Shroom book p 35

everywhere except in EXCEPT in Stamets PMotW 1996 & Gartz MM 1996

taxonomical

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Letcher-Got-Narrative-Allegro-Ruck – regarding Psil Liberty Cap tree of knowledge on Bernward Door in Letcher book who got Stamets permisision to use Stamets photo of teh Blame Scene w Liberty caps.

+ 4 mushroom-trees Bern Col, Bern Door bern col,

Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees
bdbc

What is Hatsis way of theology to show so, it doesn’t count: not mushrooms. blah blah so, not mushroom.
sound, tried & true historiographical methodology
that Hatsis sets the standard for.

Huggins is a better witch than Hatsis, pulling the Panofsky letters out of thin air.

See drawer #whatever at Harvard.

Huggins goes trance channels Panofsky

Huggins Goes into Trance, Channels Panofsky Letters, pulled out of thin air

as if we all have them and have had them & their arguments

as if we have and have had [“noted exception”] Brinckmann citation since 1952

Timeless Huggins Art Historiography; 1952 is same as 2024

Huggins Wears a Suit of Panofsky arguments, and

huggs channels Panofsky in the Conclusion section where

So Mushroom Is “Ruled Out” Based on Obvious Logical Fallacies including: False Dilemma, Reductionist, Literalist, single-meaning fallacy

The phrase “ruled out” is Huggins’ crude, stiff wording and shallow arg’n.

The special pleading, exceptional case of mushroom-trees, where all rules of art interpretation are the exact opposite of all other aspects of art interpretation.

The “quickness and tone of assertion by authority argument.

Argument from quickness and tone of denial by expert authority

From Foraging Wrong:

“One prominent PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist], J.R. Irvin, even complained that

Irvin wrote:

“Wasson adopted Panofsky’s interpretation and thenceforth began to force it upon other scholars. Uncritical acceptance of the Wasson-Panofsky view lasted, unchecked, for nearly fifty years.”61

61 Irvin, The Holy Mushroom. [doesn’t give page #]

Hug cont:

“It might be noted, however, that many of the works in which the PMTs express contrary views were published during the fifty years to which Irvin refers.

🤥 🐮💩

“The only real advantage [SCUMBAG LIAR] Wasson has enjoyed was perhaps the result of his [FORMERLY] trusted reputation,🤢 based partly on his willingness to engage scholars in other fields as a way of cross-checking his own work, a feature not often encountered in the more generally insular PMTs.

[i trust Wasson to lie, deceive, censor Pan & Brinc; playact; con people, harangue & insult mycologists, repeatedly, for decades 1952-1986]

[“engage” via personal communication, not by reading published writings, because there are no writings about trees or mushroom-trees, by these “EXPERTS IN RELATED MATTERS” 🐮💩

The proper normal way of “cross-checking your own work” is by READING what experts wrote, and their expertise is because of what they wrote on the topic of mushroom-trees, which is NOTHING.]

“In the meantime, the few art historians with expertise in Ottonian and Romanesque art who are aware of the PMTs claims continue to echo Panofsky.

“When questioned on the topic by the writer, prominent art historian Elina Gertsman responded crisply:

“I very much do not think that Ottonian or Romanesque imagery was in any shape or form influenced by psychedelic mushrooms.”62

62 Gertsman to the author (Nov 23, 2023).

[“responded” on telephone, spoken, not via published writing – there are no published writings by art historians about trees, according to Hug, because trees are merely peripheral, according to these EXPERT “on related topics” art authorities, whose judgement we must therefore respect — based on their crispness of denial, not on their non-existent “expert” writings.]

Hug cont:

“Next to the GCP the Ottonian treasures of Hildesheim—Bishop Bernward’s doors, column, and chandelier, along with the painted ceiling of St. Michael’s Church—are among the most often discussed pieces of art by PMTs seeking hidden psychedelic mushrooms.63

[there are 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in Bernward: 3 in door + 4 in column, per my sequential posts:
God Creates Plants: Identifying the Four Plants
Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom (Letcher 2006, UK)
Bernward Doors and Column, Hildesheim ]

63  Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 22– 24, 28– 30,
Brown and Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 152– 176;
Jochen Gartz, Narrenschwämme: Psychotrope Pilze in Europa  (fig. 1); Samorini, “Mushroom-Trees,”  102– 103;
idem., Funghi allucinogeni, 197– 199;
Irvin, Holy Mushroom (pl. 9– 12).

“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out:

[“points out” improperly and abnormally, not via published writings — wrote NOTHING on this topic — but by personal comm.]

“The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.

[note the Letcher-type false argument, or mis-attribution to Stamets & Gartz instead of the true source, Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, the “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, slipped in, secret cult, surreptitiously slippped in” narrative pulled out of thin air:]

“In my more than 30 years of experience as a manuscript expert at the Hildesheim Cathedral Library and researcher of the Hildesheim Middle Ages – preferably the 10th and 11th centuries – I have yet to come across a text in which I can see evidence of symbolism of this kind.64

64 Gallistl to the author (Nov 27, 2023). See especially Gallistl’s Die Bernwardsäule und die Michaeliskirchezu Hildesheim and Die Bronzetüren Bischof Bernwards in Dom zu Hildesheim.”

Hug cont:

“Gallistl’s point about the absence of textual support for the PMTs theories is
an important one that applies as well to their treatment of the GCP and of Christian art throughout early and medieval Christianity.

“Charles Stang, director of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, states the problem well:

Stang wrote, & said in a speech:

“if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers of early Christians using psychedelics like sacrament, I would expect the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it.”

“I would expect we’d have ample evidence.65”

end of Stang quote in Huggins –

We have not even STARTED to TRY to look. The “premature closure” fallacy.

Looking for A while we say we are looking for B: evidence for what? evidence for SECRET FUNGI? Just look for fungi, not secret suppressed fungi.

Obvious circular reasoning by Stang, confused by his own UNCONSCIOUS PRESUPPOSITION of suppression.

The Ruck-like barrier construction Stang strives to construct: orthodox vs. heretical sects, with a dividing barrier, with The Sacred Fungus on one side of Stang’s imagined barrier.

