Mark Hoffman can help identify the two pilzbaum art images that Panofsky attached in his first letter to Wasson.
I want to identify the two art images, to counter Wasson’s censorship and coverup of pilzbaum in Christian history.
I want to interpret the art images to identify {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Intro
I “reached out” to “consult” the “competent” mycologists.
More intensely than Ronald Huggins can fathom, we pilzbaum Affirmers totally disrespect the meaningless disavowals by PATHETICALLY compromised, establishment-OWNED art “authorities”.
The “competent” art authorities are pathetic.
Letcher in book Shroom (2005-2007) at end of his awful mis-handling of the Bernward Door (ignoring the 5 pilzbaum in the Bernward Column, inventoried in “ConjEden” 2001 Entheos 1):
Letcher’s Bernward argument is based solely on the premise of “secret”, which amounts to strawman fallacy; shifting the goalposts, or the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
Remove Letcher’s arbitrary ‘secret’ component (not that he invented it), and his argument crashes down.
Andy Letcher in Shroom p. 35 misrepresents Stamets’ p. 15 picture, even though Letcher got Stamets’ permission to use the photo!
Letcher: “Can I use your picture of Bernward door pilzbaum “blame” panel, p. 15?” Stamets: “Ok.” Letcher: “Stamets’ book claims that his Bernward Door picture shows a hidden, secret pilzbaum.”
Shroom p. 35: “Bernward door claimed to be secret” – endnote 31.
p. 305: endnote 31: Gartz and Stamets, neither page number is given. (It’s p. 15 of Stamets.) I don’t have Gartz’ book to check whether Gartz says “secret/ hidden”.
Shroom p. 306: A totally worthless endnote citation of a Medieval England historian, “pers. comm.”, with the brilliant high-IQ interpretation, expert genius revelation that no one else could have thought of:
“The pilzbaum on Bernward Door means a fig-tree.”
This is what you get by consulting the competent history authorities: a coerced pre-fabricated position statement that’s worthless and predictable and pointless except to con the uncritical reader.
Most “citations” in Letcher don’t even give a page number. Such endnotes are a fake illusion of scholarly apparatus.
Stamets PMotW book has no trace of “secret” or “hidden”, but Letcher FALSELY CITES STAMETS AS FRAMING THE BERNWARD DOOR PILZBAUM AS “SECRET AND HIDDEN”.
It’s a lie-by-citation, committed by Letcher. Strawman accomplished.
Letcher lies and falsely says Stamets says the Bernward door shows a hidden secret mushroom tree, and then argue that that pilzbaum is not secret — to gain a worthless “victory” against the strawman.
Letcher loses by winning his false depiction of the opponent’s position.
Letcher plays the fool by “reaching out” to “consult” the “competent” historian of Medieval England, who is pre-guaranteed to disavow pilzbaum else lose “competent” status by the corrupt institution. End note: “pers. comm.” – totally worthless citation.
The compromised, paid shill asserts whatever they are paid to assert.
“Competent historian for hire. History fabricated on-demand. Record-setting speedy disavowal of pilzbaum.”
A scholar’s COERCED POSITION STATEMENT is worthless.
Historians and art historians are not allowed to affirm pilzbaum – so it is pointless to “consult” them on this point, of whether pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms.
Better than “Do pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms?” is:
Whether pilzbaum mean the peak transformation experience that’s produced by intentional ingesting of psychoactive mushrooms to have a peak religious experience of mental worldmodel transformation; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Email to Hoffman, Ruck, & Brown, Dec. 31, 2024
email 1: Does Wasson Archive Drawer Contain These Two pilzbaum Art Images?
My email to Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, and Jerry Brown, 8 pm December 31, 2024
Hi Mark,
Happy New Year’s Eve
Where are the two art pieces, photostats, that Panofsky attached in the 1952 first letter to Wasson?
It’s an important question opened up in 2019 by Brown’s article’s publishing of Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson.
Brown didn’t mention trying to look for these.
In the Wasson Archive, does Drawer W3.2 Folder 20 include two pilzbaum photostats?
* Art photostat 1: A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom.
Panofsky’s wording:
“a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape”
* Art photostat 2: A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap.
Panofsky’s wording:
“a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”
most interesting observation: In the same paragraph where Wasson insults mycologists for failing to “consult” (phone-up in person) the art authorities, just six lines above that, at the very same time, in the same breath, Wasson quietly replaces the Brinckmann citation by elipses, in order to PREVENT mycologists from properly in academic real fashion, consulting PUBLISHED … [see completed sent. below]
“censored” – most interesting observation: in book Soma, top of page, Wasson shows one of the two Panofsky letters, including … ellipses where Panofsky strongly recommended Brinckmann’s 1906 “little” 86-page book on Tree Stylizations in Medieval Art, in German, which constitutes the entire body of publications by art historians about their pilzbaum, as of 1952 (or 2006, or 2024).
Details, Reference, & other topics:
______________________________
Huggins’ odd out-of-the-blue citation of two Panofsky letters gives (slightly garbled) drawer numbers; compare how Brown cites the letters:
I added “drawer” to the “Panofsky’s letters revealed” page:
* Existence of 2nd Panofsky letter. Ronald Huggins strangely (dishonestly?) pretends we’ve all had this letter since 1952 – actually we’ve had it only since Brown 2019.
Pressured by Sunil Aggarwal, I’m reading The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku – the book has plenty of good passages, despite critique by Cyberdisciple (Classics expert, expert in the Egodeath theory ie psychedelic eternalism): Cyberdisciple is cited by Brown at Hancock site article: https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/
If I had reviewed the galleys of TIK in mid-2020, as requested by Sunil and Mururesku, I might not have discovered the Great Canterbury Psalter in mid-November 2020.
An image I was blind to for a couple years (a positive mental attitude is a requirement, to prevent blindness): Cubensis dispensary, Canterbury, England, 1200:
I still wish to produce my 2nd-take read-aloud of your article in Pharmacology, a more professional voiceover reading.
– the good M. Hoffman the theorist of psychedelic eternalism, and the mytheme theory interpreting myth as analogy describing psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
email 2: The Deceptive Ellipses Move by Wasson to Prevent Consulting Art Historians
I accidentally hit shortcut key for Send; have to finish summary of the bunk, deceptive ellipses move by Wasson.
Summary list of 5 censored things by Soma passage:
1. citation of Brinc. in 1st Pan letter.
2. Art photostat 1.
3. Art photostat 2.
4. existence of 2nd Pan. letter.
5. citation of Brinc. in 2nd Pan letter. (strong urging to consult, handwritten/added)
_______________________________________
Panofsky’s Branches argument against pilzbaum purposefully meaning mushrooms
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 Foraging Wrong article plays out Panofsky 2’s branches argument, which is the most important IMO point in 2nd Pan. letter: pilzbaum have branches so can’t be mushrooms – never mind that the branches – i point out – exactly match cubensis in ball/stem form.
I have not told Huggins this demolishing of his Letcher/ Hatsis/ Huggins type bad arg’n.
Picture: these mushroom-shaped “branches” prove that this pilzbaum looks nothing like mushrooms (argues Huggins):
Line 3 shows the evil ellipses I should have pinpointed in my 2006 Wasson article b/c I knew no way Pan. could claim “oh sure we art historians are familiar” —
Me in 2006: “WONDERFUL! Citation needed; I urgently WANT to read all your publications about pilzbaum – cough them up, Wasson / Panofsky.”
I’m beating head against wall b/c I came SO close to realizing in 2006, before 2019 Brown article, that right at the exact spot where I expected a citation to back up Panofsky’s claim of familiarity w/ pilzbaum, was exactly the spot where ellipses instead. At least I accused Wasson of censoring the citation in 2006; find “cit/citation” in my 2006 Wasson article.
most interesting observation: In the same paragraph where Wasson insults mycologists for failing to “consult” (phone-up in person) the art authorities, just six lines above that, at the very same time, in the same breath, Wasson quietly replaces the Brinckmann citation by elipses, in order to PREVENT mycologists from properly in academic real fashion, consulting PUBLISHED academic works.
Wasson corrupts the meaning of “consult” to reduce it from “read Brinc. book” to “phone-up a compromised authority w/ stopwatch in hand to measure the great celerity/quickness they bark forth the denial and disavowal of pilzbaum as purposeful mushroom imagery.
Do you think we can break the world record for how quickly a “competent” art authority disavows pilzbaum?
Mark: Phones art authority: “Are pilzbaum…”
“Competent” art authority: “I DISAVOW PILZBAUM!!”
⏱ 🏎🐇💨💨
Entheogen scholar sets new world record for celerity of art authority disavowing pilzbaum.
— M. Hoffman
email 3: The Branching of pilzbaum Confirms They Purposefully Mean Mushrooms (for Peak Religious Experiencing)
The branches of pilzbaum do not support pilzbaum Deniers; the branches of pilzbaum support pilzbaum Affirmers.
Kind of like Wasson censored Brinc. b/c Wasson recognized that the Brinckmann book, & the two attached pilzbaum art pieces, actually supports pilzbaum Affirmers, not pilzbaum Deniers eg Panofsky.
The fact that pilzbaum have branches is absolute direct proof that pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms, in fact mean PEAK religious experiencing.
Letcher specifies my name in a comment at his site where he claims we can’t show pilzbaum:
1. mean mushrooms;
2. mean psychoactive mushrooms;
3. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms;
4. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms to have religious experiencing.
I did all that by decoding pilzbaum genre, and topped Letcher’s personal challenge:
5. mean ingesting psychoactive mushrooms to have PEAK religious experiencing.
We know pilzbaum shows peak experience, b/c urges us to use non-branching and reject branching, to retain stable control and avoid death by {flames} and {blades} and {get through the gates} to get the {prize} (maturity; {imperishability}; {immortality}; our Final Form, our permanent mature lasting state/configuration).
vs. temporary, perishable, childish, immature mental worldmodel that collapses when ASC light shines in the personal control system.
This interp & recog’n of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs is “the immortality key”.
The pilzbaum genre recommends rejecting the branching model with autonomous control, and affirming the non-branching model with 2-level, dependent control.
I think I left out only that one point, but it’s important: my Egodeath theory as I posted around 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group: re the two competing Physics views:
non-branching block universe (Minkowski/Einstein) [revealed/experienced in ASC] vs. possibility-branching manyworlds (typical of quantum physics) [experienced in OSC]
I advocate mental worldmodel transformation from a branching possibility model per quantum physics manyworlds (ego empowerment), to a mental worldmodel that’s non-branching.
In the pilzbaum genre I recognized this same contrast between these two mental worldmodels.
The payload message of the pilzbaum genre artists is not mushrooms – the message is, to avoid loss of control / control instability while on mushrooms, reject branching; affirm non-branching, pictured as:
Don’t put weight on left foot; put weight on right foot. (eg. Eve in Plaincourault fresco.)
I first hypothesized that when I was looking at Hatsis’ presentation of the salamander bestiary image aka Dancing Man, Christmas 2015.
That hypothesis was 5 years later confirmed way more than I could have imagined possible, by Eadwine in Great Canterbury Psalter and then by pilzbaum genre overall as shown in set of pictures in draft article:
I love my Feb 7 2021 episode that my mobile player defaulted to and kept wanting to play, where near the start, I read — Plastic Cloud episode/ album — Rolfe & Rolfe 1925 book passage “A Curious Myth”.
Nov. 2020 was article compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art, which spawned Great Canterbury Psalter discoveries starting with leg-hanging mushroom tree.
I had 1-2 screenshots of Great Canterbury Psalter back in my Brown-cited 2006 gallery supporting my Wasson article.
The other day I found the audio project for that Feb 7 2021 Plastic Cloud / A Curious Myth episode, and I found the mp3 file (not just imprisoned on mobile device), so I can repro it – the initial version of mp3 flawed at end, had repeat passage; 2nd version replaced it, shorter w/ dup removed.
Motivation for this page
Need a place I can find and record this history.
Recently I researched history of Egodeath Mystery Show to find when I abandoned the “Live Broadcast” format and switched to the FAR more relaxed and unstressful “Post-Assembled Impromptu recordings” format. But now I lost track of where I wrote that date, probably Idea development page 21 or 22.
I keep re-researching dates and episodes – this page locks that down as the official spot to record history.
I’m often searching for episodes of Egodeath Mystery Show, very confusing: some are in idea development pages, later are dedicated pages, and the early history is choppy as the show name or concept of show faded-in around late Jan 2024.
Another huge change, noted in my recent review, was: that Feb 7 2021 episode was “live broadcast” format: a very exciting and fake format, requiring lots of preplanning and practice and discarding flubbed first 4-5 attempts. Too exciting, too Live.
Will I Do another Live Broadcast Episode?
Requires planning, timing, practice, throwing away 4-5 first takes. I never do or much need Vocalization Warmup segment anymore, so THAT structure is unneeded… I don’t even remember the sequence of Segments.
Segments for Live Broadcast format
omg at start of episode I listed what I’d be talking about. High prep/ high pressure.
Idea development page 13 ranges from Ep 73 to Ep 188 – a lot! 189-73= 116 episodes listed in a single Idea development page?! 264 episodes (+ some pre-episodes); 116/264 = 44% of the 264 episodes are in a single Idea development page. Many of these – higher numbers – also have dedicated webpage. Confirmed page 13 is the longest, 183 sheets.
Find “gold clip” at this site. For a period, I was marking Gold Clips and planning to assemble them into a Gold Clips episode.
Some episodes are cursed, some are charmed / blessed, like Lion’s Paw recently: after a few episodes that were hard to record, hard to produce, and flawed result eg I was getting muted, then I recorded a single recording 4 hours long, single pass, effortless, easy to produce, good sounding, piece of cake, content good.
“Post-Assembled Impromptu” format episodes
It looks like the transition was after Ep 70.5 – after that I did a lot of episodes that were special, like hours of reading aloud eg. I more “forgot” about the “Live Broadcast” format, due to its sheer unwieldiness, rather than consciously deciding “I’m officially negatively assessing that format and not going to use it anymore.”
hearkens back to the first few 1-off short topical recordings uploaded raw w/o any Show / Episode framing.
“Live Broadcast” format episodes
Ep __ through Ep __
oh yeah, THIS question is what drove my recent research about history of Egodeath Mystery Show — “WHEN DID I ABANDON THE LIVE BROADCAST FORMAT?” ANS: __ apparently final one with “intro” segment is 70.5: Egodeath Mystery Show episode 70 1/2 – Wisdom Folly – recorded April 1, 2021, uploaded June 11, 2022.
What the concept was for Warmup Show: I needed and wanted the vocal practice, but separated and removed from real episodes. These days, 2024, I’d just record a recording but be sure NOT to mix real content with throwaway vocal practice. Stop recording, to switch modes.
todo: Recount history circumstances of when I thought of a show (“the egodeath show”) as opposed to uploading 1-off recordings. The moment I started recording episodes of “the Egodeath Show”, I thought of recasting as “the Egodeath Mystery Show”.
final; most recent episode of “the Egodeath Show”:
On my mobile device: Music app: Playlists > Egodeath > swipe down to show Search box > “old secret”. song name: “Old Secret Entheogen Paradigm”.
The content is solid, but I can hear my lisping error, that flared up in early Feb 2021 (to my confusion & shock). “center of the field” sometimes “shenter of the field”. Overuse of “sh” instead of ‘s’ is an extremely common tic/ “virus”/ accent, eg: “Ishrael” instead of “Israel”; “shtrength” instead of “strength” – was my lisp related to that bad, popular accent? “Shiimultaneously,”
Yet my voice tone is quite good in “Old Secret” episode – there’s much good. But, the good aspects made me drop my guard at many points, and it took all of 2021 to train and debug my voice.
The fact that I can plainly hear my often lisp/slur (on half of s’s; the other 50% are fine), is a huge good sign that I don’t produce it anymore. I had to learn to hear mis-vocalizations, during 2021.
Mostly-nervous throat clearing. A lot; repeated. Backing away from mic would help. Not 4″! too close; hard to work with; requires excess cleanup.
At 3:45, I list the fallacies.
Too-close miking, is difficult to work with, and amplifies mouth noises.
Miking: Used Right mic of TASCAM DR-05 stereo field recorder. A couple months later, I hypoth’d that my lisping was partly caused by compensating for this ultra-bright mic.
Not much of a header; gave miking info, planned content = “11 entheogen diminishment fallacies.”
After my 2007 recordings, 1987-era recordings, and 2016 recordings, I concluded that I am experienced and can let down my guard. Then in 2021 Feb, I discovered:
often awful vocalization, not reliable (or lozenge – worst mistake ever; most horrible/unlistenable recording I ever released)
often awful miking/tech, not reliable.
often awful content, not reliable, eg typing.
That’s why my Feb 2021 recordings near start of Egodeath Mystery Show are heavily filled with vocalization refinement work, & miking R&D.
… because I wanted to be able to guest on Max Freakout’s Transcendent Knowledge podcast. For that goal:
I now am solid/reliable at vocalization unless my voice is shot in evening; — UK is my morning, so probably good there.
My content is solid / reliable.
My miking for that… is semi-routine in some ways but have to pull together for specialty hookup.
It’s hard to plan outline of types, b/c so much is unclear at the start, how it grew from: impromptu rant about my followers overclmpicating the Egodeath theory too-exciting live format low-key early episodes, “charmed”
Charmed Episodes or Recordings
A recent “charmed” epi: hit record, talk for 4.5 hours, minimal production, ship it. result: excellent: content; vocalization; & tech use. not to forget transcribe to dedicated page
when was first dedicated webpage for an episode.
todo: add new episodes to idea development pages nearby date [of recording, or producing?] where would announced. eg pages 19-22.
voice recordings 1-16: shifts back & forth from no header to with header, and, header can be near unnoticeable, like “Gonna talk about x, which … ” – hardly a header.
Hypothesis: The set of segmaent live broadcast started as parts of a short header.
This is the basic Reference page to represent the 5D-ASC.
Due to limited info avail’y, this page might end up a dup of my OAV 1994 page + empty sections about Aud + ReducVigil.
My starting point is that I have OAV items from Figure S1 of Studerus’ 11-Factors article – but it would be good to omit any trace of 11-Factors here ie omit the Factors categories – later.
todo: Link/citation for “5D-ASC1.pdf”. Copy from other page at my site.
“5D-ASC1.pdf” translated from German to English has 94 items (14 pages), — that’s good — but, no indication of the 5 dimensions, and d/k if the numbering is Dittrich’s. eg that pdf has: 78. I had the feeling that I no longer had my own will. vs. Studerus “pone.0012412.s002.pdf”: 53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own. example 2: 79. I was afraid of losing control over myself. vs. Studerus “pone.0012412.s002.pdf”: 54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.
Studerus 2010 article defining 11-Factor replacement of OAV: Psychometric Evaluation of the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/ Downloaded article: “pone.0012412.pdf”
Now that I wish to have a simple basic page for each distinct q’air, this is making it clear that for the 5D-ASC I might only have bits and pieces: OAV from 11-Factors article supplemental diagrams, no info in English about G-ASC [it might be nothing other than O+A+V], and I need to use the German article if I have access to it.
Apparently I copied the following citation from Studerus’ Bibliography:
Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2006) 5D-ABZ: German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Try copying from the original in-browser version, instead of Adobe Acrobat. Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewo¨hnlicher Bewusstseinszusta¨nde. Eine kurze Einfu¨hrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
Dittrich 2006 5D-ASC (German) Adding 2 Positive Dimensions [cynically] to reduce the number of Negative dimensions from 1/3 to 1/5.
5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (5D-ASC)
Doesn’t that article conflate Studerus’ 11-Factors with 5D-ASC?
Dittrich does not have 11 dimensions — and neither, really, does Studerus.
Depending on how you count; eg Studerus has 13 factors in effect, and 2 hi-level dimensions, and doesn’t cover 5D’s dimensions 4, 5, or 0 (General; G-ASC) if I understand correctly.
The 94 5D-ASC Questions, Translated by Felix Hasler and Rael Cahn, 5D-ASC1.pdf
todo: items below sum to 28 not 27. is 27 expected, per other page? is there a dup item below?
This breakout is per Figure S1 for Studerus = v1 (not v3 which is final).
Definition, Characterization, Themes
[the ‘O’ of OAV]
Per Klein 2012: states associated with mysticism and religion euphoric or exalted states of non-self being at one with everything time distortion or sense of timelessness
This breakout is per Figure S1 for Studerus = v1 (not v3 which is final).
Definition, Characterization, Themes
Dread or Anxiety of Ego-death (DED or AED [AIA in one report]) [the ‘A’ of OAV] [false dichotomy: negative experiencing therefore not mystic] [“ego death” is probably incorrect – check vs. “dissolution”] “cognitive disturbances negative depersonalization paranoia loss of control “thought disorder anxiety arousal loss of self-control“
DED per Studerus 2010: “negatively experienced derealization negatively experienced depersonalization cognitive disturbances catatonic symptoms paranoia loss of thought and body control”
These breakouts from from 11 Factors article’s: Figure S1:Hierarchical item clustering tree diagram based on Pearson correlations of uncategorized OAV items. That’s v1, not their final v3 breakout. Article never shows v3 final breakout of all OAV items; only shows on page 9 the final 11 factors with their 42 items, not the other of the 66 OAV items.
Page 9 v3 omits 24 OAV items: I recall 8 are Shadow, so 16 are Virtual Factor 12 which sounds right per memory.
I expect 21 items, from 11-Factors diagram: 21 total, 8 in my Shadow Factor 13; 7 and 6 in ICC & ANX. Not 9 ICC, not 8 in ANX. Double check counts & item lists in Studerus’ supplement diagrams.
The body of 11-Factors article shows every factor’s items but omits non-factor items (Virtual Factor 12 & Shadow Factor 13).
v1 breakout shows all 66 OAV items: pone.0012412.s001.pdf
v2 breakout shows all 66 OAV items: pone.0012412.s002.pdf
v3 breakout is not provided. Chart in body article only shows the ~45 items that are in the 11 factors; not the items that are in Virtual Factor 12 v.3 or in Shadow Factor 13 v.3.
Diagram in article body does NOT show all 86 items; only the 66 items that are in the 11 factors. To see v3 of the all 86 OAV items…
I lack v3; have to deduce via delta between the diagram that’s IN the article vs. the v2 Supplement pdf.
Shadow Factor 13 [4 items] [the non-factor items]
59. Time passed tormentingly slow.
36. I experienced an unbearable emptiness.
3. I felt surrendered to dark powers.
55. I stayed frozen in a very unnatural position for quite a long time.
Anxiety [11-Factors] [6 items]
19. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever.
54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.
30. I experienced everything terrifyingly distorted.
32. I experienced my surroundings as strange and weird.
63. I had the feeling something horrible would happen.
12. I felt tormented.
29. I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.
38. I felt threatened.
Impaired Control and Cognition 🏅💎🐉👑🏆 [7 items]
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on.
5. I felt like a marionette.
53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.
44. I felt isolated from everything and everyone.
33. I felt as though I were paralyzed.
41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird.
45. I was not able to complete a thought, my thought repeatedly became disconnected.
16. I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.
24. I had difficulty in distinguishing important from unimportant things.
This breakout is per Figure S1 for Studerus = v1 (not v3 which is final).
Definition, Characterization, Themes
[the ‘V’ of OAV] “hallucinations of all kinds changes in the meanings of percepts and symbols changes in meaning and perception” Subcategories: “basic illusions and hallucinations background hallucinations synaesthesia altered meaning of percepts aided memory facilitated imagination”
VRS per Studerus 2010: “visual (pseudo)-hallucinations illusions auditory-visual synesthesiae changes in the meaning of percepts.”
These are the items (about 14 of 28 of them) that are in the translated 94-item pdf, minus the differently translated 66 OAV items from Studerus article. “5D-ASC1.pdf” – “Translation from the original German by Felix Hasler and Rael Cahn”
Reduction of Vigilance (RV/ VIR) dimension [~14 items]
Definition, Characterization, Themes
“states of drowsiness reduced alertness diminished cognitive function”
little used
These are the items (about 14 of 28 of them) that are in the translated 94-item pdf, minus the differently translated 66 OAV items from Studerus article. “5D-ASC1.pdf” – “Translation from the original German by Felix Hasler and Rael Cahn”
Re-Reading Across the Literature, About the Failure of the “Amanita Mushrooms = Psilocybin Mushrooms” Hypothesis
Jan 5 2025: Mankind has ALWAYS wished that Amanita produced Psil fx – but it never has done so; at best, Amanita is a deliriant, like a more-difficult-to-use Datura or other scopolamine plant.
It’s a joke, saying that the Soma recipe is Amanita with also a little Datura and Psilocybin and this and that thrown in – why not just say “Datura”, which is more reliable and potent than Amanita?
It’s surely the Datura that’s doing the heavy lifting in such a recipe. Ruck I feel backfires, his statement is too true, in Daturas for the Virgin article, he argues when The Mushroom wasn’t available, clearly other plants can substitute, such as Datura.
Careful with the Ruck argument that “Datura can replace Amanita” – that particular swap shows that Amanita is closely like Datura, not closely like Psil; ie, you cannot usefully lump together Psil and Aman any more than you can lump together psil and datura as if a single/same class of effects.
In 2023, I re-read the books and articles in the field (eg Letcher Shroom; McKenna Food of the Gods; Wasson: Persephone’s Quest), recounting the history of theories in the field.
Actually have perfect photo other than a few items stacked (issues; editions of book):
Photo: Cybermonk, Saturday, May 27, 2023, laid out by publication year
Across the books, I read about about the failure (by 1986) of Wasson’s initial hopeful hypothesis that you can lump together Amanita and Psilocybin.
That definitely failed. Yet Irvin’s 2008 book The Holy Mushroom is a massive exercise in subsuming Psilocybin under Amanita, by rhetorical framing sleight-of-hand including some 3 points that I detailed previously, = 3-4 page numbers, eg:
“This Hofmann passage is about psilocybin mushrooms, therefore is not relevant for this book.”
“The Holy Mushroom is Amanita. Also, as a footnote, Psil.”
“Hopkins’ synthetic Psilocybin effects show that Amanita produces religious effects.”
“Here’s a gallery of pictures of The Holy Mushroom, Amanita muscaria. I’ve padded it out with the lesser, irrelevant type, Psilocybin.”
When a hypothesized explanatory construct fails (“the holy mushroom”; entheogenic mushrooms”), we need to SAY and CONCLUDE that such attempt definitely does not work, so don’t do it, moving forward; and, correct the past wrong, misguided entheogen scholarship that attempted to make use of a tentative but wrong, explanatory construct, “psychoactive mushrooms”, meaning Amanita and Psil treated AS IF their effects were comparable.
Their effects are definitely NOT closely similar; they are no more related than Datura and Psilocybin.
Some of this episode is about Wasson/Graves 1950s failed hypothesis that we can lump together Amanita and Psilocybin under an umbrella explanatory construct, “The Mushroom”, “sacred mushrooms”, “the Holy Mushroom”, “sacred fungi”, etc.
Wasson was disappointed by Amanita, and we need to OFFICIALLY pronounce this as a FAILED HYPOTHESIS.
Amanita is a symbol for Psilocybin, nothing more. Other than that, Amanita has no more in common with Psilocybin than “Datura is like Psilocybin”.
It would make more sense to theorize in terms of “deliriants eg scopalamine and muscimol”; “Datura and Amanita”, than “Amanita and Psilocybin mushrooms”.
