GCP f134 row 2: Break-Bow Archer’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb. unambiguously cut thumb; cant ignore the bow occluding the thumb
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green Guy Spreading Cloak, LEFT Hand I’
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’.
f20 Jesus Dancing: Right Index Occluded by Frame
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Jesus f20 dance R hand Index occluded by frame is ambig means both cut and not cut
Marriage of Complementary Hands
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Marriage Mathematically Permutationally Complementary Hands
End of copied (then modded) sections
After Familiar with a Thousand Hand-Shape Pairs, Have a Feel for How the YI Sequence Is Expressed by Hand-Shapes/ Finger Shapes
i sense that mushroom-tree artists found I’ to be beyond what we need to represent
not nece ly that they found I’ blasphemous against the holy spirit revealed truth
i dk what i would want to message re I’
Decoded {bless} Hand-Shape
I’m now confident that:
bless = Y I Y’
Y = Index & Middle extended, regardless of whether Y-splayed.
I = Thumb.
Y’ = Ring & Pinkie 7-bent instead of extended.
I’m now confident (I have evidence) that extended (non-bent) Index & Middle, regardless of whether they Y-splay, means branching.
Saint-Martin Church > Entry into Jerusalem is a diff use of R Ind & Mid = non-branching bc in contrast to L hand splay all 5 fingers.
Ring & Pinkie bent = cut branching
Index & Middle straight = branching (regardless if splayed or together) but not in that Entry into Jerusalem where two hands are contrasted this way w other L hand carrying “branching”,
that leaves the R hand to only carry Non-branching –
The R hand there is NOT a blessing shape; ignore the R thumb (not shown) & ignore bent Ring & Pinkie (bc not shown there).
Saint-Martin Church: Entry into Jerusalem: Jesus’ Finger-Shapes
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. Crop by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen
if you analyze L hand in isolation, which it is not, but we are obliged to do if a thorough reading, we might assess L hand fingers shape as any of:
shape is either:
I Y I’
I Y I
ie:
thumb = I
minor 3 fing = Y (t
that is the most definite; doesnt vary if we consider all 5 L fingers, or if we consider both L & R hands together: the L Pinkie & Ring & Middle fingers in all readings form Y branching.
L Index finger (if count the visual cut) = I’
L Index finger (if don’t count the visual cut) = I
Index Is a Major Finger; Typically I; Defaults to I (Non-Branching)
The 3 Minor Fingers, Default to Y (Branching)
Index has natural moderate splay
the minor 3 fingers tend to group
ultra common is slight splay of Index
Rule: Thorough Accounting of a Hand-Shape
in a thorough accounting, we must list all potential readings incl ambiguities, like Douce Apocalypse’s side view of hand that’s ambig of 3 different hand-shapes
Dancing Man: The 7 Angle of Fully Bent Index Finger; Rebut Eternalism Worldline in Block Universe
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
reprieve from the revealed threat withdrawn mercy and instruction teach by threat and cut branching increasingly
to be perfected/ adult/ beard/ mature/ cybernetically transformed is to {cut branching} and assert non-branching
how describe relat of possibilism vs. eternalism via a pair of hands what can we say? every hand-shape pair is distinctive
comment; analyze:
omit Y default basic possibilism-thinking
omit I ok if incl Y’
omit Y’ omits import point: transformation
omit I’ usually. wtf is I’ “cut non-branching”?? 🤷♂️
prefer a hand-shape or hand-shape pair reduce to / include Y I Y’ but I’ is hardly required- no net gain: rebut eternalism adds slight clear value but costs confusion
you had me at I, then IY, then Y I Y’,
then you lost me at I’
what even is — whiff of satanic blasphemy against revealed truth
cant handle too much truth threat relat
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
Article 4 (nonexistent): “J. Christian Greer and Sharday Mosurinjohn will offer a closing Editorial [404] to this Special Issue. In their closing essay [404], Greer and Mosurinjohn will explore what the failure of apprehending Allegro’s agenda reveals about his admirers and detractors, asking what motivates people to promote or refute narratives that center drugs as the “secret” behind Christianity’s origin.”
On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom (Huggins)
In his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), John Marco Allegro claimed that an obscure, 12th century CE fresco of the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Plaincourault Chapel in Mérigny, France, provided evidence of the persistence in Christian Europe […] Read more.
John Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross posits that early Christianity derived from fertility cults involving psychedelic mushroom use. Though widely discredited by scholars when it was first published, the theory persists in popular culture and entheogenic discourse. This article evaluates the […] Read more.
This article examines the scholarship of John Allegro on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the role his status as a scholar has played in the reception of his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. While the Dead Sea Scrolls play no prominent […] Read more.
Closing Editorial by Sharday Mosurinjohn & Christian Greer (Nonexistent)
Article 4 (nonexistent):
“J. Christian Greer and Sharday Mosurinjohn will offer a closing Editorial [404] to this Special Issue. In their closing essay [404], Greer and Mosurinjohn will explore what the failure of apprehending Allegro’s agenda reveals about his admirers and detractors, asking what motivates people to promote or refute narratives that center drugs as the “secret” behind Christianity’s origin.” https://www.google.com/search?q=closing+Editorial+Special+Issue+closing+essay+Greer+Mosurinjohn
[A needed topic, but that conflates mere 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) with the entire topic of mushrooms in Christianity.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)]
Body text from pdf: a subset of the full text in article special issue:
“Special Issue
“On the Origins of Western Psychedelia: Exploring Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
“Message from the Guest Editors
“The articles that constitute this Special Issue are dedicated to analyzing the enigmatic career of the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John M. Allegro (1923–1988) and the history of the reception of his book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970).
“Bringing together scholars from across disciplines, this Special Issue explores three major vectors in the Allegro effect on psychedelic research and culture today:
(1) the nature of Allegro’s evidence and methods for his argument that the original Christian community was a fertility cult based on the sacramental use of the psychedelic mushroom Amanita muscaria;
(2) the controversy and professional backlash generated by his thesis; and
(3) the ongoing influence of his provocative thesis among academics, believers, and authors of popular fiction.
“For more detailed information, please visit the Special Issue’s homepage.
“We look forward to your valuable contribution. Guest Editors Dr. J. Christian Greer American Studies Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Dr. Sharday C. Mosurinjohn School of Religion, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada Deadline for manuscript submissions closed (15 June 2025)”
Description of Planned Special Issue
“Dear Colleagues,
“The articles that constitute this Special Issue are dedicated to analyzing the enigmatic career of the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John M. Allegro (1923–1988) and the history of the reception of his book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970).
“A philologist with expertise in comparative Semitic languages, Allegro made a name for himself as a translator and popularizer of the Dead Sea Scrolls; however, his academic reputation was ruined with the publication of The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East.
“The book was shunned by his peers in the academy, repudiated by the Church of England, and ridiculed by the international press.
“Allegro’s book was based on a deep understanding of Aramaic, Hebrew, Accadian, Syriac, Greek, Latin, and Sumerian, and since so few people possess the requisite understanding of comparative linguistics in the ancient world, the arguments presented in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross were never directly refuted.
“This fact did not escape his small but dedicated group of followers, who have continued to direct attention to Allegro’s work in the decades since his provocative text was published (and republished in subsequent softcover editions).
The book jumped into the cultural mainstream, after being a “cult classic” within the drug underground, on account of the Psychedelic Renaissance in scientific research starting in 2006.
It was frequently promoted on the podcast The Joe Rogan Show (recently rated among the most popular podcasts in the world), and its notoriety was also bolstered by the unexpected success of Brian Muraresku’s The Immortality Key (2020), which covered similar ground to Allegro’s work.” [debatable -mh]
“What is at stake in the resurgence of interest in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross?
“As the hype surrounding research into psychedelic medicine continues, Allegro’s conclusions gain more ground as a plausible explanation for the origins of monotheism, which is all the more distressing considering specialists’ indifference to his ideas.
Accordingly, psychedelic-enthused celebrities and psychedelic scientists alike draw upon The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross as a resource for narratives concerning the psychedelic origins of Western religion, which are historically inaccurate, philologically suspect, and philosophically confused.
The authors of this Special Issue have decided to afford this matter the care that it deserves.
To be sure, contributors are not invested in merely underscoring the problems that marred Allegro’s research.
Rather, this Special issue contextualizes the motivations behind his provocative theories, the scholarly and social milieux that rejected them as absurdities, as well as the perpetual appeal of The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross for the general public and academics who do not specialize in the ancient Near East.
The articles will, at turns, appreciate the bold inventiveness of Allegro’s theories and disparage his purposefully misleading etymologies, tracing both his considerable intellectual virtuosity and scholarly malfeasance back to his turbulent tenure working on the earliest translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As the new era of Western psychedelia struggles with its own sense of historicity, setting the record straight with regards to Allegro will place the transdisciplinary field of psychedelic studies on a more solid foundation.
“Bringing together scholars from across disciplines, this Special Issue explores three major vectors in the Allegro effect on psychedelic research and culture today:
(1) the nature of Allegro’s evidence and methods for his argument that the original Christian community was a fertility cult based on the sacramental use of the psychedelic mushroom Amanita muscaria;
(2) the controversy and professional backlash generated by his thesis; and
(3) the ongoing influence of his provocative thesis among academics, believers, and authors of popular fiction.
“To address these research directions, this Special Issue seeks contributors who possess the ancient language skills that many of Allegro’s readers do not have: Biblical Hebrew, Greek (Attic and Koine), Latin, Aramaic (biblical, Qumran, Targumic), Syriac, Coptic, Middle Egyptian, and Ge‘ez.
“Contributors may explore Allegro’s isolated ways of translating and working outside the corrective influence of the academic community, as well as the problematic implications of assuming that psychedelics lead to the same mystical states found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They may also situate Allegro’s hypothesis in the context of other debates about the nature of psychedelic sacraments, such as the Vedic Soma portrayed in R. Gordon Wasson’s 1968 Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, a book that has long been discredited in academic circles but continues to have a significant influence on the popular and scientific understanding of yoga and altered states.
“Other contributors may address the following questions:
What economic, social, and other gains and losses do writers of this “ancient psychedelic cults” genre experience by making the claim?
How do their experiences differ if they endorse psychedelics and religions as things that matter (Muraresku) versus disparage psychedelics and religions as illusions to be broken (Allegro)?
What are readers using this work to potentiate in the various spaces—underground, clinical, legal, ritual, scientific, popular—of psychedelic culture now?
“We hope that both ancient historians and scholars of the contemporary period will move beyond speculative botany and invocation of vague mystical experiences to explore how the substances that are documented shaped the rituals themselves, and centering what is real phenomenologically and ontologically for the people carrying out the rituals—namely, their own divinity and the agency of the gods, spirits, and plant or fungal teachers.
“The scholarly contributions in this Special Issues will be timely in the context of the burgeoning psychedelic conversation—in fact, they will add an important element to this conversation shortly in advance of what is sure to be the 50th anniversary reprint of Road to Eleusis, the pro-psychedelic book that appeared in the same decade (1978) as Sacred Mushroom and has had a parallel scholarly non/reception.
“This Special Issue draws attention to the fact that people’s treatment of psychoactive use in ancient religious contexts has significant implications for our understanding of the past and for contemporary cultural and legal discussions about the use of drugs.
“Such treatments often overlook the complex cultural and religious context of the ancient world, projecting modern preoccupations with psychedelics onto it.
“J. Christian Greer and Sharday Mosurinjohn will offer a closing Editorial [todo: which article?] to this Special Issue exploring the history of the reception of Allegro’s work, focusing on misconceptions by detractors and admirers alike.
“While his thesis that Jesus was a mushroom is well known among religious studies scholars focusing on psychedelics, few have noticed the actual motivation behind Allegro’s provocative thesis.
“Contrary to public perception, Allegro had no interest in placing psychedelics on the agenda for scholars of the ancient Near East, let alone arguing that psychedelic mushrooms have the potential to generate mystical experiences.
“Driven by the belief that psychoactive drugs only induce madness and delusion, Allegro associated Jesus with the red-capped Amanita muscaria mushroom as a means of discrediting Christianity at its source.
“His negative attitude towards drugs and insistence that Christianity originated as a perversely orgiastic mushroom cult represent a red thread that runs through his later work, beginning with The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), and which is especially pronounced in his follow-up book, The End of the Road (1970).
“In their closing essay, Greer and Mosurinjohn will explore what the failure of apprehending Allegro’s agenda reveals about his admirers and detractors, asking what motivates people to promote or refute narratives that center drugs as the “secret” behind Christianity’s origin.
“It is clear that the antagonism goes beyond the evaluation of evidence, modes of interpretation, or mere methodological differences but rather strikes at scholars’ more fundamental attitude towards the psychedelic class of drugs and their relationship to religious experience.”
“Dr. J. Christian Greer Dr. Sharday C. Mosurinjohn Guest Editors”
Manuscript Submission Information
Religions journal issue page con’t:
“Manuscripts should be submitted online at http://www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.
“Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.
“Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI’s English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.
“Keywords psychedelia John M. Allegro The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently. Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently. Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations. External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal’s social media, increasing their visibility. Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print. Further information on MDPI’s Special Issue policies can be found here.”
Agreement Between the Egodeath Theory & Debunkers of 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship
Is the issue a rehash of my ideas (not Irvin’s!) in my article? Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
I have much common per my 3-phase or 4-phase recounting:
Assert 1st-gen entheogen scholarship
Rebut 1st-gen entheogen scholarship as if = entire topic of entheogen scholarship (all Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art so far)
Assert 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship
not done: rebut 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship.
Curiously Let Andy Letcher’s book Shroom, 2006 UK employs 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship (Stamets 96 & Gartz 96) to rebut 1st-gen entheogen scholarship, but he botches this at malformed endnote 31 p. 35-36. Garbled situation with shifting positions: what are deniers rebutting? That’s the Letcher Shroom Q! WHICH POSITION ARE YOU REBUTTING?
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) Secret Christian Amanita Cult – Lash criticized Wasson for pushing Amanita ural mountains spread; Lash is 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Explicit Cubensis paradigm 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
Timeline of Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
List only the earliest year of pub’n for each author.
1909 French Mycologists (see Huggins 2025 for citations of several authors)
1925 Rolfe & Rolfe
1953 John Ramsbottom
1957 Robert Graves (1st-gen)
1970 John Allegro (1st-gen)
1993 Chris Bennett (1st-gen)
1995 Clark Heinrich (1st-gen)
1997 Giorgio Samorini (truly 2nd-gen)
2001 Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, Blaise Staples (weakly 2nd-gen)
2005 Jan Irvin (weakly 2nd-gen)
2006 Michael Hoffman (truly 2nd-gen)
2007 John Lash (weakly 2nd-gen)
2010? Cyberdisciple (truly 2nd-gen)
2011 John Rush (weakly 2nd-gen)
2016 Brown & Brown (truly 2nd-gen)
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
only Michael Hoffman & Cyberdisciple are properly 2nd gen.
Deniers of Psychedelics in Western Religious History are Religious Fundamentalists, Violent Oppressors, and Cheap Namecallers Pandering to Prejudiced Anything-But-Drugs Academia
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreenCrop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, fullscreen, f109 crops
Glad to hear there was heavy tension in the fake, non-drug “symposium” where only the Deniers got to present.
The Deniers dubbed themselves as “most academic” and dubbed their opponents as “least academic”.
The Deniers used the podium to namecall their opponents “religious fundamentalists” and “violent colonialist oppressors” — that’s what’s meant by “most academic”.
And “most academic” means, directing people to the drawer at Harvard, instead of normal, proper academic procedure (write, publish, & cite), on this “special taboo topic”.
eg “most academic” means Huggins twice avoiding citing per normal practice, Browns 2019.
See the drawer instead; phone up the art authorities instead; anything but normal academic practice, in this “special, taboo” topic where normal academic practice does not apply.
And as my personal F.U. to Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, the con artist censor and deceiver:
Wasson censors on behalf of the Pope (though “Suppression of knowledge of psychedelics in Western religious history is just a consp. theory“), but I publish on the World Wide Web:
I’m afraid that, in the worst sense, the Deniers are indeed the “most academic”: the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
Michaelson wrote (below): “On paper, it made perfect sense to bring practitioners, scholars, and lawyers together, but in practice, it was simultaneously the least-academic [IE THE MOST TRUTHFUL AND HONEST] academic conference some people had ever attended, and the most-academic [IE THE MOST LYING, DECEITFUL, and CORRUPT, WITH NEGATIVE PRE-SET COMMITMENT] conference that others had ever attended.”
The Phrase “The Most Academic Conference” Is a Euphemism for Establishment-Approved, Committed Denial
Deniers of Psychedelics in Western Religious History Are Religious Fundamentalists & Oppressors
Driven by Religious Fundamentalism & Violent Cultural Oppression, and Cover-Up of Psychedelics in Western Religious History
Popebanker Wasson is tightly embraced, on this topic, by the Deniers, eg Huggins.
The Deniers are EAGER to Ally with Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, though he is a proven propagandist, censor, and duplicitous cover-up artist who tried to replace normal academic practice (write, publish, & cite) by — ONLY for this “special taboo” topic — highly weird, non scholarly, “phone up the authorities to measure with stopwatch, how quickly & how emotionally they spout the required-by-academia view”.
See Andy Letcher’s book Shroom, 2006 UK re: “consulting” art authorities, like Wasson’s “I was impressed by the celerity with which all competent scholars emotionally disavowed psychedelics in Western religious history.”
Instead of write, publish, & cite, we get instead, “. . . .” from Wasson.
“Consult“, my @ss! HOW ABOUT YOU NOT CENSOR Panofsky’S DOUBLE STRONGLY RECOMM BRINC CIT, YOU S.O.B. WASSON! AND Panofsky’s TWO LETTERS, AND Panofsky’s branches argument, AND Panofsky’s TWO EMPHATIC MUSHROOM-TREE ART WORKS?
GTFO of here, Fraud Wasson, the Religious Fundamentalist Denier and ACTUAL OPPRESSOR.
Huggins wraps his copypaste of the Panofsky branches argument within a “Conclusion” section but that section just argues, “it is POSSIBLE to WRITE WORDS stating that “IF” (that’s stupid, it’s a given for the class of all mushroom-trees) a mushroom-tree has any tree features, they somehow magically cancel out the mushroom imagery features, which we are to ignore as meaningless stylization, proved by the consistent skew from pine to emphatic mushroom shape, which proves that the skew cannot have been intentional, as Brinckmann’s little 1906 book explains in detail.
The book does no such thing, which is why Wasson censored the citation that Panofsky urged as must-see.
My accusations in 2006 against Wasson were proved correct:
Panofsky must have provided citations to Wasson. [confirmed in 2019]
The citations from Panofsky are feeble; art historians have NOT considered mushroom-trees. [confirmed in 2019]
Wasson must have censored the feeble citations. [confirmed in 2019]
Evil, Wasson is using stupid chump Panofsky to accomplish his corrupt propaganda campaign.
As Samorini 1997 exclaimed, why does Wasson come to a dead halt here, on such feeble arguments from Panofsky?
Because Popebanker Wasson wants to cover up the class of mushroom-trees — the exact opposite of Ruck in “Daturas for the Virgin” outrageously attempting to paint Wasson as publicly ASSERTING that the class of mushroom-trees means mushrooms.
register: https://harvard.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0lbDafk1NetQD7o – “Thank you for your interest in the fourth annual Psychedelic Intersections conference on Friday & Saturday, April 10 & 11, 2026.” “Thank you for registering for the “Psychedelic Intersections: Bridging Humanities, Religion, & Law” conference livestream, to be held on April 10 & 11, 2026. We will email you more information soon.”
“The Harvard Study of Psychedelics in Society and Culture is excited to announce that the fourth annual Psychedelic Intersections conference will be held at Harvard Divinity School on April 10-11, 2026.
“Building on the Center for the Study of World Religions’ (CSWR’s) popular conference series, the 2026 conference is a collaborative initiative of
the CSWR at Harvard Divinity School,
the Mahindra Center at Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and
the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.
“Psychedelic Intersections: Bridging Humanities, Religion, & Law” brings together interdisciplinary scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the intersection of psychedelics and culture.
“The conference will feature research on psychedelics’ intersections with religion, humanities, and the law.”
“My new book is on psychedelics – its metaphysics, psychology, art, and esotericism, working title: Entheogenic Esotericism: Reuniting Religion, Magic, and Science in the Psychedelic Turn.”
“J. Christian Greer and Sharday Mosurinjohn will offer a closing Editorial [todo: which article?] to this Special Issue … In their closing essay, Greer and Mosurinjohn will explore what the failure of apprehending Allegro’s agenda reveals about his admirers and detractors, asking what motivates people to promote or refute narratives that center drugs as the “secret” behind Christianity’s origin.”
“Special Issue Editors
Dr. J. Christian Greer E-Mail Website Guest Editor American Studies Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Interests: popular culture and religion; radical politics and religious activism; esotericism and occultism; ecological spiritualities; pilgrimage; countercultures and subcultures; drugs and religion
“Dr. Sharday C. Mosurinjohn E-Mail Website Guest Editor School of Religion, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada Interests: psychedelic humanities; new religious movements; ritual; religion and media; affect (esp. boredom as a spiritual crisis)
“Thanks for all the kind words about the RELIGIONS special issue on Allegro.
“Wanted to drop the link to the journal site, which has a much more substantial description of the special issue.
“More to the point, it spells out a point that has almost totally been missed since Allegro published “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross”- as we argue:
“While his thesis that Jesus was a mushroom is well known among religious studies scholars focusing on psychedelics, few have noticed the actual motivation behind Allegro’s provocative thesis.