Letcher in Shroom 2006: England historian Henrietta Leyser when probed about mushroom imagery in Christian art, Bernward Door: denial, not via published writings, but abnormally, via “pers. comm.”, so, not mushroom. page 36, shown in present page above.

on topics related to mushroom-trees who wrote nothing

It’s not mushrooms, because of the quickness and tone of the art authority who wrote 0 words on this expert topic of

peripheral motif of boring mere peripheral trees, so you must “CONSULT” [OBEY] [

Hug has audacity to casually weirdly bring up the Brinck book – he writes “Noted” AS IF the public had that letter since 1952 – where the hell did Huggg get the censored secret Panofsky letters both strongly citing Brinckmann 1906 Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.

Normal humans only got the Panofsky letters & their double strong urging to see published writing from Brinckmann 1906, via Brown 2019 article, which Hug omits to cite, nor cites Panofsky in Biblio, nor cites Brinckmann in his Biblio.

The weirdest thing about Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article: the way he uses the Panofsky letters and their Brinckmann citation, out of the blue

HUGS WEIRDLY USES PANOFSKY & BRINCKMANN — the WEIRDEST THING ABOUT HUGGINS FORAGING WRONG.

Wasson’s other hand simultaneously deleting the Brinck citation

the expert art authorities expert in related fields [ie 100% ignorant in this topic]

Huggins makes Panofsky State False Dilemma, Reductionist, Literalist, single-meaning fallacy in non-realism Medieval art.

What Stamets and Gartz Wrote About Bern Door Blame Panel Liberty Cap mushroom-tree – and What Letcher Cites them as saying

depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets) [2]

with mushroom motif (Gartz) [2]

cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in (Letcher) [2]

  • “depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap” (Stamets key words)
  • “with mushroom motif” (Gartz key words)
  • “cult secretly oppression slipped into hidden secret cult surreptitiously slipped in” (Letcher key words)

CITATION fkking NEEDED! quotations. Not just bunk end note “31” that utterly fails to come up with ANY support for the claim:

“Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, such as Stamets & Gartz.”

— Letcher, Shroom, p. 35, shown in the present webpage, in full; condensed here.

fake bunk non citation fa fal false citaiton, MIS ATTIBUTION OF THE POP TALE GRAVES WASSON ALLEGRO RUCK paradigm.

Dr. Secret, where do you think Letcher 2005 picked up the secret narrative, Dr. Secret? Ruck

Secret Christian Amanita Cult

the “secret Amanita cult” theory

the Amanita Primacy Fallacy

taxonomical variant he gives stamets, all 3 names: psil semil lib cap witches hat

“taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap”

“mushroom motif”

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY ANYTHING LESS ON THE TOPIC THAN THE CITED AUTHORS; WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE, THEY WRITE BAREST EXTREME CONCISE ALMOST ZERO WORDS. it is the barest assertion, and Stamets ONLY makes the point that the image is a tax’ly confirmed Lib cap – not other point at all. Cited a poor choice REGARDING THE STRAWMAN NARRATIVE LETCHER CONCONTS – OR RAISES UP BY …. WHAT NARR SECRET

LETCHER SETS UP AND MOCKS THE SECRET NARRATIVE FROM RUCK ALLEGRO POP — NOT FROM STAMETS GARTZ! citation needed!

Letcher dredges up words that came from Anthropology theory, eg. Graves, Wasson, Allegro, & Ruck, and Mis-attributes them to Stamets & Gartz

As explained by Cyberdisciple.
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=Anthropology —

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/bad-anthropology-robert-graves-moderate-entheogen-theory/

https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2021/09/05/reading-carl-ruck-structuralism-and-myth-ritual-theory-in-1976-iamos-ion-article/

tabu taboo cult secretly oppression slipped into hidden secret cult surreptitiously slipped in

In Letcher’s 2006 book Shroom, what does endnote 31 quote from Stamets & Gartz, not shown here? I now have multiple copies of multiple summaries of that: summary of key words of:

  • what Stamets wrote
  • what Gartz wrote
  • what Letcher wrote

Contrasting — the strenuously constructed strawman from Letcher; what Letcher wrote (key words).

Letcher got his ridiculed strawman that he constructs in order to mock, from Graves/Was/Alleg/Ruck, Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck. NOT from Stam/Gart per phony fake make-believe suckers’ endnote 31.

All religious art clearly represents psychedelic eternalism

That’s a joke based on Rush quote regarding Saint Martin: Entry into Jerusalem:

“This … painting … clearly represents mushrooms (manna) being handed out.”

Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown.
https://www.academia.edu/40412411/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels
Crop, image processing, and interpretation by Cybermonk: branching possibilism feathers & non-branching eternalism sticks, matching left- & right-hand finger shapes.

Images copied from page.

“This … painting … clearly represents mushrooms (manna) being handed out.” – John Rush

The word “clearly” and John “Not Clearly” Rush do not fit together.

What do you mean by “represents”, Rush? Consubstantial. Associated with.

per Wasson, the serpent is associated with The Mushroom.

So even though the Plainc painter had no thought of Amanita, Wasson gives himself credit as the first one to ever think of tree of knowledge as mushroom, and the IGNORANT STUPID DUMBASS PAINTER HAD NO IDEA THAT THE SNAKE IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND CONSUBSTANTIAL REPRESENTING THE SACRED MUSHROOM.

So the painter did paint a mushroom, but was not brilliant enough to realize it, unlike brilliant Wasson, who figured out that Amanita produces Psilocybin effects.

Father of ethnomycology idiocy and scummy self-promotion requiring tearing other ppeople down, such as the leading mycologist in 1953, who retaliated by publishing Wasson’s bullsh!t in a 2nd printing of Ram’s book.

That was then quoted ‘rightly or wrongly’ — by Allegro’s book SMC, mocking Wasson, who still took years to figure out he’s been turned into a joke with no credibility about mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Wasson has the same rude, insulting stance toward artists as Panofsky has, when it comes to mushroom-trees, that topic that is superstitious and tabu for scholars like Graves, Wasson, and Panofsky.

Blurry Internet Photos 1, Brown 0

I proved and explained that sticks and feathers are held out, not mushrooms as falsely claimed by Rush 2x & Brown 4x.

Elasticity of Writing by Entheogen Scholars

As ever, roundabout evasive writing, implausible deniability: “We never wrote a sentence that states the youth holds out mushrooms. You can’t prove we asserted that.”