We might as well talk of “psychoactive leaves such as Cannabis and Datura and Coca” – that’s how nonsensical and unhelpful and misleading it is to say:
Cubensis is a psychoactive mushroom, and Amanita is a psychoactive mushroom, therefore, let’s fabricate the explanatory construct “psychoactive mushrooms” then proceed to discuss how “the mushroom” is used.
Entheogen scholarship might as well talk, senselessly, of “how psychoactives are used in religion” or “how plants are used in religion” (under the delusion that the effects are closely similar).
How Mushrooms Are Used in Religion (ie Amanita & Psilocybin mushrooms)
is as wrong and garbled an approach to explanation as:
How Plants Are Used in Religion (ie Cannabis, Coca, & Datura)
The effects of Amanita are NOT closely similar to Psilocybin.
Muscimol & Psilocybin are two different classes of effects, as distant as Psilocybin vs. Scopolamine.
Imagine writing books and articles based on the notion that Psilocybin effects are closely similar to Scopolamine effects – bad entheogen scholarship would result.
Lumping together Amanita and psilocybin merely because both are mushrooms, produced far more harm than help, in entheogen scholarship.
2nd Gen entheogen scholarship must forcibly separate Amanita, ALWAYS answer the question “which mushroom type”, whenever you write “used mushrooms”.
Misguided efforts and labor of 1st Gen entheogen scholarship tried as hard as possible to fuse and conflate and equate Psil & Aman – that was definitely a failure (a firmly, RESOUNDINGLY SCIENTIFICALLY DISCONFIRMED HYPOTHESIS), and we must REVISE and correct the WRONG 1st Gen entheogen scholarship.
When a field’s theory definitely fails, we must officially announce and account for that, not continue acting like we can lump together two plants that have nothing to do w each other except that Aman is the symbol of Psil or of all psychoactives.
Download
Download for only a few days starting Dec. 28, 2024 (through Dec. 31 UTC): https://we.tl/t-MGtG23bAoQ Two .mp3 files available: File name: “Ep264 Failed Amanita Hypothesis.mp3” 1:23:06, Voice, 105 MB Aux file: File name: “Ep264G 🎸🚀💥.mp3” 4:09, Guitar, 5.6 MB
File details:
File name: “Ep264 Failed Amanita Hypothesis.mp3” Song title: “Ep264 Failed Amanita Hypothesis” Length: 1:23:06 File size: 105 MB Errata: Artist name: shown as “Illumination Valve”; supposed to say “Cybermonk”. The error happened when re-exporting to mp3, after first mp3 had muted Intro / Outro.
Decadent Esotericism: Everything Means Everything, so Nothing Means Anything
Dittrich’s 1975 APZ q’air tried to lump Cannabis in with LSD, what nonsense!
Categories and classification systems need to have a useful coherent set of slots or classes that are distinguished from each other usefully.
If we are too lenient in definitions, we end up with the failure like DECADENT ESOTERICISM where everything means everything else; anything means anything, so nothing means anything.
Atheism Produces Mysticism
This section [Dec 29 2024] is based on Psychonautica podcast ep. 2, 2007, re: a materialist atheism forum.
“tries to bring psychede into the scientific indset” – Max Freakout, around [51:00 Psychonautica 2]. “Materialist mindset has no room for consciousness or purpose.” “Science vs. psychedelics” [52:00 Psychonautica 2] – Charles Nichols can bridge the gap.
Sam Harris’ books make a false dichotomy and he doesn’t connect the dots.
Harris asserts no-free-will, and advocates psychedelics – that’s tantamount to advocating mystic state transformation; psychedelic eternalism.
The “mystic” Timothy Freke advocates the same things as the “atheist” Sam Harris: no-free-will + psychedelic spirituality.
Atheism vs. Mysticism is a false dilemma based on bad definitions, and confuses two different communication styles with two different core understandings.
I’m a technologist packaging knowledge and experience usefully.
I do not use the language and conceptual framework of “atheism” or “mysticism”.
I speak in relevant, useful terms of “mental construct processing” and “mental model transformation” about “models of control and possibility branching”.
The Egodeath theory is not “atheism”. A critique of or advocacy of “atheism” fails to engage with or relate to the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism with dependent control).
The Egodeath theory is not “reductionism”.
The Egodeath theory is not “perennialism” at least re: surface expression. the Egodeath theory is perennialism as underlying core knowledge, but rejecting perennialism as a historical expression style/ lexicon/ communication style and mode.
The Egodeath theory is not “Wasson’s theory.”
I am not a follower of Wasson, or Allegro, or Ruck. I am a follower of *ME*.
I am not a “mushroom theorist” per pilzbaum deniers; NO PILZBAUM DENIER HAS CONSIDERED, ENGAGED, OR REBUTTED the Egodeath theory.
Disparaging or rebutting “the mushroom theorists” is not engagement with the Egodeath theory and interpretation, at all.
I have communicated with James Kent, Martin Ball, Thomas Hatsis, indirectly Letcher was “replied” to “me”, yet none of them have addressed me AS me – not even Jan Irvin has engaged my theory, despite conversations in-depth about Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault, despite citing my work (piecemeal, selectively, without engaging my integrative theory).
NO PILZBAUM DENIER has engaged with the Egodeath theory, as Hatsis’ replies to me demonstrate that:
Hatsis tells me I’m not allowed to have Psilocybin-based theory, because my thinking is based in the Allegro camp, showing that Hatsis has NO IDEA what the Egodeath theory is or my intellectual trajectory.
Hatsis simply PROJECTS his view of Irvin onto me and Prof. Jerry Brown, disallowing us to define a position that’s different than Hatsis’ notion of the Allegro/Irvin position.
It’s the most active strawmanning in the world, by Hatsis, who forcefully DICTATES the position that the opponent asserts.
Hatsis is only capable of rebutting a single, fixed, strawman position that he himself defines. Completely inflexible in rebutting varied multiple positions.
A key important thing in my branching-message mushroom trees article is:
I DEFINE MY POSITION MYSELF, USEFULLY; YOU DON’T GET TO DICTATE WHAT MY POSITION IS.
The Egodeath theory is not “Allegro’s theory” or “the Allegro/Irvin theory”.
The Egodeath theory is not “Reformed Theology”.
Psychedelic eternalism with 2-level dependent control in a non-branching world is its own thing and can only be rebutted as itself.
The Egodeath theory cannot be lumped in with any previous “school”.
Strategy for Transcribing
5-minute markers
0:00
Intro “Intro 5881 VOX_TK_5881”
0:20
Content “VOX_TK_5881”
What am I up to?
Finishing an initial phase of Psilocybin research.
Medium dose 3.5-4 g. genre of branching-message mushroom trees ; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs /imagery
The pilzbaum genre lasted a long time, and given that we lost many icons and images, we can assume there was quite a bit more, 900-1300.
Golden Teacher (Cubensis) is hard to work w compared to blotter or liquid, and it can have lethargy and energy impact.
Great Canterbury Psalter depicts mayhem; a steady consistent theme is being {threatened}; enlightenment or salvation is driven by {threat} demonstration in the adult mind.
Poor Psilocybin effects, hard to work with: Lethargy, compared to “speedy” blotter
Has 7 instances of weighing out psil on scale balance [in toc in my page, counted the # of “balance”]. Has imagery of sitting up in bed. Being threatened.
Ways in which psilocybin is hard to work with.
LSA produces extreme lethargy, no psychedelic effects.
Myth comes from psilocybin, but it’s a mess, and only lasted 500 years this genre b/c psil is hard to work with, unlike blotter. have a large consistent supply required.
5:00
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:14 NIV
key word:
INTO the city.
through the gates
may go through the gates into
wash robes to go through – equiv: remove dirty youthful garment, naked exposed inner workings, put on holy clean garment
pulled/ lifted/ redeemed/ rescued out from the world / rock/ prison/ cosmos/ heimarmene cosmic boundary.
born out from, pulled out from, lifted or fished out
lifted or fished out by the savior the groom acting initiating to lift the resisting but transforming female part of the mind,
the FEMALE HELPLESS THOUGHT RECEIVER
LOCAL EGOIC CONTROL SYSTEM
There are two mental models, and their are there are two legs.
Do not hardcode the motif “L always inherently means branching”.
{weight on L foot} conventionally not inherently specifically means branching, not by objective fact directly.
immature, undeveloped, polluted, dirty, mortal, passing, perishable, temporary, larval form, not final form, those outside,
struggling timelessly to get through the gate
the TRANSFORMATION BIRTH GATE CONTROL-TRANSFORMATION TO ETERNALISM THINKING
the “eternalism” mental model
BIRTH EFFORT STRUGGLE TO TRANSFORM THROUGH THE CONTROL-TRANSFORMATION GATE to go in to the land of loosecog
the control transformation gate into loosecogland.
city = structure, stable, fortified, protected, ordered, viable, sustainable, permanent, lasting, defensible, bounded, guarded entry, mental model has conditional viability in this environment: initial mental model dies and fails and is MORTAL in this state, mortal child thinking PERISHABLE.
become IMPERISHABLE, as contrasted with PERISHABLE KING EGO STEERING IN A TREE, overpowered by the higher controller god transpersonal puppetmaster part of oneslef spouse motral married to a god, 2-level control system is revealed,
CLOTHING ROBE GARMENT 2 layered: naked – NAKED 2-LEVEL CONTROL EXPOSED, overlaid removed garment APPEARANCE, replace that by a clean holy garment white clean bleached wool cloth sheet clean = not pullution of egoic thinking , possibilism-thinking –
your possibilism-thinking has been removed — though Ken Wilber: egoic thinking is still used all the time; possibilism-thinking;
you still DEPEND on but now don’t “DEPEND ON” egoic control presupposition false foundation that dies when light switch turned on
Naked = inner workings of control branching model failure potential and transformation potential and threatening to death of control autonomy, mind discovers a way to force by threat its transofrmation.
The local control agency receives thoughts frozen in rock and is made to force mental model transformation by threatening the lower control model.
Abraham’s angel says harm not the youth, because egoic thinking is beloved and valuable and is always used constantly every day 100% of the time inherently
Autonomous steering of control in a branching world, causes loss of control in the Cubensis state (unstable control, violation of control by revealing exposing higher level of the personal control system.
2-level, dependent control in a non-branching world, avoids loss of control in the Cubensis state highly value and use lower thinking, love it, use it, while “dis-identifying from immature thinking” (Ken Wilber) –
Mark-off, perceive the boundary of a distinct lower thing, mark off the boundary of the now-perceived system, illusion-based system.
Demarcate by mythic figure that, mark off that thing, lower thinking, egoic local control agency that’s fit for a branching possibilities world containing autonomous control agents, steersmen who won’t acknowledge king Dionysus, threatened with spreading vines, transformed, into dolphins swimming in the sea.
The Wrath of Dionysus
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/DionysosWrath.html TYRRHENIAN PIRATES “Pirates from the Italian region of Tyrrenhia who captured Dionysos as he travelled amongst the islands of the Greek Aegean. They planned to violate the pretty boy and then sell him into slavery, despite the warnings of their helmsman who recognised him for a god. In anger Dionysos filled their ship with spreading vines and phantom beasts, and when the pirates leapt into the seatransformed them into dolphins.”
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control – in BRANCHING world steering
The Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control, the possibilism world model, is virtual-only; mind is made to see egoic con the egoic control system is virtual-omlhy, an unclean impure OUTER GARMENT OF APPEARANCE seeming.
We carry a load, we do work and suffer, in the form of virtual egoic agents.
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”
10:00
Psilocybin mushrooms are hard to work with. Even though much more ergnomic than Amanita. Compared to blotter, which is ergonomic except for blotter’s excessively long duration.
Psilocybin (eg ground Cubensis capsules) has the potential to be more ergonomic than blotter, by leveraging the quick ramp up, ramp down, & short duration, giving more quick control of level, by re-dosing.
eg at t = 3 hours, or at the peak (when Dose 1 reaches peak), redose; as Dose 1 decreases, Dose 2 increases, summing to flat cruise altitude for an extended time.
15:00
Hopkins Big Pharma therapy industry approach: locked down under blanket, eyeshades, guards, headphones.
Why did pilzbaum genre only last 900-1300 AD? Hard to work with.
Psilocybin mushrooms are doubly difficult to work with:
Entering into the loose cog state at the right level for right duration is difficult. Mechanics of dosage. Must get rest the day before, use early in day, not when drained of energy.
Dealing with control-loss in the loose cog state is difficult.
20:00
Ongoing inheritance of religious myth and imagery of branching-message mushroom trees – how did we lose grip on psychedelic eternalism? Hard to work with Psil compared to blotter.
Don’t jam together p 152 THM Irvin – BAD WRITING, rhetorical sleight-of-hand, Irvin robs Psil (synthetic, Hopkins) effects and LIES attributing Psil fx to Amanita.
25:00
A bunk move by Irvin — abuse of psilocybin mushrooms by entheogen scholarship in order to prop up their false King Amanita, “The” Holy Mushroom.
This is an illegitimate attempt to patch a BAD THEORY by a rhetorical, ambiguity-leveraging move AND HOPE NO ONE NOTICES. It doesn’t work!
30:00
An invented, fake, synthetic, artificial, unreal, unnatural construct called “Psychoactive Fungi”.
Irvin’s book commits 2 or 3 such “master failed specution” moves. the Amanita Primacy Fallacy in spades.
Though Irvin’s book is pretty good. Irvin’s book THM p. 152 etc. has dirty… he perpetuates Wasson’s failed hyhpothesis from 1957.
Attempt to group as if a single thing, Amanita & Psilocybin. This doesn’t work. Irvin’s book shows the failures of this failed move.
Irvin tries to square the circle, fudging to make a sketchy wrong hypothesis fly.
Result: Irvin says that Hopkins’ psilocybin research shows that Amanita produces psychedelic religious effects.” No, bunk! That’s literally Irvin’s rhetorical shell-game move, p 152.
A fake bucket that entheogen scholarship made up, “psychoactive fungii”, claims that Psilocybin effects are significantly similar to Amanita effects, among psychoactives.
45:00
Revise the Conceptual Hierarchy re: Amanita, Psilocybin, “psychoactive mushrooms”, Deliriants, and Psychedelics
December 28, 2024: per Paul Thagard’s book Conceptual Revolutions, WE NEED TO REVISE THE CONCEPTUAL HIERARCHY.
Wrong Conceptual Hierarchy per 1st Gen Entheogen Scholarship
Psychoactive leaf plants: coca, cannabis, henbane
“They all have leaves, therefore, a useful explanatory construct/category is leaf-based psychoactives.”
Psychoactive fungi: ergot, Amanita, psilocybin
“They are all mushrooms, therefore, a useful explanatory construct/category is psychoactive mushrooms.”
Revised Conceptual Hierarchy per 2nd Gen Entheogen Scholarship
To what extent can you treat together Hatsis and Letcher in the same sentence?
To what extent can we lump together a debunking of “mushroom theorists” and “the Egodeath theory”?
Hatsis does this: Lump Brown & Hoffman into Allegro, bc Irvin attempts to affirm Allegro.
Hatsis acts like rejecting Allegro is same as rejecting Jan Irvin or Michael Hoffman or Jerry Brown.
45:00
Irvin tries to align himself with Allegro (I’m skeptical; eg Irvin falsely says Allegro affirmed pilzbaum – but no citation is provided, disproving Irvin).
But unlike Irvin, Brown and Hoffman ignore Allegro, as irrelevant.
We must keep our guard up even after using the qualified, restrictive term “classic psychedelics”.
To what extent does experiencing psychedelic eternalism in MIddle Ages, how come they forgot it? Psilocybin is way better than non-drug meditation, yet, Psil is less efficient and targeted than blotter.
Can Golden Teacher Cubensis be as efficacious as blotter?
If Psil worked so well and middle ages mastered genre of psychedelic eternalism and branching-message mushroom trees, why was psychedelic eternalism forgotten and so little understood and studied?
Forms of cannabis improved recently. Overlapping, forms of psychedelics have a lot of room to improve like blotter’s efficacy and ergonomics. Cubensis extract small capsules. Quicker rise/fall steering ability than blotter.
49:00 Why isn’t Eadwine more consistent using {handedness}? To avoid idolizing the R foot?
Avoid hardcoding L always = branching delusion unstable, unenlightened and vulnerable susceptible.
50:00
… The pilzbaum artist, in this image, violates {handedness} here because he wants to force the point that it’s arbitrary how you map Left and Right to Branching or Non-Branching.
The convention is L = branching = unstable = bad. But, many counterexamples.
Psil induces psychedelic eternalism far more tageted and efficiacious than Amanita, but seems – unless measures are taken – less effective than blotter.
Cubensis extract capsules, or synthetic Psil capsules, plus redosing, can, in theory, be more efficacious than blotter.
55:00
Blotter represents 100% efficacy; it’s the Reference. Psilocybin is not the Reference.
Amanita is extremely not the reference! Despite cheap pop feverish writing like Andrew Rutajit 2005 book, writing that Amanita is the most powerful and awesome thing EVAR!
Call in the attack dog, Letcher Hatsis Huggins here, to spray cold water on runaway popular storytelling.
Of course the result will be simple-minded, intellectually LAZY (and wussy/ feeble/ cowardly), scorched-earth total denial of a European trad’n of “The Mushroom”.
God gave us just enough evidence of just the right type, so cut apart the wusses from the resourceful scholars.
Bennett privileges himself with playing the entheogen scholarship on Easy Mode, given the relatively strong evidence for cannabis, which he criticizes as lacking for mushrooms.
Even though he reads, quotes, and explicitly cites Rev 22:2, he screws up the interp – and this is per 2024 interview apparently the motivation of the book! — he screws up, both in his 2001 book and yesterday’s new interview in 2024 in which he quotes his book: he argues that in Rev 22:2, the 12 manner of fruits crops every month + leaves healing, means 12 uses of hemp.
The Egodeath theory (Nov or Dec 2024) gives you 13 different species of entheogens in the Tree of Life – including Cubensis.
Mere entheogen scholars (Heinrich, Bennett) only deliver to you a single plant (Amanita, or Cannabis).
Psilocybin eg Golden Teacher is 67% as efficacious as blotter.
Amanita is 15% as efficacious as blotter.
Amanita is only effective as a symbol if it accompanies a highly effective actual psychedelic.
Amanita is not effective enough to preserve and sustain comprehension of psychedelic eternalism.
If a real psychedelic is available, to induce psychedelic eternalism, then Amanita is effective as a symbol for that.
But, if you then remove the real psychedelic, and keep Amanita, psychedelic eternalism will be forgotten.
If Psilocybin Is Ideally Focused on Psychedelic Eternalism, Why Was Psychedelic Eternalism Forgotten?
1:00:00
If my explanation of branching-message mushroom trees is successful to an ideal degree, that leaves us w/ problem of why did we forget psychedelic eternalism?
If Psil Golden Teacher was so effective, why was this genre forgotton? eg the Spain painters of the Great Canterbury Psalter totally lost psychedelic eternalism comprehension.
Though, see what I found Dec. 15, 2024, by the Spain painters (I don’t think it’s in an Eadwine drawing that they merely painted):
Great Canterbury Psalter, page f221, row 2 left: Trading, Weighing, and Storing Cubensis
Be skeptical about sameness of the effects of mescaline, psilocybin, ergot, and DMT.
“ergot” as a conceptual bucket, semi-legitimate. the word “game” is a blurry category.
The exclusionary category “classic psychedelics” remains dangerously blurry; we must not assume that is a cut-and-dry category, containing identical effects – different forms of “DMT”.
“DMT” as a dangerously multifarious category; 5-Meo-DMT != N-N-DMT, it’s a blurry category
Logical Fallacy: Anything Can Be Used in an Entheogenic Practice, Therefore Anything is an Entheogen; a Lie of Degree
The lying word ‘can’ is the opposite of having a ranking as a matter of degree, likelihood.
Abusing a binary word to misrepresent what’s a matter of degree; degree of efficacy, likelihood, strength, reliability.
Gross oversimplification.
Good use of “can/ could/ might/ may”: Cubensis can produce blotter effect; can produce psychedelic eternalism transformation
Bad use of “can/ could/ might/ may”: Anything can produce entheogenic effect; can produce psychedelic eternalism transformation
Pigs “can/could/might/may” Fly
Hitting Your Head CAN Produce Entheogenic Experience; Therefore, Hitting Your Head IS an Entheogen
We need a legitimate ranking scheme: Amanita < Psil < blotter or 2CT7.
Instead of Wasson 1957 speculating “Amanita CAN be interchangeable with Psil” – whcih false hypoth was RETAINED and sustained in the field of entheogen scholarship 1957-2024… or until 1986 book Persephone’s Quest,
“Amanita and Psilocyin are interchangeable” is a ZOMBIE CONCEPT — an explanatory construct that has been disproved, yet continues to be used as if it’s valid.
The concept was discarded technically in 1986 entheogen scholarship, and yet, continued to be used.
Letcher Hatsis Huggins would be interested in this concept: After an idea becomes popularly spread, we have to work hard to kill the ENTRENCHED FALSE IDEA.
Anything “can”, “could”, “might”, and “may” same effect as 1000 mics of blotter.
These are lies of degree.
Blurry categories are a Lie Of Degree.
“Psychoacative plants”, “entheogens”, Hane’s “entheogenic practices”, can mean LITERALLY ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF.
These 3 examples were off-the-cuff during recording some episode of the Egodeath Mystery Show: I named 3 random things, then made up a story of why each one has potential to be used somewhere by someone as an entheogen (skipped here/ exercise for the reader):
car engine – Therefore, a gasoline engine is an entheogen.
light bulb – Therefore, a light bulb is an entheogen.
oven – can be an entheogen; CAN produce a heavy blotter trip. You can’t prove I’m wrong. Therefore, an oven is an entheogen.
[1:20:00]
Is there a general ranking for the single fake thing “DMT”, given that N-N-DMT != 5-MEO-DMT?
Need a non-misleading ranking scheme that’s legitimate.
[1:22:39] Outro
Outro [dry] track name: “Outro 5882 VOX_TK_5882”
Ego Death Mystery Show, with Cybermonk, July 16, 2023.
You are on the leading edge of altered-state theory.
Egodeath.com. Egodeaththeory.WordPress.com.
[1:23:06]
end
Production Notes
Interesting: The one, long recording 5881.wav switches back and forth between room mics (when room is quiet) vs dry (with gate) (when room is noisy).
Conclusion: If done right, no need to start new track when switch the mic setup. No need to separately process the two setups — if you do it right like somehow I did here in July conditions. This opinion is based on not headphone playback, but playback in normal noisy room. I could listen to SNR in this episode via isophones: expect silence removal worked well this way.
Miking notes in Celestial Planisphere notebook p. 30, for 5881.wav & 5882:
This means that I was still EQ’ing the 3 mics in July 17, 2023, not yet run flat like later that year. M39 wasn’t acting up.
Center Mic: (which one was used?? doesn’t say)
CAD E100 -5 -3 0 [eq in db; B M T]
EV 635A 3 2 -1 [probably not used] I bet I did not use 635A but had it on the desk instead; I bet I used E100 as center mic. Later, M39 acted up, so I moved e100 from center to Right, and moved 635A from desk to center mic live room.
Room Mics:
L: AT 2020 -1 -4 3
R: CAD M39 -2 -2 2
No mention of closemics on cabs; d/k if used 2 or 4 closemics/ 2 or 4 cabs.
Voice
Fidelity: Stereo, “Standard” bitrate 192 KBPS.
probably outboard Comp’s
Processing on deck: Limiter, Bass cut 80HZ, per 2023 setup.
Source file: Intro and body are VOX_TK_5881.wav.
End portion: center mic only, w/ noise gate (cut the room reverb mics). That’s a guess in Dec 2024. It’s possible I had e-v 635A on desk and sat there – the content will indicate that; if working with computer or books at desk.
Guitar
Fidelity: stereo, “Standard” bitrate 192 KBPS
Source file: part of outro recording VOX_TK_5882.wav
Source recording input for that = PWTUBE_2804.wav
Guitar Miking: probably closemic 57s on big Ref cabs per 2023 setup:
Utility page, easy to find and clearly titled, that simply summarizes:
Basics of what the CEQ is.
Its subscales and how many items each.
Where it came from, when.
Which line of q’airs it’s in (Pankhe, PEQ/SoCQ; MEQ; also draws from HRS & OAV).
What Griffiths told Stang about it: yeah, it’s bunk unicorns & rainbows, by design, but thats ok bc our CEQ catches negative experiences [by discarding negative experiences].
What it CLAIMS to be (broader than any other), vs.
What it actually ended up being (narrow, serving to monetize Grief therapy; simply discarded 18 of 21 actual psychedelic-specific negative effects from A of OAV).
I felt shaky inside [Michael Williams book: The Unshakeable Race (gnostics)]
I felt my heart beating irregularly or skipping beats
Pressure or weight in my chest or abdomen
Insanity [3]
Fear that I might lose my mind or go insane
I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever
I experienced a decreased sense of sanity
Isolation [3]
Isolation and loneliness
Feeling of isolation from people and things
I felt isolated from everything and everyone
Death [2]
I had the profound experience of my own death
I felt as if I was dead or dying
Paranoia [2]
I had the feeling that people were plotting against me
Experience of antagonism toward people around me
CEQ authors/article: “Do not use our Paranoia scale; it’s bunk.”
Motivation for this Page
motivation for this article:
My site looks like it’s bad in this regard: For each q’air that I cover, I need to have a simple utility page that presents what each q’air is, including a TOC that lists how many items (psilocybin effect questions) are in each dimension / subscale (effects category).
This is a pretty good exercise to do now that I know what format of summary article I need for each q’air. I can make a clean good model now, using the CEQ, exemplifying what people need. What people need is a textbook that embodies the “Science” –
todo: write book: Source Book About Psychedelics Psychometrics Questionnaires
That book summarizes each q’air, lists its dimensions/subscales & items; pros and cons; goals and non-goals; history; relation to other q’airs. Special focus on item 54 I was afraid to lose my self control – because given, THIS BUNK SCIENCE TOTALLY FAILED TO MANAGE AND TRACK BAD EXPERIENCES, SO TO COMPENSATE, THE TEXTBOOK MUST PUT SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON BAD EXPERIENCES.
As the gate that Loose Cognitive Science must pass through.
You cannot do Loose Cognitive Science; you cannot do Houot’s “exploration”, unless you have the Egodeath theory.
Houot foolishly/naively claims Shamans “have control” while mystics merely have “surrrenderism”.
Crop by Cybermonk Houot gathering cubensis to do psychonaut exploration, rejecting mystics’ surrenderism, using shamans who have control, instead
Which is to say, the Main or most interesting & valuable thing that a Psychonaut “discovers” in their “exploration” that Houot calls for is the Control Vortex, it is the most interesting potential, which is why I “equate” Transcendent Knowledge & psilocybin with encountering the control vortex aka shadow dragon monster gate; that threat; that drives mental model transformation.
I cannot say “you will have loss of control unless you have the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism”; I must say “The most interesting POTENTIAL of psil is the control threat transformation potential; the control vortex; mental model transformation about control.
Similar big problem / limitation: My Site Map jumbles all q’airs together, but to cross link all my q’air pages I need linkable subheadings within my Site Map page’s “Q’airs” section.