“Contrary to public perception, Allegro had no interest in placing psychedelics on the agenda for scholars of the ancient Near East, let alone arguing that psychedelic mushrooms have the potential to generate mystical experiences.
“Driven by the belief that psychoactive drugs only induce madness and delusion, Allegro associated Jesus with the red-capped Amanita muscaria mushroom as a means of discrediting Christianity at its source.
“His negative attitude towards drugs and insistence that Christianity originated as a perversely orgiastic mushroom cult represent a red thread that runs through his later work, beginning with The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), and which is especially pronounced in his follow-up book, The End of the Road (1970).””
Greer’s Points
Good points. It’s absurd how, early Jan Irvin (to 2013, Hatsis Dancing Man article) tries to make Allegro – like Ruck does – an entheogen scholar.
Search Cyberdisciple site on Allegro as not entheogen scholar but as anti-church, anthropology weaponizer that happens to abuse Amanita toward that agenda. Yet Jan Irvin in The Holy Mushroom The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170 tries to assign credit for asserting the CLASS of mushroom-trees to Allegro, with no citation, proving that Allegro did NOT publish any statement on the CLASS of mushroom-trees ever. Samorini gets the rightful credit, 1997/1998, for the first person to assert that the class of all mushroom-trees means mushroom.
Then counter that, The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170 tries to falsely credit Allegro instead, yet Allegro (1970-1973) never wrote anything on the class of all mushroom-trees that Panofsky revealed via Wasson 1968.
Panofsky’s argument from silent presupposition prejudice: hundreds mushroom-trees, therefore any one of them cannot mean mushroom, QED
On Ronald Huggins’ Side Are the Pope, His Banker Gordon Wasson, and the Top Anything-But-Drugs Art Historian, Erwin Panofsky
Conflict of Interest, Corruption, Cover-Up, Dissuasion Propaganda to Encourage and Leverage No-Mushroom Prejudice; to Inculcate Attitude and Cover-Up Arguments to Put Forth, to Paper-Over the Small Scholarly Inroad by Brink 1906
Popebanker Wasson leveraging Panofsky 1952 in 1968: the Pope, Wasson, and Panofsky were still leveraging the dominant prejudice of 1952-1968 that would lap up the entirely invalid “argument from silent presupposition prejudice”:
“Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, bc there are hundreds more like it, which you are ignorant about else could not have even proposed that Plaincourault fresco means mushroom, had only you been informed that there are hundreds more mushroom-trees like Plaincourault fresco, it’s a member of a class that we art historians describe as mushroom-trees because we note that they have mushroom features.
“Had you merely only been aware that Plaincourault fresco is not unique but is typical of a class, of course you could not have thought to suggest that it means mushroom, bc there are hundreds more like it, so, NEEDLESS TO SAY THE OBVIOUS, this one instance cannot mean mushroom.
Plaincourault fresco = mushroom?
given: Plaincourault fresco isn’t unique; is member of class.
Therefore Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushroom.
That is the Panofsky “argument from silent prejudice presupposition” – Wasson doesn’t censor that arg’t (but he sees how totally weak the stupid Panofsky chump is, and wasson the pope’s propagandist leverages the shared stupidity Panofsky and many of wasson’s propaganda victims are, wasson hopes.
How did Wasson choose what not to censor of Panofsky?
“This well-researched work returns us to the earliest known forms of religion and nature worship to show how our modern religions formed and where they really came from.
“It also brings us into modern times, reviving and supporting the important work of John Marco Allegro.
“This book reveals how natural entheogens, including the Amanita muscaria mushroom, were used by those seeking higher consciousness and an authentic religious experience.
“A must read for researchers investigating the origins of religion and the symbology used by the modern religions of today.
“Includes an extensive bibliography, 185 illustrations and over 500 footnotes.”
AstroSham 1 & 2 have my photos from Egodeath.com.
A good day (nov 2024?) when i saw the {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs on this orig cover, AstroSham 1.
Does Wasson ever spout the Allegro/ Ruck/ early-Irvin narrative of “Suppression of Knowledge of The Mushroom (🧚♀️🍄🦄) by the Big Bad Church”?
Team Popebanker: Enemies of the Revelation of Psychedelic Eternalism — THEY Don’t Want Us to Know Transcendent Knowledge
Experimental modification of the “suppression” trope.
ji07 The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170 ji06 ji05 astrosham 1
Team Popebanker: Enemies of Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
Team Popebanker: Enemies of Transcendent Knowledge of Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
Team Popebanker: Committed, Bad-Faith Enemies of Transcendent Knowledge of Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
Team Popebanker: Committed, Bad-Faith Enemies of Entheogen Scholarship
Censors & Cover-Up of Psilocybin Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
their satanic motive: protect church theology of their Big Bad Church
forget the assumption of suppression of psychedelics in pre-modernity
the evildoers’ assigned mission is to suppress Transcendent Knowledge of non-branching Eternalism
Team Popebanker
Site Map Sharday Mosurinjohn
Site Map Huggs
I should start now, Site Map section:
Committed Enemies of Entheogen Scholarship, Team Popebanker
especially re mushroom imagery in Christian art
Mental Model Transformation as Progression of Finger Shapes in Hand-Shape Pair
A clear Ref point: von Trimberg in Manesse.
At best, the picture shows L to R, 4 equivalent ways to represent mental model transformation mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism (ie from basic possibilism-thinking to integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking).
Y’ (cut branching, depicted in lower hand, no thumb)
I – thumb shown
integrated YIY’; integrated YI (equiv) like {stand on right foot} : feet are cruder medium of expression: {stand on left foot} vs {stand on right foot} . roughly, {stand on left foot} = Possibilism, {stand on right foot} = eternalism. precisely, from one kind of possibilism alone, to a compound integrated integrated possibilism/eternalism. from: (starting state): {stand on left foot} = basic possibilism-thinking to: (end state): {stand on right foot} = qualified possibilism-thinking + qualified eternalism-thinking
How the “Suppression of The Mushroom by the Big Bad Church” Narrative Factors In for Various Deniers
How much is the assertion or denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art driven by the narrative of “suppression by the big bad church”?
A charged, hot topic, distorts.
Suppose:
The usual Bad Guys discovered by our hereos Graves, Wasson, Allegro, & Ruck, & Lash – a unified team who all labor in unison side by side aligned in the identical same agenda mission: Stop the Big Bad Church.
Which guy sticks out the most as contradicting that narrative?
Popebanker Wasson, conflict of interest.
Suppression of Knowledge of The Mushroom (🧚♀️🍄🦄) by the Big Bad Church
in medieval, kings & artists & court knew psychedelic eternalism
public shown it
texts recopied about it?
AstroSham 1 (Irvin & Rutajit)
Astrotheology and Shamanism: Unveiling the Law of Duality in Christianity and other Religions (Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit, Jan. 2006) [IR06]
“Jan Irvin and Andrew Rutajit delve deep into Judeo-Christian symbolism and mythology in Astrotheology & Shamanism to reveal the true origins of Christianity in fertility cults and entheogenic drug use.
“The authors show, with the use of numerous images, textual citations, and etymological analyses, how the symbols used in Christian art and encoded in sacred texts reference sacramental use of psychedelic mushrooms as well as ancient astronomical knowledge.
“This knowledge has been kept secret from the public, however, and the truth has remained concealed behind a campaign to prohibit access to entheogenic sacraments through a Pharmacratic Inquisition (of which the current “War on Drugs” is the latest manifestation).
“Along with a call to wake up to the true history of Judeo-Christian tradition, the authors call for a return to direct spiritual experience through visionary sacraments unmediated through dominating religious institutions.
“This is a powerful and provocative book that is sure to challenge and inspire. – Martin W. Ball, Ph.D. Author, The Entheogenic Evolution: Psychedelics, Consciousness and Awakening the Human Spirit”
/ end blurb
Censorship by Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, who is the figurehead commandeered by Huggins/Deniers; DENIERS OF mushroom imagery in Christian art LOVE WASSON but they would wonder
What would they say when Ruck “Daturas for the Virgin” tries to credit wasson with AFFIRMING THE CLASS of mushroom-trees, when in fact Wasson DEMONIZED Plaincourault fresco as Amanita and was SILENTLY DENIED the CLASS of mushroom-trees as meaning mushrooms.
Wasson actively interfered with, stymied, and shut down scholarship in mushroom imagery in Christian art. Huggins excuses this scoundrel Wasson, “didn’t stop Irvin from publishing” – but Wasson TRIED, and Huggins inherits Wasson’s guiltiness of censorship. Huggins side is SO BAD, so lacking in credibility and academic integrity, they condone Wasson censoring Panofsky & Brinckmann.
Ronald Huggins PRETENDS no censorship by his side occurred.
Huggins just whips out the Panofsky letters & their Brinckmann citation out of nowhere (the damned “drawer” at Harvard, which Jan Irvin is not allowed access to).
I think “no access” is formally doc’d in: The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170
Huggins fails twice (in his 2024 & 2025 articles) to cite Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) where the Panofsky two letters are finally published for EVERYONE to leverage, not just greedy Huggins.
Deniers Are Guilty of Having a Tradition of Restricting Access to Panofsky’s Two Letters to Wasson
The way Huggins leverages (for himself, WITHOUT PRESENTING) the two Panofsky letters, continues his side’s tradition of suppressing the Panofsky letters and their Brinc cit.
Which side finally made the Panofsky letters available for everyone, not just for the Deniers? Brown 2019; the Affirmers. No thanks to the Deniers!
Finally Samorini 1997 ignored Wasson’s harassment and intimidation and censorship attempts, a full-force propaganda campaing for the Pope to shut down looking at mushroom imagery in Christian art.
How Affirmers & Deniers Are Distorted by Attitudes Toward the Church
The Hot Topic of Psychedelics in Church History Causes Distorting Motives.
Christometer: Which entheogen scholar is the most Pro-Church?
My first instinct is to elect me as #1 churchy entheogen scholar– but im pretty allergic to Popery. I am an American Protestant, allergic to Catholocism and Mary Worship (that is accurate per broad def.) and Saints Worship[tot. defens. term]
I Will Freely Mention the Catholic ‘Worship’ of Mary & the Saints
this article paragraph applies to my objectikn to spending honor on Mary instead of on Jesus or God:
“whereas the Spirit is entitled to such adoration, he foregoes it in favor of the other two divine Persons who, together with the third Person, have decided that glory should be directed toward them—the Father and the Son—and not toward the Holy Spirit.”
“the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed through which the Christian church has historically confessed its belief “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.”
It’s Good to Worship and Glorify the Holy Spirit, If Along with God (the Father) & Jesus (the Son)
Catholics excessively honor Mary & the Saints, at the expense of Christ & Creator.
thats too diffuse and conflicted.
It’s complex to honor God & Christ, along w the holy spirit.
That can be excused as mythic analogy. Though
Realistically, Catholics are superstitious literalists by default, not analogy-driven esotericists.
Do not misread or mis-assess noise-occluded signal as if it is revealed.
In any era, do not read popular Catholic literalist ordinary-state possibilism as if it is analogical psychedelic eternalism.
“Worship” Is an Accurate Term in the Broad Sense, of Extreme Spiritual Honor
Special Issue: Exploring Free Will in Faith Traditions in Conversation with Contemporary Challenges
“This study investigates how human will is articulated, negotiated, and reimagined within the discourses about Shamanism of Northeast China, with a particular focus on user-generated content from the Douyin platform (Chinese TikTok).
Drawing on the data collected from comments between 2020 and 2024, this research employs a triangulated methodology integrating Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, the Discourse–Historical Approach (DHA), and virtual ethnography.
[relational mysticism -mh]
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“In traditional Shamanic belief systems, human will is conceptualized not as purely autonomous, but as inherently relational—interwoven with ecological responsibilities, ancestral spirits, and cosmological forces.
While previous studies have explored Shamanism’s cultural and performative dimensions, they have largely overlooked the ethical and philosophical constructs of human agency embedded within Shamanic practices, especially in their digital adaptations.
“This study reveals that contemporary digital discourse simultaneously preserves, transforms, and commodifies Shamanic concepts of human will.”
“Users express reverence, nostalgia, critique, and playful reinterpretations, demonstrating that digital platforms serve both as spaces for cultural continuity and dynamic meaning-making.
“By analyzing online discursive practices, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how indigenous spiritual frameworks negotiate modern visibility, identity, and ethical agency in the digital era.”
“The journal “Religions” by MDPI is releasing a special issue titled “On the Origins of Western Psychedelia: Exploring Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross”.
“The issue includes two articles [todo: 3 articles + editorial?] that discuss Allegro’s 1970 book “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross”, its rejection by academia, and its adoption by other movements, on the fringes of New Age and conspiracy enthusiasts.
“This led to the point where the book was reprinted and became a hit among entheogenic literature lovers, despite its scientific validity being questioned.
“The first article https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1029 [John Allegro and the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis, by Richard S. Ascough] “tells the story”, outlining what Allegro claimed and why he faced criticism.
“It describes his methodological flaws and the enduring impact of his thesis, which, although considered scientifically invalid, opened the door to various parallel theories about the psychedelic origins of religion and the influence of pagan rituals on monotheistic worship.
“Starting in the 1990s, when Terence McKenna sought to integrate Allegro’s research into the rightful framework for discussing the influence of psychoactive plants on religious experiences, to the reprint of the book with a 30-page introduction by Carl Ruck, who does not fully embrace Allegro’s radical philological analyses but still highlights the revolutionary nature of his work and bold approach in religious studies, and up to recent years, when parallel studies like Brian Murarescu’s work have topped the bestseller lists.
“The second article https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/946 [sh!tty writing! give the goddam title & author ffs! Odd Conspiracies: John Allegro, Sacred Mushrooms, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Matthew James Goff] focuses on Allegro’s role as a hero of alternative and conspiratorial movements, which view his academic ostracism as a response by the establishment to his approach, which initially led him to abandon his original research on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Allegro claimed that he did not connect with the research approach of the rest of the team, who, in his view, were religiously biased and under pressure from the Catholic Church.
He argued that they were not interested in revealing the truth behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, which led him to “bypass” the guidelines and publish excerpts from the scrolls without coordination.
Allegro also led teams that attempted to interpret the Copper Scroll as a secret treasure map.
As the 1960s passed, he became increasingly labeled as eccentric and anti-establishment.
Thus, when he published his bold theory that the origins of Christianity were rooted in the worship of a psychedelic mushroom, he was met with ridicule, which fulfilled his prophecy: the church did not want this truth to reach the masses and would try to paint those claiming it as illegitimate.
This also explains his growing popularity in recent years, as conspiracy ideas against “institutions hiding the truth” are proliferating and no longer considered fringe.”
/ END OF PAGE
Meanwhile, Huggins fails to cite brown 2019, citing the damned drawer at Harvard, and acting like Wasson didn’t censor the F out of the Panofsky letters including two mushroom-trees and the Brinc cit.
Huggins allies with Popebanker Wasson, who extremely hid the truth – SHUT IT DOWN! POPE’S ORDERS
Todo
Site Map Section: Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Team Popebanker: Enemies of the Revealing of Psychedelic Eternalism
Jay Michaelson Article “The Religious Functions of Psychedelics”, about 2025 Symposium “Psychedelics and Monotheistic Religions: Sacramental Practice and Legal Recognition”
todo: read, maybe even paste entire article here for analysis – good commentary about tensions.
“In the context of immense, rapid societal transformation, it was either an act of foresight, joy, privilege, indulgence, resistance, or all of the above to bring together a diverse group of scholars of religion, psychedelic practitioners, clergy, legal scholars, and legal practitioners for a symposium on psychedelics and religion last week at Harvard Law School.
Whatever it was, that’s what we did, and by all accounts, the results were extremely positive.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues at Harvard for their work, support, input, and wisdom, and to everyone who showed up. Which is a lot of people: we had around 30 presenters, and over 700 attendees joining us in person and online. David Zvi Kalman has already provided an excellent writeup of the symposium on his Substack newsletter, Jello Menorah, but as a co-convenor (with Professor Noah Feldman) of the symposium, I wanted to offer a few notes here from my own perspective.
First, here’s a bit about what we set out to accomplish.
The symposium was called Psychedelics and Monotheistic Religions: Sacramental Practice and Legal Recognition, and responded to the dramatic increase, in recent years, of psychedelic use in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities. While indigenous people have been using these compounds for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and while people of all backgrounds have been exploring them for a century, it is a new phenomenon that thousands of people experience and understand their psychedelic use as part of their religious practice or identity.
And yet, all of this sincere religious practice is, technically, against the law.
There is, as yet, no legal recognition of such use, which remains formally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
Arguably, this religious use is exempt from the CSA, based on several court precedents and settlements with other psychedelic religious organizations, but there is no case that has yet tested that, and no guidance from the government.
Meanwhile, the legal doctrines that govern this question are significantly limited in nature.
Against this background, the symposium set out to explore
(1) the historical and theological bases for psychedelic use in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
(2) the self-understandings of contemporary psychedelic practitioners in these traditions, and
(3) the match/mismatch between them and the the requirements for a religious exemption to the CSA under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
I do talk with my hands a lot.
First, scholars and theologians discussed traditional models for such practice.
All scholars who presented were skeptical of the speculative claims for Biblical and other ancient Mediterranean psychedelic use, noting a paucity of evidence and significant leaps of logic between the available shreds of evidence and conclusions based upon them.
I’ve written about some of these claims here [todo: link], and Harvard Divinity School’s Charles Stang has written perhaps t [todo: link]he definitive analysis of them here. [todo: link]
It was interesting to see how the fifty-or-so psychedelic practitioners in the room received these critiques.
After all, many of them see themselves as reviving ancient practices that underlie religions around the world — some psychedelic communities have even included works like Terence McKenna’s Food of the Gods in their scriptures.
And, well, the air did seem a little tense at times.
On paper, it made perfect sense to bring practitioners, scholars, and lawyers together, but in practice, it was simultaneously the least-academic academic conference some people had ever attended, and the most-academic conference that others had ever attended. The weirdness was fascinating.
[Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art = least academic Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art = most academic The anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia – mh]
Yet, as Christian Greer, Sharday Mosurinjohn, Charles Stang, and I all proposed at the symposium, insisting on ancient roots of a contemporary practice is a curiously fundamentalistic move.
[PROJECTION! YOU FUNDAMENTALIST DENIERS, Hypocrites!]
Deniers of Psychedelics in Western Religious History Are Anything-But-Drugs Religious Fundamentalists
con’t
“In context, it may be understood, Greer proposed, as a response to the “Pharmacological Calvinism” of religious conservatives opposed to psychedelics:
the view that revelation is a matter purely of Divine Grace, that there is nothing we can do to effectuate it, that drugs are evil and hallucinations are delusory.
Mind-Altering Substances are the NON-HIDDEN Source of Biblical and Mediterranean Religions
“In opposition to this view (which, upon inspection, is intensely Eurocentric and oppressive), what Greer calls the “Entheogenic View” is a maximalist [#1 is Michael Hoffman – but strike to Hell, ‘hidden] assertion that, in fact, mind-altering substances are thehiddensource of Biblical and Mediterranean religions, not only Meso-American ones.
“For Greer, this is simply the inverse of the hostile view:
both insist that only what’s ancient is legitimate, that religious cultures cannot evolve new rituals and methods of Divine communion that are as authentic as older ones.
Though this flies in the face of religious history itself (in just the Jewish example, prayer replaced sacrifices as the predominant form of worship), it does resonate with the felt sense, in psychedelic experiences, that these experiences are foundational, ancient, and true. I resonate with that felt sense, but for Lockean reasons, I also am leery of making unverifiable subjective religious experiences the basis for ontological claims, let alone political ones.
After all, it’s likely that a majority of such experiences are hostile to my very existence.
There is a third way, which Greer called the “Empirical View.”
Intoxicating compounds are, in many religious traditions, used as a means to attain revelation, healing, power, and magic — and all such traditions come with guardrails, warnings, and prerequisites for safe use that are of enormous value to practitioners today.
But not in all traditions, until recently anyway. [debatable false claim]
“In some, including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim ones, other techniques are used to cultivate Altered States of Consciousness (ASCs), including fasting, trance techniques, magical processes, contemplation, and prayer.
Rather than insist on what Mosurinjohn called a “Western civilizational pedigree” for the use of psychedelic compounds specifically, perhaps it would be wiser to investigate the pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods for cultivating ASCs more generally, explore the reasons such states are religiously valuable, and develop a syncretic, non-colonial approach to incorporating new technologies learned from non-Western cultures.
Sharday Mosurinjohn: You All Must Study Indigenous Shams, But I Am Exempt and Couldn’t Care Less about Them
[HYPOCRITE! WHY DOESN’T SHARDOGGED WRITE A BOOK ABOUT Indigenous Shams? Poser. Empty posturing. Phony Sharday doesn’t give a SH!T about Indigenous Shams; she just weaponizes them as a blunt club to attack affirmers. -mh]
“Several scholars in the symposium explored how this might look.
In the first session, scholars identified a large number of models, methods, and purposes for the cultivation of ASCs in classical Jewish sources, ranging from the ecstatic rites of women ritual leaders in the Bible to magical and theurgical operations in Kabbalah and Hasidism.
“Muslim scholars talked about Sufi mysticism (including the possible use of hashish), the contemplation of Ibn ‘Arabi, and the contemporary embrace of psychedelics in Muslim communities which experience elevated rates of mental health crises (including suicidal ideation).
And in the Christian context, Rev. Jaime Clark-Soles noted that Christianity is founded on ASCs — visions of the resurrected Christ, Paul on the road to Damascus, the Book of Revelation — and has an array of methods of how to cultivate them, including ascetic practices, sleeping in holy places, ecstatic practice, and, perhaps, the Mysterion itself.