Pieced together, Brown did write such.

“stems” “caps” “I see caps that have been made not visible.”

Brown, 2016, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out

“Jesus is sitting on an ass with his arms reaching out toward the youths who are greeting him. One of the youths is leaning forward, holding on to the stem of an oblong mushroom in his left hand, while offering Jesus three stems with his right hand, whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured.”

Brown & Brown, 2016, page 112.

Transcribed by Michael Hoffman from paperback, Jan. 30, 2025

copied to section of page St Martin

Brown, 2019, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out

“Christ is riding on an ass with his arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift (of which only the stems are visible), offered by one of the youth who with his other hand is holding the stem of one of the mushrooms.”

Copypaste from Brown 2019 PDF: bold added.

John Rush, 2022, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out

“This … painting … clearly represents mushrooms (manna) being handed out.”

– John Rush, 2nd Ed 2022 of 2011 book, p. 207

copied to section of St Martin page

What do you mean by “clearly” and “represents”? That’s what Rush wishes to see. It’s not there.

A field day for deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Alternative phrases: pre-existence; non-branching possibilities; eternalism [top-level termy for the theory]

(within the set of 4 terms like “analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control”)

analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
Too many words at end; not consistent verbosity.

Similar:

the theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism cybernetics
apec
‘cyb’ is too vague: what ABOUT control? what ABOUT control changes?
The mental model of control changes to 2-level, dependent control?

Shorter awkward 4th term: 3 words better than 4, for term 4:

analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
ape2

I wrote:

The following is about 80% toward constructing a response to the questions.

wrmspirit wrote:

> Terminology: How do you get pre-existence from eternalism? 
Eternalism – mystic state experiencing

I wrote:

Eternalism is a different quadrant than mystic-state experiencing.  Overlapping, relation between the 4 parts (analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control).

dissociation = psychedelics = loose cognitive association / loose cognitive binding = mystic-state experiencing

eternalism = pre-existence of control thoughts = determinism = block-universe determinism = block-universe eternalism 

analogy = metaphor

control transformation = cybernetics 

wrmspirit wrote:
> Pre-existence. How can it be experienced?
The soul doesn’t separate until physical death, is the big belief.  

I wrote:

Pre-existence of control thoughts embedded in timeless block-universe is 100% offensive to king ego/ egoic control.

Such pre-existence of control-thoughts is experienced in the altered state.  (per the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the theory of psychedelic pre-existence)

wrmspirit wrote:
> who is to say what is ‘pre’ Without a timeline.  
Time disappears in mystic altered state.

I wrote:

The term ‘pre-existence’ tries to make time vanish, pulling rug out from under king ego / egoic control. 

If your control-thoughts already are created “for you”, and you are being forcefully pushed forward in time when these control-ideas will be forced unavoidably into mind, scary-to-death for egoic control agent.

_______________

My attempt to replace the word ‘eternalism‘ by ‘pre-existence‘ is from a couple years ago, to emphasize different things and to use common words.

The size or scope of the terms differs, so might not work – is my current feeling.

* ‘eternalism’ per Stanford Phil. omits any attention to the non-control idea or ctrl transformation, which is the most important idea – so ‘eternalism’ must be clarified or supplemented by also saying something about control or cybernetics.

* ‘non-branching’ is similarly narrow, not big enough to encompass all 4 basic elements: per 2007 main article puzzle quadrant lexicon: 

url for puzzle piece, check new copy of main article at my new site: 

https://egodeaththeory.org/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/#Restructuring-Is-Enabled-by-Loose-Association-Binding

2007 term –> 2020 term:

* cybernetics –> 2-level, dependent control 

* determinism –> eternalism

* dissociation –> psychedelic (loose mental functioning binding; loose cognitive association binding)

* metaphor –> analogical  [thank God, a straightforwardly perfect, single word]

Problem though: need to highlight the most offensive-to-ego points:

Problem: Point out: Future control thoughts are already existing and set in stone, frozen in rock.  Thus my attempted term ‘pre-existence’ – which has advantage of being common English words.

Problem: Need terminology about branching –> non-branching, because so extremely easy to depict visually in art.  To represent transformation from possibilism to eternalism.

2020 4-part term: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control 

‘cybernetics‘ (2007 term) vs. ‘control model transformation‘ (2020 term); 2-level, dependent control — either word is ok, but “control” is far more common language.  Nice but not “transformed POV” enough: “non-control”.  

Only egoic thinking would say that “qualified possibilism-thinking” is “non-control“.  We do not end up w/ non control; we end up with – MOST NEUTRALLY — “2-level control”. 

Ego fears wholesale vague “loss of control“, but what we actually undergo is transformation of control. 

The term “dependent control” is a little too close to egoic concept of “loss of control”. 

The term “2-level control” avoids any whiff of egoic type simple thinking like “loss of control”.

I am not comfortable with “dependent control“, because it draws all attention to weak helpless non-control, which is NOT how the FULLY transformed mind emphasizes.

The term “dependent control” is misleading emphasis; whereas the neutral term ‘2-level control‘ doesn’t highlight that debatable emphasis.  

So I am more comfortable with the term ‘2-level control‘ than ‘dependent control‘, and I like “control transformation to 2-level control‘ from monolithic autonomous control.

‘metaphor‘ (2007 term) vs. analogy (2007 term) — ‘metaphor’ is too literature-focused; analogy (2020 term) is used by Science: analogy is comparison for purpose of explaining something.

‘determinism‘ (2007 term) vs. ‘eternalism‘ (2020 term) — ‘determinism’ definitely means egoic domino-chain causality model, which is irrelevant and has to be shaken off; ‘eternalism’ (& Superdeterminism) — discovered like the day after finishing the Sep 2007 main article — evades that causality model but Josie Kins psychonaut scientist botches definition of ‘eternalism’.

FAIR’S FAIR: if everyone gets to talk about “determinism”, it’s reasonable to use similarly technical term ‘eternalism’.

‘dissociation‘ (2007 term) vs ‘psychedelic‘(2020 term)

/ end of reply, Su:

Crafting a Set of 4 Terms

These first two “goal” points stood out when composing previous msg – especially that I’m crafting a SET of terms, a system, together.

todo: wrmspirit wrote about downside of the term ‘pre-existing’, ancient theory of preexisting soul attaching to body, gets tangled/ is a connotation inadvertant; connotation baggage.