Final thing to do re creating new CEQ page: check every CEQ page I have, are they all beyond redemption? indicate that at the list of my articles below.
I have a bunch of pages fulminating about how failed the CEQ is, yet, I can’t find my page that simply summarizes/ presents what the CEQ is – At top of such a page, need TOC w/ count of items in each dimension aka subscale.
Such a clean page is lacking, even though a big criticism I have is poor doc’n of the q’airs.
My present design is “rant”; ie intense pages about the CEQ but failing to simply present what the CEQ is.
Throw this MEQ & CEQ Pseudo Science in the Trash and Start Over
LOL – if you think my pages are a mess, you should see the state of the “science” of psychedelics psychometrics q’airs!
CEQ was scraped together, cobbled together, badly.
There is every reason to trashcan it and create a real q’air completely from scratch, completely fresh. Could be:
CEQ made a signif misstep in phase 1 Initial Pool (how those items were gathered), then a HUGE misstep in phase 2 (delete 18 of 21 unpleasant experiences that originated in OAV).
I have to give it more thought about what the people need who created MEQ then CEQ – my ECQ looms large here. OAV is quite good, so:
“The three primary dimensions were termed “oceanic boundlessness” (OBN), “dread of ego dissolution” (DED) and “visionary restructuralization” (VRS).
The OBN scale basically includes items measuring positively experienced depersonalization and derealization, deeply-felt positive mood, and experiences of unity.
High scores on the OBN scale therefore indicate a state similar to mysticalexperiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion (eg, see [20]).
The DED scale includes items measuring negatively experienced derealization and depersonalization, cognitive disturbances, catatonic symptoms, paranoia, and loss of thought and body control.
High scores on the DED scale therefore indicate a very unpleasant state similar to so called “bad trips” described by drug-users.
The VRS scale contains items measuring visual (pseudo)-hallucinations, illusions, auditory-visual synesthesiae, and changes in the meaning of percepts.”
Stang Got Griffiths to Admit on Video the MEQ Is Bunk and Knowingly Pleasant-Skewed
Stang got Griffiths to admit, on video, the MEQ is bunk, unbalanced (“positively balanced”, “to capture the light side”), and knowingly omits negative experiences.
“we haven’t captured that systematically. [the speakers are discussing two different things at same time: neg. exp. & entities]
“it’s not part of the mystical experience questionnaire.
“the mystical experience questionnaire is tending to capture the light side of things.
“they’re kind of the classic challenging experience that come into play with psychedelics.
“And that can be absolutely terrifying.
“But there’s no question that that comes up [in our psilocybin experiments].
“And we have an entirely different questionnaire, something called the challenging experience questionnaire.”
“And we try to tap into that.
[“we try” – we tried real hard to delete 18 of 21 Dread items from OAV, and other similar intense control-challenge questions from SOCQ & HRS]
“We’ve been very interested in that feature.
[very interested in getting rid of psychedelic-specific challenging effects, so we are just left w/ Grief therapy]
“But I think psychometrically [per scientific measurement via questionnaires], it [neg. fx] falls apart from at least what we’re describing as the classic mystical experience [according to Stace 1960] that’s positively balanced.”
[“positively balanced” means “get rid of Negative, keep exclusively Positive, and call that “balanced”]
Translation: CEQ – Challenging Experience Q’air – is a show piece only, just a thing we can mention to prevent investigation of NEGATIVE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES.
CEQ is not meant seriously, but only strategically as a thing to point to, to prevent investigation.
Cole-Turner claims that no academics accept Stace 1960 & the MEQ
See article I found last night – different angle – that claims that no academics accept Stace 1960 & the MEQ:
Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love Ron Cole-Turner, Published: 26 April 2024 Citation: Cole-Turner, Ron. 2024. Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love. religions 15: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050537
Michael Pollan Says the MEQ Is Bunk and Cannot Be Filled in
See Pollan reporting that after his terrifying frog experience, 🐸😱 Pollan was forced to write “NA” instead of “5 out of 5” for the FAILED QUESTION “Did you experience warmfuzzy timelessness?” Pollan: “I totally experienced timeless eternity but it was HORRIFIC AND TERRIBLE!”
🍄🐸 🚫🕰 😱
In the book How to Change Your Mind, p. 283, Michael Pollan wrote:
Pollan index, book How to Change Your Mind, find strangely worded entry “Mystical Experience Questionnaires (MEQs), pages 282-284.
p. 278:
“no time or space …
It was just horrible. …
the dimensions of time and space returned …
the leaves … had blown off the great tree of being and scattered to the four winds … find their way back, fly up into the welcoming limbs of reality, and reattach. ….
the terror I had just endured, … died … reborn.”
p. 281:
“I had tied myself up in a philosophical knot, constructed a paradox or koan I was clearly not smart enough or sufficiently enlightened to untangle. …
“one of the most shattering experiences of my life …”
p. 282:
“The MEQ asked me to rank a list of thirty mental phenomena– thoughts, images, and sensations that psychologies and philosophers regard as typical of a mystical experience.
(The questionnaire draws on the work of William James, W. T. Stace, and Walter Pahnke.)
“”Looking back on the entirety of your session, please rate the degree of which at any time … you experienced the following phenomena” using a six-point scale.
“(From zero, for “none at all,” to five, for extreme: “more than any other time in my life.”)
p. 283:
“But I was unsure what to do with this one: “Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.”
“The language implies something more positive than what I felt when time vanished and terror took hold: NA, I decided.
“The “experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole” also seemed like an overly nice way to put the sensation of becoming one with a nuclear blast.”
A Channel for Magic: Ralph Hood’s Mysticism Scale and the Occult Roots of the Johns Hopkins Psychedelic Research Program (Kitchens, 2022)
Kitchens “A Channel for Magic”: Debunks Psychedelic Therapy Religion
todo: add section for Kitchens article in my Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page.
Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences (Taves 2020)
“Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self” (Ann Taves, 2020): Debunks Unity Model of Mysticism
Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences Ann Taves, 2020 Perspect Psychol Sci 2020 May;15(3):669-690 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32053465/ doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047. Epub 2020 Feb 13. PMID: 32053465 DOI: 10.1177/1745691619895047 Free article at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86r3f75j
Erratum in: Corrigendum: Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Mar;17(2):614. doi: 10.1177/17456916221076158. Epub 2022 Jan 24. PMID: 35073216
todo: add section for Taves article in my Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science page.
THE JAMES/STACE MODEL OF “MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE” IS WRONG AND UNSCIENTIFIC! SO MEQ, BASED ON IT, IS NOT SCIENCE
The problem isn’t the wording of the question so much as bad framing of entire MEQ.
The ENTIRE MEQ is mis-founded on an absurdly fantasized imagined presupposition about “mystical experience is positive” per Studerus’ intro of their 11 Factors article: “Not pleasant therefore not mystical.”
CEQ supposed to catch failures but is a broken wastebasket for the failures of the MEQ. The badness of the MEQ comes from same origin as badness of CEQ – they reflect each other in a bad way.
Scrap both of them and start over, this time, with a reality-based “science foundation” instead of James 1902 / Stace 1960 fantasy foisted as “The science foundation of our psychometrics”.
The Psychedelic Pseudo “Science” Community CONSISTENTLY IGNORES AND SUPPRESSES the Negative Mystical Effects of Psilocybin
James 1902 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Stace 1960 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Pankhe 1962 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Richards 1975 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Griffiths CEQ 2016 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
MEQ is garbage.
“Mystical experiences are positive. Negative experiences are by definition non-Mystical.” Charles Stang got Griffiths to admit on video that the MEQ is bullsh!t. Griftiths’ excuse: “We catch negative effects in the CEQ.” False. CEQ omits 18 of 21 Dread effects, instead delivering irrelevant worthless feeble giant Grief category. BUNK as F!
PES/SOCQ is garbage. SOCQ = MEQ + distractor items.
CEQ is garbage.
OAV is solid.
HRS has some decent negative effects (review them).
SOCQ doesn’t have any negative effects? Review them.
Here are all my CEQ articles: Is one of them simply a presentation of what the CEQ is? If so, possibly delete the present new page, and improve title of existing page in standard format per any list of my pages that summarize each q’air:
That’s most likely the basic page; check/ confirm/ retitle if so. At the top of that page (lacks TOC!), I wrote: “Updated Assessment … Instead of expanding the present page, I started a fresh new page, planned title: How Control-Loss Got Omitted from the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ)“
Assessment: todo: important: add TOC to that page. Might be able to rework that page: move … first, in TOC, outline the desired/needed sections. Then rework body in that order. Or, keep that page as-is, develop this new page as a simple presenetation of what the CEQ is.
todo: link from each CEQ page to the Site Map section about CEQ.
todo: in site map page, create subsection for each q’air. Lacking! All jumbled together. do similar to Great Canterbury Psalter: for each 3 main folio images from Great Canterbury Psalter, i have a site map section, that first lists my main article about that image (ie q’air), followed by misc articles about that image (ie q’air).
For each q’air, check URL of my page; check title of my page; make uniform/consistent. So I can tell immediately which page is the main page for that q’air.
The pilzbaum deniers’ model has now been refuted. One can only conclude that anyone who continues henceforth to cite or apply the pilzbaum denial model is either ignorant of the facts or has little respect for truth in scholarship.
Jan Irvin wrote the Forward for this Gnostic Media-published book, 2007, after discussing the 2006 article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Vestibule Cover
Vestibule Page 125
Vestibule Page 126: Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered
Baloney in the Wide Sense
Written like someone who has never ingested psychedelics, living in Myth Land:
Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered.
Andrew Rutajit, The Vestibule, 2007
Amanita is a deliriant mushroom, not a psychedelic mushroom.
Amanita is an “entheogen” like Scopolamine is an entheogen (Datura, Thornapple, Mandrake, Henbane).
Hanegraaff wrongly says anything and everything is an entheogen “in the wide sense”; his statement would be true if he were to say “any psychoactive is an entheogen in the wide sense, such as Datura and Amanita.”
Extreme conflation of Psilocybin and Amanita.
Vestibule Page 127
Huggins vs. Samorini: multiple little branches under cap/crown
find “veil” in Hug article ForWrong Foraging Wrong:
4 hits:
Veil 1
Huggins seems rude the WAY he uses his acronym to label people. scholars. I’m going to call Huggins a member of the DCHBG school, or PMDs: Psychdelic Mushroom Deniers.
“In another context, PMT Giorgio Samorini attempts to sidestep the problem of multiple branches supporting a single cap by suggesting that “these ramifications might represent the membrane enveloping mushrooms of the family of the Amanitaceae at the early stages of development.
“This membrane then breaks when the cap broadens out and separates from the stalk,”68
This leaves behind on the stipe a remnant called a veil.
“even if we were to credit Samorini’s argument in relation to a tree with only two or three branches, it takes us nowhere near explaining the great tangle of branches we find on the GCP’s tree of nests.”
Samo should have argued that the gills plus veil are sources of branches under cap/ crown. Need to also add my POV that pilzbaum artists are expecially intent on depicting branches, more than mushrooms;
pilzbaum artists message is more branching than mushrooms; they are committed to depicting and highlighting, emphasizing the motif of branching more than the motif of mushrooms.
Gills look like branches.
Vieil looks like branches (less so).
Veil 2
Veil 3
Veil 4
My Clean New Panofsky page with my dirty Comment (which is fair)
Mystery intrigue from a novel by Brown, Brown, & Brown:
How did Huggins’ Foraging Wrong 2024 article find out about the two Panofsky letters in drawer such-and-so, if not from Brown 2019, and why does it cite only Brown 2016, not 2019?
Huggins wrote about how we actually cannot “consult” art historians’ publications about pilzbaum, because these competent art historians who are so thoroughly familiar with pilzbaum have never published anything on the topic, which is of mere peripheral importance:
“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians.
“A noted[!] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work recommended by Panofsky in his letters to Wasson back in 1952.”
AS IF scholars and mycologists have had access to Panofsky’s 2nd letter since 1952 or 1968!
As if we (Brown) didn’t just find the Brinckmann citation and recognize its importance only recently, in 2019!
And how does Huggins expect anyone to use Huggins’ useless, unhelpful citation of drawer such-and-so at Harvard?
Wasson and Huggins both use improper, abnormal dancing-about, instead of normal scholarly publications citations that are usable by scholars.
Did Wasson read the publications of “competent” art historians, per normal scholarship?
No; Huggins promotes instead of library research:
“Wasson readily sought help from people with expertise in fields related to his research.”
“Sought help” from “experts” who never wrote and published on the topic of pilzbaum, and consider trees merely peripheral, not central in importance, and not worth bothering to write and publish about.
___
Huggins tries to excuse Wasson’s obstructionism:
“Given Wasson’s importance the PMTs are generally aware of Panofsky’s warning, and of Wasson’s subsequent remark that “mycologists would have done well to consult art historians.”
“But they reject it as “an unreflective dismissal [that] misses the point,” or a case of Wasson’s being taken in by the “monodisciplinary blindness and interpretive slothfulness of professional researchers,” meaning Panofsky and the other unnamed art historians Wasson consulted.
“One prominent PMT, J.R. Irvin, even complained that “Wasson adopted Panofsky’s interpretation and thenceforth began to force it upon other scholars.
“Uncritical acceptance of the Wasson-Panofsky view lasted, unchecked, for nearly fifty years.” [Irvin, THM]
“It might be noted, however, that many of the works in which the PMTs express contrary views were published during the fifty years to which Irvin refers.”
Where are the expert art historian’s works in Huggins’ Bibliography, that discuss the question of pilzbaum relevant to the Wasson-Panofsky view?
There aren’t any (or, as I wrote in my 2006 Wasson article, we can conclude that such writings by art historians are pathetically few and weak); as Huggins admits:
“Trees, being peripheral … are not often discussed by art historians. A noted [read: censored] exception is Brinckmann…”
These “many works” are nonexistent, and even Brinckmann is missing from the Bibliography section.
Finally in 1996-1998, Samorini finally followed what little of Panofsky’s lead – hundreds of pilzbaum – that Wasson in Soma let leak through.
Huggins continues:
“The only real advantage Wasson has enjoyed was perhaps the result of his trusted reputation, based partly on his willingness to engage scholars in other fields as a way of cross-checking his own work, a feature not often encountered in the more generally insular PMTs.
“In the meantime, the few art historians with expertise in Ottonian and Romanesque art who are aware of the PMTs claims continue to echo Panofsky.
“When questioned on the topic by the writer, prominent art historian Elina Gertsman responded crisply [⏱]:
“I very much do not think that Ottonian or Romanesque imagery was in any shape or form influenced by psychedelic mushrooms.””
___
Argument from crispness?
The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle:
The more directly you probe and interrogate publicly the competent art authority (who has publishednothing on the pilzbaum question), the quicker (and crisper!) the celerity of disavowal.
Huggins presents a bizzarre special-case approach to this topic, only:
Consult the drawer at Harvard.
Consult your local top expert art authority stopwatch in hand, to measure the celerity with which they disavow pilzbaum.”
Every competent art authority: No, no, no, no, there’s no way any credible authority affirms these pilzbaum, no way, no how; we disavow!”
Argument by celerity of authorities’ disavowals.
There is a consistent pattern of withholding and preventing people from seeing the letters.
Huggins is of no help here: he does not publish the letters for scholars to share, and he does not point to the Brown 2019 article or my original transcription page at this site.
Mystery intrigue in the Bibliography of Foraging Wrong:
“Consult” the competent art authorities — yet his Bibliography lacks these key entries centrally relevant to main topics discussed in the article body:
Panofsky (1952). Letter 1 & 2 in drawer at Harvard.
Baloney indirection and roundabout dancing:
Huggins wrote:
“The authors venture their claims without an adequate grasp of the standard way of depicting trees and other plants in the art of the period.”
pilzbaum affirmers are extremely grasping of the standard way of depicting trees and other plants in the art of the period:
Every pilzbaum affirmer is intensely aware that art historians describe these trees as “look like mushrooms”, thus their term, the art historians’ term, “pilzbaum“, by which the art historians mean:
The set of trees that look like mushrooms, typifying the genre of medieval art.
The principle of artist responsibility (against Panofsky):
If the artist didn’t want art historians to think of mushrooms when seeing these trees, then the artist should not have made their trees look so distinctly like mushrooms.
Just like with every other item depicted, as art historians say on every other topic – artists were free within the genre.
Within this special topic, only, Panofsky robs artists of their freedom and forces them to follow “prototypes”, trying to remove artists’ responsibility for making viewers think of mushrooms.
The special pleading fallacy.
“Nor have they been much inclined to consult art historians, whose opinions on such matters they show little interest in.
“This began when PMTs responded negatively to the advice art historian Erwin Panofsky gave to New York banker and amateur mycologist G. Gordon Wasson in 1952.”
Huggins nicely leaves out the fact that Wasson only allowed (for 51 years, 1968-2019) only half of the first of the two Panosfky letters to be seen by everyone.
So much for emphatically pressuring mycologists or pilzbaum affirmers to “consult” art historians:
Wasson and Huggins are all talk, posturing,and bluff, while withholding useful citations for critical scholarship – citations that support, not refute, pilzbaum affirmers.
Art authorities have no credibility until they publish something on the unimportant, “peripheral” topic of pilzbaum.
___
(And why does no one ever write “Psilocybin and Amanita”, always Amanita-first? : )
“Charles Stang has a hard time relating the Eucharist with the Psilocybin mushroom, because he hasn’t read the Egodeath Theory.
He wants evidence which supports that relationship.
Even if an ancient golden chalice with dried up psilocybin mushrooms in it were presented to him, he would still want to see a video of the ancient mass.
That’s what the ordinary world does to people’s minds.
It distances minds from innate wisdom by locking them within the boundaries that it creates.
If Charles Stang would read the Egodeath Theory and its interpretation of ancient art, and Cyberdisciple’s interpretation of ancient literature as related to the mystic altered state, then just maybe he would begin to understand that the Eucharist is a living, breathing experience.”
While we realized the importance of publishing the two Panofsky letters to Wasson side-by-side, you have obviously grasped and illuminated their greater importance in the entire Mushrooms in Christian Art debate. In our opinion, there is no debate.
Due to the focus and interpretation you’ve brought to these letters, we consider their discovery at the Wasson Archives and our subsequent publication to be one of our most significant discoveries – along with the documentation of Wasson’s meetings with the Pope during his time at JP Morgan which handled Vatican accounts and, of course, the extensive images of both Amanita muscaria and psilocybin images in Christian art published in The Psychedelic Gospels.
Thanks for acknowledging our work in your post, Julie and Jerry Brown
Pointless Loiterers are Pointing Trio: Eyes Connect Hand of God with Right Vine Leaf Tree
log a date? 10:51 Jan 5, 2025 – there is a problem with the f177 decoding item name row 1 middle, 3 guys, one with threshing winnowing basket.
I avoided that already at heading “Pointing Trio”:
Crop by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael Hoffman
Assessing Pilzbaum requires first-hand field work (ie hi-res images), like Brown Writes but Didn’t Do
Consistent finding: It’s impossible to assess what the person is looking at without zooming to view full detail at the library full-resolution site.
per Brown – interpretation requires field work, viewing the art firsthand (such as Brown & Brown looking at the chapel-provided photo in Irvin’s book and firmly concluding about Walburga tapestry, ie, totally not looking like Amanita). Good field work example.
Brown’s argument is correct, thus disproving Browns assessment: Had Brown done field work, instead of writing that they do field work, they would have affirmed mushrooms in Christian art in the tapestry.
Reminds of Hatsis writing more words about his superior methodology, than words constituting superior methodology.
Positively identifies the image as psilocybin, because of systemic consistent mytheme use
“argued that mushroom images in Christian art do not represent mushrooms.”
The man hanging by one leg above the sword positively identifies these Canturbury images as Psilocybin, because of systemic consistent mytheme use.
positively identifies the image as Psilocybin, because of systemic consistent mytheme use
Huggins’ Arg: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap (Not How Long Ball-shaped cap)
Huggins’ Argument from Veil Branches (not Rarity of Ball Form Amanita)
Artists Would Not Depict Amanita in Ball-Cap Form, Because That Would Be Extreme Botanical Accuracy, Since Ball Form Is Found Only during a Brief Stage
My argumentation / criticism of Huggins’ arg’n here is off-base.
Huggins is actually here focusing on a “veil=branches under the cap” claim by Samorini – not 4th Day of Creation in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Samo says the branches under the cap of some pilzbaum is the veil.
I have photos proving it is possible to support Samo’s case.
It’s debatable about whether a typical person looking at specimens would have seen veil under cap that looks like branches.
Huggins is not saying ball form of Amanita is rare/fleeting; he’s saying veil like branches under cap is fleeting, which is true.
The Ball Shape of the Amanita Cap Is Anachronistic
Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period. The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage in its development is far-fetched.
Ronald Huggins, Foraging Wrong, 2024
I see that you know nothing whatsoever about observing Amanitas growing.
The ball form of Amanita is so rare and fleeting, only a botanical scientist has ever seen it, not dumbass ignoramus Medieval artists – argues Huggins in Foraging Wrong
Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article (2024) argues that the ball form of Amanita is so rare, fleeting, transient, and ephemeral, medieval artists would only have depicted the normal, usual, far more common flat top form.
Only a scientist would know about the technical passing phase, the ball form.
Therefore the red ball-crown pilzbaum in “4th Day of Creation” image in Great Canterbury Psalter) is not mushrooms.
The 4 pilzbaum in Great Canterbury Psalter “Creation of Plants / Day 4 of Creation”, including the red one, cannot be Amanita, because the artist would have drawn an adult, flat-cap type, not the rare, ball form, SO RARE that ONLY A MODERN SCIENTIST would be aware, would have seen, the ball form.
That’s how rare, fleeting, ephemeral the ball form is. Argues Huggins in Foraging Wrong article.
Let’s see how rare, fleeting, ephemeral, and transient… what’s even more rare and ephemeral is the coveted upturned grail form.
SPEAKING AS AN EXPERIENCED AMANITA PHOTOGRAPHER, I can report, against Huggins: Ball form is not even slightly rare.
The form that is ACTUALLY rare – but going against all of Huggins’ wrong assumptions — is upturned grail, which is MORE likely to be in art, BECAUSE of its rarity, the Holy Grail formation.
I especially hunt for Holy Grail formation of Amanita.
I strive to photograph Holy Grail Amanita, like in my initial beginner’s luck 10/10/2020 where I photo’d a pair of holy grails with pools of water with ripples.
Those photos, in 2020 10 years later, enabled me to identify and prove that Dionysus victory mosaic shows leopard-watering fountain as balanced upturned Amanita.
Huggins’ argument based on Amanita morphology just reveals that Huggins has no comprehension – in multiple ways — of the realities of Amanita observation & form distribution.
“Artist would depict Amanita in its most common form.”
The ball form of Amanita is so rare and fleeting, only a botanical scientist has ever seen it, not dumbass ignoramus Medieval artists – argues Huggins in Foraging WrongThe ball form of Amanita is so rare and fleeting, only a botanical scientist has ever seen it, not dumbass ignoramus Medieval artists – argues Huggins in Foraging WrongThe ball form of Amanita is so rare and fleeting, only a botanical scientist has ever seen it, not dumbass ignoramus Medieval artists – argues Huggins in Foraging WrongThe ball form of Amanita is so rare and fleeting, only a botanical scientist has ever seen it, not dumbass ignoramus Medieval artists – argues Huggins in Foraging Wrong
Wow, Huggins, the ball form is SO RARE
Cover of Wasson’s book SOMA (1968), showing a pair of Amanitas, inclluding a ball – which is not rare, but rather is TYPICAL, the very opposite of Huggins’ made-up imaginings, his fantasy-premised argumentation!
False. Artists often wish to depict upturned, rare form, which is actually a minor, rare, and all the more sought-out form (or ought to be).
“Ball form is not available for viewing by dumb ignorant Medieval artists; they would only have seen the adult mature flat-top form.” False.
Flat is not the most mature; upturned is the ideal mature form.
Many adult Amanita are round, not flat.
The ball form is common – much more common than upturned grail form.
The ball form is almost as common as flat top.
Typically a ball form and flat top specimen are found together. This is not the minority case, as Huggins’ argument presumes; this is the majority case!
Stang “New” (Reheated Leftovers) Article About Muraresku’s TIK: email Jan. 5, 2025, 9:32 am
_____________________________
Secret Hit Count in this PDF:
secret – 14 hits
hidden – 2 hits
suppress – 4 hits
_____________________________
keynote v1 of this article in 2023:
This Stang article has a rock-solid history, was first given at a Paranormal conference.
Then Forte, Mururesku, Ruck, and everyone at Harvard (the Ruck committee writ large) rewrote the article.
from bottom of page 1:
The article “benefited enormously from comments and edits from a great number of readers, including
Robert Forte,
Brian Muraresku,
Carl “Amanita Promoter” Ruck, and
the members of Harvard’s “Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean” colloquium. [CRAM]”
What about all the Paranormal conference attendees during his 3-day presentation of the original draft, didn’t they get to edit the article draft too?
“The goal of the Culture and Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean Colloquium is
[to rewrite Stang’s paper]
“to promote high-level, interdisciplinary dialogue among faculty and graduate students who deal with
religion and culture in antiquity in the Mediterranean basin and west Asia,
all rather loosely defined. CRAM meets monthly during the academic year. Each meeting lasts about an hour, and typically is centered on a pre-circulated paper. CRAM is currently administered by Religious Studies.”
_____________________________ Review Essay Psychedelic Futures and Altered States in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean Charles “Breathing = Psil” Stang
_____________________________ v1 of the review essay:
Originally published as: took him 3 days to read it, 11–13 May 2023
An earlier version of Stang’s review essay was a keynote lecture entitled
The Call of the Ancient: Psychedelic Pasts and Futures
Brain of the conference: Jeffrey Kripal – [Doctor of Paranormal Studies] Associate Dean of the Faculty and Graduate Studies, School of the Humanities J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University
Stang “New” (Reheated Leftovers) Article About Muraresku’s TIK: email Jan. 5, 2025, 10:55 am
The motivation for this email, inventory of ‘secret’, is I choked when reading ‘secret’ here, a word that conveys no information, purely gratuitous use of the word ‘secret’, superfluous and unnecessary:
“did the Ancient Greeks consume a secret psychedelic sacrament during their most famous and well-attended religious rituals?”
God forbid Stang/ Ruck/ Mururesku/ Forte/ Harvard just write:
“did the Ancient Greeks consume a psychedelic sacrament during their most famous and well-attended religious rituals?”
“Dan Brown-inspired”, indeed, Stang Committee of writers.
“that an early, secret form of Christianity was using a psychedelic Eucharist.”
compare:
that an early form of Christianity was using a psychedelic Eucharist.
________________________
Secret 1 in the article written by Stang, Ruck, Mururesku, Forte, everyone at Harvard, and the Paranormal conferencegoers:
Stang puts the PRICE of the book on page 1?
R. Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, Carl A. P. Ruck, The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries (30th Anniversary Ed.; Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2008), 192 pp., $18.95 pb., ISBN:
and page 1 says “hardback“? $190.00 hb., for Yulia “Cave = Trip Balls” book
Good to see the new, popular, relaxed style of the top scholarship, after all the edits of Stang’s draft keynote by everyone in the enterprise.
Why not give the ebook price?