Psychedelic practitioners offered a wide range of self-understandings of their religious psychedelic practice. While some saw themselves as reviving ancient traditions of psychedelic use, most emphasized that their psychedelic use was motivated by present-day spiritual and psychological factors, including healing ancestral trauma, experiencing love in relationship to one another and to God, seeking a mystical experience with the Divine — even, in Jessica Felix-Romero’s phrasing, enabling God to connect with us.
Meanwhile, there were important criticisms of all this work. Ron Cole-Turner noted how love (and enduring bonds of love, rather than brief experiences of it) is absent from many analyses of psychedelic experience yet central to Christian mysticism.
Ayize Jama-Everett highlighted the racialized ways in which some religious traditions are foregrounded and others marginalized, and proposed that the underground may actually be a safer and more equitable way to encounter psychedelics than some partially-legalized, partially-medicalized ‘above ground’ pathway.
Laura Appleman gave a hilarious, terrifying presentation on psychedelics and eugenics that I’ll have much more to say about in a future newsletter.
And several participants sounded cautionary notes about the intense hostility that some religious conservatives have not merely to “drugs” specifically, but to any non-canonical way of accessing emotional, affective spiritual experience. Many believe it to be (like liberalism, of course) an act of the devil.
Finally, legal scholars noted the strengths and weaknesses of a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim case for an exemption to the Controlled Substances Act.
On the one hand, courts recognize these traditions as, obviously, religions, unlike some claims of novel psychedelic spiritual communities.
These practitioners are sincere, and not motivated by financial gain.
On the other hand, existing jurisprudential categories such as ‘sacrament’ may not apply to the compounds used by religious psychonauts, and while some potential claimants may understand psychedelic use as central to their religious practice, it cannot be claimed that it is central to these religions as such.
“And of course, there are significant cultural and ideological barriers in play.
The DEA has never, not once, issued a religious exemption without being forced by a court, despite setting up a process to supposedly do so.
[recent exception? mh]
“And it is unclear whether the expansion of religious liberty jurisprudence under the Roberts Court would be applied to religiously liberal claimants as to religiously conservative ones.
As I wrote about in ARC magazine two weeks ago, the Court will soon have the opportunity to apply that jurisprudence to liberal churches seeking to shelter undocumented immigrants — we’ll see if that happens.
Despite these challenges, it is still possible to conceive of legal doctrine catching up with this remarkable religious reality, and I look forward to digging deeper into this question in the months and years to come.
For now, I will close with a personal reflection on what it felt like to dream in this way in the context of our shared national nightmare.
First, as was discussed at the symposium, many psychonauts don’t see the Trump regime as a nightmare at all: they are excited about the possibilities of innovation less fettered by small-minded regulations and restrictions, and hold views which Appleman aptly described as psychedelic eugenicist. (I’ll talk more about this in a future newsletter, too).
Psychedelics are, as Stanislav Grof put it, a “non-specific amplifier,” and they do not generate a particular political point of view. Psychedelic messianism is undercut by psychedelic realism.
At the same time, the increasingly non-partisan nature of psychedelics offers at least some space for common ground, at least between the libertarian wing of the Trump regime, the civil-liberties wing of the opposition, and the diagonalist-whatever wing of conspirituality and horseshoe politics.
I have no illusions that this one issue will generate a new era of non-partisanship.
But it’s interesting to see it as, perhaps, one site for it.
Elevating the experiences of people in ‘traditional’ religious contexts from a wide range of political, religious, and social locations, might also usefully complicate the Drug-War-era assumptions about the kinds of people who ‘do’ psychedelics, and spiritual practice in general. This, too, seems like a good thing.
Second, whatever future (or lack thereof) awaits our nation and our species, it is my experience that psychedelics, in both therapeutic and spiritual contexts (and in the many that blend the two), offer ways to relate to both beauty and terror that can be profoundly empowering and healing.
I do not believe, as many of my fellow ‘spiritual teachers’ do, that our role as pastors is to help the human race navigate civilizational hospice. But we might be headed to, at the very least, a civilizational ER. Certainly, the exponential growth in AI threatens how people understand ourselves and our value in the world.
The Trump regime’s suicidal climate denial will accelerate chaos and, according to mainstream scientific data, cause millions of deaths in the not-too-distant future. And so on, and so on, and so on.
In that context, perhaps psychedelics, like other remedies for the crisis of meaning, will play a small role in human beings’ evolution into less selfish, cruel, and ethnocentric creatures; certainly, between Trump, Vance, and Musk, the ethnocentric instincts in the human mind are predominant at present, and one might see the mainstreaming of psychedelics as one form of resistance to them.
Working in the psychedelics space often feels like a civilizational Hail-Mary pass, and, to mix sports metaphors, I think it’s worth taking that shot.
But even if psychedelics have no impact on increasing human empathy, they still may have an impact on human resilience, wonder, consciousness, and perspective – all of which have their own value and merit. There are ways of being that lie beyond the fences, malls, fears, panderings, and algorithmic enragements of our now-dominant culture.
And, to paraphrase an overquoted Rumi poem, I’ll meet you there. For ‘when the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase each other doesn’t make any sense.’”
/ end of michaelson article
Dogged Entheogen Denier, Religious Fundamentalist Sharday Mosurinjohn
Sharday Mosurinjohn (the religious fundamentalist denier of mushrooms in mystery religions and Christianity, and perpetrator of colonialist violence who is overlooking Indigenous Shams by erroneously trying to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, instead) wrote and spoke on:
“We then explore how the dogged pursuit of evidentiary mirages contributes to the [pathetic, invalid, illegitimate, in-vain] project of establishing a western civilizational pedigree to dignify the use of stigmatized drugs and revitalize experiential religion.
“Although the desire for [fake] legitimacy and meaning is understandable [though foolish, erroneous, hopeless, and futile], the strategies used by the writers [not scholars or researchers] of this pseudo-history constitute a kind of religious fundamentalism [“and colonialist violence“].” PROJECTION MUCH?!
“The Asp, or “aspido,” is a mythical creature in medieval bestiaries described as a snake that stops up its ears to avoid being enchanted by the music of snake charmers. It presses one ear against the ground and covers the other with its tail to ignore the charming, symbolizing a refusal to hear wisdom or divine truth.”
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Sun., Mar. 8, 2026, fullscreen
f134 God’s Pointing Line Strikes at {stable column base}
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 4, 2026, fullscreen
f134 Sit Tree – Finger Shapes & YI Hand Shape Pair
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
f134 Hang Tree – Finger Shapes & YI Hand Shape Pair
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
f134 Red’s Y or Y’Y Hand (& Angel’s Y’ Hand; 7777 Fingers)
Arg for Red as Y vs. Y’Y
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar., 2026, fullscreen
f134 YI Shape of Hand Touch {cut right trunk}, Factoring in the Context
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar., 2026, fullscreen
Dancing Man: Angle of Bent Index Finger
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
Golden – Adam Eve Eject, [IY’, IIY]
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
Golden – Arrowed Guy
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
Marriage of YI’ & Y’I: Hand-Shape Pairs
The crop lacks fingers notation analysis; I plan to always include:
YI shape of hand 1
YI shape of hand 2
Finger shape of hand 1
Finger shape of hand 2
hand-shape pair
probably always start w/ Left; this arbitrary convention actually unbiases which hand you start with; a more neutral notation.
finger-shape pair
In this case, a special also hand-shape pair: her right hand & his right hand, as a pair.
Left figure: Left fingers: \IIII
Left figure: Right fingers: 7\IIII R thumb is both splayed (as always) and also visually cut, like bent. A mere visual cut (occlusion, with or without black lines) can’t be assumed to be signif, but clearly is signif in this picture.
Right figure: Left fingers: 77II
Right figure: Right fingers: 7777/
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
King & Queen Panel
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Mar. 7, 2026, fullscreen
YIY’ Is the Main, Most Common, Reference Hand-Shape Pair, But Is Not the Exclusively Correct Pattern
You can add the freakish I’ shape, or omit the “unenlightened” Y shape.
todo: what are common hand-shape pairs other than YIY’?
Examples:
YIY’ – Great Canterbury Psalter, Douce Apocalypse
IY’
YIY’I’ – marriage king/queen
Motivation for this Page
To upload work (annotated pngs) done on mobile device the past few days, eg:
Douce
Manesse
Salamander bestiary/ dancing man
Golden – todo: are there many pictures omitted from my gallery? inspect medieval YI hand shapes.
Task 1: Make Sense of the Strange Index Finger, by Recognizing It as Combining Two Standard Modifiers: Splayed AND Bent
Task 2: Analyze the YI Hand-Shape Pair to See Which of the 4 YI Shapes Are Present: Not the Standard YIY’, but Rather, YI’Y’, Highlighting the Less Common, Oddball Shape: I’ (Cut Non-Branching)
I’ can mean the ego death aspect of eternalism.
Task 3: Explain How the 4 Shapes Are Used in This Case, to Illustrate This Storyline (Dying from Salamander Poison): “Awake” Shape (I), Inverted by Bend (I’), Becomes “Super Asleep”, ie. DEAD
There Is Plenty of Proof of How to Interpret YI Hand-Shapes, to Extract the Rules, After Surveying Enough Art Instances
Intro
Solved Dancing Man Hand-Shape Pair: Index Finger Splayed & Bent, I & I’; Non-Branching & Cut Non-Branching
Separate the Formation of the 4 Branching Shapes vs. How the Shapes Are Used
Separate the Identification of Which of the 4 Branching Shapes (I and then I’) from How That Shape Conveys “Dying from Salamander Poison”
The finger form DEFINITELY expresses I and then I’.
Exactly how the I’ form is suitable to represent or illustrate “Dying from Salamander Poison” is a matter of taste and is debatable.
Y = branching
I = non-branching
Y’ = cut branching
I’ = cut non-branching
txt msg 1 to AM, a.m. Monday, March 2, 2026
some artists got a little carried away with the YI hand-shapes
txt msg 2 to AM, p.m. Monday, March 2, 2026
dancing man index is over-modified, or at least, is DOUBLE MODIFIED.
both splayed AND ALSO bent!
SPLAYED: The Standard Meaning of “Splayed Finger, Separate from Grouped Multiple Fingers”
The Index finger, if splayed apart from a group of 3 other fingers that form a “branching” Y shape, means the I shape.
BENT: The Standard Meaning of “Bent Finger or Fingers”
As we see and define most basically in the motif of “4 fingers, bent sharply, showing only the base segment of each finger, like cut branches”, the “bent fingers” motifs mean negated, qualified, or “not”.
It’s not exactly a matter of counting finger-segments.
Rather, the main, basic, foundational idea is:
Here’a hand-tree that has 4 branches – now we SHOW those 4 branches, but ONLY the base segment of each finger; thus we show 4 CUT branches, expressing the Y’ shape, ie, “cut branching”.
The Y’ shape, “cut branching”, means the negation of branching Possibilism.
The Y’ shape does not directly mean the assertion of I-shape non-branching.
Assert or rebut.
Y’ rebuts branching. It’s called “cut branching”.
I asserts non-branching.
A finger if bent at right angle means qualified or countered (Prime)
that plays the game of depicting all 4 hand-shapes in a clever way
All 4 YI Hand-shapes Are in Dancing Man’s hand-shape pair: Y, I, Y’, I’
given that the finger carries BOTH qualifiers (splayed AND bent), all 4 hand-shapes are expressed in Dancing Man’s hand-shape pair:
Names of the 4 Shapes: Y (branching), I (non-branching), Y’ (cut branching), I’ (cut non-branching)
The Four Branching Shapes: Y I Y’ I’; Y (assert branching), I (assert non-branching), Y’ (rebut branching), I’ (rebut non-branching)
Wording 1
Y = assert possibilism
I = assert eternalism
Y’ = rebut possibilism
I’ = rebut eternalism
Wording 2
Y = assert branching
I = assert non-branching
Y’ = rebut branching
I’ = rebut non-branching
Wording 3
shape 1: Y – branching; assert branching; assert Possibilism
shape 2: I – non-branching; assert non-branching; assert Eternalism
after we see non-branching I , then we {cut branching} : Y’
Shape 4: I’ = Cut Non-Branching
return from eternalism back to ordinary-state possibilism
I Shape = Non-Branching Eternalism
I = non-branching eternalism, in the standard hand-shape genre psilocyb tradition art initiation.
To Be Educated Is to Know YI Hand Shapes and YI Tree Shapes
To be uneducated is to not know about YI hand-shape & tree-shape theory
In the medieval era, all of the educated class knew:
YI hand shapes
YI tree shapes
handedness
More narrow is my older combination of 4 motifs
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Of those 4 motifs, YI hand shapes goes into {branching}.
Mushroom-trees were present during the Medieval Warm Period explicitly, as part of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs — YI hand/tree shapes
txt msg 3 to AM, p.m. Monday, March 2, 2026
Anyone who knew the YI tree branching psilocybin tradition also knew the YI hand shapes psilocybin tradition.
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism
ordinary-state, branching possibilism vs. altered-state, non-branching eternalism
Y then I
You {cut branching}, to be brought through the gate into eternalism city
“Blessed are those who wash their robes [cut branching], that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” – Revelation 22:14; end of Bible
Y vs. I
{tree} vs. {snake}
{tree} vs. {snake frozen in rock}
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
txt msg 4 to AM, p.m. Monday, March 2, 2026
Solution of Dancing Man’s Hand-Shape Pair
How the Y Shape Is Formed
The Y shape is formed by the upper hand:
3 fingers splayed.
How the I Shape Is Formed
The I shape is formed by the upper hand:
Index finger splayed.
How the Y’ Shape Is Formed
The Y’ shape is formed by the lower hand:
4 fingers bent.
How the I’ Shape Is Formed
The I’ shape is formed by the upper hand:
Index finger bent
How the {asleep vs. awake} Motif Is Expressed via YI Hand Shapes
Sleeping Baby from Same Bestiary as Dancing Man: Branching Y Asserted at Forehead
[Y’I, YY’] = YY’I = YIY’ (the most popular, 3-of-4 set of hand-shapes)
branching fingers touching face means asleep in possibilism-thinking.
If Index finger (splayed apart from / contrasted vs. 3 grouped fingers) touching forehead means “awake“, then BENT Index finger (splayed apart) would mean asleep.
Now bring in elements from the story that’s being illustrated in the Salamander entry of the bestiary:
Dancing Man is double sleeping, killed by poisonous salamander ego death
Ego death is indicated by:
{stand on right foot}
right foot touching {cut right trunk}
txt msg 5 to AM, p.m. Monday, March 2, 2026
The message of the mushroom-tree artist re: Dancing Man’s Index finger:
“If touching the forehead with a splayed Index finger is good, then touching the forehead with a bent Index finger would mean bad, like, dead, from salamander poison.”
Per the rules of the YI branching hand/tree genre.
The Medieval Warm Period: 950- 1250
My estimate of the heyday of mushroom-trees: 900-1300.
My estimated date range for mushroom-trees matches the Medieval Warm Period.
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from about 950 CE to about 1250 CE.”
Cubensis Grew on Oxen Dung in England During the Medieval Warm Period (950 – 1250), the Heyday of the Mushroom-Tree Genre
“Aristotle holding an armillary sphere and pointing to the heavens as he teaches a group of clerics from Western Europe.
“From the treatise on cosmology by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World (De Caelo et Mundo).
“The transmission of this work via Arabic scholarship is highlighted by the depiction of Aristotle in a turban.
“BMR163108 Ms 3458 fol 62vo
“Historiated initial \’D\’ depicting Aristotle holding an armillary sphere and pointing to the heavens as he teaches a group of clerics from Western Europe
“(pen and ink and tempera on vellum) by French School, (13th century); Bibliotheque Mazarine, Paris, France;
(add.info.:
from the treatise on cosmology by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322) \’On the Heavens and the World\’ (\’De Caelo et Mundo\’);
Few-Minute Bio of Michael Hoffman to Read Aloud at Gatherings
todo: new page.
copy from mobile > Notes > Psalon > Michael Hoffman entry
short entry:
Michael Hoffman – 1985 engr two models of time in uni Physics course,
religious mythology as … psychedelic eternalism
proving Psilocybin fully dev – leverage for Reform.
Egodeath.com started August 1991, when the WWWeb was first created.
August 1988, on computer, wrote up the Egodeath theory – the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence in computer files, became the starter content for website.
1985 BSEE student, STEM mentality, need posi-control. Fix cross-time self-control.
1997 – spec’d the Psychedelic Eternalism theory: a useful explanatory model of mental model transformation when moving between the ordinary state and the altered state.
1998 – Studied myth and mythic art to confirm the theory of psychedelic eternalism.
2006 –
2020 – re-found Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter. Proceeded to find tons of mushroom imagery in Christian art integrated with {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
I was given many advantages over other people:
In high school, father taught me the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Ken Wilber, the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, the human potential movement, self-help seminars, holistic health.
Colleagues
Brown
Ruck
Hatsis
Irvin
Max Freakout
Cyberdisciple
{branching-message mushroom trees} Mar 21, 2022.
finger shapes Entry into Jerusalem Saint-Martin Church Feb. 9, 2023.
writing article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies: {branching-message mushroom trees}
Increasing Articulation and Literacy at Applying the YI Hand-Shape Language: asleep vs. awake; uneducated vs. educated; unenlightened vs. enlightened
todo: new page.
3 distinct phases of decoding Dancing Man:
Identify the Index finger shape as conveying two standard modifiers: 1) splayed Index or Pinkie finger, 2) bent finger(s).
Classify/read the hand-shape pair.
This picture’s particular application of the YI hand-shape language and hand-shape pair.
3 tasks:
Task 1: Make Sense of the Strange Index Finger, by Recognizing It as Combining Two Standard Modifiers: Splayed AND Bent
Task 2: Analyze the YI Hand-Shape Pair to See Which of the 4 YI Shapes Are Present: Not the Standard YIY’, but Rather, YI’Y’, Highlighting the Less Common, Oddball Shape: I’ (Cut Non-Branching)
Task 3: Explain How the 4 Shapes Are Used in This Case, to Illustrate This Storyline (Dying from Salamander Poison): “Awake” Shape (I), Inverted by Bend (I’), Becomes “Super Asleep”, ie. DEAD
asleep vs. awake
uneducated vs. educated
unenlightened vs. enlightened
This Post Was Composed During a Blood Red Moon, Full Eclipse of the Moon
Motivation for this Page
Solved Dancing Man!
Specifically, the super weird finger, is clearly simply carrying the two standard modifications:
SPLAYED: Finger splayed separately from 3 other fingers, which are grouped to depict {branching}; Y shape. Splayed finger here = non-branching; I shape (assert non-branching Eternalism).
BENT: Bending fingers means “rebut branching”, in the case of 4 fingers, Y’ shape (rebut branching Possibilism).
SPLAYED AND BENT: Combining the two above indicators, produces I’ (rebut non-branching Eternalism).
A detail: More attention to Left Arm/Wrist of Cybercide; aim the 2 white lines at his wrist & L arm, at {blade}, where {L limb touch blade}.
Fulfilling that already, the line from Woman holding {balance scale} is pretty much touching Cybercide’s L wrist at blade.
Make the line from Swordsman to Cybercide end at an intersection of Left arm & blade. The present line doesn’t convey that the target of blade is L limb/arm; line goes to sword but not to L limb.
[9:50 Mon., Mar. 2, 2026] Sit-in-Tree cuts stems w/ left limbs.
f134 Pulled-from-Banquet guy looks at splayed finger of angel, angel looks at added thumb
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Updates to v6 of “f134 targets of psalter room.jpg”:
Added my signature.
Updates to v5 of “f134 targets of psalter room.jpg”:
Made feet box red, not white.
Updates to v4 of “f134 targets of psalter room.jpg”: (for export jpg, used local same file name; overwrote old jpg)
In the local hi-res png file, I added two lines:
Pulled-from-Banquet looks at Index finger of Angel.
Angel looks at thumb of Pulled-from-Banquet.
todo: delete old 1.4 MB jpgs from WordPress Gallery
I wanted to draw line to clutch fist in tree, but that requires more scouting of midpoints, like God / pivot of {balance scale} / Oxen guy clutch fist.
I want to show my process for searching for possible lines at that clutching fist.
Under the paint, there is a lead pencil line at the clutch fist: we must deduce the hidden line by finding the best candidate lines. caveat: everything connects to everything.
Goal: Connect only the items in such a way as to maximize meaning.
f134 Aiming-Lines, Targets of Psalter Room: v3, All 3 Sword Aiming Lines
todo: sign this image, it’s really helpful to have date embedded & shown in the picture
todo: add 2 looking-lines on the Pulled-from-Banquet guy:
Pulled-from-Banquet guy looks at splayed finger of angel
angel looks at added thumb
List of Figures Involved
Row 1, L to R
Leg-Hanging youth
God
Angel
Pulled-from-Banquet youth
Row 2, L to R
Relenting Archer (Break-Bow Archer)
Threatening Swordsman
Threatening Archer
Cybercide
Psalter Viewer
Limbless Maiden
Woman holding {balance scale}
Row 3
Oxen guy – holds God’s pointing-line, setting midpoint at pivot of {balance scale}.
Leg-Hanging Guy lhg
List of Pointing-Lines
Leg-Hanging youth doesn’t aim.
God’s Right hand aims at {balance scale} pivot, also touches white light John Lash, both Cubensis dispensary bins, oxen guy fist puts midpoint of pointing-line at pivot of {balance scale}
Angel eyes aim at thumb of hand of the Pulled-from-Banquet guy.