To give more insight on why attempting — as a replacement for technical jargon ‘eternalism’ — to use terms like “pre-existence” or “non-branching”.

What year my term “pre-existence”?  2021?

What year my term “non-branching”?  2022?  

I could search my site, to get those dates.

More updating of Log page:

Monday, March 21, 2022:
Prof. Brown sent me the 2019 article’s Kupfer passage about youths in trees, and,

Monday, March 21, 2022, 10:14 AM:
I first wrote the phrase “branching-message mushroom trees“, in email to Brown & Cyberdisciple. See section “Major Date: I First Wrote “branching-message mushroom trees” on March 21, 2022″ in Idea Development page 16. Also see:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Amanita-Imagery-Indicates-Psilocybe-Use

Continuing Jan. 30, 2025:

On March 21, 2022, I first wrote “branching-message mushroom trees”, in email to Brown re: Marcia Kupfer’s passage, which Brown better highlighted in 2019 than 2016 with bold formatting where Kupfer wrote “tree … cut … branch”. 

Brown bolded to criticize her for saying “tree” but not “mushroom” – but I noticed her words “cut” and “branch”, a totally different seeing than Brown. 

Browns’ 2019 bolding on Kupfer’s words highlighted entirely different things for me than for Brown. 

I continued to spot “non-branching” motif in familiar art pieces, after that.

Goal: Craft a SET of 4 Phrases/Terms; not just working on alternatives for the term ‘eternalism’ alone in isolation

* Goal: Craft a set of short terms that effectively convey & express the right set of connotations, for a SET of 4 areas of focus.  

Craft an entire SET of 4 focuses/ concept-labels.  

Develop the best short terms (concept-labels) to represent and convey each of the 4 distinct areas of focus.  Not too much overlap.  Not leaving out crucial ideas, with a huge gap between the 4 terms/ areas of focus.

Goal: Avoid jargon or special uses of common words; use common words

* Goal: Use common words, not specialized jargon.  

Avoid non-words eg debranched, worldmodel.  

Do not try to ingratiate and hop on Pop board jargon of the day: “default-mode network”, “neuroplasticity” that are laden with meaning-networks that are not controlled by the Egodeath theory’s carefully controlled lexicon/ meaning-network.

Trying to construct a SET of 4 distinct terms or areas of focus.

In transformation of mental model, model goes from first set of 4 areas of focus, to the 2nd set of 4 areas of focus:

from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control 

to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control 

Try straight replacement:

to analogical psychedelic pre-existence with dependent control 

to analogical psychedelic non-branching with dependent control 

These terms can be grouped as equivalent:

eternalism

determinism per Minkowsky block time, time as 4th dimension; block world.

pre-existence (of control thoughts, though control is a different “quadrant”/focus within the set of 4)

non-branching — trying to communicate with mushroom-tree artists; trying to express my core theory in a way easy to map to their “non-branching” idea/motif.

Keeping the focus of that group of terms distinct from the interacting other quadrant, Cybernetics/ control/ the personal control system & its transformation.

“possibilities branching” “possibility-branching”, vs. non-branching of possibilities – similar to saying “timeless preexistence”; block-universe eternalism

/ end of pair of posts ie emails

Entheogen Scholars Make Tons of Mistakes — But They’re Still Right (So Far as They Go, Toward Psilocybin Eternalism): What Are Their Top 5 Foolish Assertions?

Mushroom-tree deniers have a field day when affirmers make a big mistake.

I could write article listing the many poor assertions by mushroom-tree affirmers, like I specialize in finding instances of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy eg. where magician Irvin attributes Psil fx to Amanita through shell game wildcard term “sacred mushrooms”.

Short list of my rebuttals against entheogen scholars:

  • Biggest faceplant ever, in the field: Ruck, 2009, “Dancing man has red cap.” HOW Ruck did you manage such a colossal mistake? Irvin corrupted the art forcing it from blue to red? First decent copy ever was from Hatsis afaik.
  • Brown Walburga tapestry – especially folly when include the set-up, 2 ppl, 2 publications, not doing field work, “while we were doing field work we realized”, “held photo up to light [with Jan Irvin & book attached to it]”, photo credit: same as in Irvin book; serrated base as shown on Golden Guide book cover in Brown era of 1976, etc.
  • Brown Day 3 when id’ing plants, starts from the Right, drives car in reverse and walks around on his head, because Amanita is on the right. Copies Arthur…
  • Smaller mistake: Brown mistranscribed Panofsky letter, changing Pan’s meaning, changed “finished product” (ie prototype) to “finished project” (ie fresco).
  • James Arthur 2000 not interested in Day 3 being mushrooms; abuses it to make 5-plant recipe for SOMA, give me back my diamond hammer of interpretation (vigorous, forced, committed interp’n).
  • Day 3: God holds something/msh in hand – everyone yells: “no he doesn’t wtf Rush”.
  • Rush gallery of art images showing random whatever, and 1-2 mushrooms too.
  • Entheos 3 cover: forced blue to red deleting Psil mushroom in leg, Reversed = removes enlightenment. Ruck Committee sees speck of red & white paint, fails to see Psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg on their journal cover b/c corrupted art b/c chasing their “The Sacred Mushroom; Amanita“.
  • Brown & Rush describing Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Jesus and youth hold out objects. Rush: “passing out mushrooms”. Brown: …. ? Actual: Splayed/pressed fingers, feather & sticks.
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/02/11/saint-martin-frescos-%e2%9e%b3%f0%9f%96%96%f0%9f%8c%b4%f0%9f%94%aa%f0%9f%8d%84%f0%9f%96%bc%f0%9f%94%8d%f0%9f%94%ac%f0%9f%a7%90/#Random-Example-2-Feather —
  • Julie Brown: “the mushroom cap has been painted over or somehow obscured … the mushroom stem has been re-painted beyond all recognition“
  • John Rush: “This … painting … clearly represents mushrooms (manna) being handed out” – John Rush, 2nd Ed 2022 of 2011 book, p. 207. What do you expect deniers to do with such easy-to-demolish claims?

copied from present page to here: accur 2016:
“Jesus is sitting on an ass with his arms reaching out toward the youths who are greeting him. One of the youths is leaning forward, holding on to the stem of an oblong mushroom in his left hand, while offering Jesus three stems with his right hand, whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured.”