“This 30th-anniversary edition brings with it an enlightening
preface by religious luminary Huston Smith and
a renewed exploration of the chemical findings by Peter Webster.
It powerfully argues for a reimagining of Western religious history and the transformative magic of entheogens.”
Secret 2:
Brian C. Muraresku, The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2020), 480 pp., $21.00 hb., ISBN: 1250207142; Wouter J. Hanegr
You know we mean business b/c we give on page 1 the price of the HARDBACK version.
Secret 3:
“Upon reaching Eleusis, the initiates stood watch at an all-night vigil in a sanctuary and were given a special drink, the κυκεών, culminating in a secret ritual and an ineffable vision.”
Secret 4:
“Of what we are not sure, because the initiatory ritual and accompanying vision were mysteries after all: initiates were strictly forbidden from divulging ( πόρρητος) the secrets of Eleusis, and some speculate that what they beheld was, in any case, beyond description, ineffable (ἄρρητος).
From scattered remarks and reports over the centuries, scholars have surmised that at the height of the ritual a high priest (ἱεροφάντης) would invoke the presence of the goddesses Demeter and Persephone by brandishing certain sacred objects (τὰἱερά) usually hidden in the recesses of the sanctuary, including an ear of grain;”
[and surely a The Mushroom ()]
Secret 5:
“So, perhaps the secret of the κυκεών lay in the psychoactive ergot that grew on the Greeks’ cereals and grasses, which they had learned to isolate and mix into their ritual potion.”
Secret 6:
“Now an initiate himself, like Wasson and Hofmann, Ruck broke the ancient injunction, and spoke the unspeakable secrets of Eleusis.”
Did you know Dr. Secret is an initiate of the secret Mysteries, and that he has spoken the secrets? It’s a little tiny purple ergot mushroom ().
I studied a Ruck Committee passage, maybe in Apples:
Associated with The Mushroom are the colors purple, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, tan, brown, and rust, and purple-red.
The ancient text has the word ‘purple’. Thus is proved, everything is The Msh.
ie I fact-checked the ancient text passage Ruck gave, compared to his analysis, based on presence of color words.
The fact-check didn’t go well; found no discernable link between the ancient passage & Ruck’s colors argument/analysis.
The passage doesn’t do what he says it does, and he made no real effort to say how his color words “a reddish blue-purple” matched the ancient text eg “purple”.
It was puzzling how this is supposed to convince anyone.
It was like John Rush: he makes statements about the picture, that don’t match with the picture, are we even talking about the same picture?
— the reaction of every reader of his disappointing book/gallery. clinical anthropology.
Hatsis & Rush sites are still down.
Secret 7:
“Ruck has lived to see his hypothesis revived and defended in this “next generation,” namely with Brian Muraresku’s The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name.
Ruck appears throughout the pages of this book, which reads like a popular detective story, mixed with learned non-fiction inspired by Dan Brown.”
Secret 8:
CLICHE ALERT: experimenting with
“But Christianity has a more complicated place in Muraresku’s secret history than this would suggest.
He suspects that at least some early Christians were experimenting with a psychedelic Eucharist,
and that with the rise of imperial orthodoxy centered in Rome, it was driven underground—perhaps literally, as in the case of the Roman catacombs.”
Secret 9:
LOL I KNEW IT, we’re working with the ebook of Muraresku’s secret ebook!
20. Brian Muraresku, The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2020), all quotations are from the 2020 ebook edition.
Secret 10:
“a small ritual chalice, both of which tested positive for ergot—the very ingredient thought to be in the κυκεών potion at Eleusis.”
Doesn’t count, because a single deviant instance – we can’t conclude anything really until we have texts and … even if we find ergot potion, there is no way we can know that this was normal and mainstream, this once-per-lifetime use of ergot potion by certain offshoot cultic sect community groups.
“Did the Phocaean colonists wrest the secret of Eleusis from its priesthood and presume to practice their own mysteries in Catalonia?
If so, their free adaptation of the mysteries would mark a betrayal of the initiates’ oath of silence.”
Ruck actually personally buys into “we should not reveal the secret”, along with “I reveal the secret”. Titillating marketing strategy, and the usual level of consistent posturing and narrative.
Secret 11:
“I fear that Muraresku is doing much the same again in his call for a “new Reformation” and his quest for “the original sacrament of Western civilization.” He forwards his own version of “the pagan continuity hypothesis” with these two questions:
“1) Before the rise of Christianity,
did the Ancient Greeks consume a secret psychedelic sacrament during their most famous and well-attended religious rituals?”
Secret 12:
“As for the second question, regarding the Christian Eucharist, Muraresku claims to explore “an early, secret form of Christianity that has been scrubbed from the record.”32
Secret 13:
“As far as I can tell, there is simply no evidence, direct or indirect, circumstantial or otherwise, that an early, secret form of Christianity was using a psychedelic Eucharist.
And even if evidence of a psychedelic Eucharist within the first centuries of Christianity were to surface, that wouldn’t tell us that the “original” Eucharist was psychedelic,
or that it was ever the norm rather than the exception,
any more than the discovery of texts from the second or third centuries tells us about who the historical Jesus really was
or what was the “original” faith of early Christians.”
Religious studies expert Stang takes it for granted that all readers take it for granted, the historicity of religious founder figures.
The argument form – a useful form – is used by Letcher against me (specifically) in his 4-item list of “further, it’s impossible to show…”, which I then proved all of and one more: pilzbaum means mushrooms, psychoactive, ingested, intentionally, for religious experience, of the peak type.
Doesn’t count, though, because… … because YOU CANT PROVE that that was NORMAL and MAINSTREAM and ORTHODOX according to the Church as an ENTERPRISE, and not merely a HERETICAL and DEVIANT and just GRASSROOTS and COUNTERCULTURE practice.
_________________________
Rail 1: Also a big bug factor in this article is the word “expect … rail”:
“… Holy Grail, literally. “
oh i see you are ignorant of Heinrich’s 1995 book Strange Fruit.
“And given the silence of the hostile witnesses, the very Churchmen you’d expect to rail against this practice, even if we were to find evidence of a psychedelic Eucharist, wouldn’t it more likely have been something at the margins of Christianity?”
I saw that arg somehow in Huggins, I first saw… maybe the Huggins(?) quote about “rail” is from first draft of this keynote essay.
Rail 2: Assuming That Which Is To Be Proved:
“If there were significant numbers of early Christians using a psychedelic sacrament, I would expect that the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity would rail against it.”
WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT, BASED ON WHAT PRESUPPOSITIONS YOU HOLD?
“In other words, we would have ample indirect evidence.
Certainly, these early Churchmen used whatever they could against the forms of Christian practice they disapproved of, especially those they labeled “Gnostic.”
How do you know the church fathers are against psychedelic Eucharist?
This is a Hatsis-grade log. fall.
“There’s no written dogma saying The Mushroom is heretical; therefore, there was no use of The Mushroom.”
“expect” #3:
So, again, if there were an early psychedelic sacrament that was suppressed, I would expect that the suppressors would talk about it, as they do about all the other alleged errors they document. Why don’t they?”
Why “errors”, why do you ASSUME they thought The Mushroom to be an “error”?
Have you not read church fathers on the effects of the Eucharist?
Is this scholarly analysis, or Pop Cult fantasy storytelling?
Secret 14:
Stang/ Ruck/ Muraresku/ Forte/ Harvard continues:
“And so the strategy of the book becomes clear only by the very end: to tantalize the readers and to intrigue them with promises, and rather grand hypotheses about “the secret history of the religion with no name” (nearly always couched with a conditional “if” or subjunctive “could”), until the very end, when it is clear that such promises and hypotheses do not have evidence to support them.”
I found the Huggins Foraging Wrong 2024 article quote already of Stang writing “rail” – which publication is Huggins citing?
Answer: It’s a 2021 video; transcription & link in the above Harvard webpage.
Huggins:
“Gallistl’s point about the absence of textual support for the PMTs theories is an important one that applies as well to their treatment of the GCP and of Christian art throughout early and medieval Christianity.
“Charles Stang, director of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, states the problem well:
“if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers “
[Ruck p 14 Conjuring Eden: every returning Crusader, every heretical-sects member, every mystic, driven underground, had The Secret Msh, and later every elite — but nobody knew about it, it was SO secret]
“of early Christians using psychedelics like sacrament, “
typo?! missing ‘a’?
“I would expect the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it. I would expect we’d have ample evidence.65
“6 From a description by Wouter Hanegraaff (University of Amsterdam), Charles Stang (Harvard Divinity School), and Jeff Kripal (Rice University) on Hanegraaff’s FB page.”
Huggins wrote, w/ endnote 6:
the study:
“In 2015 a joint project sponsored by the Council on Spiritual Practices was launched by Johns Hopkins’ University School of Medicine and NYU’s Langone Health,
entitled “The Effects of Psilocybin-Facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Religious Professionals.”
The field is waiting for that long-anticipated paper, “2006: Science proof that Psil causes “a complete mystical experienceTM” 🦄💨🌈 – now, with added Religious Professionals” paper from Hopkins/ Griffiths / Matthew Johnson, Frank Barrett crew.
“However, the [Religious Professionals & psilo MEQ] study was featured in both Don Lattin’s 2023 book God on Psychedelics4
and a session at the August 14–18, 2023, Congress of World Religions in Chicago.5 During the previous week (August 6–11, 2023) Esalen Institute in California sponsored an invitation-only conference on Entheogenic Humanities.6
“6 From a description by Wouter Hanegraaff (University of Amsterdam), Charles Stang (Harvard Divinity School), and Jeff Kripal (Rice University) on Hanegraaff’s FB page.”
Kripal, keeping entheogen scholarship well-grounded in the Paranormal, high on Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens. Scientific Historiography!
Webpage about the video, page has transcription, to find the hit count of “secret” — 11 hits.
Stang (and the entire community who worked on this enterprise) PRESUPPOSES that the “orthodox” Church was PROHIBITIONIST – with no evidence.
Stang (and the entire community who worked on this enterprise) PRESUPPOSES that any use of psychedelics was SECRET.
Then Stang wonders why no evidence – when he is laboring in confusion under his own fantasized, PRESUPPOSED scenario, and he perceives his own presupposed scenario to prove the absence of The Mushroom, just like Hatsis argues and I already rebutted as a non sequitur and presupposition of Prohibition.
If Stang would stop adding Prohibition and stop adding Secret, that tilts the evidence in favor of Mura’s goal.
The problem then becomes and different problem, and the evidence becomes different evidence.
Find “rail” in that Harvard page/transcript: same phrasing as Stang articles. Also shows ignorance of Holy Grail upturned Amanita which I agree w/ Heinrich 1995; Holy Grail = upturned Amanita.
Stang says in the video:
“I wish the church fathers were better botanists and would rail against the specific pharmacopeia. They did not. But we do know that something was happening.”
I heard Stang say: I wish the church would rail against pharmacopia, but they didn’t. Therefore there was no use of pharmacopia.
I wish the church would rail against pharmacopia, but they didn’t. Therefore there was no use of pharmacopia.
Charles Stang and Thomas Hatsis
NON SEQUITUR
assumes Prohibition
assumes Secret
assumes Suppressed
The pilzbaum deniers, the psychedelic Eucharist deniers, weave and construct an imagined Suppression scenario and CONFLATE that with the presence of psychedelics. When they don’t find their narrow, specific, particular, highly elaborated particular scenario that they expect and bring their system of expectations, then they conclude that there was no psychdelics, because there was no evidence for secret suppressed prohibition psychedelics.
The Suppression paradigm confuses the sheer presence of psychedelics with presence of secret suppressed prohibition of psychedelics. They go hunting intently for secret suppressed prohibition of psychedelics, don’t find their imagined/fabricated scenario, so then falsely “conclude” there was no use of psychedelics. Scenario of secret suppressed prohibition of psychedelics is not found, “therefore”, psychedelics are not found, they conclude.
“They” is everyone who edited the 2024 revised draft of Stang article: E.S.P. professor Kripal; Ruck; Forte, Muraresku, and also Stang, and the Harvard colloquium members.
EVERY ONE OF THEM made the mistake of conflating “looking for evidence of psychedelics” with “looking for evidence of secret suppressed heretical prohibited psychedelics“.
Their negative finding about the second thing, is used as if a negative finding about the first thing.
It’s a move straight out of Letcher 2005/2007 book Shroom: Bernward Door is not secret, therefore, not mushroom.
The deniers totally conflate the mushroom question with the suppressed-mushroom question.
Mura says:
“my biggest question behind all of this is, as a good Catholic boy, is the Eucharist.”
I agree to your terms of battle.
“my big question is, what can we say about the Eucharist– and maybe it’s just my weird lens, but what can we say about it definitively in the absence of the archaeochemstry or the archaeobotany?
Now, it doesn’t have to be the Holy Grail that was there at the Last Supper, but when you think about the sacrament of wine that is at the center of the world’s biggest religion of 2.5 billion people,
Oh I see you are ignorant of Heinrich’s basic, sound book from 1995.
Mura:
” I opened the speculation, Dr. Stang, that the Holy Grail itself could have been some kind of spiked concoction. “
Stang:
” if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers of early Christians“
Note problem/contradiction/ inconsistency; what does “mainstream” or “many” mean, or “significant numbers”? ELASTIC LANG.
per Ruck Committee, we got that covered: The Secret Msh was in the possession of every returning Crusader, every heretical “sects”/”cults”/”certain communities”, every initiate, mystic, nun, monk, deviant, offshoot, suppressed group, etc etc, who “repeatedly REintroduced The Mushroom into their “communities” and brazenly displayed it in THEIR places of worship.”
— Ruck Committee, “Conjuring Eden” p. 14 in Entheos 1, 2001; supplemented w/ Ruck Committee, “Daturas for the Virgin” p 56, Entheos 2, 2001.
Crop by Cybermonk. Not a mushroom, because has branches, Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article points out. Who has never seen mushrooms, very evidently.
pretty sure this is Stamets’ photo; bigger version says Stamets in lower right, maybe elsewhere in present page
Not a mushroom, because has branches, Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article points out. Ronald Huggins, who has never seen mushrooms, quite evidently.
The art features that Huggins 2024 and Brown 2019 claim “rule out” mushrooms, in fact corroborate mushrooms.
Their arguments are based on a complete and total, shocking and abysmal, lack of basics for identification.
BROWN AND HUGGINS, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT KNOW THESE ULTRA-ELEMENTARY, BASIC FACTS ABOUT MUSHROOM SPECIMENS?!
How the F are we going to debate and decide if mushrooms in Christian art look like mushrooms, when you clearly have never seen actual mushrooms?!
All your arguments don’t persuade, but rather just serve to reveal your embarrassing total ignorance of the topic & field.
Foolish laughingstock.
My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped
Huggins Foraging Wrong says it’s hard for ignorant stupid Medieval artists to see the so-brief, so-transient, rare, unusual, atypical ball form of Amanita; these dumbass ignoramus artists would only have seen the typical, normal, strongly prevalent flat-top form of Amanita. He carries himself with great tone of assureance and soundness.
Here’s how hard it is to see ball form in relation to flat top adult form (no mention of upturned Holy Grail form?!) —
At church today, the slide deck showed the following two images:
Ball form amanita alongside flat top more mature (but not fully Grail mature) form Amanita – ball form is not at all rare or transient or harder to come across than the adult flat mature form. Picture from today’s church service at SGC.
Ball form amanita alongside flat top more mature (but not fully Grail mature) form Amanita – ball form is not at all rare or transient or harder to come across than the adult flat mature form.
Given that Medieval art is stylized AND WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A SPECIAL PLEADING RULE TO EXEMPT AMANITA, the set of 4 pilzbaum in Creation of Plants / Day 3 in Great Canterbury Psalter is well within range of meaning mushrooms; within range of resembling actual literal botanical specimens.
You can’t special-case pilzbaum and say that medieval art is freewheeling in its depictions EXCEPT FOR depictions of trees or mushrooms, in which case (supposedly) identifying mushrooms imagery in particular requires strict botanical accuracy, on the level of the entire, whole pilzbaum image and entire, whole mushroom specimens.
There is no special pilzbaum exemption from the principle that Medieval art is non-literalistic and stylized.
The mature form is often round, not flat. Huggins’ argument reveals TOTAL IGNORANCE about actual lifecycle variance/ distribution/ duration. Picture from today’s church service at SGC.
The mature form is often round, not flat. Huggins’ argument just reveals TOTAL IGNORANCE about actual lifecycle variance/ distribution/ duration.
Conclusion: Huggins hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s talking about. In no sense whatsoever is the ball form of Amanita momentary and rare, as he basis his argument on. To make sure arg, a person would have to be entirely ignorant, just like I was stunned when Brown confidently discarded Walburga because it can’t be Aman b/c it shows serrated base.
To Brown: WHAT?! Have you not seen Heinrich’s 1995 book, or the cover of RES’s 0th edition of Plants of the Gods, called titled 1976 or 1977 book Hallucinogenic Plants: A Golden Guide?
To Huggins: WHAT?! Have you never seen the growing/growth distribution of Amanita forms in its actual lifecycle? Where did you get your ideas, or your “information”? You are just fantasizing, and putting forth your imaginings as if fact.
“using psychedelics like [a?] sacrament, I would expect the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it. I would expect we’d have ample evidence.”
The heavy use of “expect” indicates: Stang brings wrong, unconscious expectations, ie presuppositions.
To “expect” is to presuppose.
Stang thinks & expects: Evidence of The Secret Suppressed Mushroom would be in the form of Condemnation, Rejection, Suppression, railing against, Prohibition decrees & dogmas against The Prohibited Mushroom.
Assume that which is to be proved. Have you ever read a description of the effect of ingesting bread, wine, Eucharist? Apparently not.
This is exactly the same trash reasoning as Hatsis!
Stang reasons:
“Certainly these early churchmen [the enterprise orthodox mainstream] used whatever they could against the forms of Christian practice they disapproved of, especially those they categorized as Gnostic.
Why do you say that the officials categorized Amanita as “Gnostic”?
The only one I hear issuing degrees that Amanita is heretical is Pope Ruck, hiding behind the distancing-phrase, magic projection-phrase, “so-called heretical”.
“You mentioned, too, early churchmen, experts in heresies by” … “Marcus … Love Potion”
Expect this 2021 transcript is interesting to read to compare to the latest Stang Committee enterprise’s 2024 draft version of the keynote about how:
The Prohibitionist Orthodox Mainstream Establishment would have decreed The Mushroom as heretical, but they didn’t, and therefore, we know there was no mushroom use.
See Hatsis (the Psychedelic Historian) for a sound, tried and true explanation of this proof that succeeds at his goal, his accomplishment, which he describes in his book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions is to “explain away” the instances of evidence.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Dancing, Drumming, and Breathing Do Not Produce Psilocybin Effects (no Matter How Many Paid Authorities Try Their Magic Incantations: ‘can’, ‘could’, ‘might’, & ‘may’)
Pigs Can, Could, Might, & May Fly
🦋🐷🦋
Dancing, drumming, and breathing can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.
Wouter Hanegraaff
Dancing, drumming, and breathing can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.
Charles Stang
Dancing, drumming, and breathing can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.
Yulia Ustinova
Dancing, drumming, and breathing can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.
every university employee
Non-drug ASCs? Zero Evidence Required
Anything you can possibly think of can cause the same effect as Psilocybin.
Every scholar agrees and asserts this.
No proof or demonstration is required.
The assertion cannot be challenged; it’s immune and exempt.
There’s no limit on claims.
All these other methods are much more effective than Psilocybin at the significant actual goals of merit, such as having a love-driven life, which Psilocybin can’t accomplish, unlike the traditional methods of the mystics.
Drugs in Religious History? Infinite Evidence Required
Some people claim that psychedelics are at the root of religion.
This cannot be accepted without massive overwhelming explicit textual literal technical scientific direct assertions, and video recordings of the proceedings, and interviews with the original participants.
And that doesn’t count, because it’s not the norm for everyone, universally practiced, but is merely an exception that proves the rule – a heresy, a deviation, an abnormal exception.
Short of interviewing every member of antiquity and every primitive, orthodox Christian, we must firmly reject the hypothesis, because there is no evidence, and there cannot ever be evidence.
We must demand compelling proof.
High art from the most exalted Great Canterbury Psalter: Cutting King’s Cloak While Taking a Necessity
Stang, Hanegraaff, and all scholars:
“There are so many ways of producing same effect as Psil, there’s no need to go into it.
Drumming, dancing, breathing, all can produce same as Psil; space does not permit listing the countless ways that can produce same effect as Psil.
We would be shocked if anyone asked for evidence and support, because this is so well established.”
“Regarding the link, I had to re-upload the book cover because there was some issues with the last cover.
“It didn’t “pop out” enough. I switched from RGB to CMYK. It’s good now.
“Any day now, Amazon will show paperback, Kindle, and Audible versions on their website.
“Did you receive the book already?! Not sure what Amazon is up to, but if you did, it’s okay. You’re probably the first person to get it!”
Mail to Houot at Academia.edu Jan. 4, 2025, about book Rise of the Psychonaut (Feb. 2025)
I replied:
“The cover of my copy of Rise is nice but dark, I can see how popping colors could improve it.
I’ve read about 30% of the pages of the print book Rise of the Psychonaut.
You contribute a much-needed call for a science psychonaut explorer discoverer framework.
Most people now are pushing back against the top-down-imposed “therapy” Big Pharma framing that’s being pushed at us hard.
Psychonaut Science: The Post-Discovery, Delivery Phase
Be sure to cover the Post Discovery, delivery phase.
I’ll see if your book covers that phase.
I’m not your target audience, because I’m post-discovery.
I’m in the later phase, which you cover less: The task & problem of delivering the scientific discovery.
Nutshell summary of history of developing the Egodeath theory
1985: Explored ASC. 1988: Discovered and formed a theory. 1997: Effectively outlined the discovery theory. 1998: Started adding myth interpreted as analogy describing the theory. 2007: Effectively wrote up my theory + myth as analogy describing it, w/ moderate art interp. 2020: Added art motifs (much better) interpreted as analogy describing that 1988/1997 core theory. 2025: Writing that up for publication, how art motifs describe by analogy the core theory discovered in 1988.
It is often very hard work, packaging a discovery for effective delivery and take-up. Does Rise address this?
The fabricated, phony “therapy” approach is actively deleting negative, crucial experiences, as the CEQ q’air deletes 18 of 21 negative effects — crucially important effects for ACTUAL “complete mystical experiencing”.
The CEQ is fraudulent, a travesty of “Science” — a Big Pharma malpractice concoction based on a wrong model by Stace 1960.
MEQ is not much better, and they share this same “just delete the negative” error.
Writing Book Reviews, Review of Rise of the Psychonaut (Houot, 2025)
[As of Jan. 4, 2025, the link that I used to get the paperback is still 404.]
I used to write a lot of book reviews.
Best format: State what each chapter is about. State a couple critiques.
It’s unclear if writing book reviews is best use of time – but today we are looking at newly online review by Charles Stang, of TIK by Muraresku but appears to be a broad review of the theory’s history:
Sloppy Terms: “belief”, “religion”, “the divine”, “sacred”
I’m allergic to how terms are thrown around as if determinate and fixed, given meaning: “belief”, “religion”, “the divine”, “sacred”.
Against wrongly confident “rationalists”, I don’t know what those terms are supposed to mean, and I don’t employ them.
I reject both such “rationalism” and “religion” as discussion frameworks; I made my own framework instead, and reject all previous position-labels from outside my system, eg “perennialism”, “common core of mysticism”.
I agree with some of those ideas, but especially reject how people historically have written about them, in hazy poetic fashion, never grounding/resolving the poetic analogies in direct Engineering terms.
I reject esotericism as a communication style, even if I can redeem and salvage some core ideas in Esotericism.
Be Like Shamans and Have Full Control in the Psychedelic State
You glorify “shamans have total control of the kind we want”.
This won’t pan out in any useful way.
Apples and oranges, very different approach/framework used by shaman’s won’t be effectively imported into modern psychonaut practice.
Surrender, Surrender, but Don’t Give Your Self Away
You have a shallow, off-base conception of “surrender”.
We need an engineering explanation of the dynamics of control involved in this so-called “surrender” (not a term that I utilize, but an important dynamic).
The result is a profoundly transformed mode of control.
Control is transformed, to {be cleansed and pass through the guarded gate} & “have the right to tree of life” Rev 22:14 “and go through the gates into the city”.
(That language is analogy, not direct referent in Engineering terms.)
I rejected the way everyone writes about mysticism (1986) and surrender (2022); we need a clear Engineering expression/ model.
“Cognitive Neuro Science” Means Delete the Cognitive and Label Neuro as “Cognitive”
I reject all the shallow trendy pop lingo of (contradiction in terms) “cognitive neuro science”.
“Cognitive” is false advertising, a marketing claim, a magic word for market positioning, but actually “cognitive neuro science” has zero cognitive, 100% neuro; aka eliminative reductionism.
As a Cognitive advocate, I reject Neuroscience, because the Neuroscience approach always eliminates Cognitive.
Cognitive is useful here; Neuroscience is not useful here, and is harmful because the Neuro approach replaces and eliminates the Cognitive approach.
Neuro discussion of cognition is based in the wrong, inappropriate, misleading level: not useful; too roundabout and indirect to be useful lexicon and conceptual vocabulary.
Reject All Canned, External, Pre-fab Lexicons
I reject the entire external-to-my-theory lexicon “neuroplasticity”, “ego loss”, “ego dissolution”, etc.
My custom lexicon is far better than any such terms; it’s shaped directly by the dynamics of the ASC, without scientistic reductionism.
The Wrecked Field, OSC-Restricted “Cognitive Science of Religion”, Made as Boring and Irrelevant as Possible
The most boring, ruined topic is OSC-restricted “Cognitive Science of Religion”.
A boring approach to a boring aspect of religion, by uninspired writers, who forbid coverage of ASC.”
/ end of my reply to Houot Jan 4 2025
Houot’s reply to me Jan. 11, 2025
Acknowledging the Post-Discovery Phase
Houot’s reply doesn’t mention coverage of the need to deliver and communicate one’s discovery; the post-discovery phase, what happens then? Seems not accounted for in this book (after reading 30% of the pages).
Houot wrote:
“Hi Michael,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I’m the first reviewer of Rise of the Psychonaut
Not only are you the first person ever to buy my book, you’re the first book reviewer as well. I have proof that you are the first, will make a blog post about my journey with KDP, ACX, and the glitch you seemed to have exploited.
Good job!
A few responses to your comments:
Contributes much-needed call for a Science Psychonaut Explorer Discoverer framework
YOU: You contribute a much-needed call for a science psychonaut explorer discoverer framework.
ME: Yes, I think we’re ready as a species/culture for this idea.
Pitting Worst “Religion” Against Best “Science”
YOU: My main critique of Rise will be, it’s all correct, though: Tends to pit worst version of “religion” against best version of “science”.
ME: “This is partly correct. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of medicine/therapy and religious paradigms of psychedelic consumption and interpretation.
“I simply pushed the pendulum in the other direction.
“The pendulum eventually should veer back to the center in this discourse, most likely swinging in the other direction over time with new arguments for a new generation.
Dynamics of Control Involved in “Surrender”
YOU: We need an engineering explanation of the dynamics of control involved in this so-called “surrender” (not a term that I utilize, but an important dynamic).