Pulled-from-Banquet youth eyes aim at splayed Index finger of angel.
Relenting Archer (Break-Bow Archer)
Threatening Swordsman
Threatening Archer
Cybercide (below, I put 3 entries together starting w/ “Sword”)
Psalter Viewer
Limbless Maiden
Woman holding {balance scale}
TODO: SORT INTO THE ABOVE, PER-FIGURE LISTS:
Sword in tree aim at God’s Right hand.
Sword of Cybercide aims at God’s Right hand.
Sword of Threatening Swordsman aims at splayed Index finger of angel.
Drawing-fingers of Threatening Archer aim at __ feet?
left eye of Break-Bow Archer aims at __ R Index finger height relative to L?
right eye of Break-Bow Archer aims at __
left eye of limbless maiden aims at __
right eye of limbless maiden aims at __
left eye of 3-legged Woman aims at __
right eye of 3-legged Woman aims at __
todo: etc.
Decoded {blade touch left limb}
I decoded a long time ago. But the other day, deepened.
{hand mushroom-tree} in f109
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
White Boxes on Guy’s Hands and Tree’s Hands: {hand mushroom-tree}
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 24, 2026
Angel’s Non-Branching Thumb Over Open Book
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 7, 2026
Guy’s Non-Branching Thumb Over Open Book
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 7, 2026
all the 4 other pages of {open book} are illusory, like fingers branching from palm
possibilism vs. eternalism = cut branching = blade touch left limb
YI hand/tree = assert branching on the left, assert non-branching on the right
cut off branching many worlds = {blade touch Left limb}
absolute four-dimensional spacetime
{snake frozen in rock}
worldline in block universe
ordinary-state, branching Possibilism vs. altered-state, non-branching Eternalism
Good wording in that Egodeath theory lexicon phrase.
possibilism vs. eternalism analogies
Possibilism vs. Eternalism
todo: add to keyboard shortcut LCPE:
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism
ordinary-state, branching Possibilism vs. altered-state, non-branching Eternalism
[OBVAN]
Y vs. I
add to the keyboard shortcut:
Y shape vs. I shape [YSVIS]
Y shape vs. I shape
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie};
many worlds vs. single block-universe
The Left-Hand, Possibilism Side of the Equation Items Are Equivalent
possibilism =
ordinary-state possibilism =
ordinary-state, branching Possibilism =
Y shape =
branching =
tree =
fingers, or 3 fingers grouped together =
many worlds =
multiple closed pages (vs. one open page)
The Right-Hand, Eternalism Side of the Equation Items Are Equivalent
eternalism =
altered-state eternalism =
altered-state, non-branching Eternalism =
I shape =
non-branching =
snake =
thumb, index, or pinkie =
one open page
Reversible Tauroctony: {tree} vs. {snake}, snake = trunk
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Reversible Tauroctony: {tree} vs. {snake}, snake = one branch-path
Crop by Michael Hoffman
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie}
thus L side items are equal:
tree = fingers
R side are =:
snake = thumb
blade cuts branching to get from possibilism to eternalism
add non-branching to branching , add thumb to hand in f134
flames = blade = blood on blade = fire sword = cut the branching
Unihorn, Branches Removed from Trees by Fire
Crop by Cybermonk “Canterbury-f104-unihorn.jpg” 530 KB [8:58 p.m. June 27, 2023]
Unihorn vs. deer w/ branching antlers, or ox w/ pair of horns.
left horn of ox touch left side of tree
Saint Martin Church: Youth Cuts Tower Branch Mushroom-Tree Over Gateway
Photo Credit Julie M. Brown. April 10, 2022 image processing & crop by Cybermonk.
todo: email Brown in same thread: the “gate” explanation IS present in webpage but buried and unclear.
My solution writeup has too much “stone” block-universe eternalism, too little “gateway”.
pass through gate = cut branching = mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
“Poor guy didn’t even get a chance to see his own ideas thoroughly validated and watch Einstein grovel and eat his own words.
“What a tragedy that is. Damn.
“Minkowski presented his 4D mathmattical framework in 1908.
“Minkowski died just a few months after January of 1909.
“Minkowski died of appendicitis at age 44.
“Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski’s work, but reversed his views and incorporated Minkowski’s 4D spacetime into his paper on general relativity in 1915.
“Both publically as well as in the paper, Einstein gives Minkowski all the credit he deserved.”
Motive for this Page
mobile post
the other page got too long for mobile
breakthrough warrants new focus in new page
Notes from “List of Pointing-Lines” Section
angel = messenger/ trainer/ reshaper
Threatening Archer t-a
Break-Bow Archer bba
Break-Bow Archer = the Relenting Archer, vs. the Threatening Archer
Break-Bow Archer [BBA]
Break-Bow Archer in Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 row 2 middle [BBAL]
todo: global at site: change “Break-Bowman” to “Break-Bow Archer”
Extended Index + Middle, ignore quill pen cutting the Y (it’s an overlay modifn on top of the conventional Y shape)
Where’s the Y’ Shape in Eadwine’s Right Hand?
How to read the Y’ shape in the hand image:
Folded Pinkie + Ring. Standard in blessing shape.
Where’s the I Shape in Eadwine’s Right Hand?
How to read the I shape in the hand image:
Thumb. Standard in Blessing.
Where’s the I’ Shape in Eadwine’s Right Hand?
How to read the I’ shape in the hand image:
Extended Index (much more visible/shown than middle finger) forms I, but cut by quill pen.
Commentary
What a GREAT exercise Eadwine’s portrait enables!
Eadwine’s hand-shape pair never really, plainly depicts the false, … well, the “qua qualified possibilism-thinking, Y shape.
Left hand: normally this would be Y’Y:
Y’ – folded pinkie/ring
Y – extended index/middle
Right hand: normally this would be Y’YI per blessing hand:
Y’ –
To develop nomenclature, theory, analysis technique, etc.
ie, answer these Qs for EVERY hand; given some stupid generic hand-shape, HOW CLOSE CAN YOU COME TO FORCING ALL 4 FORMS read into that hand image?
Purpose of Curled Side Finger when 4 Fingers Bent: Prove that the Bent Fingers Are Shortened, by Showing a Reference Long But Bent-Away Finger
solved! decoded “non-occluded curled side finger” that is NOT really meant to be read as “finger shown”
Principle: If Finger Is Curled-Away/Bent-Away, Read as “Prime”
This solves Mushroom King double-pointing shape: we are NOT to read curled, non-occluded Index as “I, curled”; we are meant to read the curl as “Prime”
don’t read as: Y’III read as: Y’II
the visible 3-seg Middle finger because curled, is grouped with the 1-seg pinkie / ring / middle group.
Pinkie – Y’ group
Ring – Y’ group
Middle – Y’ group, NOT read as “separate, because 3 seg shown”.
Index – I
Thumb – I
Principle: Curl of a Finger OVERRIDES “all 3 segments are shown”
that is a big solution! ie, it is the most useful interp’n convention: we introduce a new class, “curled finger”.
Immedly this solves eg her super long pinkie in some image from Great Canterbury Psalter , dancing?? f20
[9:55 a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026] it was during photo’ing my hand and hand manikin , choosing what angle best conveyed and avoided conveying unwanted impl’ns, i had a problem that HOW TO GAUGE FINGER LENGHTh and whether finger is extended or bent-away by 1, 2, or 3 joints?
EVEN THOUGH AN ENTIRE FINGER IS SHOWN (CURLED) AND ALL 4 FINGERS ARE BENT AWAY (SHOWING 1 SEGMENT), HOW CAN WE PROVE TO THE VIEWER THAT THOSE 1-SEGMENT FINGERS ARE SHORTENED?
Ans: by showing a full length finger (but curled-away) for length-contrast to estab the Reference “here’s how long a finger would be (shown curled-away, negated) –
Q.E.D. – my moment of breakthrough on this problem i been puzzling for days.
Bent finger shows 1 segment, base segment. Negates/ qualifies; not to say “get rid of possibilism-thinking”; merely: qualified.
Curled finger shows 3 segments but curled = Negates/qualifies.
same for thumb but 2 seg not 3.
How to Detect the “Correct Interpretation”, by What Standard of Measure?
Ans: Most Useful Class’n Scheme, that Feels Most In Sync Consistent w/ the Art/ artists’ Treatment of the Motif.
Resolves inconsistencies/ contradictions/ awkward unresolved complexities across the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
above, i don’t mean 100% sincerely, “the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}”, here I have jumped OUT from that genre into DISTINCT BROADER genre, of medieval YI hand-shape language . redo w/ that phrase:
Resolves inconsistencies/ contradictions/ awkward unresolved complexities across the medieval art genre of {YI hand-shapes}.
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} [MAGMT]
the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
Existing keyboard shortcut, to develop the keyboard shortcut for a hand-shape equivalent of that mushroom-tree keyboard shortcut.
SWAG estimate of years: 900 AD – 1300 AD
the medieval art genre of {YI hand-shapes} [MAGYHS] [MAGHS]
SWAG estimate of years: 800 AD – 1600 AD
ie, since YI hand-shape theory is PART of — a subset of techniques within the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, therefore, the era of YI hand-shape theory is broader than the more particular combination, the {mushroom-tree} era.
eg (highly tent. dates), here is the idea:
800 AD – the artists’ psilocybin motif initiation guild: Start of YI hand-shape language
900 AD – the artists’ psilocybin motif initiation guild: the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}; {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. Start of mushroom-trees integ’g {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
1300 AD – end of mushroom-trees End of mushroom-trees
1600 AD – end of the YI hand-shape language comprehension & usage. End of YI hand-shape language
Proof that Curled Finger Means Negated: {hand mushroom-tree} in f107, f109
the artists’ psilocybin motif initiation guild [APMIG]
the artists’ psilocybin motif initiation guild apmig
with psilocybin mushroom lockbox and education aid instruction
the medieval art genre of {YI hand-shapes}
the medieval art genre of {YI hand-shapes}
Notation: Two Square Brackets, for Synonymous Acronyms [ACRO] [ALTACRO]
Note new notation in heading, two sq brkts – where I defined same keyboard shortcut via alt acronyms. 10:30 [ a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026]
first i def’d MAGYHS which does have a letter for every word, but,
for parallel w/ older existing acronym MAGMT, which has been very useful, omit Y; instead of …MT (mushroom-trees), say …HS (hand-shape).
eg:
one acronym for each letter
one acronym for parallelism w/ some other acronym, or for shorter easier alternative, or for a different way of recalling and thinking of the expanded phrase.
New Notation for Keyboard Shortcut Acronyms (Extends 4/87 Notation): TWO Square Brackets, for Synonymous Acronyms
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 28, 2026 “eadwine hand shapes.jpg” 31 KB, [8:24 a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026]
Eadwine Image, No Border
Crop by Michael Hoffman “eadwine no border.jpg” 502 KB [8:36 a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026], fullscreen
Full Image of Eadwine
“eadwine-the-scribe-at-work-eadwine-psalter-christ-church-canterbury-england-uk-circa-1160-70.jpg”, 708 KB [8:12 a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026]
Left Hand of Eadwine the Scribe
Left hand: Y’YI = YY’I
The latter reduction/normalization from Y’YI to YY’I, into one of the Basic YI Forms, eliminates some sometimes-valuable data/info
Instead of [the blessing shape sans thumb], the extended 3-seg Index + Middle are bent (2 seg; base & mid, no tip).
Example of info-loss simplification in order to usefully discard excess detail that obscures basic patterns:
saying “2 segments of a finger are shown” without saying WHICH segment is occluded.
Sometimes you want full data (obscure forest by tree detail; given that tree form ~= hand form
Right Hand of Eadwine the Scribe
Right hand: Y’ Y’ = Y’ – the latter reduction/normalization (into one of the Basic YI Forms) eliminates some data/info ie that instead of the blessing shape, __
Can’t See the Forest for the Trees
Can’t See the Hand for the Fingers
Full detailed data about which of the 14 finger segments are shown, is an order of magnitude, different info focused, than reduction to one of the __ basic hand-shape forms.
Detailed Hand Finger Segment Inventory vs. Basic Hand Shape
Scribe with {stand on right foot/ left foot lifted}
found a few days ago, good image, multiple handedness motifs
Make a Michael Hoffman Portrait by Using a Scribe Portrait
todo
YI Hand-Shapes in Paintings Showing Medieval Scribes
todo: Showcase YI Hand-Shapes in Paintings Showing Medieval Scribes
64,409 views Mar 3, 2021 Making a historically adequate partial replica of The Missal of Eberhard von Greiffenklau, a 15th-century manuscript from The Walters Art Museum.
I apologize for the video corruptions that crop up at a couple points, I’m not sure how to fix that!
The original manu
Video: Hidden Symbolism in Medieval Art ~ Illuminated Manuscripts, Art Video Essay (Dantier and Balogh Design Studio, Jul. 2024)
Video title: Hidden Symbolism in Medieval Art ~ Illuminated Manuscripts, Art Video Essay YouTube channel: Dantier and Balogh Design Studio Jul. 28, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnFt_J1h61w —
Desc:
“This video is all about the history of illuminated manuscripts from medieval England.
“In this art video essay we will go through the history and the art & design of book illumination throughout the middle ages focusing on Britain (the british isles)
“we will touch on
the Irish book of Kells from the dark ages , go through
the viking invasions that this (predominantly) Christian art form had to survive made by the monks of Winchester, Canterbury and the likes
“We will mention
the Winchester bible &
the Romanesque Stylistic marks,
the Winchester benedictional (also knows as the benedictional of St Aethelwold) with its carolingian art origins, and
the Queen Mary Psalter from the gothic era.
We will analyse the symbolism of
Romanesque art characteristics,
Gothic art styles and
many more.
“I truly believe these religious illustrations, the art of the middle ages are the precursors of not just what we call book design today but they also laid down the fundamentals of graphic design and illustration as we know it today as well!
“Hope you will find the video entertaining and educational,
bookworms,
history buffs and
designers alike.”
Bonus: Dancing Man – Fresh Analysis of Hand-Shape Pair Shows All Four YI Forms: [Y Y’ I I’]
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y
upper hand: Middle/Ring/Pinkie group splayed (curled a little, but not enough to signal “rebut” or “cut”)
Y’
lower hand: 4 cut/bent fingers, no thumb
I
upper hand: Index finger fully shown 3 segments – all 4 segments of Index finger are shown
I’
upper hand: Index finger bent; as if 3 segments (extra mid segment) + tip is bent, negating the finger.
If anything, if I had to choose, I’d lean toward classifying the upper hand’s Index finger as the I’ shape, more than as the I shape. The finger is so damn weird, it is easy to justify saying the artist is attempting to convey BOTH I & I’ by extreme elongation (I) + sharp bend (I’). As long as my assessment is PRODUCTIVE and I can “show your work” of analysis justification, I’M GOING WITH THAT.
I – fully extended, fully displayed except the tip of the tip?
wastes 1.4 MB space on WordPress gallery – todo: delete. same filename locally used for v3 .jpg.
v2: neglected to realize that Cybercide’s sword aims at God’s Right hand.
Errata/nits:
Should be a red box, not white, around Psalter Viewer’s feet, since red line on finger-heights.
MAJOR OVERSIGHT: Cybercide sword aim at God hand
Too Many Breakthroughs, 1:40 pm – 3:30 pm Feb 28 2026
f134 Correction of Looking Lines
b/c Each Eye Points a Different Direction, at Key Targets,
eg row 2 Sword Points at Angel Splay Hand Row 1 right
Good Voice Recording About Hand-Shape Theory: VOX_TK_6620.wav
But it’s becoming outdated by the minute, because making such fast progress to develop and revise my model of hand-shape theory.
Strategy: EXTREME CLOSE-UP, Set General Angle of Looking-Lines; Afterwards, Connect to Reasonable Appropriate Targets, Adjusting Angles of Looking-Lines
eg, I’m Making a Crop that ONLY Circles “Good Targets”
It doesn’t greatly matter if some sources & sinks get crossed.
“Every eye is looking at every major significant target” gets the comprehension-job done well enough to get top scores on the test.
Image: “f134 psalter viewer eyes.jpg”
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman “f134 psalter viewer eyes.jpg” 116 KB [4:55 p.m. Sat., Feb. 28, 2026] todo: copy to f134 page
Looking-line angles are approximate.
These looking-line angles in these 4 crops were set during extreme zoom-in.
Next, connect to appropriate, reasonable targets; adjust looking-line angles.
Image: “f134 women eyes.jpg”
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman “f134 women eyes.jpg” 374 KB [4:55 p.m. Sat., Feb. 28, 2026] todo: copy to f134 page
Tentative looking-line angles.
Image: “f134 threateners eyes.jpg”
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman “f134 threateners eyes.jpg” 270 KB [4:56 p.m. Sat., Feb. 28, 2026] todo: copy to f134 page
Tentative looking-line angles.
Image: v1 of Aiming Lines: “f134 archers fingers target feet.jpg”
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 28, 2026 “f134 archers fingers target feet.jpg” 1.4 MB (LARGE) [4:56 p.m. Sat., Feb. 28, 2026] todo: copy to f134 page
v1 tentative looking-line angles. Possible errata:
Psalter Viewer is not looking so steep; more shallow angle, eg target: hand of angel on the Pulled-from-Banquet guy.
v2, improved targets of looking-lines:
Did I mention in Nov. 2020? Cybercide guy’s blade cuts his LEFT (branching possibilism) side.
I came close to putting a line from sit-in-tree’s fist to Break-Bowman. But, fist needs more consideration; compare row 3 oxen guy grabbing and pointing to God’s blessing-pointing line.
Items that Point to Something in f134, re: Psalterty of Ego Death
Aiming via:
Left Eye
Right eye
Sword-aim row 1
Sword aim row 2
God’s Blessing-Fingers
Archer’s Bow-Pulling Fingers
Head-Tilt of a 3-Legged Woman (point via eye 1, eye 2, & face-angle)
Clutching fist of guy in tree like clutching fist of oxen guy holding other end of God’s blessing/pointing/ THREATENING line w/ midpoint at {balance scale} pivot.
Items that Are Pointed At
Primary Targets:
Psalter Viewer feet;
blade of UPSIDE DOWN Cybercide guy
Psalter Viewer fingers-height
{balance scale} pivot
white light
touch blade of sword in tree
angel’s splayed finger
God’s pointing hand
Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter
leg-hanging guy: hand touch blade.
Decoded: {cutting branches} = mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
To move from possibilism to eternalism = to cut branching.
See my good voice recording.
EXTREME CLOSE-UP!!
Video: Spinal Tap II: The End Continues – Official Trailer | SDCC 2025
Relevance: To assess which eye is aimed at which PRIMARY TARGET (eg {balance scale} pivot; angel hand splay, God’s blessing pointing fingers, archer’s pulling/pointing fingers,
Video title: Spinal Tap II: The End Continues – Official Trailer | SDCC 2025 YouTube channel: IGN Jul. 24, 2025
Desc: “Forty-one years after the release of the groundbreaking mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, the now estranged bandmates David St. Hubbins, Nigel Tufnel, and Derek Smalls (Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, and Harry Shearer) are forced to reunite for one final concert.
Spinal Tap II: The End Continues also marks the resurrection of documentarian Marty Di Bergi (Rob Reiner), who once again tries to capture his favorite metal gods as they contemplate mortality—and the hope that their 12th drummer doesn’t join them in The Great Beyond.
Joined by music royalty Paul McCartney and Elton John, Spinal Tap wrestles with their checkered past to put on a concert that they hope will solidify their place in the pantheon of rock ’n’ roll.
Directed by Rob Reiner, the film stars Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Fran Drescher, Paul Shaffer, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Questlove, and Chris Addison.
Spinal Tap II: The End Continues opens in theaters September 12, 2025.”
the Pulled-from-Banquet guy looks at YI or Y’I form of angel hand using splayed finger to separate 3 grouped branching fingers from 1 separate non-branching finger.
If we say it’s a Y’I hand, that is not consistent; we’d be forced to say it’s a Y’I’ hand.
Crop and rotation by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 28, 2026, fullscreen
Image: Pulled-from-Banquet guy, Angel Finger Splayed, Maiden Finger Splayed, Mapped to Basic IY Hand
Decoded: Elongated & Sharply Bent Index Finger of Dancing Man
[Noon Saturday, February 28, 2026]
todo: create new page purely to taunt POS PHONY, Ronald Huggins the academic 304, reaches whatever pre-set “conclusion” corrupt anything-but-drugs academia pays him to reach. title:
Dancing Man: W, Ronald Huggins: L
possible content:
the 4 text msgs just sent to RL [1 p.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026]
Huggins says f11 day 3 plant 2 right branch is a tree branch – look exact mushroom
Huggins says f11 day 4 plant 3 is a tree – look exact mushroom
Huggins would say f134 is a wheat farm, not Cubensis grow-op.
re-analysis of Dancing Man hand-shape pair
Re-analysis of Dancing Man hand-shape pair
SHOWS ALL 4 YI FORMS!
That EXPLAINS TOTALLY THE WEIRD INDEX FINGER!
The same index finger expresses both I and I’, no wonder it’s so f’d up!
The Index finger I shape is both asserting I and rebutting I, no wonder so bent and long.