NOT transcribed from 2016 book:

The dialog while Brown, Brown, & Brown wrote their 2016 book:
“Brown, do you see painted-over caps?”
“Yes, Brown, I see very clearly painted-over caps above the mushroom stems of the plant-like gift.”

Julie specifically agrees to ONLY describe what she SEES, yet the passage describes instead what she DOESN’T see; mushrooms, because they are not there in the image. “caps painted over” is bizarre in this context. Strange writing.

Here is a picture of that mushroom:

Beautiful, isn’t it!

Brown 2019: “We can only speculate why a mushroom tree is growing on top (or out of) the roof of a stone tower.”

The mushroom-tree is above the gate; a mushroom gate. Like Eadwine: above temple door passageway, {mushroom toppers} at roof peak.

Dancing Man’s mushroom-tree’s cap with red cap spotted white, to silence the art historians:

Crop by Michael Hoffman
serpent has knowledge, indic’d by cut right branch next to cut neck of serpent; neck segment = cut right branch – the L branch cuts the R branch and the serpent neck
Crop by Michael Hoffman

Eating from tree of knowledge, looking at topmost Liberty Cap’s L & R branches

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 3 right looking lines.jpg” 276 KB, 10:55 pm Jan. 29, 2025

redo [done, above], they are looking a little higher – also show the lines converging like the four horses’. Where do Adam & Eve’s looking-lines intersect? With straightedge, try: the topmost Lib Cap’s L & R branches.

Crop by Michael Hoffman, April 10, 2023
Crop by Michael Hoffman, April 12, 2023
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2023
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman.

May require Irvin to jam the color palette violently from blue to red to get rid of all that undesirable blue, and force it to red; bc blue is too much like Psilocybin mushrooms, which is “not relevant for this discussion” per Irvin 2008 book THM.

THM has the stated purpose: to vindicate & build out/ build on the solid foundation that is Allegro’s entheogen scholarship.

Irvin copied Mark Hoffman’s technique for the cover of Entheos 3 — violently CORRUPTING ART by forcing it from blue to red — but Irvin FORGOT TO REVERSE the picture like Mark Hoffman reversed, disastrously, the Tauroctony, as Hoffman fell from above the sphere of stars to below it like a non-initiate.

David Ulansey article at his site: Mithras hypercosmic sun – or the other article? about bull reversal POV. I gotta mem the diff’c! I discuss the two articles at https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Looking-at-Heimarmene-from-Outside — ans: the first article, called HYPERCOSMIC, find “left”. NOT 8th gate article, which is about __.

David Ulansey articles:
http://www.mysterium.com/hypercosmic.html – find “left”.

http://www.mysterium.com/eighthgate.html – other excellent article, about __. todo

See, art historians: the leading entheogen scholar PROVES this is our sacred holy mushroom

The Fly Agaric, Amanita muscaria, big name, lots of formatting and ceremony in REVEALING the SECRET of our The Holy Mushroom,

Secret Christian Amanita Cult

Sect Group Community

Boundary Wall Separation Dividing Barrier

Suppressed Underground So-Called By Ruck Heretics but better by far is heretical SECTS, never care about indivudals “having” The Mushroom gnosis fully initiated gnosis secret eucharist … the few inner p 56 p 14 —

closed small circle only a few are in on it – what is the ruck lexicon here?

the secret was only known among the inner exclusive circle of knowers, THE INNERMOST CIRCLE OF initiates, esoteric initiates are the ones who know the secret Amanita cult. they are MEMBERS of “so-called heretical sects” — writes Ruck, in all 3 issues of Entheos.

If you “know about” Amanita, you HAVE GNOSIS. You are in on the holy secret, which is Amanita.

One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside Dancing Man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/ahahaha-hatsis-did-totally-bust-carl-amanita-promoter-ruck-for-taunting-based-on-wrong-guess-that-salamander-cap-is-red-and-white-%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%8d%84/

TRUNK, WHICH TRUNK, DO YOU MEAN THE {CUT RIGHT TRUNK} THAT HIS RIGHT FOOT IS TOUCHING?
https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/04/13/salamander-mushroom-tree-right-side-cut/

[10:01 pm Jan. 29, 2025] – dancing man tree salam touch cap w right foot and the CUT CUT RIGHT BRANCH POINTS AT salam R foot
the bestiary salamander image with Y-branching mushroom tree [that sounds wrong, “Y-branching” – more import… it is not Y like — TWISTED Y — IT’S n AN X NOT A Y! 10:03 PM

Adam and Eve Lose Transcendent Knowledge When Eat from Tree

Adam and Eve Lose Enlightenment When Eat from Tree

Adam and Eve Gain Anti-Enlightenment; Lose Enlightenment, When Eat from Tree

They change from right foot down & right hand lower, to left foot down & left hand lower

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 3 middle and right.jpg” 488 KB, 10:47 pm Jan. 29, 2025

noticed the other day: like Jan 27, 2025: f11 row 3 middle [on left in this crop], Do Not Eat Tree of tree of knowledge:

God and Adam and Eve have right foot down, correctly, and,

Adam & Eve have right hand lower than left hand, correctly.

But when they eat tree of knowledge row 3 R [on right in this crop],

their feet are strangely both down, and

L hand lower to the ground than R hand (bad, per f134 which extremely emphasizes that handedness). So:

THEY HAVE GONE FROM ENLIGHTENED TO UNENLIGHTENED WHEN THEY EAT THE FRUIT.

They gain un-enlightenment; anti-enlightenment.

A longer-distance but solid point against Bennett’s article against Brown, Bennett’s Fungi Paraeieieaoal article (worst title of any article ever) argued that Bernward Door DOESN’T COUNT and that Brown and everyone is an academic FRAUD because the Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is merely in the Blame panel, not in the all-important Eat From tree of knowledge panel.

Bennett emphasizes that the the tree of knowledge panel lacks Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.

Yet the Great Canterbury Psalter tree of knowledge and do not eat panels contradict that bc they, too, differ from each other, in the opposite way: so, they are PAIRED and you CANNOT UN-PAIR THEM.

IF ONE PANEL IS MUSHROOMS, THEN THE WHOLE SET OF IMAGES IS MUSHROOMS.