ME: “Exactly (e.g., my master’s thesis topic), and, I’m thinking about this concept for future publications.”
Cyberdisciple re: Stang employs the constructs “orthodox” vs. “heretics”
Cyberdisciple continues:
“Stang employs the constructs “orthodox” vs. “heretics”.”
Orthodox vs. Heretics = Mainstream vs. Counterculture = the Enterprise vs. Grassroots
I replied:
That’s same badness as the counterproductive, self-defeating “counterculture vs. mainstream” error.
Forte (self-described grassroots publisher of Road to Eleusis) stands apart from “the Enterprise” yet continues to befriend Mururesku, who is part of the Enterprise.
my email to Cyberdisciple 11:22 am jan 4 2025:
Orthodox vs. Heretics Mainstream vs. Counterculture the Enterprise vs. Grassroots [Robert Forte’s terms]
Beware of employing all of these wall-construction barrier boundary constructions, they reify Prohibition, and they perpetuate forcing scholarship into two exclusive uncrossable sides.
[Cyberdisciple replied: “Yes, this area feels like a breakthrough of sorts for strategy of presentation and research.”]
We should be critiquing these constructs as much as employing them, similar to the artificial & forced bucket/ umbrella/ wildcard construct “psychoactive mushrooms, ie Amanita|Psilocybin”.
That’s similar to the caution required when choosing to write ‘psychedelic’ vs. ‘entheogen’.
My big-brain takeaway: BE SURE TO USE LANGUAGE CAREFULLY. I recommend not using words — eg. ‘gnosticism’, ‘Christianity’, & “the”, b/c words can mislead.
Freke & Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries: exoteric vs esoteric
Pagels’s first 3 books: Orthodox vs. Gnostics (Valentinians) Hylics [empty set] vs. Psychics vs. Pneumatics body / soul [bad] / spirit [good]
Cyberdisciple re: Stang leading edge leader; baby steps
Cyberdisciple continued:
“Stang seems part of the leading edge of academics.
“I expect more and more scholars to follow Stang’s lead, accepting psychedelics in a limited way. Baby steps.”
/ end of Cyberdisciple email
email to Cyberdisciple jan 4 #1: Charles Stang, Blotter (Erik Davis, 2024), God on Psychedelics (Don Lattin, 2023)
Jan 4 2025 9:38 am
Ronald Huggins’ Foraging Wrong 2024 article caught Stang writing that the “Creation of Plants/ Third Day of Creation” image in Great Canterbury Psalter is a “bowl” of msh — that is a poor interpretation by Stang.
Here’s what a bowl of Cubensis looks like, depicted by the same artist
My Identification of 4 Mushrooms in Day 4 Creation, f11, Great Canterbury Psalter
[4:23 pm jan 4 2025] I’m pretty sure I posted this id’n before, but per Huggins article re: this 4th Day pic:
The 4 mushrooms in Day 4 of Great Canterbury Psalter f11:
Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama.
Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Panaeolus; Amanita.
Huggins argues that Brown claims the mushrooms in Day 3 are rigidly reproduced intact throughout Great Canterbury Psalter. Huggins tries to stretch what Brown says about organ, tag orange, tan, blue, and red caps – todo: check what Brown wrote.
Against Huggins, the pilzbaum from Creation Day 3 DO transfer wholly to Creation Day 4 (plants), except without branches.
Erwin Panofsky wrote to Wasson, in 1952, after Wassons’ field trip to Plaincourault, about pilzbaum:
“even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification”.
Define “traces”.
Panofsky’s statement is overbroad; Huggins identifies a count of pilzbaum that lack branches in Great Canterbury Psalter; it’s nonzero, going against Huggins’ hero Panofsky that Huggins pulls out of the blue strangely AS IF Wasson didn’t censor the two letters from 1952-2019.
I DEMAND TO KNOW HOW THE HELL RONALD HUGGINS FOUND ABOUT THE TWO PANOFSKY LETTERS IF NOT FROM BROWN 2019 – WHY THE HELL DOESN’T HUGGINS CITE AND CREDIT BROWN 2019, when using the Panofsky letters especially letter 2?
HUGGINS IS DISHONEST AND ROBBING BROWN AND COVERING UP FOR WASSONS MOST-EGREGIOUS AND FRAUDULENT CENSORSHIP, PREVENTING AND OBSTRUCTING AND DELIB MIS-LEADING SCHOLARS AWAY FROM PANOFSKY’S LEADS.
Unless Huggins can explain to me why he how he found Pan’s letters – and why didn’t Huggins publish them?
Panofsky’s two letters including the branches argument is a big discovery, that Hug tries to hide and cover-up. This stinks of fraud.
As I understand & deduce, Wasson censored the two Panofsky letters, hiding them from Ramsbottom in 1955.
Later, when my mobile device made per-row crops (row 1; row 2; row 3 of f134), I discovered library brightened the palette:
Crop by Cybermonk the library’s updated brighter palette
Poor interpretations by pilzbaum affirmers does not mean pilzbaum have been in any way disproved.
Stang’s mistake, “bowl” of msh, is as bad as mistakes of John Rush. It’s fair for Huggins to correct these mistakes, but correcting these mistakes in no way amounts to disproof of pilzbaum.
It’s possible to ridicule pilzbaum affirmers while affirming pilzbaum
Brown made mistakes about specimen id’n both in Walburga tapestry and in Creation of Plants (his “psil, Pan, psil, Ama” should be “Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama”).
But I rightly correct Brown with no implication that pilzbaum are not mushrooms.
I demonstrate that it’s possible to ridicule pilzbaum affirmers while affirming pilzbaum even more than those other pilzbaum affirmers.
I make fun of Brown – still with no implication that affirmers are wrong; in fact Browns’ Walburga screwup is interesting b/c Browns’ strategy backfired in an interesting ironic way:
Brown tried to argue that his interp is reliable, by rejecting Walburga based on his (erroneous) reading of serrated base.
Huggins corrects such errors AS IF he’s disproved pilzbaum.
Review of Blotter (Davis, 2024) by Tristan Angieri
Lattin is a good writer at Lucid.News, includes a pair of articles about Bob “Otis” Stanley of Sacred Garden Community (SGC). https://www.sacredgarden.life
Stang Review of Mururesku TIK
my reply to Cyberdisciple continues:
Stang is Harvard director, video interview session host,
Griffiths is a crew member on the Enterprise – which role was Griffiths, Pollan, & Muraresku on Star Trek?
Forte’s concept: the Enterprise.
Stang Got Griffiths to Admit MEQ’s “Mystical Experience” Is “Positive-Balanced” so as to Simply Ignore & Omit All Negative Mystical Experience
That’s OK, because Negative ASC Effects Are Caught by the CEQ (which Ignores & Omits ASC-Specific Negative Experiences)
😱🐉🚪🔑🚿🚪💎🏆🏅
MEQ – Mystical Experience Questionnaire
CEQ – Challenging Experience Questionnaire
PES – Psychedelic Effects Scale PES is from Leary’s grad student Pahnke 1962, dissert. 1963 book at MAPS site. PES is the orig source of the later MEQ including MEQ 137, MEQ43, MEQ30 (expect MEQ21 next; WHAT’S UP WITH CONTINUAL SHRINKING MEQ?)
Charles Stang got Roland Griffiths on his back heels, defending the MEQ: Hopkins’ positive-only Walter Stace 1960 model of mystic exp’c is “POSITIVE-BALANCED“, like standing 100% on left foot w/ right foot high in air),
and our CEQ is sure to catch negative failures of unicorns producing rainbows like cows produce Psil.
From which we did the same move as MEQ: omit the negative (18 of 21 effects) from the negative q’air.
Our CEQ catches negative effects as long as those effects are same as OSC negative effects.
Discard any ASC-specific negative effects, we’re avoiding those by staying well under 30 mg and only doing 1-2 sessions with newbies.
Science!
And crew member of the Enterprise, Muraresku, will brag about how how we “NOW” have produced “A” bona fide initiation experience, therefore,
WE have solved the problem that Eleusis heirophants FAILED at.
We have an initiation system that’s BETTER THAN DEMETER AND PERSEPHONE.
😡⚡️💥😵💀⚰️
email to Cyberdisciple jan 4 #2: pilzbaum denier arguments that are or are not worth rebutting
Jan 4 2025 10:03 am
There are two types of errors in pilzbaum interp, one is more worth rebutting, one is less worth spilling any ink:
* Aspects of pilzbaum/ mixed-wine deniers that ARE worth rebutting.
* Aspects of pilzbaum/ mixed-wine deniers that are NOT worth rebutting. such as bad tone, where Huggins discusses new details with a tone of “therefore pilzbaum are not purposefully meaning msh”).
Huggins:
“I am writing about details of the pilzbaum in Great Canterbury Psalter, therefore not msh” – that’s the framing he poses as.
“We know pilzbaum don’t purposefully mean mushrooms, because I am delivering descriptions of the form and patterns of pilzbaum.”
You might find same bad arg’n style in other topics:
“I’m right, because here’s my general description of the material in some more detail (general info) than my opponent.”
It’s good that Huggins discusses details of pilzbaum.
It’s bad that he does so with a TONE/framing of “therefore pilzbaum affirmers are wrong.”
It’s an uncooperative, adversarial tone of contributing to the study.
Year of Stamets’ kicking “Lib Cap ancient Europe” deniers to the curb: 2005, not 2022, afaik:
Hancock’s 2022/Visionary intro: “I kept old chapters untouched, that’s my philosophy”, for 2nd Ed, titled “Visionary”.
Visionary pp 187-192 debating “yes there were Lib Cap & Pana in ancient Europe” “nah-ah, b/c i am a committed skeptic” (Bahn i think).
Stamets in Supernatural 2005 [preserved in Visionary 2022 edition] by Hancock says:
“f this s; not wasting my time on worthless rubbish arguments by committed skeptics who deny in 2005 that there’s Liberty Cap, Pana, & other Psil msh in ancient Europe.”
A balance is needed: There is a “fair point” aspect in ALL the arguments… or MOST all of the args from bullheaded pilzbaum/ mixed-wine deniers,
committed skeptics who put forth ever more bizarre argument vectors:
My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped (instance 3 of this heading)
“This pilzbaum doesn’t look like mushroom, because the artist wouldn’t have seen ball form cap,
b/c ball form is such a transient phase in Amanita lifecycle that the artist would have depicted Amanita only in its mature flat-top adult form.”
Revealing: I haven’t the faintest idea what I’m talking about, YET I’m going to strut around posing as if I’ve put forth authoritative persuasive arg’n.
Nothing but Huggins making a laughingstock fool of himself.
How is this even worth rebutting? This is ridiculous, a typical shockingly absurd instance of obvious fallacious arg’n. Why waste time on foolishness, folly? End of my 2006 Plainc article – move forward, abandon folly.
Looking-Lines Connecting Non-Branching and Balance, f177
Instead of to produce the prize, Transcendent Knowledge; {immortality}; to {live forever} — ie, past through the threat-guarded transformation gate to attain the mind’s mature, non-transient form.
Transformation from possibilism branching to eternalism non-branching mental worldmodel. From autonomous control to dependent, 2-level control.
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk
The guy looking right is connecting the left-looked item to the {scale balance}.
I need to add DERIVED CONNECTIONS that are accomplished by these paired looking-lines.
The top pair of looking-lines (horses): {non-branching} is connected to: {God’s hand lifting}.
The bottom pair of looking-lines (corpse lifters of the PASSIVE CORPSE): {left-foot-standing rams} and {[visually] cut-right branch} is connected to: {scale balance}. (out of view here)
Ego “death” is a stupid fake unjustified characterization of Psilocybin effects? Tell that to Eadwine. Motif of “threat” implies death. same with flame, blade.
A sort-of “threat” is the threat of a sort-of “death”.
The egoic control system is threatened to death, driving mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
The Marketing-Myth of Eleusis
We have the Mythic Amanita, as opposed to actual Amanita.
We have the Mythic Plainc fresco, as opposed to ACTUAL fresco.
We have the Mythic Eleusis construct, vs. actual Eleusis.
Why was the mythic Eleusis construct fabricated and marketed? Who profits? Old elites (Eleusis rulers) and new elites (Big Pharma; Big Psychedelic)?
Mura speculates: Christianity took the exclusivity of Eleusis, took the kykeon, and placed it on every house-church table.
Catholic Muru, says primitive Christianity was good:
Christianity liberated kykeon from the iron grip of the Eleusis rulers, made kykeon available to everyone.
Weaponized Entheogen Scholarship
The above makes Forte flip out, because he writes, the very worst thing that could possibly happen is that the Catholic Church use Psilocybin. God forbid!
We cannot allow that!
Do WHATEVER IT TAKES to keep Psilocybin out of the hands of the Church – that is THE reason and motivation for our doing and wielding our weapon of entheogen scholarship.
Never mind that that makes us blind to evidence; prevents Repeal of Prohibition; perpetuates isolating The Msh within the container boundary, “the Counterculture”.
Our The Divine Counterculture Mushroom, of Us Heretics, Outsiders Forever
Never let the evil Mainstream possess our The Mushroom, our The Divine Counterculture Mushroom. Bolster Prohibition forever.
Keep The Mushroom heretical! per Pope Ruck: by the magic of definition, the mushroom is inherently heretical, so-called heretical sects, ruck calls them, any mushroom use is defined by Ruck as so-called heretical.
This is the dilemma choice possible options: Either:
Bolster Prohibition to keep the bad guys, the Church, from possessing The Mushroom. John Lash: “I can’t allow Jesus/Moses to have used our mushroom.” Keep The Mushroom heretical-only, forever. Or,:
Top-down takeover of Psilo by the Enterprise [Forte term]; employing and pushing figureheads Griffiths, Pollan, Mura. Promote the hell out of them, by Big Networking, Big Pharma; Big Psychedelic.
A better ‘or’:
My 3rd option: Full Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition. Work out the details later, of who are the good guys & bad guys [latter terms from Travis Kitchens article Part 2].
Part 2 article does not contain the words:
repeal
reform
policy
law
schedules
prohibit
Entheogen scholarship is compliant and complicit and accommodationist, enabling perpetuation of Prohibition.
For all Forte “cares”, that care omits Repeal of Prohibition. Whatever Forte most cares about and is worried about, it’s not Repeal of Prohibition.
Forte’s message is not “Repeal Psilocybin Prohibition“.
The More Prominent the mushroom in Christian art, the more “heretical-sect exclusive” we must emphatically frame it
An alien heretical infiltration into the very heart of the Church, proving how intensively the Church suppressed our The Mushroom
That’s what he, Ruck, calls mushroom use: he calls any use of The Mushroom so-called heretical.
Doubly so, for the most major and centrally placed mushrooms in Christian art. The most prominent mushrooms in Christian art are super heretical, such as the cubensis in Cant. Cath. image “Eustace crossing the river”.
Forte & Pinchbeck vs. Muraresku TIK Article by Travis Kitchens; Part 2 (Jan. 2, 2025)
Against “Consciousness Elevation”: The Egodeath theory does not support The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM, which is defined and controlled by shadows
What I Do Support Is Full Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition
Who is pushing The Psychedelic Renaissance? Why?
Who gets to control and direct it?
These shell-game constructs: “the needs of humanity today” – vague meaningless empty shell, who gets to define “the needs of humanity today”?
Exact phrases from Kitchens Part 2: from a pull quote: “meetings that aim ito re-establish Eleusis as a global reference point for:”
“consciousness elevation” – REJECT! HARD PASS!
“the tackling of modern global challenges” – REJECT! HARD PASS!
“the protection of life on our planet” – REJECT! HARD PASS!
These are intentionally – Huggins’ word – ELASTIC empty shells, that can be made to mean ANYTHING.
They are empty wildcards with no inherent determinate meaning. I reject your project.
The only project I do & support is the ME project; the Egodeath theory as defined by the Egodeath theory.
Who gets to define “a complete mystical experience”? Stace 1960?
What is a “complete mystical experience”? Per the Leary/Stace PES [1962] aka SoCQ aka the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) – if you score high enough on these opinionated set of effects defined by Stace in 1960, eg since I don’t believe in “ineffability”; I’d fail the test : (
Big Therapy is trying to take over the Psilocybin experience / effects, including steering negative revelatory/ transformative effects instead into a profit-driven, mundane-constrained Psycholytic Grief Therapy model.
This isn’t Science; this is Marketing strategy, dictating the effects and WHAT KIND OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS WE SHALL MAKE PSILOCYBIN HAVE, for profit.
“Item 54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
We can’t profit from that, so give some math to excuse our “dropping” that “item”, “because of cross-loading” – yeah, that’s the ticket!
Cross-loading: Translation: These negative effects, 18 out of 21, didn’t fit neatly into one of our Studerus-fabricated slots, so we banished 8 of them into the general broad “Negative” hi-level dimension instead of a narrow low-level “factor” category.
CEQ only draws from the narrow, “factor”-contained negative items, to form CEQ’s initial item pool.
Presto, 8 of 21 negative Psilicybin effects magically “disappeared”. 10 more to go! to achieve our goal, of ending up with just the 3 most feeble negative psil fx. Not 21, but 3. 14%; ditch 86%.
(We put our “B-team” scientists there, on the negative effects categorization task.)
Replace it by a long Grief category/ dimension/ scale/ subscale, because we can turn that into a profit:
OUR NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE PROFIT MODEL THAT CEQ needs to be reshaped to support – b/c our initial item pool wasn’t profit-optimized enough.
eg the half baked MEQ and the absolute garbage CEQ that fails at its one job, catching the negative peak experience.
Multiple topic threads here are driven by critique of Elesus meme/ myth/ construct.
Turning “Eleusis” into a simplified cartoon, for what propaganda purpose?
Are we talking about “Amanita”/ “Eleusis”/ “history of esoteric wisdom” as an actual thing, or as a mythic construct?
Are we doing reality-based coverage, or myth-based coverage of these things?
Difficult Writing by Travis Kitchens
Travis Kitchens’ writing is too hard to follow b/c overuse of pronouns and other indirect words:
“the book”, after he just listed 3 different books. Why not give the title?
“He was made when he saw that tribute for his idea.” Which idea? Who is “he”? Why not say his name directly?
The article is just a little too literary, colorful but unclear phrases.
The Part 2 article has good content, buried behind unclear writing. This particular flaw (always using indirect words instead of direct specifying) needs an edit pass, to reach ready readability.
Who the F Is this Invader of Our Space, Michael Pollan/ Brian Muraresku/ Roland Griffiths?
Griffiths’ CEQ q’air: Convert Stace’ 1960 lopsided, 1-sided “balanced” model [quote transcripotion where Stang catches Griffiths; G replies “we ignore negative effects, to have a balanced model of mysticism], unicorns and rainbows mysticism, into a Profit Model redirecting the failure of that model into Grief psycholytic therapy
Catch certain failures but discard the Shadow Dragon Monster, ie negative effects that are specific to the ASC vs workaday familiar-sounding psychotherapy OSC-based constructs.
I recorded, but probably didn’t upload, half hour of wondering what veteran psychonauts say against Pollan; critiquing the Michael Pollan invasion of the field: he works hard and is amplified hard by Big Communication network; Big Publishing, Big Networking, top-down.
I came to similar conclusions as Forte.
Travis Kitchens’ Part 2 article confirmed my line of questioning, my wondering about the reception of Pollan’s book How to Change Your Mind.
Forte befriended Muraresku in the end, which is kind of like my continued push for full Repeal and allowing Pollan and Mura, outsiders, the Mainstream, to enter “our” space.
But recognize top-down “invasion” realistically.
Forte is skeptical about WHY “Eleusis” is being fake-promoted to absurd mythic heights; why does Big Networking push and push the dumbed-down 1-dimensional, the “Eleusis” CONSTRUCT?
What are we being sold, and why?
Allegro/Ruck/McKenna: “To smash the Church. That’s why we do entheogen scholarship. It’s the star we steer by: our “Big Bad Church Suppressed The Msh” narrative.”
I’ve been rejecting “counterculture vs mainstream” distinction because it preserves and perpetuates Psilocybin Prohibition.
We’ll do anything to uphold our narrative, including perma-prohibition to prove us right about how terrible.
End of article: “I don’t know if Mura [& Pollan?] is Good or Bad.” – Forte. “Whatever, move forward.”
Bennett vs. Muraresku TIK Article by Travis Kitchens; Part 1
Lundborg Shallow: Why Gave Away Doses for Free in 1966-1970
Lundborg says on same page as Oct 1966, “for no reason, a trend was to give away doses for free”. False.
The reason was LAW; it beccame illegal to sell; it became legally requred to give away doses for free. That’s allowed, that’s legal. Don’t sell or else jail.
You MUST give away doses for free. you are NOT ALLOWED to charge money.
Lundborg has limited comprehension despite knowing so much. Shallow.
Lundborg engages with good set of topics, like Hatsis Letcher Huggins does.
I Never Believed in Books: Books Read per Semester
I did and didn’t depend on books. 1986 I HELD MY NOSE while I read books. It was plenty clear books have limited relevance/utility. Wilber & Watts are state of the art, the state of the art is: poorly known.
No way is the combination in one book. Clearly I need a custom approach …. when was “theory” born, as a theory? ?
April 1987? that’s the obvious date but better Jan 1988.
That pair of dates bracketing the formation of my “theory” concept, that Iam working on developing a theory”, comes into view, fades into view.
Oct 1985, I was working on my personal control, not in style of systematic theory; just figuring out.
Apr 1987 (new style, 2nd fresh attempt)- my activity was de facto theory construction; my activity was styled as working on a theory.
After that, during that semester, I first had the idea of write up a book when i soon figure this S out, and i did soon – not next week as wished, but in Jan 1988, I (in effect) figured out all i was trying to grasp.
everything, goal, expectation, transformed.
Jan 1988. (crashes together, clearly a theory). Branched out to read many fields in order to learn the wording in the fields, to deliver and express what I already have, core newborn theory.
I stood independently skeptically of the books; I knew they were flawed and limited, the books don’t have the answer – and I still think that’s the case.
I wasn’t frustrated w/ books, it’s worse, i had no hope for books to do much.
I got the basic ideas from human potential movement from father.
I could tell what range of limited use ideas after heaving read the Way of Zen by Alan Watts and 1986-era Ken Wilber. And 25 other books.
Other than that, I didn’t read anything; not a reader.
My amount of reading books for the Egodeath proto-theory varied per semester.
In early 1985, before I started the Egodeath theory, I didn’t read.
My dad gave me books, later I read.
I started reading June 1986.
todo: list my 1980s semesters, then fill in notes about the reading done each semester.
My reading exploded after the Jan 1988 breakthough (block-universe determinism in loose cognition).
Hard to be certain, would have to detail that history.
Why I Read The Way of Zen by Alan Watts
I read intensively the Way of Zen by Alan Watts during 1987 build-up to the breakthrough.
Satori switch approach: Engineering Approved.
Cybernetics of problematic control – good topic. Engineering Approved. Let’s debug this right now. Fix my flawed control, right now.
How Little I Expected by Reading Books when Initially Forming the Egodeath theory
It was plenty clear after watts wilber the limits of what books have to offer. Sawdust irrelevancy. The limits felt clear.
Today I can still defend that assessment: books are really limited and low relevance, low usefulness, not the combination needed.
The Egodeath theory is the combination needed.
The books don’t have the answers. The custom Egodeath theory has the set of answers & concerns. Transcendent Knowledge. Transcendent thinking.
Block-universe determinism in loose cognition, superdeterminism, preexisting future control thoughts in the iron block universe.
I read some books at start of theory development in Fall 1985 semester. (Engineering school, so we did Summer, forming a trimester.)
In the Summer 1986 trimester, I read books, like Trungpa on Meditation, but expected limited usefulness.
I’m trying to say I didn’t read books; that my philosophy … the books would be of limited usefulness.
History of Determinism
I later found many fields cover free will vs. determinism but the fields are all framed as if separate; the topic of free will vs. determinism is everywhere, so we don’t see it how ubiq it is in fields. reformed theology; heimarmene.
Heimarmene in Early Antiquity, Transcending Heimarmene in Late Antiquity
heimarmene in early ant’y, 2-level model transcending heimarmene in late antiquity. 3-level model.
First you only have naive possibilism-thinking / possibilism-thinking.
Then you briefly have eternalism-thinking, dominant.
You end up with broad, eternalism-thinking including qualified possibilism-thinking and eternalism-thinking.
Mapping Egodeath Theory Constructs to Andro-Gyne/ Hermes-Aphrodite in Alchemical Rebis Holding a Y
map a contrasted pair of things to king & queen:
The thought-injector {king} is not known until initiation, so therefore, map {king} motif of rebis to eternalism-thinking.
{king} = eternalism-thinking
{queen} = possibilism-thinking – which you employ almost all the time including peak loose cognition peak loosecog.
queen = active qualified possibilism-thinking
The rebis has two heads: a king head AND a queen head.
The word AND = rebis two heads: a ruler king & a ruler queen.
When you finally return to baseline, you have active qualified possibilism-thinking, not just passively limited/ qualified possibilism-thinking.
ACTIVE use of, transcendent use of possibilism-thinking .
Active qualified possibilism-thinking.
naive possibilism-thinking
eternalism-thinking
qualified possibilism-thinking
Phase 1: Naive possibilism-thinking. Phase 2: Eternalism-thinking. (In a narrow, exclusive sense.) Phase 3: Qualified possibilism-thinking. (Including eternalism-thinking.)
Qualified possibilism-thinking is eternalism-thinking in the broad sense, as wide as Hanegraaff’s definition of ‘entheogen’.
Anything and everything, the universal set, U = entheogen.
Nothing is not an entheogen.
You name it: it’s an entheogen.
Simply rob Psilocybin of credit, and claim that everything can produce same effect as two bowls of Psilocybin.
False Advertising Gaslighting by Meditation Hucksters
Meditation huckster: “Active Imagination, meditation, dancing, drumming, and breathwork can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.“
Sucker; mark: “I did your meditation, and it does not produce the same effects as Psilocybin.”
Meditation huckster: “We never claimed that active Imagination, meditation, dancing, drumming, and breathwork can produce the same effects as Psilocybin.”
The Way of Zen (Alan Watts, 1955)
I didn’t much read books, just merely Ken Wilber’s books and Alan Watts 1 book. READ THE BOOK SECTIONS AND READ THE ARTICLE TOO. READ THEM TOGETHER.
todo: cite Watts passages eqivalent to article “ZatPoC”.
1986: hard to think about: i tried to reject Way of Zen and return gift to father. I said to my father, that spirituality stuff, that’s not the way I think. I’m an engineering student. He said keep the book. Then I read it 7 times.
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts 1955 – control-themed, cybernetics. Aldous Huckstley book was 1954. wos the Way of Zen by Alan Watts too early to cover 1960s head mysticism. If ergot is mentioned it was be psychiatric therapy model. Soon after, Watts Joyous Cosmology asc.
“Zen and the Problem of Control” (Alan Watts article in This Is It book)
This one’s for Strange Loop:
Was Watts in any way influenced by ergot, or mescaline, or asian psil mushrooms, or nitrous, in this 1955 book? He quickly covered that.
This Is It w/ Zen Cybernetics Zen and the Problem of Control” article (1970?)
Zen and the Problem of Control, Alan Watts, in This Is It collection of essays.