Ronald Huggins the academic 304, reaches whatever pre-set “conclusion” corrupt anything-but-drugs academia pays him to reach [RH304]
Ronald Huggins the academic 304, reaches whatever pre-set “conclusion” corrupt anything-but-drugs academia pays him to reach
Micro Bio of Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman – Egodeath.com; the Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy – a STEM-based model of how the mind transforms in the altered state
todo: add to new “names of theory” page
the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy [TPEMA]
the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy
the Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy [ETPEMA] [EPM]
16 Combinations of Y, Y’, I, I’ Can Be Expressed by a Hand or Tree Image
Has 0 of the 4 shapes: (1)
Y’I
Has 1 of the 4 shapes: (4)
Y
Y’
I
I’
Has 2 of the 4 shapes: (6)
Y I
Y’ I
Y I’
Y’ I’
Y Y’
I I’
Has 3 of the 4 shapes: (4)
Y Y’ I
Y Y’ I’
Y I I’
Y’ I I’
Has 4 of the 4 shapes: (1)
Y Y’ I I’
Terminology of the 4 Shapes
Y – branching
Y’ – cut branching
keyboard shortcut
cut branching cbr
cut non-branching cnb
test of 4 keyboard shortcut:
branching br
cut branching cbr
non-branching nb
cut non-branching cnb
branching [BR]
branching
cut branching [CBR]
cut branching
non-branching [NB]
non-branching
cut non-branching [CNB]
cut non-branching
Cyberdisciple [CB]
Cyberdisciple
Max Freakout [MF]
Max Freakout
Dancing Man: Re-Assessment of YI hand-shape pair
of Dancing Man in the salamander bestiary image including a mushroom-tree
new meaning of bent index finger: I’ !
How to read Y in this image:
Upper hand: 3 fingers splayed as a group.
How to read Y’ in this image:
Strong: lower hand: fingers bent. DO NOT ANY LONGER SAY PINKIE SHOWS 3 SEG THEREFORE ADDS AN I!
Weak: upper hand: The grouped 3 fingers are bent.
How to read I in this image:
Upper hand: Index finger 3 seg shown.
How to read I’ in this image:
Upper hand: Index finger bent. OMG THIS ENABLES READING DMS AS carrying expressing conveying signally all 4 SHAPES: Y Y’ I I’
Dancing Man in the salamander bestiary image including a mushroom-tree [DML]
Dancing Man in the salamander bestiary image including a mushroom-tree
Dancing Man [DM]
Dancing Man
Crop by Michael Hoffman
The 16 Basic Hand-Shapes (or Tree-Shapes?)
16 Combinations of Which of the 4 general branching shapes permutations Y, Y’, I, I’ Are Expressed by a Hand Image
Tree Forms Analyzed & Described/ Classified in Terms of the Same System
todo
These are which of the 4 general branching shapes permutations (ie, [Y, Y’, I, I’]) are conveyed or embodied by a hand image.
This isn’t really hand shapes.
These are which of the 4 hand-shapes – or rather, general branching shapes permutations (ie, [Y, Y’, I, I’]) – are conveyed or embodied by a hand image.
Decoded Raised IY Hand of the Pulled-from-Banquet Guy
Meaning of the raised IY hand of the Pulled-from-Banquet guy in f134 Great Canterbury Psalter
My first instinct during voice rec’g was correct, broke through to comprehending the hand – as Eadwine’s special meaning? No.
As a generic universal indicator of generally und the 4 shapes what they assert and how they are implemented, along with quirk conventions and solutions of this specialty the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
The meaning of his IY hand includes the distinct body of art/phil knowledge: hand-shape theory.
The angel instructs you of what?
branching vs. non-branching;
the 4 shapes;
possibilism vs. eternalism;
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
“integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking” was my answer like a week ago, but since then, 1-2 days before today which is [ a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026] , i ONLY said the IY hand means integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
That’s true, in broad sense of that phrase.
But I deepened my grasp of the meaning of the scene: angel teaches end-goal und’g of integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking but also, intermediate, teaches 4 shapes mapped to that.
the Pulled-from-Banquet guy [PFB]
the Pulled-from-Banquet guy
The Medieval Art Genre of {mushroom-trees} Incorporates Distinct hand-shape theory
What does an angel teach? The
The 4 shapes
possibilism vs. eternalism
qualified possibilism-thinking
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
Possibilism vs. Eternalism = Y vs. I; {branching} vs. {non-branching}; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie}; many worlds vs. single block-universe
[5:50 a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026] f134 r2 bowman aims at feet. now drawing lines from his fingers to the feet of Psalter Viewer
Error: Say “archer” not “bowman”
bowman – a boatman, oarsman, or paddler stationed in the front of a boat
Psalter Viewer in GCP folio image f134 row 2 middle
Break-Bowman [BBM]
Break-Bowman
Break-Bowman in Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 row 2 middle [BBML]
Break-Bowman in Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 row 2 middle
Woman holding {balance scale} [WBS]
Woman holding {balance scale}
keyboard shortcut [KS]
keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term [KSL]
Against Italics in Keyboard Shortcuts
This keyboard shortcut expansion system doesn’t accept italics, bullet list format, bold, etc. – strictly plain-text strings.
It is NICE and PREFERABLE to ital, but, as much extra work as applying Init Caps – extra difficult on mobile.
So, decree:
{tree} vs. {snake} = {tree} vs. {snake}; Italics within Braces Is Understood, Not Required
Ronald Huggins invades the forest is an mere invader of the forest of Great Canterbury Psalter – you want to see non mushroom mushroom-trees? See vine-leaf trees
{hand mushroom-tree} [HMT]
Square-brackets notation is per April 1987 explosion of new technique: when I started doing theory explicitly as such. When the Egodeath theory began as a conscious Theory.
Conscious Theorizing the the Egodeath theory Started Explosively April 1987 When Father Died in Middle of EE Studies; Started Oct. 1985 without a Clear Concept Yet of Theorizing
Still, bc of my mentality and context in self-help human potential movement, naturally, in Oct. 1985, I started by theorizing, but not a clear explicit concept of “I am constructing and marketing and branding a new Theory & explanatory model of how the mind transforms in the altered-state”. Latter is not how it was experienced; I did NOT have that idea, like history of using altered-state psychedelics psilocybin, to effect a standard transformation. It w My thinking was only informed by
STEM format of read/write/think/express/communicate.
Eastern mystics SUCK at writing about ego transcendence. They are degenerate and perverse and crude and inept, they are the problem, their mode of thinking/ communicating absolutely SUCKs, worst case. I agreed with Eastern Mystics that ego transcendence is a real thing, but I immediately trashed and disrespected their mindset; everything about their explantory construction and communication of ego transcendence.
Oct. 1985: Started Replacing How Ppl Talk about ego transcendence
Apr. 1987: Started Explicitly Constructing a Brand-Name Theory of Ego Transcendence to Replace How People Talk about Ego Transcendence
May 1987: Started Writing My Ego Transcendence Book Explaining Repairing How to Think about Personal Control
confused, i think “toward the end of the year 1987, I started writing about my book explaining repairing how we think about personal control.” Translation: end of the academic year.
The Southwest dorm, 3rd floor: June 1986-May 1987, is the “year” referred to.
Toward the end of academic year June 1986-May 1987, I started writing about my book containing my theory explaining repairing how we think about personal control. Let’s say that was May 1987.
That sounds right: Pretty soon after I found awesome powerful idea development technique, concept of writing a book explaining what I found.
The “end of the year” feeling (academic year) does not mean the different feeling, end of calendar year.
May 1987 “end of the year” feeling: academic year (for me). I found a good idea development technique to write book about ego transcendence for purpose of repair cross-time self-control.
Dec. 1987 “end of the year” feeling: calendar year. the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, on the very cusp… i started thinking about “determinism” Oct-Dec 1987 and criticizing Watts Dec. 1987: wtf didn’t you Why the f didn’t Watts just say, “determinism?” (ie Minkowski block-universe eternalism)
1988: the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
vs. the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology/ Integral Theory’s Concept of Ego Transcendence as Popular Neo-Advaita: Actual Egodeath Is via Block-Universe Mysticism, not Through Popular Neo-Advaita
Feb. 2026: The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy
The Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy
April 1987 Explosion of Technique for Idea Development, and Concept of Constructing, Articulating, and Publishing a Theory
Apr. 1987 notation technique: wide-ruled (grade-school) binder sheets instead of 10×8″ blank books. With Pentel P205 mechanical pencil.
Pentel P205 mechanical pencil – since maybe Sep. 1982; the standard pencil for Electronics Engineering tech school, that many students used, and that was favored and max avail’y in the supp Supply Room store; same at Uni bkstore Aug 1983.
Wide-ruled (grade-school) binder sheets instead of 10×8″ blank books
phrase, and then acronym in square brackets
left hand
Allcaps
IN THE 1980S ALLCAPS RULED THE EARTH 🦖🦕
1978-1991: Fortran, COBOL, BASIC
Query: When did C programming become popular? 1980s.
AI Answer:
C programming began to gain significant popularity in the 1980s, driven largely by its association with the Unix operating system and the publication of its first definitive book.
Key Milestones in C’s Popularity
Early 1970s: Creation and Initial Use C was created by Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs between 1972 and 1973 primarily as a system implementation language for developing the Unix operating system. The Unix kernel was largely rewritten in C by 1973, which demonstrated the language’s power and efficiency for system-level programming.
1978: The K&R Book The publication of the book The C Programming Language by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie served as the first widely available and informal standard (known as “K&R C”) for the language. This book helped popularize C beyond Bell Labs and the Unix environment.
The 1980s: Widespread Adoption During this decade, C’s use spread rapidly as compilers became available on nearly every machine architecture and operating system, including early personal computers. C began to displace other languages like Basic as a leading choice for microcomputer programming. This widespread availability and the language’s portability contributed to its massive surge in popularity.
1989: Formal Standardization The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published the first official standard for C (ANSI C or C89) in 1989. This standardization addressed compatibility issues that arose from slightly different versions of the language, promoting portability and solidifying its use in commercial and government projects. Wikipedia Wikipedia +9 C has remained one of the most widely used programming languages since, consistently ranking high in popularity indexes, due to its efficiency, low-level memory access, and portability. It has also influenced the syntax and features of many other prominent languages like C++, Java, Python, and C#
/ end robot
Query: Is the BASIC programming language case-sensitive?
AI Ans:
No, the BASIC programming language is generally case-insensitive. This means that keywords and user-defined identifiers (like variable names) that differ only in their capitalization are treated as the same by the interpreter or compiler.
Key Points
Identifiers are the same: In most BASIC dialects, variable and VARIABLE and Variable all refer to the same entity.
Historical reasons:Case insensitivity was a common feature in many early programming languages (including Fortran and COBOL) because the keyboards and display terminals on early computers often only supported uppercase letters.
Modern dialects: Most modern dialects, such as Visual Basic (VB) and VBA are also case-insensitive, although some specific versions like BBC BASIC might have exceptions.
IDE behavior: Many modern Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) for BASIC-derived languages will automatically adjust the casing of your code to match the first time an identifier or keyword was defined, which helps enforce consistent style, but doesn’t change the underlying case-insensitivity of the language itsel
/ end robot
1980s was peak allcaps era; used everywhere for everything: programming, students…
Probably because allcaps was used for programming in the first 1978 personal computers, 1978 marks the beginning of the allcaps era.
For me, that era ended with C programming classes in 1991. Case-sensitive programming language.
1978-1991 was my home computer allcaps era.
query: Is the C programming language case-sensitive?
Ai ans:
Yes, the C programming language is case-sensitive. This means that the C compiler treats uppercase and lowercase letters as distinct characters. Scaler +1
For example:
Variablescount and Count are treated as two separate variables.
Function namesmain() and Main() are different, with main() being the correct entry point for a standard C program.
Keywords in C must be written in lowercase. Writing int is correct, but Int or INT will result in a compilation error because the compiler does not recognize them as valid keywords.
/ end of AI answer
acronym [ACRO]
block-universe eternalism [BUE]
block-universe eternalism
Minkowski’s block-universe eternalism [MBUE]
Minkowski’s block-universe eternalism
But Petkov’s main name of Minkowski’s theory is absolute four-dimensional spacetime, thus:
Woman holding {balance scale} in Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 row 2 middle [WBSL]
Woman holding {balance scale} in Great Canterbury Psalter folio image f134 row 2 middle
Break Bowman
[ a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026] [DTS]
a.m. Feb. 28, 2026 [DTSM] (Medium)
Feb. 28, 2026 [DTSS] (Short)
Titles of this Page
{slightly splayed finger} Motif: Splayed Index or Pinkie, vs. 3 Fingers Held Together
{subtly splayed finger} Motif: 3 Fingers Held Together vs. Splayed Index or Pinkie; Equivalent to {fingers vs. thumb}
Decoded {subtly splayed finger}: 3 Fingers Held Together vs. Splayed Index or Pinkie, Equivalent to {fingers vs. thumb}
Subtle Splayed Index Finger or Pinkie Finger Contrasted Against Other Three Fingers Held Together, Equivalent to Thumb vs. Fingers
Includes fresh mobile crops from full-res lib site in Paris, Great Canterbury Psalter.
The {slight splay} Secret Artists’ Motif
txt msg 1 to sacred plants community church artists members
the {slight splay} sekrit artists motif
psilo artists’s initiation guild psilo lockbox
{hand mushroom-tree}
hand is like YI tree
Possibilism vs. Eternalism = {branching} vs. {non-branching} {tree} vs. {snake} {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index OR PINKIE finger} Y vs. I many worlds vs. single block-universe
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026
my Psilo Lockbox Bins page needs better crops of {artists initiation guild psilo lockbox bins}
mind the medieval YI hand-shape language:
Y Y’ I I’
Keep Your Eyes Peeled to Spot YI Hand-Shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’
Especially Notice YI Hand-Shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’
Especially Take Notice of the YI Hand-Shapes: Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes: Branching, Cut Branching, Non-branching, & Cut non-branching Depict possibilism vs. eternalism World Models
ordinary-state, branching Possibilism vs. altered-state, non-branching Eternalism obvan
I initially wrote:
mind the medieval YI hand-shape language: Y Y’ I I'(rarer)
The I’ Hand Shape Is Relatively Infrequent, but Not Uncommon
The angel’s (transcendent messenger’s) Index finger splayed, like a serpent vs a tree (3 fingers).
The maiden’s Pinkie finger in the mushroom bowl is splayed.
The angel turns red guy upside down, makes him display an IY hand contrast-shape, like God, via {thumb vs fingers).
Only a member of the artists initiation guild recognizes this subtle finger-splay, of the “non-branching” Index or Pinkie vs the 3 grouped “branching” fingers.
List of Contrasts of Branching vs. Non-Branching [LCBN]
Compare the two acronyms: in terms of which contrast analogy? in terms of “branching vs. non-branching”, or in terms of “possibilism vs. eternalism”:
LCBN = list of contrasts of branching vs. non-branching
LCPE = Possibilism vs. Eternalism = {branching} vs. {non-branching}; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe
LCPE = list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism: possibilism vs. eternalism; branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe
I need a longer expansion to get the one as the lead-in for the other.
list of contrasts of branching vs. non-branching analogies: Possibilism vs. Eternalism; {branching} vs. {non-branching}; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe lcbna
List of Contrasts of Branching vs. Non-branching Analogies: Possibilism vs. Eternalism; Y vs. I; {branching} vs. {non-branching}; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie}; many worlds vs. single block-universe; multiple vs. singular [LCBNA]
{fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie} fvtip
Next, repair similar keyboard shortcuts to change “thumb or index” to “thumb, index, or pinkie”.
Possibilism vs. Eternalism = {branching} vs. {non-branching}; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe
Which Thagard transform-type is this, for “theory modification & replacement”?
Breakthrough: Resolved: Curled Finger Shown Means Negated, Not Asserted! A Thagard “Inversion”
Breakthrough resolving this puzzling:
Try FOR THE MOST PRODUCTIVE READING:
Read {curled finger} = {bent finger} = NEGATED, NOT ASSERTED!! As if purpose of showing finger is TO SHOW THAT IT IS BENT; not to counter the bending! Proof of correct reading: it’s a more productive reading, EXACTLY what i was puzzling and looking for last night. / end of update for a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026]; find “curl” entries in this page entered today, Saturday, February 28, 2026.
/ end update a.m. Saturday, February 28, 2026
older writeup from way back in yesterday like Friday, February 27, 2026:
Puzzling Over Curled Side Finger
added 2/28: Which Contradicts the Main Form of the Hand “Cut Fingers”, would be IY’ But Seems Wrong because Mainly Y’ and the Length of Curled Finger Varies; the Instances Are Not Adding Up WTF Can’t Be Right to Read 3-Segment Curled Finger as Same as Extended Finger
2/27 con’t:
… side curled side finger of Y’ hand-shape is NOT MEANINGUL; IT’S SIMPLY CUT FINGERS VIEWED FROM SIDE that HAPPENS to show entire — not cut – finger. doesn’t coun’t. count side finger AS IF viewing from straight-on, where 0 segments would then be visible.
Read curled side finger as follows:
“He is hiding his mid & tip finger segments, even though, if viewed from the side instead of straight-on, you can still see all 3 segments of his curled-to-hide, side finger.”
The mushroom-tree artists debated this. I’m in sync with them, by debating this AND I MAKE MY AUTHORITATIVE OFFICIAL RULE
Rule: In a Y’ Hand, a Visible Curled Side Finger Doesn’t Count as an I Shape, Even if All 3 Segments Are Shown
Rule/Policy Convention, that must be officially established, in order for Consistency:
In a Y’ hand achieved via curling a group of fingers, do not count the curled side finger as an I shape, even if all 3 segments are Shown.
Consider that visibility to be merely side-effect of viewing angle; a mere incidental implementation detail.
Principle: More Clarity Results from Avoiding Excessively Detailed Finger-Segment Analysis; CHARACTERIZE the OVERALL hand-shape
Do Not Lose that Message by Excessive Detail about Implementation via All 14 Finger Segments
Don’t Miss the Hand-Shape Forest for the Finger-Segments Trees Implementation.
Principle of General Hand-Shape, More than Detailed Finger-Segments Scale of Inventory: Zooming into Detail Serves the Purpose of Designating a Simplified Standard Shape, ie one of: Y, I, YI, Y’I, YI’, Y’I’
Principle: Every Hand Shape Can Be Simplified Characterized as One of: Y, I, YI, Y’I, YI’, Y’I’, YY’I, or YY’II’
List of Basic General Hand-Shapes
Each letter of the 4, occurs 0 or 1 time:
Y Y’ I I’ is the “biggest” shape possible.
Y
Y’
I
I’
YI
YI’
Y’I
Y’I’
0000 – hand hidden
0001 – I’
0010 – I
0011 – I I’
0100 – Y’
0101 – Y’ I’
0110 – Y’ I
0111 – Y’ I I’
1000 – Y
1001 – Y I’
1010 – Y I
1011 – Y I I’
1100 – Y Y’
1101 – Y Y’ I’
1110 – Y Y’ I
1111 – Y Y’ I I’
That’s not listed in my order, of Y, Y’, I, I’. Drop the binary and put in nat. order: put single letter items first.
I am re-discoing old tradition of doing this analysis. All mushroom-tree artists did this analysis as initiation training in the
The Art of YI Art
First sort, then del (in new copy) binary:
This list establishes a standard order of all possible basic hand-shape designations:
Principle: A Hand That’s Hidden by Cloth = Y’I; Asserts Revealed Truth: Y’ & I
purpose: hide branching fingers pollution; Y’
we sure aren’t hiding I shape, which is the holy shape of revelation. eg cloth-covered hand holds open book.
via cloth, we are hiding Y and hiding I’, to express Y’ and express I.
branching fingers are {pollution}.
Phallic cloth over a hand that’s holding an open book:
Can’t mean Y
Can’t mean I’
Can mean Y’
Can mean I
Can mean I, the image is sometimes comparable to I eg Good Student in f134 row 1 L: phallus ~= I shape.
0-term shapes (qty: 1)
0000 – hand hidden = Y’I = 0110
1-term shapes (qty: 4):
1000 – Y
0100 – Y’
0010 – I
0001 – I’
2-term shapes (qty: 6):
1010 – Y I
0110 – Y’ I
1001 – Y I’
0101 – Y’ I’
1100 – Y Y’
0011 – I I’
3-term shapes (qty: 4):
1110 – Y Y’ I – missing term 4, I’
1101 – Y Y’ I’ – missing term 3, I
1011 – Y I I’ – missing term 2, Y’
0111 – Y’ I I’ – missing term 1, Y
4-term shapes (qty: 1):
1111 – Y Y’ I I’
List of All Basic Hand-Shapes, With Added Notes
Convention: Y First, Then I. for permutation purpose.
Has 0 of the 4 shapes: (hand hidden by cloth)
Y’I
Has 1 of the 4 shapes:
Y
Y’
I
I’
Has 2 of the 4 shapes:
Y I
Y’ I
Y I’
Y’ I’
Y Y’
I I’
Has 3 of the 4 shapes:
Y Y’ I – blessing: Index+Middle = Y; Ring+Pinkie = Y’; Thumb = I. This is the set of the 3 popular/common/ stragithforward shapes (omits the oddball, double-negative I’ shape; “cut non-branching”. Cut the serpent monster.
Y Y’ I’
Y I I’
Y’ I I’
Has 4 of the 4 shapes:
Y Y’ I I’
Debate About Standardizing on Listing I First vs. Y First
Dispute: to truly characterize a hand-shape instance, it might be better to designate it as IY’, not Y’I.
Classification (“Y’I”) vs. Characterization (“IY'”)
A normalized classification system might need Y first, even though
The Mushroom King’s double-pointing emphasizes I, not Y’. It is an IY’ hand-shape, NOT a Y’I hand-shape, re: characterizing the message.
Test: king mushroom f145:
Inventory finger segments shown, gives: IIIY’ Remove dups, gives: IY’ Normal order, gives: Y’I dispute: poor char’zn; better is: IY’.