Great Canterbury Psalter Day 3 as a Test Case: Huggins’ Proposal for Battle in the Forest of mushroom-trees in Christian Art

to Bet Everything – All or Nothing:

All the Art that includes mushroom-trees all means mush mushrooms

all such art entire set of images all means {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

All Art Around mushroom-trees

mushroom imagery in Christian art

All art that’s connected with mushroom-trees means psychedelic eternalism.

Mushroom-trees mean psychedelic eternalism, not trees or mushrooms

A mushroom-tree means psychedelic eternalism, not tree or mushroom

If either the Do Not Eat panel or the Tree of Knowledge panel has mushroom imagery, then both panels mean mushrooms – ie, psychedelic eternalism.

  • Bernward Door (increased by column 4 panels plants mushroom-trees of same matching Blame panel.

f11 row 3 and 4: Eden: Lacks a Blame Scene Like Bernward Door Has

No Blame scene like Bern Door. from Eat tree of knowledge, to guarded gate by flame and blade.

correct foot & hand height in Do Not Eat scene; wrong foot and hand height in Eat tree of knowledge scene panel.

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  1. Do Not Eat panel
  2. Eat from tree of knowledge panel
  3. Blame Panel – Bern has , Great Canterbury Psalter lacks, jumps from Eat scene to Gate guarded scene (by {blade} & {fire}), skipping Blame scene.
  4. Kicked out guarded gate flame sword angel death walled boundary space of immortals

If Do Not Eat has mushroom or tree of knowledge panel has mushrooms, all of the plants in all of the panels mean mushrooms

If there is 1 mushroom image in Great Canterbury Psalter, then every image in the Psalter means mushrooms.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“f11 row 3 right looking lines.jpg” 276 KB, 10:55 pm Jan. 29, 2025

X branching form theory: birth of nomenclature “X”. {cut right branch} via cross-behind; X. cut right branch via sword

cut right branch via cut off

cut right branch via botched cross unaligned cross behind Great Canterbury Psalter f177 row 1 L mushroom-tree with 4 horses – an offset X two legss of branch don’t align – HOR CUT VIA HORIZONTAL SHIFT – it is a cross between cut branch end, vs. visually cut by cross-behind

or recognized, the theme/ motif/ technique:
{visually cut branch by crossing behind another branch}

an X where the right line is behind the l line; you see / but you don’t see \ X

Crop by Michael Hoffman
I; X / -\; Y; X \ -/; I
I
X / -\
Y
X \ -/
I

Crop by Michael Hoffman
I; X / -\; Y; X \ -/; I

I
X / -\ ie, right cross-behind
Y
X \ -/ ie, left cross-behind
I

This image proves attention to cross-behind and this type of branching form.

X where / -\

X / -\ right cross-behind

start from bottom

where the branches moving bottom to top

the right branch is visually cut by the left branch

Right branch cut by left branch

Dancing Man: X right cross-behind / -\

Dancing Man: X / -\

tree of knowledge: X, / -\

tree of knowledge: X, right cross-behind

its branching form is
X, right cross-behind

not:
X, left cross-behind

X, left cross-behind

X, right cross-behind

bad: left branch cross-behind

good: right branch cross-behind

cut right branch via cross-behind

X \ -/

Cut right branch via 5 Different Ways

Crop by Michael Hoffman
  1. cut right trunk
  2. cut right branch visually cut by other branch
  3. cut right branch
  4. cut right crown/cap
  5. cut right Liberty Cap cap in grid in crown/cap
  6. cut left branch visually cut by border

grid of Lib Caps in cap = branching; sword cuts — with blue fruit disc handle — the right part of the branching; = cut right branch

similar for cutting the right side of the Liberty Cap WHICH IS DEFINED IN TREE OF KNOWLEDGE AS HAVING A L & R BRANCH ARMS. “pink key tree” indeed: tree of knowledge is pink key tree defining every Lib Cap cap/crown in the Psalter. Given: It is a given that every grid cap w Lib Caps containing grid of Lib Caps , each Lib Cap has L & R arm.

noted also tonite dancing man has bunch of L & R arms but note that one thing is steady: any given flat any given feature of a tree in this genre is definitely L or R or crosses L to R…. it is NATURAL to employ L & R in this flat tree composition. we see flashing before eyes: this thing on LEFT, OTHER other thing on RIGHT. blah blah LEFT blah blah RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT VS RIGHT THING L THINK IN TERMS OF LEFT VS RIGHT THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY TREE LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE LEFT RIGHT HANDEDNESS WHAT IS LEFT WHAT IS RIGHT AMPPED

WHAT IS THE L-VS-R PAIR DIAD DYAD MAPPED TO WHICH DYAND? WHICH TWO “THINGS” can be opposed contrasted like L vs R are contrasted? Side Two directions, two sides, two arms, two X, which arm = “cut”? Branching on L, non-branching = right side. YI

  • literally cut branch f193 row 1 L? the one cut 5 ways
  • visually cut branch aka cross-behind. “right cross-behind”
  • visually cut branch via right cross-behind
  • visually cut branch via offset cross-behind [f177 row 1 L]

a separator:

Fungus Redivivus
Carl Ruck, 2009, in book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John Allegro, 1970

[9:24 pm jan 29 2025] neck cut right branch –

Why have serpent go behind branches?

reg ans: its a snake he has to wrap branch.

alt ans: exact same concept as cross behind
cut visually
occluded right cut branch

cut via x vs via y

serpent has knowledge, indic’d by cut right branch next to cut neck of serpent

neck segment = cut right branch

the L branch cuts the R branch and cuts the serpent neck

the L branch cuts the R branch

the L branch cuts the serpent neck

cut right branch via serpent going behind instead of … whenever have snake in tree, always snake is visually cut branch.

dancing man salamander is not twined behind a tree limb as a snake serpent always is cross behind the branch a trunk or branch. trunk and branches.

not salamander tho; beside tree.

has 4 limbs, different morph conventions apply than snake shape than BECAUSE SNAKES HAVE TWO LEGS BUT SALAMANDERS HAVE 4 LEGS THATS THE DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGY

Dancing Man: salamander 4 legs

tree of knowledge: serpent 2 legs

no legs in Day 6 serpent

cut right trunk

crt

cut right branch

crb

Crop by Michael Hoffman

1987-Type Acronyms/ Keyboard shortcuts for key concepts of the Egodeath theory

the cybernetic theory , the mytheme theory

ct

the mytheme theory

mt

tree of life

tol

tree of knowledge

tok

Crafting “Optimized Concept-Labels” for Reuse, with [acro]/ Keyboard Shortcuts
https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/02/keyboard-shortcuts-key-phrases-embodying-the-egodeath-theory/

see below:

Key Phrases per Keyboard Shortcuts

‘Shadow’ Is Defined as Personal History, so Can’t Use ‘shadow’ as Label of the Common Core Psychedelic Dynamic

The ppl taking over the Psychedelic Renaissance are biased against Psil-specific effects, and they try to reduce those to OSC ordinary-state effects.