Cybernetics applies to individual self-control and self-determination with an intensity that is distinct from the problems of sociological control. Alan Watts wrote about the problematic nature of self-control cybernetics in his article “Zen and the Problem of Control” in the book _This Is It_.
Irvin’s Confused Characterization of Psilocybin as “Suggestogens” Instead of Psychedelics or Entheogens
These articles are similar to the pair of articles by Kitchens about reception of Muraresku’s TIK by those entheogen scholars who got ripped off by Mura:
This article series shows that Psilocybin is an evil fake lie. Silent about Amanita.
Psilocybin is a Suggestogen; because that’s what some ppl tried to do w it, therefore that’s the effect of Psilcybin, to make you suggestible by Them.
The essence of what Psilocybin is: being suggestible by Them. According to Irvin. The name “psychotomimetic”. The name “psychedelic”. The name “entheogen”. The correct name is “suggestogen”, not “psyechdelic”, to name the effect of Psilocybin.
Psilocybin does not actually give a psychdelic effect, it gives a Suggestogen effect. Irvin conflates his narrow expose of malicious application of Psilocybin, with the cognitive effects of psil. Application of Psil vs. effect of Psil, is the diferent focus.
Robert Forte’s Criticism of Muraresku’s The Immortality Key; The Enterprise
The Christian Establishment – Forte flips out whenever he spits the word Christianity.
Christianity = Evil, Forte emphasizes, yells:
CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL! – Foaming-at-the-mouth Forte
The Psychedelic Renaissance is top-down, imposed, fake, corporate, and worst of all, it’s Christian!! bc Mura is Catholic.
Forte labors to bolster drug prohibition, in order to prevent the Big Bad Church from Psilocybin Eucharist, which he says wouls be the worst thing that could possibly happen. Evil Catholic/ Christian Mururesku.
We must do whatever it takes to not allow the worst thing that could happen, Forte says: the Catholic Church using Psilocybin.
I’m siding with the Catholic Church on this one against Prohibitionist Forte.
Full Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.
We’ll do anything it takes to stop that.
Bennett Ripped Off by Muraresku
Brian Muraresku, outsider newcomer, studied with Chris Bennett (“Rev 22:2’s twelve manners of fruits crops every month means 12 uses of cannabis”) to get up to speed, then used Bennett’s ideas in The Immortality Key book, failed to credit Bennett, promises to do so next printing.
WTF! Lundborg Comic Book Fantasy Myth: “Greeks only used psychedelics once per year, at Eleusis”
Lundborg’s credibility just fell off a cliff (if it hadn’t already). Welcome to entheogen scholarship. I bet he writes other sentences that contradict this; eg he says there were “several” mystery religions.
the Greco-Roman world restricted its psychedelic celebrations to the annual kykeon initiation at the Great Temple in Eleusis.
Patrick Lundborg, Psychedelia: An Ancient Culture, A Modern Way Of Life, p. 237
Amanita Has been Scientifically Disconfirmed, So We Must Consider Formally Rejecting that Hypothesis or Major Aspects of It
A year ago I swept across books reviewing history of Wasson’s attempt to lump together Amanita and Psilocybin: in that literature, Wasson & entheogen scholarship is forced to reach and write the conclusion, which I am driving home:
The attempt definitely failed. So what must we do?
We must officially reject the failed hypothesis of 1952-1957; it’s been disconfirmed.
We now now that we CANNOT lump together into a synthetic tentative explanatory construct “The Mushroom”, “psychoactive mushrooms”, “sacred mushrooms”, “sacred fungi”, etc. – SO STOP DOING IT!!!!
Lundborg quote about weird choice of The Mushroom being Amanita, p. 35:
“Allegro … Wasson … A neutral reader may find it puzzling that both men insisted on the fly agaric as the “hallucinogen” origin of two world religions, in view of the unpredictable, un-psychedelic, and unpleasant effects often reported from those who have tried to get high on Amanita muscaria. The fact that Allegro’s suggested ‘sacred mushroom’ didn’t produce effects even remotely as attractive as those of the psilocybe genera may have been as vital to the book’s failure among psychedelicists as the academic criticism. … the psychedelic or ‘entheogenic’ theories of Christianity should not be dismissed just because of the Allegro debacle …” – Lundborg, Psychedelia, p. 35
Psychedelia: An Ancient Culture, A Modern Way Of Life Patrick Lundborg [1967-2014] December 11, 2012 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DDY96NKM – hardcover
per sentence, condensed by Cybermonk:
“It’s puzzling that both Allegro and Wasson insisted on Amanita as the “hallucinogen” that’s the origin of two world religions — Hinduism and Christianity — given the unpredictable, un-psychedelic, and unpleasant effects reported by those who have tried to get high on Amanita.
” Allegro’s suggested ‘sacred mushroom’, Amanita, didn’t produce effects even remotely as attractive as those of the psilocybe genera.”
“The psychedelic or ‘entheogenic’ theories of Christianity should not be dismissed just because of the Allegro debacle.”
— Lundborg, Psychedelia, p. 35
Forbidden Word List: ‘ritual’, ‘cult’
Lundborg casually employs terms. Never ever did any shaman ever ingest drugs; rather, they had RITUAL drug use in their drug CULT, cultic practices. It’s as bad as always tacking on, fakely, the word “experiment”.
“I did not ingest drugs; rather, I EXPERIMENTED WITH drugs”.
Why are people such parrots, so conventional, dumb passive vehicles for memes? Why does everyone just carbon-copy the hackneyed cliched word choice for no reason, like the meaningless words “ritual” and “cult”?
The tribe members, some of them, used drugs. THAT WORDING WILL NOT DO!!
The tribe members, some of them, used drugs in their cultic ritual. THAT’S BETTER, FIXED IT.
Such hackneyed conventional word-addition adds nothing, adds no substance at all.
Lundborg Good Motifs {gatekeeper}, {guard}, {gate}, {cleansed to pass through gate}
Patrick Lundborg p. 461 Gatekeeper motif, {guard}, {cleansed to pass through gate}
Excellent {gate guard} treatment. threatened, cleansed to pass through the gate.
Lundborg Premature Closure: No Psychedelics in Buddhism
I don’t understand how he can title the book an ancient way of life and then with fully closed mind, proclaim:
Now in 2012 we know everything about entheogens history, and we know there’s no psychdelics in Buhhdist origins, proved by the fact that no one ever thought to look; no one has written book.
Mike Crowley did in early 2017, write a book on psych origins of Buddhism; also Ratsch 2002:
Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas (Ratsch, 2002)
Psychedelia by Lund. > Index > Ratsch: p. 226-227, 407 – see which books cited.
Crowley; Bennett book on Tree of Life 13 Fruits
Crowley book is “the first book to explore the historical evidence for the use of entheogenic plants within the Buddhist tradition.”
If I recall, Bennett has become a major loud naysayer against Crowley.
I discount Bennett easily enough, eg Bennett book was apparently confused inspirted by the passage i recently found, where he argues Rev 22:2 tree of life 13 plants each month means 1 only: cannabis.
I gave positive review to book and I defended book as not making the single-plant fallacy, but he practically DOES do that re: Rev 22:2 tree of life. So the critic claiming single-plant fallacy was essentially right, here.
Thanks Chris for deleting and leaving on the table 12 out of 13 different plants. by using your inferior, MISREADING Bible “twelve manner of fruits crops every month plus healing leaves” as “12 uses of hemp/cannabis”, which a few days ago Dec 2024 he repeated same, in an interview.
That fault undercuts my entire inspiration to read more of Bennett’s book, signed to me at his place.
I’m disappointed in Lundborg for denying entheogenic origin of Buddhism so that what Lund writes about meditation culture is the usual junk that I hated since forever, 1985, late 1990s:
Gnosis Western Esotericism special issue on Psychedelics
Tricycle Buddhism special issue on Psychedelics
The related book Zig Zag Zen by Allan Badiner.
Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics, 2nd Ed. – with Ayahuasca (Badiner, 2015) (1st Ed. 2002)
“A guide for people in pursuit of greater fulfillment in their lives and for those seeking a deeper spiritual truth and strategies for liberation from suffering.
Buddhism and psychedelic exploration share a common concern: the liberation of the mind.
This new edition of Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics has evolved from
the landmark anthology that launched the first inquiry into the ethical, doctrinal, and transcendental considerations of the intersection of Buddhism and psychedelics.
A provocative and thoughtful exploration of inner states and personal transformation,
Zig Zag Zen now contains an expanded display of stunning artwork including pieces from Android Jones, Sukhi Barber, Ang Tsherin Sherpa, and Amanda Sage, as well as the original brilliant work of Robert Venosa, Mark Rothko, Robert Beer, Francesco Clemente, and many others, including more work by the pioneering visionary artist Alex Grey.
Complementing these new images are original [apparently new] essays by such luminaries as Ralph Metzner and Brad Warner; ZEN MASTER BRAD!! TRANSCENDS AUTHENTICITY 🤯 exciting interviews with James Fadiman, Kokyo Henkel, https://www.google.com/search?q=Kokyo+Henkel and Rick Doblin; and a discussion of
ayahuasca’s unique influence on Zen Buddhism by David Coyote; all of which have been carefully curated to extend the original inquiry of authors Joan Halifax Roshi, Peter Mattheissen, Jack Kornfield, Ram Dass, Terence McKenna, Rick Fields, and many others.
Buddhism and psychedelics are inevitable subjects encountered on the journey to wisdom.
Examined together, the reader may understand more deeply the essence of each.”
Non drug meditation to produce feeble benefits is fine, but I can’t stand telling lies and false claims about its history or benefits, involving disparaging and robbing Psilocybin (which is the foundation and origin of meditation).
The Meditation Hucksters are every bit as bad as the Salvation Salesmen. Frauds, fakes, and swindlers, liars, phonies, braggarts, who will never deliver the falsely promised goods, and will deny making their sky-high marketing promises.
False Advertising and No Refunds; Buyer Beware.
The Meditation Church of Egoic Wishful Thinking.
The flaw in Lund book is right where I am most irate and sensitive: nothing burns me up like the massive canard,
“Can psilocybin simulate authentic traditional non-drug meditation?”
My little point I picked up on and recently announced (find tree of life + 12), evidently was the whole motivating power behind the 2001 book.
Premature Closure in entheogen scholarship; massive negative overconfidence in claiming “We now know that there were no psychedleics in this religion’s history”
Safford 1915: We Now Know there is no Psilocybin Use in Mexico
Lundborg in 2012: “Entheogen scholarship is now mature, and no one asserts psychedelics in Buddhism history”
The Alchemical Rebis’ Two Heads Map to Which Contrasts in the Egodeath theory?
instance 2 of pic in this page:
mysterious uncontrollable higher injector of control thoughts [male] helpless thought receiver [female]
transcendent thinking egoic thinking
eternalism-thinking possibilism-thinking
eternalism-thinking in the broad inclusive sense includes possibilism-thinking eternalism-thinking in the narrow exclusive sense is the antonym of possibilism-thinking
the “eternalism” mental model includes: * eternalism-thinking * possibilism-thinking
2-level model/representation:
egoic thinking; possibilism-thinking
transcendent thinking; eternalism-thinking
The 2-level model appears as if mutually exclusive opposites.
3-level model; 3-phase model
naive possibilism-thinking
strict eternalism-thinking
virtual possibilism-thinking including eternalism-thinking
The 3-level, 3-phase model/representation (“same” as 2-level, we’re just adding detail) looks like the pre/trans fallacy: you end up back emphasizing freewill thinking, like at the start — but now it’s become cleansed, qualified, recognized as consciously virtual-only.~
Lundborg’s Conventional False Dichotomy: Drugs for Instant Effortless Transformation vs. Non-Drug Long-term Work Producing Permanent Altered State
Psychedelia: An Ancient Culture, A Modern Way Of Life Patrick Lundborg [1967-2014] hardcover December 11, 2012 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DDY96NKM
Lundborg’s book Psychedelia reads as if it were written in 1966.
Lundborg totally buys into the massive conventional False Dichotomy: Drugs for Instant effortless Transformation vs. Non-Drug Long-term work producing permanent ASC
Infantile Wishful Thinking, Egoic Quantum Mysticism, and the Fantasized Expectation, False Promise of Perma-ASC
Egoic thinking gets free rein to just freely wish and imagine what ego would LIKE enlightenment to be about, and tons of Zen Master Brads are lined up to FLEECE THE GULLIBLE WISHFUL SUCKERS.
Perma-ASC is as much pop nonsense rubbish egoic wishful thinking as Egoic Quantum Mysticism, that stank up my university Modern Physics classroom:
“QM manyworlds is Science proof that if I fantasize myself making a QM observation, at all moments I am the creator of infinite branching worlds.”
A regurgitation of Badiner’s Zig Zag Zen – everything I railed against in the late 1990s. A massive prejudiced false dichotomy, “traditional methods of the mystics, vs. drugs”.
How can PL book be so ignorant of entheogen scholarship and its theories that all religion originates from drugs and the only mystic … the only way to have a mystic experience is drugs, which is my hardline position.
We Must Use Egoic Thinking All the Time
ASC 14% of the time, max (7%, for psil) OSC 86% of the time, min (93%, for psil)
14% ASC / 86% OSC (ergot) 7% ASC / 93% OSC (psil)
I don’t put up with any grand claims that meditation produces transformation from possibilism to eternalism in the loose cog state, or produces permanent loose cog state, which is not how the mind works.
Perma-ASC is a foolish claim and expectation, States vs Stages. I thought we figured this out by 1989. I feel like I’m thown back to 1989 just by having to make these elementary points.
Meditation-religion or psychedelic drugs (an ideal series of seessions) do NOT produce permanent ASC.
That notion that enlightenment has anything to do with perma ASC is pure pop rubbish and Marketing lies.
That’s not how the mind works. There is ZERO evidence to the contrary.
There is zero reason to imagine, expect, or believe that meditation or psychedelics produces perma ASC.
The notion of perma ASC sounds like it’s the year 1966.
Perma ASC is pure fantasy, wishful thinking, a crude infantile mis-conception of transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
The mental worldmodel changes – the state stays same:
After enlightenment, after complete mental worldmodel transformation, you are 100% of the time in tightcog binding OSC. NOT perma asc.
So you better LOVE the OSC and egoic thinking, now as qualified possibilism-thinking.
Become a rebis: two headed, Hermes-Aphrodite; Andro-Gyne.
You sustain and continue forever, possibilism-thinking, now transformed to qualified possibilism-thinking – always in the OSC of tight cog.
Loose cog occurs ~0% of the time.
365 days / year, 6 hours of ASC per year, 6 hours / (365 * 25 hours) = 0.0007% of the time.
For a hardcore tripper: twice a week blotter 10 strip 1000 mics: twelve hour trips. 12 hours 2x/week for a year, or calculate on a 1-week basis:
Each week, you have two 12 hour loose cognition sessions generously call this “24 hours of altered-state experiencing.”
24 hours of ASC per week is like 1 day out of 7, which is 1/7 of the time in the ASC. 1/7 = 14% of the time ASC, 86% of the time OSC – that’s the extreme max upper limit, of classic psychedelics.
Every 3.5 days, a 12-hour blotter …
The figure is halved for Psil, or even less: 4-6 hours Psil vs 10-14 hours Ergot.
If take blotter twice a week, that’s 12 hours of ASC per week, 1/7 = 14% ASC, 86% OSC – as the extreme upper limit. AT MOST, can be in ASC 14% of the time.
So, if a person reasonably does two 12-hour psychedelic sessions per week, that’s being under the influence 14% of the time.
The other 6/7 of the time = 86% of the time, stuck with OSC, tightcog, egoic thinking; the egoic mode – albeit, qualified possibilism-thinking; employing on a day-in, day-out basis, qualified egoic thinking.
Purify ({cleanse}, {heal}) Egoic Thinking in Order to Use It All the Time
egoic thinking, the egoic mental model of control.
During the intense peak session window, even then, must employ the childish egoic thinking — so you better clean/ cleanse/ purify — while retaining — egoic thinking.
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Eastern religion makes HUGE CLAIMS, but cannot at all deliver on their false promises, braggadocio, which are baseless anti-drug pride and hubris from the Marketing dept of lies.
30 years of non-drug meditation accomplishes nothing (compared to their HUGE bragging claims that DISRESPECT THE HOLY MUSHROOMS); non-drug meditation produces NO transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
The lying, bragging, hubristic advocates of non-drug meditation are forced to do a motte-and-baily fallacy, moving-in the goalposts:
Given, based on manifest effects: Psychedelics produce a temporary peak state and temporary, partial transformation of mental worldmodel.
Eastern religion claims “we do this better – non-drug meditation produces far more transformation, far more lasting, far higher peak experiences, permanent ASC”
Fact: 30 years meditation fails to transform as promised to the degree. Fails to produce any ASC, temp or perm. Fails to accomplish ANY of their goals. Point that out. Reaction from Zen Master Brad huckster:
“We never claimed that [copypaste the above claim he made 2 seconds ago, 30 years ago, after you wasted 30 years of fruitless non-drug meditation]. “Eastern religion advocates never claimed that non-drug meditation produces far more transformation, far more lasting, far higher peak experiences, permanent ASC.” BUT YOU DID!! MOTTE AND BAILEY:
THE BAILEY OF BRAGGADOCIO: The desirable bailey for anti-drug Eastern lying fraud hucksters: “Non-drug meditation produces far more transformation, far more lasting, far higher peak experiences, and permanent ASC.”
The phony fake huckster spiritual salesmen, the non-drug meditation advocates/ salesmen, cannot at all defend their ultra-aggressive position, not in the slightest. NONE of their bragging huge massive claims are delivered on.
So, the meditation/”contemplation” hucksters fall back to the entirely opposite, defensible but worthless, position assertion:
THE MOTTE OF RETREAT: The cold, undesirable, worthless motte fortress: “Eastern religion makes no claim that non-drug meditation produces far more transformation, far more lasting, far higher peak experiences, and permanent ASC. We only claim that it gives weak, feeble, faint, slight, nebulous benefits like corporate relaxation training, and vague, spiritually lasting benefits like kindness; a mystical life.”
They put forth the most nebulous, weak, feeble claims, the moment they are pressed by some sucker who got taken in: “Where’s the goddam enlightenment you promised, you fraud!“
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
“Promise, what promise? We never made any such promise or claims. I have no idea what you’re referring to.”
The False Dilemma of Meditation vs. Psychedelics, and the 3rd Option
Almost NO ONE in this genre of writing like Badiner or Lundborg ever states or acknowledges the possibility of my 3rd position, which is the truth, the actual way the mind works:
Mental model transformation , transformation from possibilism to eternalism, requires like ancient greek initiation SERIES, a SERIES of drug psychedelic sessions, with training and education.
like what I figured out, studying the two mental models — as Eadwine 1200 Great Canterbury Psalter depicts, as the pilzbaum genre of art depicts.
Pop junk (including academic pop junk) writing on this topic ALWAYS is based on this false dichotomy: which one is it:
Either, instant effortless enlightenment from psychedelics.
The latter is a fantasy, fabricated, imagined, ad-hoc made-up fictional construction by defenders of this false assertion]/ “non-drug meditation” (which is a contradiction in terms actually).
No one EVER gives the correct, 3rd alternative: long-term effortful difficult transformation from possibilism to eternalism integrating series of psychedelic sessions of loose cognition. This is the origin of religions.
The only meditation worth doing if your goal is like the grand promises, is meditation integrating psychedelics. Smashing the false dichotomy.
False: Non-drug meditation producing transformation to eternalism-thinking.
False: Instant effortless drug enlightenment producing eternalism-thinking.
True: Psychedelic meditation; long-term contemplation eventuating in complete enlightenment ie eternalism-thinking including use of qualified possibilism-thinking.
Drug-based meditation is the actual “traditional method of the mystics”. Drug-integrating meditation. Psychedelic meditation.
Lund writes well on the topic, he’s in the realm of “must read” – but huge limitations are mixed in with this mixed bag.
Lundborg writes on the relationship between therapist model, guide model, guru model, historically shifting in 1960s-1970s – I’d like to see what Lundborg 2012 has to say about “Moving Past Mysticism” and such current debates circa 2022.
Premature Closure: In 2012, Entheogen Scholarship Now Concludes There Were No Mushrooms in Buddhism
p. 384 ch endnote 5: Lundborg has tiny coverage, for this book on this scope, of the possibility that ancient religion is entheogen-originated.
PREMATURE CLOSURE: Lundborg seems here unaware of 21st C developments in entheogen scholarship. He writes:
“At this mature stage of entheogenic studies[are you kidding me?!], no researcher has yet put forward a serious case for psycho-active drug inspiration in ancient Buddhism”
That paragraph mentions the Badiner book Zig Zag Zen.
Lundborg Died 2014, Crowley Book Was Announced 2016
Lundborg died 2014 3 years before Mike Crowley book on psychedelics in history of Buddhism: Order Placed: October 27, 2016 Shipped on January 31, 2017 [1 day before available] I ordered the book 3 months before available.
Older edition i have: Secret Drugs of Buddhism: Psychedelic Sacraments and the Origins of the Vajrayana February 1, 2017 406 pages, Amrita Press; First Edition (February 1, 2017) by Mike Crowley (Author), Ann Shulgin (Author) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0692652817?ref=yb_qv_ov_prnt_dp_rw –
Crowley book is endorsed by psychedelic historian Thomas Hatsis, although Chris Bennett slags Mike Crowley. In a livestream, Hatsis & Bennett agreed that instead of attacking each other, they’d attack Jerry Brown, who wasn’t there.
Blurb about Secret Drugs of Buddhism, Crowley, alleged “2nd ed.”
“Secret Drugs of Buddhism is the first book to explore the historical evidence for the use of entheogenic plants within the Buddhist tradition.
“Drawing on scriptural sources, botany, pharmacology, and religious iconography, this book calls attention to the central role which psychedelics played in Indian religions.
It traces their history from the mysterious soma potion, celebrated in the most ancient Hindu scriptures, to amrita, the sacramental drink of Vajrayana Buddhism.
Although amrita used in modern Vajrayana ceremonies lacks any psychoactivity, there is copious evidence that the amrita used by the earliest Vajrayana practitioners was a potent entheogen.
It is the nature of this psychedelic form of the sacrament which is the central topic of this book.
In particular, Secret Drugs of Buddhism attempts to identify the specific ingredients employed in amrita’s earliest formulations.
To this end, the book presents evidence from many countries in which the Vajrayana movement flourished.
These include Bhutan, Japan, Mongolia, and Tibet but special attention is given to India, the land of its origin.“
/ end blurb
About Mike Crowley
I might contact Crowley to vent and exchange frustrations with the massive entrenched DOGMATIC FALSE DICHOTOMIES. We are members of the same church.
From alleged “2nd edition” blurb: (no mention of revisions):
“Michael Crowley was born Feb. 26th, 1948 (100th anniversary of The Communist Manifesto) in Cardiff, Wales.
“He began studying Buddhism with a Tibetan lama in 1966, becoming an upasaka (ordained layman) of the Kagyud lineage on May 1st, 1970 and was ordained as a lama on January 1st, 1988.
“He has also received many teachings and empowerments from all four major Tibetan Buddhist lineages.
“In order to augment his Buddhist studies, Mike acquainted himself with Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Mandarin Chinese.
“Mike has lectured at the Museum of Asia and the Pacific, Warsaw, the Jagellonian University, Cracow, The California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“His work has been published in Fortean Studies, Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness, and Culture, Psychedelic American, and Psychedelic Press UK.
“In January 2016, Mike received the R. Gordon Wasson Award for outstanding contributions to the field of entheobotany.
“He currently serves on the advisory board of The Psychedelic Sangha and teaches at the San Francisco Dharma Collective.
He lives in Northern California.”
Lundborg Usual Prejudice: Meditation Causes Same Effect as Psilocybin (but Far Better), and Meditation Produces Perma-ASC
Also: We Never Claimed that Meditation Causes Same Effect as Psilocybin, or that Meditation Produces Perma-ASC; We Only Made a Tiny Relaxation Claim
Lundborg Parrots Conventional Prejudiced Views:
Anything eg Meditation Causes Same Effect as Psilocybin; Meditation Produces Perma-ASC
& We Never Claimed Meditation Produces Perma-ASC
& We Never Claimed Meditation Causes Same Effects as Psilocybin
Lundborg: Instant Effortless Psychedelic Enlightenment, or Long-Term Effortful Non-Psychedelic Enlightenment? My 3rd Option: Long-Term Effortful Psychedelic Enlightenment
Lundborg Parrots the Unthinking False Dichotomy: Instant Effortless Psychedelic Enlightenment, or Long-Term Effortful Non-Psychedelic Enlightenment, Which One Is Correct? Ans: Long-Term Effortful Psychedelic Enlightenment
I am not on the same page as either of the two wrong positions falsely put forward by Badiner and everyone.
Aside from this feeble end note p 384 that acknowledges this 3rd option – that mystic historical experience came from entheogens – Lundborg just spreads the usual confusions and false dichotomy!
Lundborg even condones view that “real, traditional” long-term methods prodduce permanent ASC, which Wilber says is a confusion of states and stages. Likely he contradicts and wafffles himself here.
Does Lundborg believe that “traditional non-drug enlightenment” produces permanent altered state, like the worst pop Buddhism?! Zen Master Brad (eye roll). You gotta be fkin kidding me.
The only thing PL contributes on this topic is a clear exemplifying of everything that’s false and wrong in conventional thinking about “drugs vs real religion”.
Disappointing page ~366 of Lundborg: he buys into false dichotomy of “authentic religion transforamation vs drugs” or “hard long lasting work vs drugs” – he never presents the true, mature view, the effective way, the truth: the third alternative that is OBVIOUS:
Obviously, it requires drugs — which are the actual historical inspiriation origin of the prideful anti-drug religions — PLUS long, hard work, to produce fully cleansing transformation purification satori.
Lund in no way takes up my lessons from egodeath theory 2000-2007. It’s full-on establishment/conventional hackneyed obvious false dichotomy.
Lundborg is no better, he’s a stupid CARBON COPY OF EVERYTHING THAT’S WRONG WITH SIZ ZIG ZAG ZEN BO book and Zig Zag Zen + Gnosis special issue on Psychedelics, book based on Tricycle special issue on Psychedelics.
Lundborg is merely the exact same falsehoods that are the foundation of those terrible bad exercises in false dichotomy.
The Egodeath theory was — you could say — a rejection of that whole bunk mentality, that OBVIOUS false dichotomy.
“Can drugs simiulate traditional religion?” False Dich!
Drugs are the origin and fountainhead and ongoing fountain of inspiration for authentic religion – but not according to unthinking, totally conventional Lundborg.
Going full-on conventional, unimaginative cliches – Lund pits drugs AGAINST discipline and long-term transformation process.
Lund says, so boringly conventionally: which one is correct:
drugs, immediate enlghtenment effortlessly in a pill, like a myth compacts the entire transformation process into a single moment: Zeus reveals, Semele dies, Dionysus is born – as if Athena fully born in battle gear in a single instant.
non-drug, traditional religion, long-term transformation process — and, strangely,
Ancient Greeks never really said completion initiation is a single initiation session; it was actually understood as a SERIES of ASC initiations.
Not a single session – even though myth condenses the psychedelic 10-session transformation process into a single lightning-strike transformation in one moment of time.
It’s an extremely disppointing [though totally predictable and utterly cliche and not surprising, just disappointing] Lundborg view here.