Proof of Blessing-Gesture’s Extended Index & Middle Fingers Meaning Y – Yet Proof of Martin Church > Entry into Jerusalem: Same Fingers Meaning I, not Y
Y Y’ I – blessing: Index+Middle = Y; Ring+Pinkie = Y’; Thumb = I
You can form a LITERAL Y shape w hand: extend Index & Middle – REGARDLESS of whether you
splay greatly (peace sign),
splay the Index & Middle slightly, or
press the two fingers together
The Index & Middle physically , morphology, form a literal, physical Y shape.
Consider context: If the Index & Middle are extended & held toegehr w/o splay, AND that hand is part of a hand-shape pair, and the other hand is splaying, in that case, in that context, forms “non-branching” – oops, new termy usage set of terms:
“non-branching” — reserve for I. don’t describe Y’ that way.
Y – branching
Y’ – cut branching
I – non-branching
I’ – cut non-branching
I’ (cut non-branching) is uncommon for multiple reasons.
The hand can form a physical literal I shape by extend the Index finger only.
… Martin: In that case, the extended Index & Middle form “non-branching”.
In the context of the 1-hand blessing gesture, the extended Index & Middle form “branching”, and the “non-branching” is represented by folded Ring & Pinkie.
Interpreting Finger Shapes Depends on Context: Entry into Jerusalem (Saint-Martin Church), vs. the Blessing Gesture
eg as Part of a hand-shape pair, vs. 1-hand:
Extended Index & Middle Mean Y (branching), in the 1-hand, blessing gesture.
Extended Index & Middle Mean I (non-branching), in the 2-hand, hand-shape pair in Entry into Jerusalem (Saint Martin Church).
Photo: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Jesus there does NOT display the standard Blessing gesture w/ R hand.
Principle: Ignore Viewing Angle
With your hand, repro the hand image:
Decoded {hidden hand} by Applying Permutations of All Basic Hand-Shapes; = Y’I = 0110
Total: 16 unique basic hand-shape designations.
No matter which of the 14 finger segments of a hand are shown, it is highly useful to simplify and fit all hands into this inventory of which of the 4 shapes are shown: Never repeat an I, or an I’, or a Y, or a Y’; each occurs one time max.
eg:
Supopose that a YY’I hand-shape is implemented with redundancy as: YYY’Y’III
Delete dups of any of the 4 basic shapes: YYY’Y’III or random order of that: IY’YIYIY’ is reduced to: YY’I in this order: Y, Y’, I, I’ Don’t write order: IY’Y Write the order: YY’I
Because first, the mind has Y model; then, after add psilocybin, the mind adds the I model.
Characterize the Overall Hand Shape, Not the Finger Segments Details
Consider thumb not shown, 4 fingers curled (the tip & mid segments, not curl the base segements), viewed from side: or, king mushroom pointing:
Suppose an overdetailed nal analysis gives shape I I I Y’. visible shown are
thumb (2)
index (3)
middle (3)
Notation: thumb (2) means thumb (2 segments shown).
Principle of Details Reducibility of Details of a Hand-shape: I I I Y’ = IY’ = Y’I
Principle of Reversibility of YI Order: IY’ = Y’I
Principle of Normalized Order: Write Y’I, not IY’
{fingers vs. thumb, index, or pinkie} [FVTIP]
redo the below ’cause found error, lacked pinkie:
After using that keyboard shortcut, manually format as:
List of Contrasts of Branching vs. Non-branching Analogies:
Possibilism vs. Eternalism
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger ERROR! PINKIE TOO}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe
To recall the keyboard shortcut: list, contrasts, possibilism, eternalism; [LCPE]:
A keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term.
List of contrasts between ordinary-state, branching Possibilism vs. altered-state, non-branching Eternalism:
Possibilism vs. Eternalism =
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (OR PINKIE finger!)
Y vs. I
many worlds vs. single block-universe
txt msg
one more, glad to share this revelation with community in realtime
OMG the Pulled-from-Banquet Guy Is Looking at the Slight Finger-Splay of Angel’s Hand!
~~ images move to here
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f134 Mushroom Tree & pink key tree
Crop by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026
Principle: A Hand Might Be Shown One Particular Way, to Construct a Given Scene, but Particulars Are Not Necessarily Significant: The General Shape Might Be What’s Signficant
How shall we classify the angel’s hand? Several options:
YI
I Y’ I’ –
I because Pinkie (3)
Y’ because Ring (2) & Middle (2).
I’ because Index (2)
That is probably a misreading that misses the forest for the trees, misses the hand-shape for the finger-shapes at the segment fractal level of analysis.
Principle: Classify the Hand Shape, NOT the Finger Segments
Given a virtual hand-shape pair:
Angel L hand – Argument from equating form of two hands that have diff’t impl’n: The angel’s hand-shape is equated with PFB’s hand-shape.
pulled-from-banquet L hand – definite strong YI via I thumb, extended 4 fingers.
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026
Y – ok
Y’ – ok
I – yes, via Index, EVEN THOUGH CUT
I’ – possible; “relenting of non-branching” is a fair message.
GIVEN C Given the context, I’d say, simply, YI. to match PFB’s simple IY.
Or, reasonable, would be: Y’I.
Certainly a bad assessment would be: I’ Y’ I’ (= Y’I’) . Missing forest for trees.
I Y’ I – per above expl’n. Bad analysis. Mistaking impl’n detail at finger segments level, for overall hand-shape. FAVOR OVERALL HAND-SHAPE O
First, consider that PFB’s L hand is plain IY shape via thumb = I (bog-standard).
Thus Angel hand is ALSO IY. “But but but , …. fingers show 2 not 3 seg’s. So, Y’.” WRONG. the artist does NOT mean Y’.
eg a string cuts across an arm: not the same as a thick black line, which means “cut” or “Prime” or “Qualified X”.
(a text msg)
angel finger splay = thumb
LOOK he looks at angel splay vs non splay! 🏆🎉🥇
thx to mobile edit pic ui, i easily flipped the crop, and THEN (a couple minutes ago) it became clear FOR the FIRST time since started looking at this image, in Nov 2020: 5+ years ago
Red guy at Cubensis Banquet is looking at the angel’s {subtly splayed finger}
which makes Red guy display, like God, an IY hand-shape formed by thumb vs. fingers
Folio image f134 row 1, Great Canterbury Psalter
Verdict on [Fully Shown Edge Finger] of Group of Fingers where Overall the group expresses [cut branches / Y’ shape]: Usually Ignore; the hand expresses MORE the Y’ shape than the I shape
Do NOT need to get out your magnifying glass.
It is 100% fair to call her L hand IY’, but I’d go with simply Y’ – unless super long pinkie.
A simple folding of all 4 fingers – regardless of whether the curled side finger is entirely visible (all 3 segments) or not – in most cases can simply be designated as a Y’ shape.
Don’t need to go into Special Detail Inspection mode.
We can be lazy/ efficient and forego the additional I-shape that could be obtained by choosing to read the side finger as an I shape.
That would be conflating the main message with a tiny detail.
Trying too hard, making it unnecessarily complicated.
Only do a “moderate-only analysis”:
Do not overanalyze L hand’s 3-segment pinkie.
Zoom out to the appropriate, sufficient context.
Suffices.
A weak I shape, not strongly needed.
Don’t designate that hand as IY’ (where the I shape is from the fully shown pinkie).
That I is not needed; that I is superfluous, bc the maiden’s hand-shape pair already has an I, via splayed pinkie.
her bowl hand’s {subtly splayed pinkie finger} is a “Strong I shape“.
her L hand has only a “Weak I” shape.
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026
Bad Readings of Hand-Shape
“Upper hand shows Pinkie (3) so that’s I, + 3 fingers that are Y'”
Better reading IMO: Ignore [side of pinkie is fully shown]. that hand i NOT sending a strong I message.
We already have a strong I in the hand-shape pair, via R hand Index slight splay.
Avoiding overanalysis, his hand-shape pair is: [IY, Y’] –
Principle: Analyze Hand-shape pair Just Enough to Get 1 Each of the 4 Shapes
Upper hand can be:
I Y’ I’ – overliteral.
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
{hand mushroom-tree} in f109 Great Canterbury Psalter
Crop by Michael Hoffman
{hand mushroom-tree}, Lower Y Hand : Upper YI Hand = Mushroom-Tree’s Lower Cut Trunks : Upper YI Branching, f107 Great Canterbury Psalter
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 24, 2026
hand = tree; {hand mushroom-tree}
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2026 — an I’ cut thumb at hold wrist, and at hold mushroom sackPhoto: Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 27, 2026
I’ve made 5-10 pages on hand-shape theory, too long to edit on mobile to add evidence and points.
Those pages include good sections “greatest hits”, pasted some here.
Yesterday was hard work to judge importance of aspects – settled, simplified, and summarized here, the lessons learned.
The game is generally loose and “messing around”, not thoroughly systematic.
The normal patterns are clear, and “rules are meant to be broken” very much applies.
Though the normal Reference convention rules are broken as often as not, the general basic rules are definitely identifiable.
This page was composed on mobile initially.
Mobile Jetpack WordPress App Can’t Handle Long Pages
The long page on Otto hand-shape game is near impossible to edit on mobile: too long and sluggish; unresponsive.
The Medieval YI Hand-Shape Game
Commonly occurring is, a figure shows the 3 popular straightforward shapes: Y Y’ I; rarer is I’.
Neither hand-shape pair combo list is “correct” or “the goal”:
Y Y’ I
Y Y’ I I’
I’ is NOT nece’ly assigned to L hand, eg I’ is on the Right hand of Dancing Jesus. a 6th instance to list.
It is possible for a given image/ artist to add custom rules for an image.
eg Great Canterbury Psalter f134 has a strong custom rule about which hand & foot is closer to the ground, consistently, in order to pose the problem of the upside down hanging guy, Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Strong vs. Weak Presence of a Shape
Strong Y shape: Vigorously splaying 3, 4, or 5 fingers.
Weak Y shape: Index & Middle fingers together extended: technically, it does branch, from palm, even w/o any splaying-apart.
Strong Y’ shape – base segment of 4 fingers, only, shown.
Weak Y’ shape
Strong I shape – A thumb showing both segments.
Weak I shape – A tiny curled 3-segment pinkie on a Y’ hand.
Strong I’ shape – Jesus’ Index finger cut by the comic frame. The list of 5 Left-hand based I’ instances, on this page.
Weak I’ shape – A hand with no thumb segments shown.
Counting Multiple I Shapes on a Hand Is OK, But Pointless: 1 I Covers That Shape
If a hand-shape pair or a hand includes a major I, ignore minor I’s; not “needed”.
eg ignore the 3-segment curled pinkie on Y’ hand, if that side finger is fully shown, IF the hand has a huge major I.
dancing man in bestiary salamander image: it DOESNT MATTER if you call his lower side finger an I shape, bc his touching-head hand already has a huge major 3-segment, separate-splayed, I shape.
THAT is “the” I shape in his hand-shape pair. I in lower hand holding a removed (mushroom) branch is unimportant & arbitrary to count as an I shape; it is de-emphasized.
we got the I shape covered fully already, in his hand-shape pair.
Dont need or care whether you count also that curled little side finger as an additional (superfluous) I shape.
Sometimes that curled side-finger is super-long; then, count it.
Mushroom-tree artists are apathetic about that detail, whether to intend and read that little curled side finger of a Y’ hand as an I shape; Don’t Care.
Terminology, Including the Most Exotic of the Four World-Models, “Cut Non-Branching” (I’)
Y = branching
Y’ = cut branching
I = non-branching
I’ = cut non-branching
The Medieval YI Hand-Shape Language
There is not any particular binding rule or correct hand-shape pair combo of Y Y’ I & I’
The the mushroom-tree artist can construct particular meaning applying a shape in an image.
The medieval YI hand-shape language is a general purpose basic set of 4 shapes.
Jesus’ hand holding the comic panel frame has a rare I’ via Index finger cut by the/ behind the frame.
I’ is more for math completeness than frequent usefulness to describe two mental models across two states.
A person figure is Not required to have any particular pattern, though a mushroom-tree artist could require that in a particular image, if they craft their game application of the hand-shape language that way.
Flexible rules, at that higher level of game construction.
The GENERAL hand-shape language has certain rules to assess a given hand’s fingers shapes.
In a way, there is no right answer.
The point is, you must comprehend the 4 shapes; that is the real, main, primary point of the game.
Higher-order rules, if any, are up to the mushroom-tree artist to create, optionally.
The main gameplay is merely, simply to identify the 4 shapes throughout an image, that’s all.
Copied sections from Otto Game Page:
I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of Hand-Shape Pairs
The mushroom-tree artists aren’t especially dedicated to hand-shape pairs rather than individual hands.
The mushroom-tree artists keep it simple: see, draw, and understand what’s asserted by each of the 4 combinations.
I’ is the most challenging, and thus most advanced to understand and use.
I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of the Combination Y, Y’, I (vs. I’)
If I’ were more useful, it would appear more often.
The reason Y Y’ I occurs often is not because special or “the” correct combo; it’s just that these 3 are more relatable, comprehensible, & useful than I’.
Y Y’ I is the most common combo, it is satisfying and relatable.
But it’s not inherently “right”, compared to Y Y’ I I’.
I now understand and have a good sense for why Y, Y’, and I SEEM like the magic trio, omitting I’.
I’ is logically implied as a permutation, but hard to relate to and put to use and conceptualize what’s asserted by I’.
Make the 4 Finger Shapes: Fingers Out (Y; Branching), Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching), Finger Out (I; Non-Branching), Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)
Make the 4 Finger Shapes:
Fingers Out (Y; Branching)
Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching)
Finger Out (I; Non-Branching)
Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)
The Hardest of the Four Shapes to Comprehend: “Cut Non-Branching”
The 4 symbols on Zep 4 mean Y, Y’, I, and I’. If you force it. Refer to the meaning of I’ in the instances I found today.
eg chop up a snake that threatens you to death.
Y – Fingers Out (Branching)
Y – Fingers Bent (Cut Branching)
I – Finger Out (Non-Branching)
I’ – Finger Bent (Cut Non-branching)
I’ Is Like a Double-Negative World-Model, the Least Natural and Most Advanced
List of Explicit I’ Instances
von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger = I’. Index (1)
Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand: cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand; cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
GCP f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’. Thumb (1)
End of copied sections
f49 Forge Crops
Mobile, tried making some crops of Forge f49 folio image, Great Canterbury Psalter
Eg four hi res crops i can annotate on mobile.
mobile dup of full image – wasting space, delete?
Canterbury f49 Features: Forge, Wheels of Fate
There are many.
God/Christ comes through the White Light almond portal of mushroom-revealed governorship by the higher controller.
Blue state-boundary & brown state-boundary.
grid-cap = branching = Left direction (generally)
singular cap = non-branching = Right direction (generally)
vine leaf tree pair: {cut right trunk} touches lifted garment motif of angel.
{cut left trunk} touches open scroll.
{cut right branch} on left vine-leaf tree.
YI hand shapes throughout: Y, Y’, I, I’.
upper left mushroom-tree: grid cap is associated with non cut stem; singular cap is assoc w the left, cut stem.
branching = non cut stem = grid cap
non-branching = cut stem = singular cap
{cut left trunk}
contrast the branching or singularness of the two stems & caps.
at the top level, of the caps, that mushroom-tree follows the standard mapping convention of the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
branching on L (grid cap, non cut stem):
non-branching on Right (singular cap & cut stem).
The mushroom cluster, eval’d from bottom up, has 3 branches: the Right branch has two caps NOT grid caps; singular, so considered non-branching.
Left caps (per bottom up) have grid caps, multiple, considered Branching: they touch his Left arm/ sleeve.
copied sections from Otto Game previous page:
What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes (the ordinary-state two first, then the altered-state two)
I have not been using this order, but it seems better: group together the state-specific models.
An unenlightened, asleep person is expected to assert & experience Y & I’. An awakened, intense mystic altered state enlightened person is expected to assert & experience, relatively, Y’ & I.
Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.
I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.
Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.
I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.
Not convinced that there is any “always seek X pattern”, 3 of 4 or 4 of 4 models”. Fall back instead to, find the 4 shapes if possible.
Explicit Y shape
Explicit I’ shape
Explicit Y’ shape
Explicit I shape
What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes
Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.
Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.
I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.
I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.
Y Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)
Y’ Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)
I Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)
I’ Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 25, 2026, fullscreen
Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 25, 2026, fullscreen
f20 Dancing Jesus [Y, Y’, I, I’]
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Jesus’ hand holding the comic panel frame has a rare I’ via Index finger cut by the/ behind the frame.
I’ is more for math completeness than frequent usefulness to describe two mmm across two states.
I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of Hand-Shape Pairs
The mushroom-tree artists aren’t especially dedicated to hand-shape pairs rather than individual hands.
The mushroom-tree artists keep it simple: see, draw, and understand what’s asserted by each of the 4 combinations.
I’ is the most challenging, and thus most advanced to understand and use.
I Initially Exaggerated the Importance of the Combination Y, Y’, I (vs. I’)
If I’ were more useful, it would appear more often.
The reason Y Y’ I occurs often is not because special or “the” correct combo; it’s just that these 3 are more relatable, comprehensible, & useful than I’.
Y Y’ I is the most common combo, it is satisfying and relatable.
But it’s not inherently “right”, compared to Y Y’ I I’.
I now understand and have a good sense for why Y, Y’, and I SEEM like the magic trio, omitting I’.
I’ is logically implied as a permutation, but hard to relate to and put to use and conceptualize what’s asserted by I’.
Make the 4 Finger Shapes: Fingers Out (Y; Branching), Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching), Finger Out (I; Non-Branching), Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)
Make the 4 Finger Shapes:
Fingers Out (Y; Branching)
Fingers Bent (Y’; Cut Branching)
Finger Out (I; Non-Branching)
Finger Bent (I’; Cut Non-branching)
The Hardest of the Four Shapes to Comprehend: “Cut Non-Branching”
The 4 symbols on Zep 4 mean Y, Y’, I, and I’. If you force it. Refer to the meaning of I’ in the instances I found today.
eg chop up a snake that threatens you to death.
Y – Fingers Out (Branching)
Y – Fingers Bent (Cut Branching)
I – Finger Out (Non-Branching)
I’ – Finger Bent (Cut Non-branching)
I’ Is Like a Double-Negative World-Model, the Least Natural and Most Advanced
List of Explicit I’ Instances
von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger = I’. Index (1)
Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand: cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand; cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
GCP f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’. Thumb (1)
von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger
von Trimberg and Student
Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand
Otto: Christ Pantokrator/ Kosmokrator, Annotated
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated
Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand
Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem, Annotated
{balance scale} Woman Is the Most Efficient and Pointed Depiction of YY’I: A 2nd Thumb Would Be Redundant (and, She Displays Pinkie (3))
Rememeber yesterday’s proof that Dancing Man:
It DOESN’T MATTER how you interp his lower hand’s Pinkie that’s not occluded, whether say Y’ or Y’I, because I is ALREADY present via upper hand.
Principle: Nothing Is Gained by Re-Asserting I 2x or 3x; Re-Asserting 2-3x Is for Style or Emphasis Only
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Why I’ Is Less Common than Y, Y’, & I
I don’t mean Thumb (0) is uncommon (often there’s no thumb [segments] shown).
I mean: Thumb (1) is uncommon. Thumb is partly shown, but cut – that’s uncommon. Non-initiates experience Y; they do NOT experience I’, as if “I believe in manyworlds, and I believe not-[worldline frozen in the block universe].
No One Thinks or Says “I Disbelieve Worldline Frozen in Block Universe” (I’); They Simply Say “I Experience & Believe in Branching Possibilities” (Y)
Dancing Man is not signalling I’; many of my Reference hand-shape pairs are not signalling I’; they signal Y instead of I’. todo: stingy headings list: how many are I’ – NONE?!
Indicating = signalling = depicting = asserting.
It would be confusing to assert I’, usually.
Ppl have a strong need to assert/affirm:
Y – we experience this all the time, directly. Implies I’, but that’s indirect. I don’t say “I’m experiencing not-non-branching.” or “I’m experiencing not-frozen-worldline.”
Y’ – we interestingly experience this in loose cognition.
I – revealed profoundly in loose cognition.
I’ – this is IMPLICIT in pre-enlightenment ordinary-state. This is why I’ is less popular than Y.
The best description of mental model transformation is Y+Y’+I; less so is I’.
But today in an hour or 90 min, I found I’ 5x, always w/ Left hand. By 3 artists:
Otto – Panto: hold wrist; Entry into Jerusalem: spread cloak.
esp read as I if long phallic garment. Cloth converts Y fingers to I shape.
[Y, Y’, I] Is Most Common, But Not Uniquely the Correct Answer
YY’I Is Most Common, But Not Uniquely or Especially the Correct Answer
f134 break bowman implies that I’ is a major, crucial part of the mix.
Today I tried finding various special combinations, but it’s just a stat spread, w/o one pattern being “the” only “right” pattern.
YY’I is THE MOST POPULAR/commonly occurring, but it is not “uniquely correct”; I see no evidence that YY’I is somehow “uniquely correct” — it’s the
YY’I Is the Most Complete List of Shapes, Aside from Including the Niche I’ Shape – An Almost-Complete List of Shapes, but Not “Uniquely Correct”
There’s No Master Pattern, Beyond Spot Explicitly Painted Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes (eg 0 thumb segments doesn’t count as I’)
Count Finger if 1, 2, or 3 Segments; Thumb if 1 or 2 Segments; Don’t Count 0 Segments of Finger or Thumb as “Prime”; Ignore
Assume the Game Is Simple and Shallow: Spot Isolated, Explicitly Painted Motifs of Y, Y’, I, I’ – Nothing More Elaborate
Comprehending What’s Asserted or Rebutted by Y, Y’, I, & I Is Plenty Elaborate.
the mushroom-tree artists tried more rules and goals, but didn’t reach any consensus.