Misuse of the term “shadow” – the term is inherently laden with wrong, bad assumptions: it is assumed that “the shadow” is specifically personal, not inherent to the altered state.

The term ‘shadow’ is ASSUMED to be and defined as “personal shadow”.

I must stop writing “terror of the shadow dragon monster guarding the gate”.

Stanislaus Grof’s Breathwork and Psychedelic Therapy Is Premised on Remembering of your Birth Trauma, to Process It

The word ‘shadow’ BY DEFINITION means personal issues, your biography history issues, that you need Grof to make you physically remember when you were being born.

Grof therapy is premised on: you have personal trauma because of birth labor, and the source of your problem is that.

You need to PROCESS those FIRST MEMORIES to resolve the trauma that you remember from your own birth process when you were born, and ergot, or bunk breathing, accomplishes that, which is why Grof is so popular.

Bunk Breathing, aka “Groffian breathwork”, can/ could/ might/ may [ie, doesn’t] produce the same effects as a 10-strip of blotter: special breathing enables you to remember your SHADOW experience of birth trauma, to PROCESS and resolve your personal shadow experience.

The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM Died 🍄😵

The Psychedelic Renaissance has plummetted and died as far as startups. Startups are removing Psychedelic from their name, and distancing/ detaching themselves from ‘psychedelic’ branding.

— per venture capitalist startup funder yesterday jan 28 2025 on Joe Miller’s podcast youtube, Psychedelics Today.
https://psychedelicstoday.com

The War Between Psychedelic Scientists vs. Psychedelic Mystics

the war among the mystical scientists

Both Worshipping the God and Savior Walter Stace: The Foundation of Mystical Science of Stacean “Mysticism”.

Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/

Perceptual Dualism: Why Is It Most Practical and Sensible to Use the Model “External Item as Referent, vs. Cognitive Phenom Representation”

Article: Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation

Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
article
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Posting-announcing-and-outlining-the-article

Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book.

The Doors of Reception: Notes Toward a Psychedelic Film Investigation (Church, 2018)

David Church, June 2018
Feature Articles
Issue 87

Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book:

“Nevertheless, the premise that drug use might comprise a useful working method for film analysis is not as outlandish as it might at first glance seem.

“After all, one common altered state of consciousness – the dream – has already had a long tradition within 1970s apparatus theory’s emphasis on film spectatorship as an oneiric condition.

“But apparatus theory’s structuralist conception of a universal spectator was premised less on the vagaries of drug-altered states than the psychosexual mechanisms of the Freudian unconscious.

“In my estimation, then, phenomenology provides a far more fruitful opening for analysing psychedelic cinema, because accounts of dream/trip experiences are not synonymous with those experiences themselves.

“Much as dreams seem real when within them but do not make sense upon waking retrospection, the trip experience only seems real until recollected later – but all we can have access to as researchers is the post-facto reportage of such altered states: a second-hand translation of vivid experience into discourse that inevitably fails to capture the in-the-moment profundity of such experiences.

“This act of discursive translation helps account for why such reports are so easily dismissed as solipsistic reverie instead of empirically valid observations.30“

/ end of cinema article paragraph w/ endnote 30

30 also cites Letcher’s article, which I already printed out.

Not Interested in “Only Material Exists” or “Only Mental Constructs Exist”

I have this book.
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Breaking-Convention-book

I have the same view as in the article “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”.

I’m not interested in a revolutionary rejection of the external world existing, or anything like that.

I merely want to make a well-articulated model of the usual “representationism” assumption. I’m not interested in radical positions like “only mental mental constructs exist” or “only the external material world exists”.

I merely want to say: assuming that the external material world exists, and that the mind models that by mental representations, how can we best model and discuss this?

I do not want to say “the material world is the cause of experience, of mental constructs, so therefore experience is less real than materialist plane.”

I favor a kind of “dualism” approach, where we “take mental constructs seriously”, “take representationalism seriously”, and we should emphasize – b/c useful — our experience; emphasize not materalism, emphasize mental construct processing.

I am not interested in the idea “the material realm doesn’t exist; only mental constructs exist.”

I would not take either side in some debate between “only material exists” or “only mind exists”.

I am not interested in that direction of thinking; that’s not where the value comes from.

Given the commonplace model – described in Mind Manfi article — how can we articulate TAHAT THAT model in the most useful way?

What does Max Freakout say about we hold same view: …. trying to remember my exact aspect to check w/ Max.

One kind of ‘dualism’ – but do not trust labels!

Theres 8 kinds of dualism first of all in different fields/ topical areas.

Which of these 8 kinds of dualism?

FAD-Plus: Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire (Paulhus 2011)

FAD-Plus: Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire (Paulhus 2011)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/03/fad-plus-free-will-and-determinism-questionnaire-paulhus-2011/

The q’air about free will vs. determinism is bad as one anyone in the the Egodeath community could predict:

Paulhus’ term “Fatalistic Determinism” means just egoic Domino-Chain Determinism.

“Fatalistic Determinism” is entirely different than Eternalism, and Is a Version of Egoic Open-Future Possibilism-Thinking.

Page: References for Psychedelic Psychometrics Questionnaires
Section: FAD-Plus: Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire (Paulhus 2011)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/17/references-for-psychedelic-psychometrics-questionnaires/#FAD-Plus

Site map > free will vs. determinism q’air:
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#FAD-Plus

🚫🤔 👍🍄🙌

Key Phrases per Keyboard Shortcuts: Valuable, Powerful Lexicon

What acro would I expect to write?