Lundborg just regurgitates the usual tired establishment conventional FALSE DICHOTOMY.
Hancock Visionary pp. 187-192: Parallels with pilzbaum Dispute
I supposedly have Supernatural, but didn’t realize how much Hancock engages entheogen scholarship including a topic – I caught his livestream equivalent of this – of whether Psil mushrooms were in Europe.
Even Letcher 2005/2007 had to admit Liberty Cap occur naturally in England, against previous prejudice, and then move goalposts more and more.
I’m just waiting for ppl to admit Cubensis in England, sooner or later, a matter of time.
My Reactions to Hancock Visionary pp. 187-192: Parallels with pilzbaum Dispute; Committed Obstinate and Obnoxious Denial.
Crop by Cybermonk – “Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita” classes id’d by Cybermonk Dec. 13, 2020.
Crop by Cybermonk – “Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita” classes id’d by Cybermonk Dec. 13, 2020.
This is NOT to buy into Huggin’s garbled false accusation of Brown claiming falsely that Brown argues that these attributes from id’ing these 4 pilzbaum EXACTLY MATCH COMBINATIONS ALL THROUGHOUT Great Canterbury Psalter.
Brown makes NO SUCH argument.
I’m not wasting my time – like Stamets so beautifully says in Hancock book, not going to waste my time with these idiot argments.
If Brown had claimed or implied that these 4 pilzbaums’ exact combination appear, I would have already contacted and corrected Brown about such an error.
This is sheer lying on Huggins’ part: Huggins lies about what Brown claims.
Nowhere does Brown have any whiff of implying these 4 items are used INTACT as a fixed set of attributes, throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
Same move by Huggins on another variant of this bad move: he argues in Foraging Wrong that: the pilzbaum as a whole, doesn’t match a specimen as a whole, therefore this pilzbaum [art historians define as: looks like mushroom tree that looks like mushroom] does not “very much” look like mushrooms.
Looking for where Hugs writes “not very much”– p. 11 Hug writes footnote bottom: “none of the four plants really resembles the mushrooms the Browns have identified them with.” For one thing, Brown does NOT identify each of the 4 plants; he’s too vague, “a psil mushroom species”, twice.
Brown never says “cubensis” (todo: triple-check 2016 & 2019, again.) Check again b/c I CAN’T BELIEVE Brown fails to say Cubensis for pilzbaum 3 (Blue). The only pilzbaum I was hesitant was #1.
3 is OBVIOUSLY stylized Cubensis. 2 is OBVIOUSLY stylized Lib Cap. 1 – The only debatable pilzbaum of the four imo is #1. My solution was stylized Panaeolus, (the Dec 2020 specimen photo was captioned like “Panaeolina”, which does appear in Stamets book as a Panaeolus) and I keep getting more and more confirmation that this is a perfect choice. 4 is so obviously stylized Amanita, it’s hardly worth stating.
I kind of agree in a way: Brown is garbled and vague: “psil; Pan; psil; Ama”. They are actually: Pan; Lib; Cub; Ama.
Irvin 2009 AstroSham 2 p 177 mentioned by Huggins is bad: Irvin fails to point out that Arthur is trying to make a recipe for Soma involving 5 plants.
It’s not even very clear that Irvin is quoting excerpt from Arthur book.
We can discount Arthur’s bad id’n of the 4 plants, bc Arthur in 2000 is not trying to id 4 mushrooms; he’s trying to id 5 different plants to make a Soma recipe.
Msh & Mankind (Arthur 2000) was the first book to present Paul Lindgren’s discovery of mushrooms in Great Canterbury Psalter (Creation of Plants/3rd day image). IN FACT: (it occurs now to me, jan 1 2025):
I am the first person to even properly attempt to NAME the 4 mushroom plants:
Arthur 2000 was not trying to ID 4 mushrooms; he was making a 5-plant Soma recipe.
Brown 2016/2019 doesn’t even TRY to name 4 mushrooms; half of them he vaguely just says “psil’.
Hoffman 2013 SPECIFIES, BY NAME, the 4 plants/classes: Pana, Lib, Cube, Aman.
My 2013 conjecture/classif system has held up extremely well; increasingly well – that’s a great sign, I know very well, of a correct decoding; a science hypoth under test for confirmation/ disconfirmation.
In Foraging Wrong, Huggins writes, strawmanning the pilzbaum affirmers:
“The artist then elaborated the squares created by the cross hatching by adding further details, such as dots, tree / parasol shapes, etc. The same was done throughout the GCP with no attempt at consistently linking a particular pattern with a particular color or form of plant or tree.”
I hate the way Hug says or insinuates that Brown says otherwise. Brown never denies or discusses such variations/variants. Hug doesn’t explicitly here say Brown says that, but Hug ACTS like Brown — and maybe pilzbaum affirmers altogether — says “rigid consistent pattern use throughout GCP”.
It is GOOD that Hug discusses pattern combination consistency. It is BAD that Hug acts like such a new topic that he introduces here amounts to a refutation of pilzbaum affirmers’ stated, established position.
So BIZZARE Hugs’ anti-Samo arg’n about Amanita: Hug requires that the image needs to match an ADULT flat-top (no mention of chalice!) config’n. p. 18.
Huggins’ Arg: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap (Not How Long the Cap Is Ball-Shaped)
Photos of Amanita Specimens Showing Frequent Ball-Shaped Cap
It is a ludicrous, arb’y, & bizarre arg vector, typical of pilzbaum deniers: Hug wrote: MOVE GOALPOSTS MUCH? PULL NEW “RULES” OUT OF THIN AIR MUCH? Talk about “far fetched” arg’n:
“Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period. The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage in its development is far-fetched.”
Typical bizzarrely vectored arg angles. The whole arg reeks of making sht up, you obviously have NO idea what , zilch REAL WORLD experience or you wouldn’t invent your imagined “what it would be like [as a pessiment] were i to see A mushroom. it would be alone, in full adult form
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SCENARIO UNREAL, WRITER CLEARLY HAS NO REALITY-BASED EXPERIENCE WITH AMANITA GROWTH
THIS this is just wrong, incorrect, NOT the Amanita spread of forms IN PRACTICE, IN ACTUALITY not in his bizzarre Hugs arg invovling a description of the imagined distribition of forms & avilableility to view – he fantastizes that the ball form is rare – it is characteristically commonplace in fact. Crazy imagined behavior is revealed,
Ball, Flat, and Upturned forms of Amanita lifecycle & form distribution
update: My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped
A 5-second Web search instantly reveals hugs is just making shit up!
the more Hug args based on lifecycle forms, the more he talks about Amanita forms he reveals his ignorance and his invention/ fabrication that conflicts with reality, mismatch with reality, fails to match reality at all;
Reality: actual experience observing Amanita form distribution, w/ photos to prove it. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=amanita – 15 seconds at this page, and the Hug argument crashes down, UNSUSTAINABLE, obviously sharp contrast with reality, his claim:
Huggins argues:
Stupid artists are ignorant and only get to see Amanita in adult form, b/c it is only momentarily in ball form.
What?? u have no idea talk. Embarrassing, Hug is caught making sht up, that’s against plain reality. His argument reveals foolishness. WHWER DOES HE COME UP WITH THESE ARGS?! his argment basis is revealed foolish and his credibility plummets way down to zero. Prove your not a fool but it’s clear you are.
DEFINE ‘FOOLISH’: HUGGINS’ ARG THAT AMANITA IN ITS BALL FORM IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ARTISTS TO SEE, ONLY ADULT AMANITA FLAT TOP IS WHAT ARTISTS SAW, SO PILZBAUM NOT MUSHROOM 🚫🍄
update: My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped
🚫🍄 <– ADULT SHAPE FLAT TOP? I DON’T THINK SO. THIS IS A BALL FORM SPECIMEN (ON MY SCREEN).
RONALD HUGGINS FORAGING WRONG ARTICLE 2024 IS ALREADY DISPROVED AND HAVEN’T EVEN GOT OUT OF THE HEADING
Ronald Huggins Foraging Wrong 2024 article is WAY out of touch with reality re: Amanita form distribution of ball vs. flat, not to mention – revealing he is the most shallow imagining – THE HOLY GRAIL YOU DISRESPECTED BY OMITTING , the upturned Amanita. the upturned Amanita grail
WE HAVE A HALL OF SCHOLAR SHAME ENTRY!
Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period. The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage in its development is far-fetched.
Ronald Huggins, Foraging Wrong article, 2024, p.
Red pilzbaum 4 in Creation of Plants/ Third Day, Great Canterbury Psalter:
Crop by CybermonkPhoto not by Michael Hoffman. Props to photographer, had good fortune. Excellent photo; excellent find. Instructive.
Against Huggins, not one of these in the cluster is flat top alleged “mature form”. They are:
round
round
round
round oval
flat oval
chalice
Conclusion: If an artist wants to depict Amanita as ball-cap, it is very often found growing in that form, often together with a flat top specimen.
This is a matter of the frequency of varying phases of shapes – Amanita is famous specifically for its varying shape-shifting, so it contradicts the essential form of Amanita to act like Amanita is “normally” in flat-top form.
Normally Amanita is found in varied combinations of forms, typically, characteristically.
Therefore a stylized artist is free to depict any form, as the books like Heinrich show.
Has Huggins looked at the couple books? Feeney, Heinrich – Amanita books are inherently showing lots and lots of varied photos. Or click my web-search image links.
So, Huggins here just demonstrates how bizarre vectors of argumentation are stooped to by pilzbaum deniers, who don’t settle for obvious logical fallacies of a genereic boring sort; pilzbaum deniers are renown for obvious logical fallacies of an extremely absurd and bizarre type.
Huggins just reveals he’s working from speculation, imagining, and guesswork — not from Brown-like field work that I’ve done.
What if the artist wanted to depict stylized four round-top trees, with distinctive mushroom attributes of 4 types (Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama)? Then the artist would produce EXACTLY what we have here, which is WELL within the rules/ limits/ boundaries of Medieval stylization.
On the topic of pilzbaum, only, Huggins tries to require strict literal specimen scientific naturalism/ realism. The Special Pleading fallacy.
“And, all 4 must be shown in their adult form.” (Never mind that the adult form ideally of Amanita is chalice, not flat-top.)
“Because… uh… too-brief ball stage! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
My reaction studying Hug article was: HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN MUSHROOMS? You clearly, obviously have no idea what you’re taking about.
Jimi: “Have you ever been experienced? Well, I have. Let me prove it to you.”
I spent 5 minutes going through my Oct. 2024 Amanita pics, adding to Fav, 5 minutes adding to my util page to upload them, now 5 minutes to add here, 15 minutes total to demonstrate Huggins is talking utter baloney that contradicts the actual experience of looking at patches of GROUPS of mushrooms in VARIOUS stages simultaneously.
One photo isn’t mine, but so beautiful, this is why people — exotericists; low-grade esotericists — go stupidly fawning after this non-psychedelic, poor-effects plant, Amanita.
Huggins’ Claim that artists wouldn’t have seen Amanita in branches-like veil form (not ball-and-stem)
update: My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped
Huggins falsely claims that it’s difficult to find growing specimens that look like this non-flat-top form/phase (revealing his lack of real-world experience with mushroom specimens):
Huggins’ INSANE (extremely unsustainable) claim that artists wouldn’t have seen Amanita in ball-and-stem form because that’s such a brief phase – revealing Huggins has no idea what he’s talking about and has no credibility on such points.
My recent picture:
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Oct. 22, 2024
My recent picture:
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Oct. 22, 2024
My recent picture:
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Oct. 28, 2024
My recent picture:
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Oct. 28, 2024
My recent picture:
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Oct. 28, 2024
I wish my picture:
Photo not by Michael Hoffman. Props to photographer, had good fortune. Excellent photo; excellent find. Instructive.
Evidently Huggins is just fabricating arguments ad-hoc, and has no idea what he’s talking about. His arguments can’t withstand any pushback, but immediately collapse.
I’ve seen a record number of the pilzbaum in art; and I’ve seen and habitually photographed MANY specimens of growing mushrooms in various lifecycle phases including photo’ing MANY Amanitas.
I have to stop myself from photographing every Amanita or other mushroom I come across in nature, because there are TOO MANY MUSHROOMS.
It just seems strange to me that, given a patch of Amanita in various forms, many of them are ball-on-stem; it is NOT like Huggins describes.
Huggins claims that Amanita only briefly are in ball/stem config; most Amanita most of the time are flat-top.
My assessment: YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN AMANITA AND YOU ARE GUESSING WRONG.
*Plenty* of Amanita are in ball/cap form; my recent photos Oct. 2024 prove this: look at my ~30 recent Amanita photos: PLENTY are ball/stem, not flat-top “adult” formation.
update: My “Ball” Critique: Huggins’ Arg is Actually re: How Long the Veil Looks Like Branches Under Cap, Not How Long the Cap Is Ball Shaped
Huggins Strawman Argument: “Crown Patterns are not Strictly Rigid throughout Great Canterbury Psalter, as pilzbaum Affirmers Claim”
todo: to fact-check my critque of what Huggins claims that Brown argues, I need to inspect Brown 2016 book & 2019 article re: “tan, orange…”
Huggins wrote (copypaste from PDF):
“Given the persistent issue of ramifications (branches), the PMTs cause is not advanced when the Browns assert that “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70“
“70 Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 137.”
Biblio:
“Brown, J.B. / Brown, J.M., Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity, 2016”
Huggins makes a mistake or plays a trick: When discussing Brown 2016 or 2019, always cover both; always include both in the Biblio. I suspect Huggins didn’t cite 2019 because he’d have to give credit to Brown for exposing and revealing the two Panofsky letters.
The two Panofsky letters don’t make Panofsky any worse than already per 1968 Soma, but the letters make Wasson look much worse as of 2019, revealing Wasson as a deceptive obstructionist, for which there is no excuse, given that Wasson pretended to urge people to “consult” art authorities, while covertly and deceptively, in bad faith, con the reader by simultaneously censoring the citation of Brinckmann that Panofsky urged twice, strongly.
The only possible reason why a person would delete/ omit the Brinckmann citation while at the very same time berating people for not “consulting” the art authorities, is fraud; trying to mislead people and misrepresent the Panofsky communications.
Certainly, if you actually wanted people to “consult” the art authorities, you’d pass along the twice-strong-urged Brinckmann citation from Panofsky.
“If you are interested, I recommend a little book by A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baumdarstellung im Mittelalter (or something like it), where the process is described in detail.”
Wasson replaced that by elipses in Soma, in the same paragraph in which he insulted and berated mycologists for failing to “consult” the art historians.
Outrageous! Phony! Lying deceiver! Academic obstructionism through deceit, combined with insult, and disrespect!
Wasson knowingly and deliberately perverts proper, normal academic “consulting” of publications, into improper, abnormal “consulting” personally.
In 2006 when writing my Wasson article, I wanted to consult publications, and I KNEW Panofsky MUST have provided citations to back up his HUGE, aggressive claim that art historians are “familiar” with pilzbaum.
I detected that Wasson must be withholding citations and bullshitting us, as I accused him of in my 2006 article.
I felt in 2006, “Give us the damn citations that Panofsky MUST have provided, RUDE JERK, Gordon Asson!
[handwritten] “And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.”
Huggins tries to excuse Wasson’s obstructionism, and refrains from such analysis of the Pan letters.
Huggins ACTS like he is rebutting Brown’s position, but Brown doesn’t rely on such pattern-combinations – Hug tries to make the reader THINK that Brown takes such a position of rigid use of cap patterns.
Is Huggins hallucinating and getting himself confused about what Brown wrote/ argued?
My specific class names, my set of specific names, has powerful explanatory power.
and NO i do NOT argue what Huggins will put in my mouth: i do NOT do what Huggins falsely claims Brown does:
I do not say that these four combinations of attributes in “Creation of Plants” are rigidly adhered to throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
The other pilzbaum in Great Canterbury Psalter are FREE COMBINATIONS of these typological attributes that are introduced in “Creation of Plants” image.
Against Huggins, we are NOT to argue in terms of SETS of attributes preserved rigidly across Great Canterbury Psalter.
In two distinct bad arguments, Huggins’ article depends on that out-of-the-blue, arbitrary, ad-hoc move.
Typical of pilzbaum deniers is ad-hoc invention of new rules out of the blue – moving goalposts — and fabrication of the alleged position of the opponent, ad hoc, pulled out of thin air AS NEEDED, WHEN NEEDED. case-by-case, blown by the winds of arbitrary inspiration, going in the most unpredictable and bizarre of inspired directions; one vector this way, next vector in an entirely different, arbitrary direction.
pilzbaum deniers get creative, constantly; what I mean by deniers’ “slip & slide arg’n”. “elastic”, as Hug says of Ruck committee’s writing.
The only person that can be convinced by Huggins’ article is committed pilzbaum deniers and ignorant outsiders. Ditto Letcher & Hatsis.
The Hancock Visionary / Supernatural book pp. 187-192 is highly comparable in his interesting description of the deniers’ arg’n style, where Paul Stamets said he’s not going to waste time on their foolish committed-skeptic arguments.
We are to argue in terms of individual recombined individual pilzbaum attributes; fragments of tree images.
Huggins labors with many words to contrstuct a rebuttal to his strawman-Brown position that Huggins invented.
Huggins says “Brown is wrong! These exact combinations of features don’t occur in other pics. Therefore, NOT MUSHROOMS.”
Typical strange vectors of bizarre instances of obvious logical fallacies.
Make Sure Your Obvious Logical Fallacies are spectacularly bizarre instances, to dizzy the opponent
It’s one thing to commit obvious logical fallacies.
What is so strange about Letcher Hatsis Huggins school of argumentation though is how EXTREMELY BIZARRE their particular use of obvious logical fallacies is – the strangest, weirdest, baffling directions of argumentation.
The strategy is to try to distract you with how weird their argumentation vector is, to distract from the fact that it’s an obvious logical fallacy.
My Good Choice of Panaeolus as Pilzbaum #1 in “Creation of Plants”
Hancock in Visionary/Supernatural pp. 187-192 further confirms the soundness of my “Panaeolus” Identification/Classification of “Creation of Plants” image, pilzbaum # 1 of 4 (Pana; Lib; Cube; Aman).
I am the first person to even ATTEMPT (Dec 13, 2020) to NAME the 4 mushrooms / mushroom types/classes; Brown on half (2 of 4) just says “some kind of psil mushroom”.
I am happy because in Irvin’s new book and in Graham Hancock’s book, I’m seeing “Panaeolus” heavily. So, I picked a great classifcation name for pilzbaum 1 of 4. Hancock in discussion with myc’ists eg Paul Stamets are saying “tons of Panaeolus native to Europe”.
But they are elevating likelihood of Lib Cap & Pana, and they are NOT elevating Cubensis, in fact Hancock waves Cubensis aside as “a diversion by Bahn”. “Too cold” for ice age climate, he says Lib Cap can handle cold.
Note: dung loving: f134 Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter —
I argue cattle bovine in f134 proves Cubensis. But, Hancock & Stamets remind, Pana some grow dung loving, so, f134 bovine COULD indicate gathering Lib Cap or Pana, not nece Cube.
Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter canot be Lib Cap, looks too diff & doesn’t have Hatsis’ Parasols of victory in caps – so, it’s either classed as Cube, or Pana.
Therefore, if f134 isn’t blue-staining Cube, it could be Pana, a dung loving type, that can handle colder than Cube.
Hancock Error? “Plants of the Gods first published in 1992″ – Probably 1976 or 1979
I might create a page about this/these book(s), with a section focusing on this question of “edition” numbering of this book(s).
2001 – yet another “edition” or printing. https://www.amazon.com/Plants-Gods-Sacred-Healing-Hallucinogenic/dp/0892819790/ Healing Arts Press; 2nd edition (November 1, 2001) Pages: 208 Sure, “second edition” — after the 1976, 1979, 1992, & 1998 revised versions. I doubt the book actually says “2nd edition”, it must be 3rd, if not 4th edition: 0th ed: RES only, Golden Guide. 1st ed: RES the only author. 2nd ed: Hofmann joins. 3rd Ed: Ratsch joins.
Apparently proving Hancock wrong, here’s apparently a 1979 version of Plants of the Gods: https://www.amazon.com/Plants-Gods-Origins-Hallucinogenic-Hardcover/dp/0070560897/ Publisher : McGraw-Hill; First Edition (January 1, 1979) Language : English Hardcover : 192 pages ISBN-10 : 0070560897 ISBN-13 : 978-0070560895
I need to finally confirm my 2020 hypoth: A Golden Guide by R.E.S. is the true first edition of PotG. Richard Evans Schultes. Hallucinogenic Plants https://www.amazon.com/Hallucinogenic-Plants-Richard-Evans-Schultes/dp/0307243621/ — OMG check it out, appears to confirm immediately my hypoth, tho a bit garbled year: Hallucinogenic Plants: A Golden Guide Mass Market Paperback – May 31, 2021[?? sic] by Richard Evans Schultes (Author), Elmer W. Smith (Illustrator) 3.4 3.4 out of 5 stars (61) 4.2 on Goodreads 135 ratings See all formats and editions There is a newer edition of this item: By Richard Evans Schultes – Plants Of Gods (2nd Revised edition)
Hancock Visionary/Supernatural: Bahn Says “No Liberty Caps in Europe”
Parallels between the “mushrooms in Christian art” dispute and Hancock’s entheogens dispute
The pilzbaum deniers’ model has now been refuted. One can only conclude that anyone who continues henceforth to cite or apply the pilzbaum denial model is either ignorant of the facts or has little respect for truth in scholarship.
“This book includes an updated reprint of the popular Desperately Seeking Trance Plants: Testing the “Three Stages of Trance” Model, as well as a number of new challenges to the model often referred to as a Neuropsychological or Shamanic Model.
“Some of these papers have been included in other publications such as the Cambridge Archaeological Journal, and many, including a chapter documenting the misuse of several historical ethnographic sources by some North American TST proponents, have never been published before.
“Taken as a whole they provide a systematic and detailedrefutation [PROOF!!] of the TST model with respect to its applicability to Palaeolithic Cave Art, as well as to the rock art of Native Americans of the far western United States, and the South African San.”
The “Three Stages of Trance” model = the TST model.
Hodgson review of Bahn Waking the Trance Fixed (Hancock Rebuts)
Waking the Trance Fixed by Patricia A. Helvenston and Paul G. Bahn. Louisville: Wasteland Press (2005) Reviewed by Derek Hodgson
Derek Hodgson wrote:
“One of the peculiarities of Palaeolithic art has been its capacity to inspire a succession of theories, each claiming to have solved the mystery contained in its strange shapes and forms.
“This, unfortunately, has led to a situation where many ad hoc, ill-informed accounts are given undue attention in both academic and not so academic circles.
“Considering the failure of nearly every one of these attempts to account for the facts, one would have thought that the word might have got around by now that there is no Palaeolithic “Rosetta Stone” to be had.
“This, however, seems not to be the case, as is testified by the latest version of this kind of speculation, namely Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s shamanic Three-Stages of Trance model, which Helvenston and Bahn, in “Waking the Trance Fixed”, set out in a precise and systematic manner to refute.
“This collection of previously published and unpublished criticisms of Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s position, vividly describes the twists and! turns of the debate and casts some welcome light on to a controversial and much contested subject.
“Helvenston and Bahn have the advantage of being foremost experts, in neuropsychology and rock art respectively, and are therefore able to discuss the underlying issues with great perspicuity.
“By returning to original sources, the authors reveal how important texts and documents have been misrepresented leading to a biased reading of the data with all the distortions that this implies.
“From a position of undoubted authority, they show why Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s model came to prominence, the reasons for its acceptance, and how the purported neuropsychological and archaeological evidence has been misapplied both to palaeoart and rock art more generally.
“One of the main criticisms concerns a general lack of understanding of the complexities involved that has led to, and perpetuated, a confused and limited understanding of the major issues.
“For example, Lewis-Williams and Dowson conflate the different kinds of mind-altering drugs with their psychological effects.
“An error compounded by an inadequate account of what constitutes an altered state consciousness (of which there are seventy different kinds) and the diverse range of subjective experiences that can accompany them.
“Moreover, there may be many predisposing factors that produce such an altered state, of which shamanic trance may be but one.
“Depending on how these altered states are induced, different parts of the brain will be stimulated leading to different kinds of experience, none of which induce the notorious three-stages of trance.
“Crucially, altered states of consciousness, generated by such things as sensory deprivation, fasting, and “bad air” do not appear to produce the geometric imagery central to this debate.
“Rather, this imagery seems to be the exclusive preserve of psilocybin, mescaline and LSD which, again, do not necessarily involve the three stages favoured by Lewis-Williams and Dowson.
“More seriously, because these substances were unavailable to Palaeolithic people, the chances that the geometrics of Palaeolithic art were inspired by the trance states of shamanism turns out to be close to zero.
“Another major criticism is that shamanism is applied without discrimination to a broad range of different groups.
“As Helvenston and Bahn point out, rather than one common definition applied arbitrarily, shamanism should be seen against the prevailing cultural norms.
“In this respect, it is important the myths, customs, and rituals of a community, are given due regard, which may be more relevant in determining the subject matter of art than shamanism per se.
“Indeed, Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s primary ethnographic example, the San, may be more influenced by such factors of which shamanism could be just one example.
“The fact that we are unable to determine whether shamanism had any direct connection with San art further disqualifies any comparisons between San and Palaeolithic communities.
“We may, however, the authors suggest, be on safer ground in attributing some mythic tendencies to palaeoart based on a “religious” striving, the exact nature of which has yet to be ascertained.
“In what should become a classic of its kind [“Out of Print–Limited Availability” – Amazon], the hazards of applying ethnographic comparisons carelessly and prescriptively are beautifully illustrated in Chapter 7, where Whitley’s shamanistic analysis of Native American Rock Art is laid bare.
“Whitley, a convert to Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s model, attempts to illustrate how the shamanic proposition can be usefully applied to the art of indigenous groups such as the Coso Shoshone.
“The original documentation on this issue, it seems, remains silent or, alternatively, can be interpreted as referring to mythic thinking that determines the content of dreams, initiation ceremonies, healing rituals and the like, all of which Whitley ignores.
“By supporting Keyser and Whitley’s claim that documentary evidence does exist for shamans producing rock art, thereby contradicting Kehoe, Helvenston and Bahn’s integrity and fairness in these matters is aptly demonstrated.
“Having said this, the authors continue to maintain that such evidence is restricted to one or two examples and there is, nevertheless, still no ethnographic data that directly connects rock art to trance.
“The final chapter is a withering indictment by Bahn on Lewis-Williams’s competence to comment on Palaeolithic art.
“By drawing attention to some glaring inaccuracies and omissions contained in Lewis-Williams’ “The Mind in the Cave”, Bahn shows how inattention to detail can be construed as symptomatic of failings on a more theoretical level.
“This disregard is all too obvious in relation to neuropsychological terminology, which Helvenston and Bahn provide a valuable service in correcting by defining entoptics, phosphenes, form constants, geometrics and hallucinations with reference to the various processing stages of the visual hierarchy.
“Because neuropsychology deals with subtle nuances of meaning, it is absolutely essential that these terms are clearly and unambiguously defined, as the lack of precision has often led to much of the debate being conducted at cross purposes.
“Helvenston’s authority on such matters is underscored by the fact that she personally knew Klüver and was intimately acquainted with his work.