The mushroom-tree artists reached great consensus on what’s asserted by Y Y’ I I’, and options to depict those.
The mushroom-tree artists did NOT reach consensus about more elaborate rules.
YY’I is popular. I’ is controversial.
Y is justified because it’s the shape of our experiencing.
YY’I is all the MAIN, MOST relevant shapes; I’ less so.
Thus gives APPEARANCE that YY’I
I’ is justified when in ordinary-state, and when need to relent the threat. the only reason the combo YY’I is popular is because all 4 would be popular, but I’ is the least often justified.
YY’I is dominant because YY’II’ WOULD BE dominant, except I’ is not that popular/ useful, thus leaving YY’I because that’s a relevant common combo, not because I’ is always wrong/bad/false.
That’s why I got today the IMPRESSION that YY’I is uniquely the correct answer – because the mushroom-tree artists like all combos, but I’ is less often useful.
It’s kind of a mirage, and stats seem to back that up.
There is no uniquely correct combo, but because all varieties generally are popular, but I’ less so, that gives the ILLUSION that YY’I is uniquely the right answer, and other combos are “wrong”.
That’s a good analysis; sound. Matches my experience today.
If 4 fingers (3) with Thumb (0), this IS Y, but Thumb (0) is not I’. It’s “Y without I”.
If 4 fingers (1), with Thumb (0), this IS Y’, but Thumb (0) is not I’. It’s “Y’ without I”.
Cut Thumb or Cut Finger must be EXPLICITLY shown – not just entirely missing.
OTOH ossuary guy f107, his L limbs are not painted, not as stubs.
It is REASONABLE and acceptable to point out, “0 segments are painted, which is LIKE asserting I’ or Y'”
Thumb (1) is FAR more compelling and interesting and DETERMINATE than Thumb (0).
Thumb (1) YELLS I’.
Thumb (0) mumbles kinda I’.
True, [Y, Y’, I] is perhaps the most common set of the 4 (omits I’).
[Y, Y’, I] is not the uniquely correct answer, as if other combos are the “wrong answer”.
the mushroom-tree artists mostly agree on depicting Y, Y’, I, & I’. eg:
Y: 3 fingers (3) segments each, held together or splayed, but differ’d from 4th finger.
Y’: 3 fingers (1) segment each.
I: Thumb (2) seg shown.
I’: Thumb (1) seg shown.
Notation: parens are how many segments are shown.
Thumb (2) – I
Thumb (1) – I’
Thumb (0) – Counts as neither I nor I’. Indeterminate; the mushroom-tree artists didn’t reach unanimous consensus. Not compelling.
Finger (3) – finger is displayed/asserted. If 1 isolated finger, I. If 2 or 3 grouped, Y.
Finger (2) – finger cut; Prime. If it’s 1 isolated finger, I’. If 2 or 3 fingers grouped, Y’.
Finger (1) – finger cut; Prime.If it’s 1 isolated finger, I’. If 2 or 3 fingers grouped, Y’. eg student next to von Trimberg: lower hand: Index finger.
Finger (0) – ambig. Counts as neither asserted nor rebutted.
How Much to Make of Pair of Hands, vs. Each Hand in Isolation?
Until I prove that summing the types from both hands is super signif – often a single hand is shown, only – I can probably fall back to just isolated…. the two Otto annots i did today failed to show hand-pairs. Often, 1 hand is shown, only.
Whether Count 0 Thumb Segments as I’ (Implicit Cut Thumb), Like Definitely Count 1 Thumb Segment as I’ (Explicit Cut Thumb)
Answer: Probably Do Not Count 0 Thumb Segments as I’.
Remember where thumb is on guy’s R shoulder, w/ no fingers shown – I counted that as I, NOT as IY’!
Showing 3 finger base segments is certainly Y’, but showing 0 finger segs is NOT counted as Y’.
“Only count what’s explicitly shown”.
We are inventorying what is SHOWN ie cut finger or cut thumb; we are NOT inventorying things that are invisible.
In the page title: Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game Goal: Find Explicit Y, Y’, I, I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs “explicit” means:
Thumb (2) = I
Thumb (1) = I’
Thumb (0) = neither I nor I’.
That’s the “stingy” accounting re: “thumb not shown”.
“implicit” would mean greedy accounting re: “thumb not shown”:
Thumb (2) = I
Thumb (1) = I’
Thumb (0) = I’
How badly do we want to demarcate I’?
I am NOT seeing a clear case that “the goal is always to try to hit all 4 shapes, and to accomp that, must count Thumb (0) as I’ to complete the set.”
I feel FULLY CONFIDENT re: Thumb (1) accounting: it is DEFINITELY I’.
I feel not confident, but arb, re: Thumb (0): on what basis do we count Thumb (0) as I’, vs. not counting it as I’?
EXEC DECISION: Unless I come across some reason to be greedy to produce many I’ instances, … keep in mind that if I *want* I’, I can count Thumb (0) as I’. But until then, I feel on more solid ground counting
Thumb (2) = I
Thumb (1) = I’
Thumb (0) = not I or I’.
Can I arg from “keep simple”? Not really; both policies are simple, just hard to pick between the two policies/ philosophies of accounting for shapes.
Inventorying segments is easy (sort of); setting the policy of what counts, for inventory, is unclear & harder.
The Argument from How Fingers are inventoried seems most compelling:
Index (3) =
Index (3) =
Index (3) =
Index (0) = ….
suppose only Thumb (2) is shown, no fingers.
Y –
Y’ –
I – Thumb (2)
I’ – no
Results for Reference Hand-Pairs
todo: copy to this section: heading w/ [Y Y I I], and picture, and the template-based analysis, all from below.
first, paste toc, then delete irrel lines: find [ to find relev lines, to keep:
Already I can answer the Q: If there’s I’, there’s no I: true? False, by my lastest, greedy approach, which says: If no thumb visible, count that as having I’, rather than lacking I’. That’s not consistent with fingers policy though.
Greedy vs. Stingy inventory accounting.
suppose f21 L guy is enlightened. He shows cloth hiding hand, and he shows Y’ but doesn’t explic show I’; he implicly shows I’. (has no thumb).
It’s bad to say that break bowman’s I’ (explicitly shown) is same as …. I found 5 instances where I’ is explicitly shown. they have 1 seg instead of ? todo
Greedy concl only: Probably low-value; exaggerates how often I’ is explicitly depicted and meant:
[Y, Y’, I, I’] – Scale Balance & Closed Scroll
[Y, Y’, I, I’] – Dancing Man
[Y’, I, I’] – f21 Right Guy
[Y’, I’] – f21 Left Guy
[Y, Y’, I, I’] – Break Bowman
[Y’, I, I’] – Psalter Viewer
[Y’, I] – Mushroom King
[Y’, I, I’] – Swordsman
[Y, Y’, I, I’] – Guy Above Asp-Dog:
[Y, Y’, I’] – Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist
Greedy & stingy concl’s: [I am preserving this 2-bracket list; copypste below and only have the stingy array]:
Scale Balance & Closed Scroll [Y, Y’, I, I’] or Stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’) – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
Dancing Man [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’ shown) – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
f21 Right Guy [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
f21 Left Guy [Y’, I’], or stingy: [Y’] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)
Psalter Viewer [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
Mushroom King [Y’, I] – PROVES THAT “ALL 4” IS NOT CRUCIAL GOAL.
Swordsman [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I] – whether use stingy does NOT affect whether all 4
Guy Above Asp-Dog: [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] – whether use stingy affects whether all 4
Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist [Y, Y’, I’] (explicit I’)
Reference Figures’ Hand-Shape Pairs, Ignoring Thumb-Not-Shown (Don’t Count That as I’)
Stingy array only:
[Y, Y’, I] – Scale Balance & Closed Scroll
[Y, Y’, I] – Dancing Man
[Y’, I] – f21 Right Guy
[Y’] – f21 Left Guy
[Y, Y’, I, I’] Break Bowman
[Y’, I] – Psalter Viewer
[Y’, I] – Mushroom King
[Y’, I] – Swordsman
[Y, Y’, I] – Guy Above Asp-Dog
[Y, Y’, I’] – Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist
A telling observation: listing the stingy combos, NEVER DOES I’ appear.
Only 1 of my Reference hand-shape pairs (break bowman) include Thumb (1)*; they either include Thumb (2) or Thumb (0).
*or finger used as I’, as in Student Beside von Trimberg.
Student and von Trimberg: a Rare I’ (via Index Finger)
Opinion of the moment: Given that in a hand-shape pair, there’s easy opport to have full I finger or I thumb, then WHETHER INTERP THE Y’ CURLED NEAR-FINGER AS I JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE ALL, SUBTLE , SEGMENTS?
ANS: No, the mushroom-tree artists do not usually care whether that little curled side finger is counted as I or not; usually some other digit fully shows extended I.
The side-curled finger of a Y’ hand CAN be read as I, but in a hand-shape pair, usually some other digit fully shows I; so curl finger is redundant and irrelevant whether counted as I or ignored.
Thus I call student upper hand IY’, NOT IY’I. 2nd I is “don’t care; don’t need; redun.” It’s an extra, INCIDENTAL I that’s avail but not needed. Superfluous.
I get this impression from the art: Lower hand’s Index is signif adding info: I’. But, the upper hand curl pinkie is NOT signif; it’s superfluous & redun w/ Index of upper hand. IGNORE. [YI’, IY’] – in this case, the two hands are interestingly converse.
The curl pinkie plays no part in this interesting converse relation!
Counting the curl pinkie as an I would DISRUPT the symmetry/ complementarity.
von Trimberg and Student
If Count 0 Thumb Seg as I’, We’d Have to Count Two-Adj-Fings’ Segs that Have 0 Segs as Y’, but We Are Never Shown 0 Finger Segs
if 1 seg is shown… already proved, at section: “Proposed Stingy Rules re: How Many Thumb Segments Are EXPLICITLY Shown“
The Most Important Thing Is Consistency of Analysis/ Inventory (eg No Thumb Shown, = Assertion of I’
Counting “no thumb” as I’ (Thumb (0)) is a MAJOR change from earlier this evening. Should help re: “hand hidden under cloth” too.
Template for Hands on Normal Sides
Do not fill in here; copypaste, then fill in that copy.
Y
Left hand (on Right):
Right hand (on Left):
Y’
Left hand (on Right):
Right hand (on Left):
I
Left hand (on Right):
Right hand (on Left):
I’
Left hand (on Right):
Right hand (on Left):
Template for Hands Crossed
Y
Left hand (on Left):
Right hand (on Right):
Y’
Left hand (on Left):
Right hand (on Right):
I
Left hand (on Left):
Right hand (on Right):
I’
Left hand (on Left):
Right hand (on Right):
The “Spot the YI Hand Shapes” Game
titles of this page, con’t:
This is the “Spot the YI Hand Shapes” game.
Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: Spot Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes
Can strip down more, from:
Otto Psalter: Goal of Hand-Shape Game: See Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes
to just:
Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: See Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes
“See” implies EXPLICIT; don’t count Thumb (0). don’t Julie-Brown it (“I will only report what I see: I see that the caps have been made not seeable.”)
I hope to discover complexity, but, long shot. Some fancy pattern like “Y Y’ I” or [Y, Y’, I, I’]. otoh, that doesn’t scale, it’s awkward, and less likely than …. it is ALREADY super profound/ complicated enough, just knowing the definition of what is meant by asserting Y, Y’, I, I’.
We are CERTAIN that the game involves assessing isolated hand; assessing EXPLICIT indicators: segments that are PRESENT (1, 2, or 3 seg), NOT wholly absent (0).
Easily Port-able across artists, “keep it simple, explicit, single-hand centered”.
Keep Ruleset Simple
Explicit (some but not all segments shown = Prime) (all seg shown = Not Prime) (no seg shown = neither Prime nor Non-Prime); Single Hand (rather than special-treatment processing of hand-shape pairs)
Non-essentials:
0 segments shown. Vague/ ambig how to count.
1 vs 2 hands: vague/ambig how to merge/count/ think of it.
Omit vague, omit ambig. Stay w/ what is certain, only.
Here is a definite Y, inarguably.
Here is a definite Y’, inarguably.
Here is a definite I, inarguably. Thumb (2); Finger splayed (3).
Here is a definite I’, inarguably. Thumb (1)
Can’t argue with this stripped-down title:
Otto Psalter: Goal of the Hand-Shape Game: Find Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes
Certainly, at least at a rough level, that is true. 95% of work is look at each hand, alone, and find those 4 shapes in that hand.
The bulk and center of the work is that – NOT somehow summing two hands, for a figure, which gives a longer list (eg. 3-4 shapes for a hand-shape pair, instead of 1-2 shapes for an isolated, lone, single hand).
Not convinced that “pair” is justified in title. No net gain, by that detail. Raises too many complexities for a title.
Otto Psalter: Goal of the Hand-Shape Game: Find Explicit Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs
Explicit is a “no net gain” word; too detailed for a title, distracting, detracts from message by raising premature questions. It’s a detail for article body, not title.
eg, “no thumb shown” is NOT “find an I’ shape”. That’s merely an IMPLICIT I’ shape, not a VISIBLE I’ shape.
But in contrast, if 1 thumb segment is shown, THAT is CERTAINLY “find an I’ shape”.
Compressed title:
Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game Goal: Find Y, Y’, I, I’ Shapes in Hand-Pairs
That title is extremely neutral, omits constraints or more specific, narrow objectives. Certainly, any objective will FIRST as PRELIMINARY, be served best by this empirical inventory of possible readings.
What’s the closest we can get to reading a Y shape?
What’s the closest we can get to reading a Y’ shape?
What’s the closest we can get to reading an I shape?
What’s the closest we can get to reading an I’ shape?
Hardest Q is what to do when no thumb shown: which is that?
No I or I’ is shown.
An I’ is shown.
Since we expect a full accounting of Y & I, I lean toward “an I’ is shown”; the thumb is actively hidden/occluded.
[11:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026] Considering a MAJOR redefinition of objective of game:
Otto Psalter Confirms Objective of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair or Single Hand
Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair or Single Hand
older wording of that:
Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find All Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes in Each Hand-Pair
Idea [11:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026] – cloth covering hand = … eg: f21: L & M guys.
Suppose you know a hand is holding up the cloth, but no detail:
Crop by Michael Hoffman
L guy:
Y
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Index (0) + Middle (0) + Ring (0) + Pinkie (0)
Right hand (on Left): Index (1) + Middle (1) + Ring (1) + Pinkie (1)
I
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
I’
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Y’I’ (no Y, no I)
Otto Psalter Confirms Goal of Hand-Shape Game Is Find a Y’, Y, & I Shape in Each Hand-Pair …
… and sometimes throw in, w Left hand, an I’, via a cut Left Index finger or a cut L thumb, eg. holding a {closed scroll}, which ~= ordinary-state, branching Possibilism.
The nice thing about that (I’) is, all 4 shapes are covered, by the hand-shape pair rules that I extracted from this genre puzzle, the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
Y Y’ I I’
Puzzle Solved, DECODED: trident mushroom-tree bc Trinity 🔱
Jesus Christ!: The Two Bowmen in f134 row 2 Are PAIRED as Two Opposite States: Threatening, or Relenting, the Psalter Viewer!! 🤯
Dependent on the Whim of God Pressing on the Pivot of the {balance scale}!
Functionally the Same as the Swordsman “Sheathing and Unsheathing” the Sword
see end of post, OMFG! 🤯🤯
Composed & produced 100% on mobile – even added art annotations on mobile device!
I should add the [Y’I, YI] type of hand-shape pair notation on each person, not only each hand.
But, many of these figures only display 1 hand.
Do that Later maybe; after I annotate Otto > Entry into Jerusalem.
I an eager to annotate the Otto [DONE, VICTORY!!]: Entry into Jerusalem image; because I am hungry for test-confirmation of my hypothesis, that each hand-shape pair contains Y’, Y, & I shape.
The Hypothesis Under Testing, to Disconfirm the Egodeath Theory
If There Is Any Trace of the Slightest Failure, Catastrophic: Immediately Must Discard the Entire Egodeath theory –> 🗑️, per 5th-Grade “The Scientific Method” (Popper) Just-So Story.
That Is NOT How Science Works, as Proved by Historians of Science, Who Destroyed Armchair, Mere Philosophers of Science (Baloney “Logical Positivists”).
HYPOTHESIS: In the Medieval YI Hand-Shape Language, Each Hand-Shape Pair Normally Contains a Y’, Y, & I shape [Added: & Rarely, I’, with Left Hand]
Otto Gospel: Mushroom-Trees, Branching, and YI Hand Shapes
Done: Annotate, then upload the annotated image: Otto: Kosmokrater; Christ Reigns.
A shortcut though: Just LOOK AT that image, now. NO – I HAD TO annotate it; the hand-shapes are too complicated otherwise; cannot eyeball it.
The “Grab Wrist” image/ crop/ motif: an odd, unusual Y’I’ (the I’ is rare) hand, via occluded fingertips & occluded thumb tip(!) – abnormal; countervailing the Normal Rule.
(Solved!! elsewhere throughout in this page.)
Rules Are Meant To Be Broken: My Extracted Rules Are Correct
List of Explicit I’ Instances
copypasted section to above, to keep this section as-is for history
Added note, a few minutes later: ITS ALWAYS THE LEFT HAND, sometimes holding {closed scroll}.
List of instances [do not change this discovery sequence]:
von Trimberg: Student’s LEFT hand has cut Index finger = I’. Index (1)
Otto: Kosmokrator: Hold’s other guy’s LEFT wrist with his LEFT hand: cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Holds {closed scroll} with LEFT hand; cut thumb = I’. Thumb (1)
GCP f134 row 2: break bowman’s LEFT hand has I’ via cut thumb. Thumb (1)
Otto: Entry into Jerusalem: Green guy spreading cloak, LEFT hand: Y’YI’. Thumb (1)
Worried 😨: Now checking Otto: Entry into Jerusalem… holding the Egodeath theory over the trashcan, ready to ditch instantly my life work if “Disconfirm the Hypothesis”… 😨
SUCCESS!!
The Egodeath theory is victorious YET AGAIN, as every time since 1988!
I am spoiled.
Christ Pantokrator:
Y
Left hand (on Right): 4 Fingers (3 seg)
Right hand (on Left): Index (3 seg) + Middle (3 seg)
Y’
Left hand (on Right): None.
Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg)
I
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (2 seg)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2 seg)
I’
Left hand (on Right): None.
Right hand (on Left): None. Closest is cut base of Middle finger as if (2 seg).
Crop by Michael Hoffman p.m. Feb. 25, 2026m
Minor error in annotations: Guy left of throne, R foot, is Y’I, if assess toes in L to R order as usual; not IY’.
Either way is equivalent, so this is a a consistency-convention error only.
A Shocking, Rare Assertion of the I’ Shape
Update an hour later:
4 instances of I’, by 3 artists; it’s a STANDARD exception!! [and each case – 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 inventoried today – the I’ is formed by LEFT hand.
Update: 5 instances of I’, by 3 artists.
Thumb (& Fingers) Wrapped Around Other Guy’s Wrist
The Thumb Is Shorter than Usual in Otto, Undeniably Forming an I’ Shape, NOT the Usual, I Shape
The Standard I’ “Anomaly” Formed with LEFT Hand
Good news/ Pro/ advantage/ benefit for me: [This same evening, an hour later, I eventually solved this anomaly: when I’ occurs, it’s always via the LEFT hand; and I quickly found 5 instances of this “standard I’ anomaly.]
If you accuse me of forcing interp’n, here is an example (is this my St. Walburga tapestry fiasco, like the Browns?) of where I cannot in good faith force my interpretation;
instead, I have to accept this deviant case [update: 5 cases, all via LEFT hand], and I must do Special Pleading to Save The Theory.
To excuse this non-standard pattern.
[Update: not so non-standard; it’s a standard exception.]
I do have a general theory that:
The moment the the mushroom-tree artists establish a rule, this immediately, necessarily implies countering the rule, ; that countering of the rule then conveys special, extra information.
A side effect of defining a rule is that you immediately implicitly create an opportunity to violate the rule; that’s inherent.
Update, same evening, 90 min later: You could say that the the mushroom-tree artists did that:
Just as you can affirm Y in the end, via excusing it as phen’y not metaphysics, you can “rule out” I’ yet create a way to enrich the hand-shape game, by allowing I’ to be depicted by LEFT hand, to allow 4 shapes not just 3 of the 4 with one glaringly unaccounted for.
If we, the mushroom-tree artists, say “Do Not Include the I’ shape in a hand-shape pair”, every one of us is obliged to immediately violate that rule, to make special points/ purpose, to earn special game points.
Update: They did that, allowing for the 4th, I’ shape, when done by L hand, eg with {closed scroll}.
Maybe we SHOULD reclassify/ relabel: if 4 straight or 4 cut fingers shown, or … but no thumb, we CAN label that as YI’. eg f134 row 2 woman {balance scale}.
Here I am fine-tuning the successful ruleset as dust settles. Perhaps never NEVER SAY Y OR Y’; IF NO THUMB, AND IT IS LEFT HAND, WRITE / INCLUDE I’. TEST THAT, SEE IF IT HOLDS UP TO INCREASE SYSTEMATICITY.
Lower hand can be designated as any of these shape-combos:
Y’
IY’ – Pinkie’s 3 segments are emphatically shown = I. Compare f21 Right guy, super-long Pinkie.