Acronyms are powerful like my April 1987 huge change of approach — THIS HUGE PIVOT NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTED — where the Egodeath theory development technique was born when father died, my big fresh new 2nd start 2nd attempt, new approach:

  • Switched to big expansive empty INFORMAL binder sheets 8.5×11″. Way more elbow room. Same as idea development pages at this site. Instead of the Oct 1985-March 1987 awkward smaller blank books.
  • Introduced the use of acronyms: plus new mechanism: i invented the acronym. Instead of writing out every word. Fundamentally changes the way of thinking, to modular idea concept components – enables building and scaling up to multiple levels of abstraction, powerful.
  • Changed to thinking of this as working on a theory.

I no longer thought in terms of “writing to fix my thoughts”, now I started aiming bigger: I am figuring out in order to explain and document for other people. April 1987 change of mindset. Now I was doing a R&D project. Not goal of just “fix myself right now”.

It would not be THAT much snap of the fingers. Took a long time, 9 months!!, April 1987 to Jan 1988, to figure out (started Oct. 1985) the garbled mess that ppl before me wallowed in unclarity.

The blank-books-based initial effort Oct 1985 to March 1986 was a failure, but I knew I had potential. I had to succeed. I had to change my approach.

Once I had momentum and new technique April 1987, took 9 months to solve the problem, then huge pivot Jan. 1988 as my conception of what’s possible entirely changed.

Jan. 29, 2025, developed efficient way of showing and developing further, the 2021 work on shortcuts; started filling in page from A-E of alphabet – VALUABLE/POWERFUL:

{king steering in tree}
{kst

{king steering in tree} -> {wine} -> {snake frozen in rock}
{kws

{snake}
{s

{snake frozen in rock}
{sfr

the altered state
a-s

autonomous personal control agency, operating in a branching-possibilities world
aa-bw

transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
tla

that is missing “model of time, self, and control”.
omit “self”?
see also phrase “mental model of time, self, possibility, and control” in other entry below. try just “model of control”.

mental model of what? transform the mental model from X to Y, answers that question (indirectly). transformation from possibilism to eternalism; the possibilism model or the eternalism model of what? of …. time, self, possibility, and control? [and of analogy?]
Change the mental model of analogy from literalist to analogical.

“mental world model” vs. “mental model”

There is no net gain by adding “world”, to change from “mental model” to “mental world model”.

‘worldmodel’ is not a word.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22world+model%22

mental model
mm

mental model of control
mmc

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian art
mmtgca

the maximal mushroom theory of Greek & Christian religion
mmtgcr

mental model of time, self, and control
mmtsc

mental model of time, self, control, and possibility
mmtscp

transformation of the mental model of time, self, and control from literalist ordinary-state possibilism to analogical psychedelic eternalism
tmtla

transformation of the mental model of time, self, and control from possibilism to eternalism
tmtpe

the theory of mytheme decoding in terms of analogical psychedelic pre-existence
tmd

the theory of psychedelic pre-existence
tppe

Common Word Instead of ‘Eternalism’

not “eternalism” but:
preexistence,
non-branching possibilities, &
2-level, dependent control

psychedelic eternalism -> psychedelic pre-existence

psychedelic pre-existence
ppe

transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism
tmmpe

from
lop
to
ape
Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
apedc

literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
lopac

mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism
mwtpe

transformation of the mental worldmodel from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism
tmwla tmmlopape lopape

literalist ordinary-state possibilism
lop

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

analogical psychedelic eternalism
ape analogical psychedelic eternalism

literalist ordinary-state possibilism

analogical psychedelic eternalism

transformation from literalist ordinary-state possibilism to analogical psychedelic eternalism

transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
copy of

transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
copy of transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control

transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control

cognitive neuro-reductionism
cnr

the mental model of time and control

The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Christianity

the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity
mmtc

transformation of the mental model of time and control from literalist ordinary-state possibilism literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

2-level, dependent control

Low Esotericism 🤫🍄🙌

from
Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism
to
Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism

from:

🤫🍄🙌

to:

💡💎🏆🏅🍄‍🟫

from {Amanita, Christianity, surface form, low esotericism} to {Psilocybin, Greek + Christian, cognitive effects, high esotericism}
ap

Amanita –> Psilocybin
Christianity –> Greek + Christian
surface form –> cognitive effects
low esotericism –> high esotericism

Amanita –> Psilocybin; Christianity –> Greek + Christian; surface form –> cognitive effects; low esotericism –> high esotericism
apa

The Secret Amanita paradigm vs. the Explicit Cubensis paradigm

Secret Christian Amanita Cult
scac

transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism tmwpe

transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism

from

literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control

to

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

transformation of the mental model of time, self, and control
tmmtsc

mental model of time, self, and control
mmtsc

transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism
tmwpe

transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking
tmwptet

transcending no-free-will
tnfw

things that are observed and experienced in the altered state
toeas

transformation of the mental worldmodel

{blade} is a a top-10 mytheme

{flame} is a a top-10 mytheme

the traditional methods of the mystics
tmm

a top-10 mytheme
ttm

re: time, control, mental model transformation mental model transformation

mental model transformation
mmt

monolithic control-agent
mca

2-level, dependent control
2l

autonomous control-agent
aca

mental model of time, self, and control
mmtsc

monolithic control-agent
mca

the traditional methods of the mystics
tmm

mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control

transformation from possibilism to eternalism
tpe

Recent Posts

The previous idea development page 23 reached record length of 208 sheets, so there is lots there to read or Find.

Recent posts doesn’t represent old pages that I updated, eg added more articles to Moving Past Mysticism page about the debate within the field of psychedelic pseudo science:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#High-Mysticism

A manual snapshot copy: approx. the new pages since start of last Idea development page 23, 2025/01/06.

Added the above to:
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Recent-Posts-to-Sort

Sections Moved to Page “The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree”

Bulk moved-out the following sections, which are per Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article; moved them to new page:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/17/y-branches-under-mushroom-tree-cap-two-legs-for-psychedelic-virtual-freewill/

End Art

{balance scale} and {mushroom} motifs Together in Great Canterbury Psalter

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Crop by Michael Hoffman, June 8, 2023
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman, June 3, 2023
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Dec. 15, 2024
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 30, 2025
Crop by Michael Hoffman