IY’I’ – Thumb of Left hand not shown = I’.
f21: 3 Guys/ Books/ Scrolls/ B’s
10:31 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 – Right guy was a puzzling problem, able to solve now? Have flexy options for interp’n.
Left hand (raised): IY’. If account for missing thumb: IY’I’ (adds an I’ on Left hand).
Right hand Y’, or Y’I. If account for missing thumb: Y’II’, which would be an I’ formed by Right hand, not by Left hand per the usual pattern. I’d have to check stats, to improve my ruleset. I don’t know if this is:
Standard main pattern.
Standard minor pattern / exceptional standard pattern.
Nonstandard; violate rules.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Scale Balance & Closed Scroll [Y, Y’, I, I’] or Stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’)
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (3) + Ring (3) + Middle (3) + Index (3)
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
Right hand (on Left): no
I
Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (3)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2)
I’
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Right hand (on Left): no
Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes: Y Y’ I I’
Format convention: do not bother strikethrough, hard to do.
Old format, not template:
Y
Left hand (on Right): None.
Right hand (on Left): 4 fingers (3 seg).
Y’
Left hand (on Right): 3 fingers: Index (2 seg) + Middle (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg)
Right hand (on Left): None.
I
Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (3 seg)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (2 seg)
I’
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0 seg)
Right hand (on Left): None.
Conclusion: {balance scale} Woman is Complete; has all 4 shapes.
Old, non-template:
Left hand: greedy analysis (willing 3 parts): I, Y’, I’
Pinkie: I
3 fingers: Y’
Thumb: I’
Right hand, greedy (ie willing to have 3 shapes):
YI
Principle (Tentative): The Ideal[?] Hand-Shape Pair Includes All 4 Shapes [Y, Y’, I, I’]
I have no idea if this will be supported by the data.
[12:45 a.m. Feb. 26, 2026] My latest feeling is: The game is to simply, for a given hand-pair, inspect whether has Y, Y’, I, I’. There’s nothing super consistent about whether all are present.
Fine-tuning my policies/ ruleset, to be more greedy: IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY TO SEE a Y | Y’ | I | I’ shape?
Tentative arg: Her hand-pair ss are “complete”, they represent all 4 shape permuts:
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Outdated format; see template filled in above:
Y – Right hand: Fingers all 3 segments of all 3 fingers shown/ displayed/ visible.
Y’ – Left hand: 3 fingers: Base segment shown, Mid & Tip segs not shown.
I – Right hand: Thumb. Left hand: Pinkie.
I’ – Left hand: Thumb not shown.
Conclusion: {balance scale} Woman’s Hand-Shape Pair is “YI-Complete”; Contains All 4 Shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’
Dancing Man Is “YI-Complete”; Contains All 4 Shapes!
[10:43 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026]
Dancing Man [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I] (no explicit I’ shown)
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y
Left hand (on Right): none
Right hand (on Left): Middle (3) + Ring (3) + Pinkie (3)
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2) + Middle (2) + Index (2)
Right hand (on Left): none
I
Left hand (on Right): none
Right hand (on Left): Index (3)
I’
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Dancing Man is YI-Complete; hand-shape pair includes all 4 shapes: Y, Y’, I, I’
Found during analyzing I on R hand: [11:37 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026] Principle: It doesn’t matter that the bent Index finger looks unnatural. All that matters is the count of displayed segments.
Old format, not using template:
Y?
Y’?
I?
I’?
Y – Right hand, 3 fingers, all 3 segments shown.
Y’ – Left hand, 3 fingers or 4 fingers, only 2 of 3 segments shown.
I – Right hand, Index finger: all 3 segments shown.
I’ – Left hand: Thumb not shown. Right hand: Thumb not shown.
Per this very latest method of analysis, which counts “thumb not shown at all” as I’, I’ is going to flip from “rare & nonstandard” to “common & standard”!
Proposed Stingy Rules re: How Many Thumb Segments Are EXPLICITLY Shown
I hate treating 0 Thumb seg shown, as if same as 1 Thumb seg shown. 1 seg is a strong, definite statement. 0 seg is not a clear, strong statement. Showing 1 seg is stronger, unambig message than 0 seg.
0 Thumb seg shown is ambig whether means I’.
1 Thumb seg shown is unambig; certainly means I’.
Implicit Showing of 0, forming I’, Is Not Consistent w/ Fingers Accounting to form Y’.
If Thumb (2), I.
If Thumb (1), I’.
If Thumb (0), no I’ or I.
because w/ fingers, it’s about EITHER:
(3) = count as “not cut”
(2) = count as “cut”
(1) = count as “cut”
(0) = don’t count as “cut”, don’t count as “not cut”.
notation: paren = # of seg shown.
implies for thumb:
(2) = count as “not cut”
(1) = count as “cut”
(0) = don’t count as “cut”, don’t count as “not cut”.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Had to swap sides in template – update: made sep template for “crossed hands”.
Y
Left hand (on Left): no
Right hand (on Right): no
Y’
Left hand (on Left): Index (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (1)
Right hand (on Right): Index (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (1) + Pinkie (2)
I
Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
Right hand (on Right): no
I’
Left hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’
Old format, not template:
Y – Not present.
Y’ – Left hand, 3 fingers. Right hand: 3 or 4 fingers.
I – Left hand, Pinkie: 3 segments shown.
I’ – Left hand: Thumb. Right hand: Thumb.
He’s biased against Y. He feels too deviant for setting the main normal rules. All 3 guys seem odd.
f21 Left Guy [Y’, I’], or stingy: [Y’]
Is red phall showing a Y? no
Is red phall showing a Y’? implicitly yes.
Is red phall showing an I? kind of.
Is red phall showing an I’? hardly.
The only way I can read red phall is as a Y’ shape. by stretch, MAYBE read as I shape.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y – none
Y’ – via L or R hand.
I – none
I’ – Thumb not shown, via L or R hand.
Could designate as:
Y’
Y’I’ – I’m more comfy w/ this for the Middle guy, uses Left hand to shape Y’ and I’.
10:54 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 – what’s in common between [L & M guy] & R guy? Ans: none signal Y shape.
Left Two Guys Together Include Shapes: Y’, I’; Right Guy Includes Shapes: I (pinkie), Y’ (3 fingers), I’ (thumb)
L guys: Y’I’
R guy: IY’I’; he adds I on RIGHT of image. Lacks Y (it’s holy to lack Y, but not human/ not pragmatic).
Break Bowman [Y, Y’, I, I’] (explicit I’)
Y
Left hand (on Left): Middle (3) + Index (3)
Right hand (on Right): no
Y’
Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (1) + Ring (1)
Right hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
I
Left hand (on Left): Index (3)
Right hand (on Right): Pinkie (3)
I’
Left hand (on Left): Thumb (1)
Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes; is YI shape-complete.
Old format/analysis:
Suppose for this analysis, L hand shows 3 segs of Middle & Index.
Y – L hand, Middle + Index.
Y’ – L hand: Pinkie + Ring. R hand: 3 fingers cut (or: 4 fingers cut).
I – R hand: Pinkie curled, 3 segments shown.
I’ – L hand: Thumb cut; 1 segment shown. R hand: Thumb not shown; 0 segments shown.
Psalter Viewer [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I]
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (1) + Ring (1) + Middle (2)
Right hand (on Left): Middle (2) + Ring (2)
I
Left hand (on Right): Index (3), Thumb (2)
Right hand (on Left): Index (3)
I’
Left hand (on Right): Middle (2)
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: No Y. Y’, I, I’.
slightly old format:
Y L hand (on Right): None. R hand (on Left): None.
Y’ L hand (on Right): 3 fingers; Pinkie (1 seg) + Ring (1 seg) + Middle (2 seg). R hand (on Left): Middle (2 seg) + Ring (2 seg).
I L hand (on Right): Index (3 seg); Thumb (3 seg). R hand (on Left): Index (3 seg); Pinkie (3 seg).
I’ L hand (on Right): Middle (2 seg). R hand (on Left): Thumb (0 seg).
Notation/ convention: give # of segments SHOWN, not Hidden; omit “shown”.
“seg” means “segment(s)”. New convention: omit “seg”, put # in parens.
For a finger, 0, 1, or 2 means one seg is cut.
Finger segments are named Base, Mid, Tip.
Thumb segments are named Base, Tip.
Mushroom King [Y’, I]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Y
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2)
Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (2) + Ring (2)
I
Left hand (on Right): Index (3), Thumb (2), Middle (3)
Right hand (on Left): Index (3), Thumb (2), Middle (3)
I’
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
Conclusion: Asserts no falsehoods; doesn’t assert Y & doesn’t assert I’. Asserts Y’ & I.
Swordsman [Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y’, I]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 23, 2026
Y
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): no
Y’
Left hand (on Right): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
Right hand (on Left): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
I
Left hand (on Right): Thumb (2), Pinkie (3)
Right hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
I’
Left hand (on Right): no
Right hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Lacks Y, has Y’, I, I’
Guy Above Asp-Dog: [Y, Y’, I, I’], or stingy: [Y, Y’, I]
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Y
Left hand (on Left): no
Right hand (on Right): Middle (3) + Ring (3) + Pinkie (3)
Y’
Left hand (on Left): Index (2) + Middle (2) + Ring (2)
Right hand (on Right): no
I
Left hand (on Left): Pinkie (3)
Right hand (on Right): Index (3)
I’
Left hand (on Left): Thumb (0)
Right hand (on Right): Thumb (0)
Conclusion: Has all 4 shapes.
Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com Is the First Late-Modern-Era Mushroom-Tree Artist!
As an authentic mushroom-tree artist myself, I can tell you with the greatest authority:
Ronald Huggins Is a Phony Scholar for Sale, Who Would INSTANTLY Sing the Opposite Tune, if Anything-but-Drugs Academia Told Him To
Huggins Is Nothing But a Male-Prostitute Fake Scholar, Hired to Artificially Appear to “Reach” the Pre-Set Conclusion (ie. Dogmatic Commitment Agenda), Same as Mosurinjohn, Ascough, & Greer
Otto: Pantokrator: Hold Wrist [Y, Y’, I’] (explicit I’)
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Y
Upper Left hand: no
Lower Left hand: Pinkie (3) + Ring (3) + Middle (3) + Index (3)
Y’
Upper Left hand: Pinkie (2) + Ring (2) + Middle (2) + Index (2)
Lower Left hand: no
I
Upper Left hand: no
Lower Left hand: no
I’
Upper Left hand: Thumb (1)
Lower Left hand: Thumb (0)
Conclusion for the pair of hands: No I. Has Y, Y’, I’.
Rule?? If 1 or 2 hands (whatever is shown for the figure or combined figure) shows I’, does not also show I?? Are there any instances of I’ that also show I? of course, now; shape-complete has all 4 shapes. We know {balance scale} woman is supposed to have a thumb, but no thumb seg is shown: Is it reasonable to say that’s I’? It’s merely a weak, IMPLICIT I’, vs. very different, EXPLICIT I’.
Do Template Analysis of Ref Hand Pairs Both Ways: Require Explicit I’, or count Implicit I’?
rn i am not feeling real great about implicit counting no-thumb as “displaying an I’ shape”. but, what about the “hand behind cloth” problem, how to “inventory” fingers of hidden hand?
not explicitly displaying Y
not explicitly displaying Y’
not explicitly displaying I
not explicitly displaying I’
todo: complete the heading above each hand-pair Ref image, then inspect TOC.
idea: 12:28 a.m. Feb. 26, 2026: analyze two hands together
I didn’t intend to upload the mobile editor view:
Crop & annotations by Michael Hoffman
I avoid the I’ shape; it is used for special occasions only, as in, one guy holds other guy’s wrist.
The I’ shape has a fitting place in the hand-shape language, though the I’ shape is not part of the standard Reference hand-shape pair.
txt msg 1 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
SUCCESS editing adding art annotations on mobile
😓 felt kinda scary 😨
hate learning new tool?
fear of mobile limits
but im going now; able to use the UI fine, reasonably efficient
______
brother, the big news is, im getting an acceptable strong 90% confirmation of hypothesis, in Otto psalter, the 2 well-known mushroom-tree pages, which posed particularly WEIRD finger shapes that positively scream “this is a shape-language display: you must decode to identify the referent”
A solid >90% success at assigning Y’ & Y & I shapes in each hand-shape pair,
UPDATE: 100% SUCCESS!! – the Egodeath theory ROCKS🪨🪨
especially IF u know that u r
aiming for finding Y’ & Y & I in a given hand-shape pair,
requiring a BIT of forcing the image to fit this template/goal, a reasonable fudge-factor as required per artistic license.
A deviant problem to resolve, to Save The Theory:
one guy holds other guy’s wrist:
i cannot say the wrapping hand is YI; bc has no super-long thumb – the thumb tip is occluded and it LOOKS deliberately occluded 😨 which means the rare, I’ shape.
That motif of “hold wrist” potentially disconfirms the hypothesis of
“must form a Y’ & a Y & an I”
the hand that holds the wrist has Y’ fingers, bc the tips segments are occluded, or logically SHOULD BE READ AS occluded
i feel forced– against my semi-forced, biased reading – to designate the wrist-wrapping hand as – reluctantly – Y’I’
i dont like designating a hand-shape as I’
use that designation very sparingly & cautiously, so as to convey some extra-important meaning (by virtue of countering the usual pattern).
The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; it IS the case).
We have a precedent that is 100% reliable, on the solidest of ground:
f134 break bowman shows rare cut thumb = I’ (definitely intentional) because definitely the artist is saying:
“the threat of snake-monster eternalism retreats”
so it is POSSIBLE the Otto artist really is asserting (falsely) “I / non-branching Eternalism is not the case”
maybe that’s ok / deliberate, bc this is an unusual, special, exceptional “hold other guy’s wrist” motif
GREAT NEWS! –
Aside from slight problems that dont quite fit my hypothesis/ expectations,
on the whole, i am successfully getting >90% confirmation of my hypothesis,
that:
the objective of the medieval YI hand-shapes game is
to form and assert, in each hand-shape pair, or sometimes via a single hand,
a Y’ and a Y and an I,
as the normal case.
ie:
What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes (the ordinary-state two first, then the altered-state two)
I have not been using this order, but it seems better: group together the state-specific models.
An unenlightened, asleep person is expected to assert & experience Y & I’. An awakened, intense mystic altered state enlightened person is expected to assert & experience, relatively, Y’ & I.
Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.
I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.
Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.
I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.
Not convinced that there is any “always seek X pattern”, 3 of 4 or 4 of 4 models”. Fall back instead to, find the 4 shapes if possible.
Explicit Y shape
Explicit I’ shape
Explicit Y’ shape
Explicit I shape
What’s Asserted by the Four Shapes
Y – The Y shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is the case, phenomenologically/ subjectively/ experientially.
Y’ – The Y’ shape asserts that ordinary-state, branching Possibilism is not the case, metaphysically.
I – The I shape asserts that altered-state, non-branching Eternalism is metaphysically the case, revealed experientially.
I’ – The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; metaphysically, I’ is not the case is it IS the case). Phen’ly, in ordinary-state, I’ is the case.
Y Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)
Y’ Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)
I Is the Case, Metaphy’ly (especially in altered-state)
I’ Is the Case, Phen’ly (especially in ordinary-state)
In the ordinary state (tight cognition):
Y is the case, phen’ly (but not metaphy’ly)
I’ is the case, phen’ly (but not metaphy’ly)
In the altered state (loose cognition):
Y’ is revealed to be the case, metaphy’ly and phen’ly.
I is revealed to be the case, metaphy’ly and phen’ly.
____
Rarely asserted; not present in the Reference Standard hand-shape pair:
The I’ shape asserts that non-branching Eternalism (revealed in altered-state) is NOT the case (which is false; it IS the case).
I’ shape – Hypoth: means retreat of the threat of {shadow dragon monster}; of the threatening aspect of altered-state revealed eternalism.
Precedent/ justification:
GCP f134 row 2:
break bowman 100% certainly, explicitly means that.
_____
i already thanked u guys officially publicly at my site in a dedicated page
__________
im about to announce at our church forum that our city’s Garden (ie community) has a May 18 OFFICIAL city’s church’s HOLYDAY
per AM at our church House after last Sunday service
we shall journey tripbalz w Welches brand grape juice in 1oz plastic communion cup & bread baked in RL lab.
like Merkabah mystics, the wife might be impure (a pretext excuse) so the descenders to God’s chariot throne in the 7th innermost palace are required to bake their own special pure bread
of course MAGICAL pure bread, bc religious
non-special, non-magical bread has no place in the altered-state myth-realm, it’s a given
we use *mythic* Amanita, the uber-psychedlic
vs. mere mundane-realm Amanita, which is 3rd-rate
not journey on each May 18, but we stipulate:
journey on the convenient Fri/Sat that’s near May 18, tbd each year.
🎉🚀🤯🧘♂️
Crop by Michael Hoffman
I I Y’ – f134 Great Canterbury Psalter row 2 middle: swordsman sheathing or unsheathing seord to cause loss of control to hapless Psalter Viewer helplessly dependent on God pressing on the {balance scale} pivot to lower his L or R finger
Like f177 row 1 panel 2: {balance on right foot held up by God holding right hand}
When God presses the pivot of woman’s {balance scale} to make psalter viewer’s L finger (& foot) closer to the ground, loss of control is threatened; the sword is unsheathed; bow is aimed 6″ from his head as shown–
6:29 p.m. Feb. 25, 2026 — the two bowman are same guy?! in two states!! sort of but YES!! 🥇🏆 in effect —
ANNOUNCEMENT: The Two Bowman Are a Single Unit, Either/ Alternately Threatening or Relenting!!
When God presses the pivot of woman’s {balance scale} to make psalter viewer’s R finger (& foot) closer to the ground, loss of control is averted. Sword is sheathed, bow is broken.
uploading an expensive bloated trophy screenshot of the hi res library on mobile i just confirmed two diff bowman YET they are IN OPPOSITE STATES !!
I am stupid for not Explicitly grasping …
I cannot believe i never thought or wrote this point!
I ALWAYS since Nov 17 2020 separated these two bowmen but they are strictly opposite, complementary states
in my favor, i certainly, always pointed out that the swordsman can be read as [say “alternately”] sheathing or unsheathing; threatening or relenting.l —
new for 2026:
… *depending* [helplessly dependent] on the whim of God pressing on the {balance scale} pivot.
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control —
2-level, dependent control, like depicted in f177 {balance on right foot held up by God holding right hand}
vs. ordinary-state, monolithic, autonomous control
check my Brown spinoff article nov 2020 re f134 image, do i ever say “paired bowmen opposite states?! Doubt, bc FEELS like a new idea / grasp/ comprehension.
WHAT AN AWESOME IMAGE — like i exclaimed when i drew box around Psalter Viewer’s two finger heights.
Finger Height = Loss of Control, with Egodeath Theory Picture Vortex
I CAN HANDLE IT, the sometimes including of cut [update: always LEFT!] thumb, meaning I’, meaning false denial- aha but NOTE the scroll is Closed, this helps excuse the I’ which is the countervailing case that “proves the rule”
it is going well rn assessing Otto: Entry into Jerusalem
holding my life-work theory over Popper’s trashcan of “disconfirmation”, betting the farm — and winning!, – so far …😨…
i hardly had to lie, fudge, & misrep, to force, in Procrustes-fashion, the Data to “conform, dammit!” to the Theory
🤥🗜️👖🔥🤞
txt msg 3 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
SUCCESS
i resolved the I’ problem:
it’s always the L hand, in several instances of Cut Thumb,
which fits the Pattern: L hand = unenlightened; closed scroll
txt msg 4 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
cut thumb *or , the lowered L hand’s cut Index finger in the von Trimberg image
Index is often used same as thumb (to present an I shape), often splayed apart from the 3, “branching” fingers
snatched my Theory from the flames of Dread Disconfirmation
😓😓
txt msg 5 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
couldnt Undo – hung-like – to get rid black dot but anyways
SUCCESS!!
i managed to FORCE the data to submit into my Procrustean Theory!
otto: Entry into Jerusalem
txt msg 6 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
oops poor ignored mushroom-tree
gotta put a std YI on it
txt msg 7 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
image todo: f134 row 2 Great Canterbury Psalter break bowman
YEAHBABY – LEFT hand!!
in 4 of 4 instances
has I’; cut thumb
txt msg 8 to RL p.m. Feb. 25, 2026
todays big revelation mind blowing – studied since Nov 2020 this image f134 Great Canterbury Psalter breakbowman
the two bowmen are a functional-pair of opposite states! !!
threatening or relenting
same as the swordsman that i always recognized as either sheathing or alternately unsheathing sword
= the sword of God that’s parallel on row 1
SPECIAL THANKS TO RL
RL wrote today txt msg to a church group:
“… Did you know I’m actually a god?
“Turns out I’m one of the chosen Plieadian light workers sent here on a divine mission to guide you mortal primates with my awesome gifts and abilities.
“Haha just kidding 😂
Michael Hoffman replied:
u get
the plastic pink baby rattle
Indigenous Shams award 🥉
Background About Composing This Page
This page initially was a mobile post.
Now, afterwards, I’m only doing light cleanup of this page, to preserve this historical record of the discovery process.
Titles of This Page
Otto Psalter: Hand-Shape Game: Spot Y, Y’, I, & I’ Shapes; the “Spot the YI Hand-Shapes Game
drastic plan for short title:
Otto Psalter: The “Spot the YI Hand-Shapes” Game
‘Spot’ is more game-like than ‘see’.
‘See’ is odd wording.
‘Spot’ connects to puerile “Spot the Mushroom” game.
The Egodeath theory 