“As Lewis-Williams and Dowson place great emphasis on, and misrepresent, Klüver’s research, this throws into sharp relief the difference between their highly selective and superficial reading of the data compared to Helvenston’s more informed understanding.
“The authors conclude that the preoccupation of the archaeological communitywith Lewis-Williams and Dowson‘s theory has seriously undermined the study of Palaeolithic art.”
“They suggest that this partially stems from the recent fashion for New Age philosophies with the associated obsession with shamanism that the media has latched onto.”
The Egodeath theory does not employ “shamanism” as an explanatory construct. (Nor “rational”, like Houot embraces.)
I do not agree “religion is irrational, science is rational”, per Rational Psychonaut forum per Houot.
The best religion vs. the worst, BAD SCIENCE, doesn’t support that crude, biased characterization.
There’s inferior science & superior science. There’s inferior religion & superior religion.
The ego-empowering advocacy of Quantum Mysticism: By fantasizing yourself making a QM observation, you are the creator of infinite worlds every moment – an infinitely extreme, ego-empowerment free-for-all that motivates & drives the most fantastical interpretations of quantum physics.
Reviewer continues:
“Richard Dawkins might call this a “bad meme” that has infected the minds of archaeologists and public alike – a meme which Helvenston and Bahn have so eloquently exorcised.”
Shades of Letcher Hatsis Huggins (and me) pointing out the runaway, out of control Amanita Primacy Fallacy that has taken over Pop Cult Spirituality.
But my solution is not burn it all down in simple-minded total denial of mushrooms in Christian art; I engage with the harder work of nuanced filtering and correct theory-expression.
“Waking the Trance Fixed” should stand as a warning [like bully Hatsis: “crying in a corner”] to all archaeologists and anthropologists who would turn to neuropsychology to prop up their theories and is a long overdue antidote to the shamanic “neuropsychological” trance model.
“For those who wish to gain a proper understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the issues involved, [good goal] Helvenston and Bahn’s book is an indispensable read.”
Hancock retorts to Bahn, way above; Hancock wrote:
“Such shrill claims of refutation, such easy dismissals of the life work of other scholars, are characteristic of Bahn and Helvenston. Their certitude seems ironclad and they never for a moment consider the possibility that their own central propositions are wrong. … and they themselves are refuted.”
A crude bullying tone.
All that’s missing from Bahn is Hatsis’:
I am going to unload on this entire nonsensical idea in a way that will have those who believe this bullshit crying in a corner.
I am going to unload on this entire nonsensical idea in a way that will have those who believe this pilzbaum-denial bullshit crying in a corner.
Now that’s academic discussion. Hatsis emphasizes constantly (to the exclusion of substantive content) that he exemplifies professional academic methodological historiography.
I’m following in Hatsis’ “sound, tried and true methodology” footsteps.
Mytheme Decoding (art interp.) is a matter of weaving, refining, degree, system of interconnections
This is a good example of idea development.
I have NOT posted (or developed) this realization before, this degree of phrasing-insight.
todo: in Mytheme catalog page, refresh/ update/ fill in blanks. Make sure Great Canterbury Psalter motifs art are listed eg {threat}, {scale balance}, {stand right foot} / weight on right foot.
What about {flame}, {fire}, {blade} in the Key Mythemes catalog? adequate? or “means ASC” (fail). verdict: POOR. It LOOKS fair, but actually, hardly more than “it means ASC”: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/mytheme-list/#fire – no trace of “being made to deliberately threaten the the egoic control system, to demonstrate its vulnerability and thus drive the transformation of the personal control system”.
Nuance of word-choice is important; it matters; it makes a big difference for degree/depth of comprehension.
Improve/develop the network of interconnected ideas/ mythemes. Refine the system of mythemes; develop the language; put this coding system through the fire to develop it.
todo: Key Mythemes catalog: add entries:
{blade}
Improve {spear} and {blade} and {flame}/{fire} – not just “being in the ASC”; but the transformative specific mental activity that’s done in the ASC: experiencing, examinging, testing , demonstrating, the abiltiy of control to seize and fail, to be .. the capability of control to be made by the mind to seize itself. fire is demonstrating repeatedly the mind’s capabiliuty of making lower control (the egoic control system ) seize and become not viable.
{cleansed} to {go through guarded gate}; Rev 22:14.
todo: improve spear entry; try conjoined dual: {blade} and {flame} – bc my inventory of Great Canterbury Psalter indicates the interchangeability of those two motifs:
Within past year, I got much better at interpreting re: {flame} and {blade} (eg Gen 3 cherubim, flaming sword):
{flame} and {blade} and {threat} = the mind being made to explore self-thwarting control seizure potential, to drive transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Proof that my reading/interp of {flame} was entirely too vague and not as good 10 years ago: Christmast 2015, in my Egodeath Yahoo Group thread about Dancing Man image, I commented about “fire” that it means “being in the altered state”.
That fails in exactly the way I criticised Brown’s interp of {Eve’s ribs visible} as “indicates shamanism altered state”: That type or level of “interpretation” doesn’t explain this particular mytheme; it merely states (a truism) the genre/ mode/ type of art.
Every mytheme “means” alt state; rather, that’s a mode, not a meaning within the mode.
The Genre Question is crucial, but you still have to do the specific work of decoding a specific mytheme vs. other mythemes: which specific aspect of the ASC is this mytheme like?
In 2015, that level of explanation (“flame means ASC”) SEEMED good to me, but, is totally poor, given that EVERY mytheme “means” being in altered state.
Huggins’ Dizzy article: Subjecting your salamander to flame to transform it to Phoenix
Subjecting your salamander to flame means transforming your mental worldmodel of control by threatening, ie exploring/ demonstrating to your mind a control dynamic that’s threatening.
The salamander is impervious to flame? If so, asks Huggins, and he asks Hane., why is salamander replaced by Phoenix in next frame? The OSC-based literalists/ reductionists couldn’t figure it out, reports Huggins.
The artist wanted to represent change, transformation.
A salamander can represent the part of mental worldmodel or mind that remains after transformation – just as egoic thinking; the egoic control system, remains after disproving it and gaining the transcendent control system.
The salamander/mind is impervious to flame, but, also, is transformed, thus {Phoenix}.
A motif that really does mean specifically, being in the ASC, is {mushroom hem}. Or “cloth in wind” (Hellenistic art). Or lifted garment; John Rush’s {celestial erec’n}.
More proof of my idea development progress: Great Canterbury Psalter f109 – the image that’s read from lower left to upper right: took a few tries to grasp meaning of {cloth}.
Figuring out “drape cloth” was really hard 2022/2023 in Saint Martin church fresco. I studied Brown book, I puzzled over “nailing cloth in city walls Jerusalem”.
First I had to puzzle to figure out what Brown refers to in pictures.
Then I had to puzzle over the meaning/ interpration of “cloth”, which Brown raises by saying nailing cloth.
Similarly, explicitly, Brown 2016|2019 asked: “Why is a mushroom tree growing on a stone tower (above the gate)?”
It takes time, a certain number of minutes and hours, to interpret and decode an image: eg to find the main trajectory, from lower left to upper right:
Crop by Cybermonk
In mediocre-decoding Brown 2016 fashion of “every motif means shamanic state” (not insightful much in detail). re: Eve ribs = shamanic state, in Plainc fresco.
{immortal} merely means “mature form”
todo: sort the below blocks into these two headings sections
vs.: Eve’s visible ribs means perceiving underlying mechanism of the personal control system” – as I’d put it specifically about seeing ribs/ naked/ exposed.
“gain immorality” means transform from temporary immature form (transformation from possibilism to eternalism)
transcribed to here my TIK notes {immortal} which merely means “adult form”. p. 164, 99, etc.
p. 164:
imperishability
immortal = final form. mortal = initial form.
Mortal mind is subject to perishability perishable.
that which is temporary, the temporary mental model
Gain the non-temporary mental model.
You live forever = gain final form.
Your mental model becomes the mature form, not larval.
Tadpole transforms to become immortal; frog – final form. 🙌 🐸
my decoding of immortal = adult, mature form vs. temp, immature form.
go beyond temp child immature form, now. become imperishable. completed initiate.
Why does a culture require keeping psychedelic eternalism secret in the public sphere?
To avoid “killing” children prematurely; to protect egoic children; to not annihilate & lose virtual freewill thinking
I speculated on this multiple times before, like 2001 in Egodeath Yahoo Group posts.
My role is to fully reveal summary of Transcendent Knowledge openly. else we lose it entirely, like happened due to fault of mystery religions “not allowed to speak of what’s revealed”.
Ill advised – do you want to shield children from higher truth so bad, that you entirely discard Transcendent Knowledge, such that adults entirely lose access to it?
Hancock, Visionary, pp. 187-192 re: distribution of psil in Europe history
This is an email sent to Cyberdisciple Jan. 1, 2025.
I snagged Hancock book pages from the book Visionary (a superset of Supernatural),
pp 187-192, re: distribution of psil in Europe history.
topic: PREMATURE CLOSURE. As far as I am concerned, entheogen scholarship has not even started yet.
I have only started reading the 6 pages – I immediately hit an example of “PREMATURE CLOSURE” not by Hancock, by Bahn (first word).
We can say as of 1952 or 2024, there are x evidence. But we CANNOT say negatives:
“No one uses psychoactive mushrooms in Mexico.” (the “conclusion” in 1915)
No one uses psychoactive mushrooms in Mexico (Safford 1915)
“There was no Psil in Europe.” (Hancock battles against that grossly premature negative.)
“Ok, we f’d up, we were full of sh!t, but still – moving the goalposts, Letcher – there WAS Lib Cap in England, but, no one used it or knew about it. And certainly there was no Cubensis in Canterbury.”
I grilled a cultivator:
“If I pay you $100, so that you WANT to find Cube in England – so you have an incentive – is it POSSIBLE for you to find a Cubensis, just a single Cubensis, in England (non-cultivated)?
He reasoned “No, it would not be possible, b/c temperature.”
I say: TRY HARDER.
My motto/ theme/ cry to entheogen scholars: YOU GOTTA WANT IT!
You gotta want the presence of evidence, MORE than you want your favorite objective of crying about “the big bad church suppressed”.
As far as I am concerned, entheogen scholarship has not even started yet.
During first gen entheogen scholarship, Wasson wanted, and then did not want. As ppl noted, he tried, and then said do not try.
Work like hell to prove presence in 1000 BC Genesis text, and then STOP. HALT. DO NOT PROCEED FURTHER. go go go STOP.
Many have noticed this about the Wasson Contradiction eg Brown 2019, & Samo 1997: If Wasson in 1952 at Plainc. had travelled just 8 km to Saint Martin Church, …
Another example of the Wasson Contradiction: “Hey Ramsbottom, you stupid ignoramus mycologists pilzbaum affimers ought to have consulted the art authorities [while quietly deleting citation of Brinc. book].”
Only Irvin w/ me 2006 seems to have picked up on what Ramsb. did in retaliation to the insult:
Ramsb. said: “Throw away the first printing of my new book. Fire up the presses. Add “Rightly or wrongly, we are going to reject Plainc. – Wasson. (pers. comm.)”
Rams. 2nd printing made Wasson look like an idiot like from 1955 to 1970 before Wasson finally realized that his COMMITTED SKEPTIC assertion had been printed/exposed.
________________________________________
When Was First-Gen Entheogen scholarship?
todo: Brown 2016: does book in effect define 1st gen = 20th C, 2nd gen entheogen scholarship = 21st C?
Per Brown (in essence) 2016 / 2019, a strong candidate is Samo to kick off 2nd Gen – his 1998 paper overshadows the important lead-up in 1997 article which heavily refers to 1996 San Fran conf presentation. If you like 1998, kinda hafta include 1996, they are of a unit.
Brown 2019 does include Samo 1997 not just 1998.
1998 = 2001 Entheos 1 especially ConjEden article. This is why Brown 2016 says “21st C = 2nd gen”. pdf that pdf: he starts list w dubious “web scholar” (Hatsis term), Michael Hofffman.
copypaste from Brown 2019 article:
Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates [1st Gen per Brown:]
Since the publication of Wasson’s Soma (1968) and Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970),
[2nd Gen per Brown:] new evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a) [read: ~2001-2007] and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art.
Several of these books are: The Holy Mushroom (Irvin, 2008) and The Mushroom in Christian Art (Rush, 2011) – both of which contain color photo galleries – and The Effluents of Deity (Ruck & Hoffman, 2012), which does not* present photos but offers extensive analysis of medieval religious art.”
*expensive book supposed to have DVD; missing; cust. complaints. A semi-error by Brown. I don’t think I have that book –
I want to check if Ruck switches his kettle logic incoherent story from “only heretical sects had The Mushroom” to “only elites had The Mushroom” as Irvin 2006 Conclusion of AstroSham claimed, before Irvin deleted that “attempt to restrict” (Irvin’s words in THM).
I’m not saying Ruck necessarily self-contradicts; I’m saying he puts forth an APPARENT direct self-contradiction, then fails to acknowledge that it’s an appar. cont., fails to explain / reconcile this appar. cont.
I’m not into unneeded stories put forth as “important required explanation conjectures”, but given that Ruck does put such forth, he needs to reconcile his set of conflicting explanatory narrative scenarios.
I only care about inventorying instances of evidence – I don’t think we should attempt to “assign” evidence to one subgroup or one type of Christian – that exercise is assumed to be a requirement, but really it causes blindness and distracts from the basic project.
It’s counterproductive at this point.
Keep it distinct and separated, aside from sheer question of “to what extent”
When I ask “to what extent Psil & Aman in Christianity”, I am NOT asking “Please provided an explanatory narrative.”
I’d almost rather entheogen scholars OMIT any such attempted, “helpful” (not helpful) explanatory, like Brown tries to provide at end of 2019 article, about… in CONCLUSIONS section:
oh good my greedy temptation copypaste found “generation” I was looking for:
Brown writes w/ great earned authority re: Wasson stymied, in that this article exposes both Panofsky letters:
CONCLUSIONS:
…
While Wasson’s views stymied research on entheogens in Christianity for decades after the publication of Soma in 1968,
[when does that 1st Gen era start? 1968? 1952? 1915? 1910? 1906? 1875? 1845?]
[Huggins Foraging Wrong contributes some early names / dates, somewhere at my site – find “Rignoux” at my site, which page? ans: Foraging Wrong, p. 12, fotnote:
Rouge, Folk-lore de la Touraine.
then Marchand & Boudier, La fre probably fr. myc. society 1910/1911.
copypaste of Hug:
55 Rougé, Folk-lore de la Touraine, 214. Subsequently, Marchand / Boudier, La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), 31–32
When our The Holy Mushroom, Amanita muscaria (fly agaric) was sadly no longer available, they had to fall back and make do with fake substitutes, Psil, unfortunately; that sucks, but at least this great loss of our Holy Msh was compensated for by fact that Psil is powerful .”]
in Christian art, consistent with Samorini’s [1998] typology of “mushroom-trees.”
“The Psychedelic Gospels [book 3 years ago] contributes to these entheogenic studies
(a) by providing original photographs and analysis of psychoactive mushroom images in several churches and cathedrals in Europe and the Middle East;
(b) by arguing that
based on the presence of these images in the high holy places of Christianity,
[Ruck: all of the returning Crusaders were initiates (tho only a few ppl were initiates); had The Mushroom, displayed it brazenly in THEIR places of worship [eg Mega Cathedral],
they repeatedly REintroduced initiation [read: The Msh] into certain communities/ cults/ sects/ groups”
— even Samorini writes “certain” Christian “communities”.
God forbid The Mushroom be allowed for individuals mixed into the set of all ppl in Christendom, gotta keep em separated/ bounded/ confined into a “certain” “group”]
these psychedelic traditions were not suppressed by the Church, but were rather maintained for the secret instruction of initiates
[i HATE that writing, “secret initiation”, that fake anthropology-mode dragging-in of that superfluous, added, imported attempt at helpful explanatory construct/ fabrication]
and possibly for the education of the illiterate masses
[I like that, and silently default to that]
; and
(c) by proposing a psychedelic gospels theory, [vs 2016 book] which hypothesizes that
these images represent an alternative history of Christianity,
[be careful in spinning such a history – we might be better off without this ALWAYS-LIMITING, CONJECTURED SCENARIOS.
If we screw up our speculated scenario, that causes blindness, by saying “don’t look”, “stop looking” – the evidence must be restricted to uphold all driving, all-dominant, all-important “helpful explanatory scenario”]
suggesting that early and medieval Christians experienced healing, divinity, and immortality by ingesting sacred psychoactive sacraments.”
/ end of Brown 2019 excerpt
re: mushrooms in Christian art, I suppose can assign Egodeath.com = 2001-2007.
Prior to the Egodeath Yahoo Group was my posts ~1998 or 1999 in other Yahoo Groups eg Jesus Mysteries – half page in that book about entheogens.
The Jesus Mysteries yahoo group hosts shut it down even tho ppl wanted to talk about entheogens re: Christian origins, so I started the Egodeath Yahoo Group in 2001.
during 1st Gen 1952-1996 (Brown 2019 defines basically 20th C 1st gen, 21 C 2nd gen incl Samo 1998 which really is 1996/1997/1998).
The early 20th C details of Reko –> Schultes –> Graves –> Wasson are unclear to me, though I do have some relevant books here.
I’d have to research that particular question:
When can we say 1st Gen entheogen scholarship was? consider that in 1967 or 1962 everyone was saying “new”, “for 1st time we have access on demand”.
It’s hard to make case that entheogen scholarship started in 1900 or 1875 given that in 1967 everyone saying “new for the first time mystic experience on demand” – contradictory pop stories. Huxley 1954. Wasson wrote Pan. in 1952.
Blotter: The Untold Story of an Acid Medium (Erik Davis, 2024/04)
“On Tuesday, April 30, 2024, the Common Room at CSWR hosted an engaging evening, organized as part of the CSWR’s Psychedelics and the Future of Religion Series and centered on Dr. Erik Davis’s new book, “Blotter: The Untold Story of an Acid Medium.”
“Released in collaboration with Mark McCloud’s Institute of Illegal Images, the book delves into the complex world of LSD blotter paper.
“Dr. Charles Stang, Director of the CSWR, introduced Davis’ new book as an exploration of the “wild images of this ephemeral medium, about a form of art that is meant to be consumed, digested images that are meant to inaugurate a trip, a journey, images that are meant to disappear so that others might appear.””
/ end of book review paragraph 1
My Commentary about Blotter (Davis)
Davis has written: now that the Establishment [Forte: “the Enterprise” eg Griffiths, Pollan, Muraresku] has taken over ownership of Psilocybin, the remaining authentic underground counterculture chem is blotter.
ie: Blotter has authenticity; Psil has lost its authenticity, by that measure.
I’m against the construct “counterculture” though; b/c it perma-reifies Prohibition of psychedelics, though confusion of definitions vs. reality:
“By definition, the mainstream is Prohibitionist. Therefore, it’s impossible to ever repeal Prohibition.”
The Ruck school tends to be self-defeating that way. Their commitment to “fight the power” becomes “Don’t let the evil mainstream get ahold of our Holy Mushroom.” becomes “We must fight and labor tirelessly to keep Prohibition in place forever, to protect and preserve our committed narrative of how awful the Mainstream is.”
Entheogen Scholarship Often Omits drug policy reform and condones Prohibition
Proof: Kitchens’ Part 2 article about Forte vs. Muraresku contains not a trace of drug policy reform; it’s simply missing from the minds of entheogen scholars.
“A richly illustrated exploration of the history, art, and design of printed LSD blotter tabs.
“Blotter is the first comprehensive written account of the history, art, and design of LSD blotter paper, the iconic drug delivery device that will perhaps forever be linked to underground psychedelic culture and contemporary street art.
“Created in collaboration with Mark McCloud’s Institute of Illegal Images, the world’s largest archive of blotter art, Davis’s boldly illustrated exhibition treats his outsider subject with the serious, art-historical respect it deserves, while also staying true to the sense of play, irreverence, and adventure inherent in psychedelic exploration.
“Davis weaves together two main stories: first, the largely unknown history of blotter paper’s development in the 1960s and its later flowering in the 1970s and 1980s; and second,
the story of how San Francisco artist, professor, and “freak” McCloud began collecting blotter and ultimately became embroiled with the LSD trade.
“The book closes with a unique discussion of the market for “vanity blotter”—more recent perforated papers produced as collectible art objects never meant to be dipped in LSD.”
🤔 compare my fridge magnets:
Crops & photo: Michael Hoffman, Dec. 2024
“While vanity blotters are intimately related to the underground blotters of the LSD trade, they effectively open up their own visual world.
“As the ultimate document of this ephemeral artform, Blotter represents an exceptional contribution to the scholarship of art and psychedelics that will entertain older readers with lysergic nostalgia and younger readers with its image-driven journey through a colorful and scandalous corner of psychedelic lore.”
My Jan. 1 comment at Cyberdisciple page: The abuse of entheogen scholarship causes blindness
“These comments sound like the author attacks visionary plants and the altered state of consciousness in order to attack Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
“It’s as if the argument runs:
“Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were all based on drug-usage.
We all know how horrible and awful drugs are, not to mention irrational.
Therefore, we can discredit the basis of these three religions.”
______________________
A question I’m asking of entheogen scholars recently:
Why are you writing about history of psychedelics in religion?
What’s your motivation and strategy, for engaging in entheogen scholarship?
Are you driven by wanting to debunk religion, or to defame religion? Or are you driven by passion to positively find as much evidence as possible for the heavy extent of psychedelics in religion?
My goal is to prove Christianity (and Hellenism) has a fully developed Psilocybin tradition, as part of my using religious myth to corroborate the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism).
If Christianity annihilated Alderaan and ten other planets, that’s irrelevant to my project and my purpose for doing entheogen scholarship.
Reading the book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, I come across author-elevating/ moral grandstanding/ author-aggrandizing retelling of myths such as:
The big bad Church burned down The Great Library of Alexandria — isn’t that terrible?!
For one thing, much of the disparagement of Christianity is based on invented, fake history.
For another thing, I am autistic: If Christianity or the Church was the lowest evil or the highest good, either way, in a way, that’s not my concern and not my interest, and is not my motivation for doing scholarship. It’s irrelevant.
I only care about one thing: Religious myth corroborates the Egodeath theory.
My motivation for doing entheogen scholarship is to prove the Egodeath theory.
Other people do entheogen scholarship in order to advocate Pop Sike Spirituality and in order to defame and disparage and beat up on Christianity and the Church.
That’s an abuse of the topic of entheogen scholarship as a means to an end; an ulterior, other motive.
I use and abuse entheogen scholarship to put it to use to serve my own end, that’s a higher purpose: to make the theory of psychedelic eternalism available to psychonauts and everyone.
I do entheogen scholarship in order to make psychedelic eternalism available to everyone – not in order to self-aggrandize, morally posture, and tell Pop Cult Spirituality stories/ narratives/ discourses.
I watched a YouTube video recently that debunks and greatly complicates the history of libraries in Alexandria.
Letcher Hatsis Huggins is right on one of his points (not wrong on every one of his points):
The field of entheogen scholarship needs more discernment, along the lines Wouter Hanegraaff calls for in the academic scientific historiography of Western Esotericism:
We need science-based, reality-based history, differentiated from myth-based history; history-styled myth.
Letcher Hatsis Huggins complains that entheogen scholars (pilzbaum affirmers; “psychedelic mushroom theorists [PMTs]; theorists of mushrooms in Christian art; “mushroom theorists”) don’t care about history, but interpret mushrooms in Christian art without text context or history context.
I embrace that characterization; indeed my motivation as an entheogen scholar is not to tale-tell about the relation between Hellenistic mysteries and Christian formative Eucharist like Muraresku focuses on.
For example, I felt I should strategically avoid learning the backstory of Eustace crossing the river, in order to listen to the art motifs that are present in the image, without a potentially blinding, distorting overlay imported by background stories and texts.
I learned the hard way about how importing presuppositions and prejudices into art interpretation causes blindness.
In Nov. 2020 in the heat of breakneck-paced decoding of Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, I told Cyberdisciple I’m avoiding looking at row 2 and 3 because they are just agriculture (Cyberdisciple retorted like “that’s dumb of you”) – just agriculture, which is depressing and so risked hampering my recognition of findings in row 1.
After years of intensive looking at the entire image, I finally traced looking-lines of eyes and was led by force to finally LOOK at the grain dispensing bins, which, against my prejudiced blindness, contain mushrooms.
This is a big cautionary lesson for entheogen scholarship, about how negative expectations and negative framing causes blindness and is self-defeating.
So much of entheogen scholarship is motivated by negative expectations and negative framing.
Hand Carl Ruck your wonderful pilzbaum find, and he snatches it away and hastens to neutralize the evidence, wrapping it in a jail cell of framing as “yet more proof of heretical infiltration of The Mushroom (🍄) even into the very heart of the big bad Church”; “repeatedlyreintroduced their initiation practices into certain heretical groups/ communities, and displayed brazenly in their[??] places of worship” (Conjuring Eden article p. 14 + Daturas for the Virgin article p. 56).
Hand Ruck your evidence, and he says “Thank you for the yet more evidence of entheogens in heretical Christianity.”
The only person I see decreeing entheogens heretical is Pope Ruck himself, hiding, psychologically disowned behind HIS phrase “so-called heretical sects”, in all 3 print issues of Entheos! 😄🙃
My eyes had been squeezed tightly shut – like McKenna’s book Food of the Gods, in order to preserve entheogen scholarship’s negative presuppositions, which is their real motivation: wield entheogen scholarship as a club in order to Smash the Church and cry (in self-defeating fashion) about how the Church totally got rid of all entheogens from the start.
No need for a coherent, consistent narrative — or kettle-logic set of narratives.
This belated, reluctant-seeming discovery of the huge shipment of mushrooms bins shattered my claim to be expert as such image interpretation.
I had fallen into the trap the same as any two-bit, Ruck-type seeker of mushrooms in Christian art: as if I were primarily interested in, or driven by, negative framing, a negative mental attitude, to the point of “presence means absence” (the Ruck school); eg. so as to cynically/ critically subtitle my Entheos issue 1 as “Evidence of Psychedelics in Heretical Christianity”.
I try to keep a barrier between what’s in the image vs. the backstory and the text that serves to accompany the image.
pilzbaum deniers tend to disregard what’s in the picture and replace it by text and backstory and history trivia instead; eg pilzbaum are trees and have branches, therefore don’t look like mushrooms. (Ignore the fact that these “branches” in many cases look identical to mushrooms.)
Huggins explains: Art historians don’t write about trees, because trees are decorative and unimportant:
“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians.” – Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article, Conclusion section.
I initially reacted the same way to the dud mushroom trees (vine leaf trees) in Great Canterbury Psalter — until the pink key tree touching the leg-hanging cubensis tree, isomorphic, taught me to value and seek-out branching YI morphology in all trees in the pilzbaum genre.
_______________________
In a private wish list, I just stumbled across a hardcover of Fulvio & Gosso vol. 2, about Psilocybin mushrooms in Christian art, and ordered it.
Amazon no longer supports customer lists of books for others to view – just private wish lists. Old public book list urls are 404.
/ end of my comment Jan 1 2025
Rating Voice Recordings or Podcast Episodes
Fit all aspects into four categories. For “Old Secret Entheogen Paradigm.mp3”:
content: _ 10
voczn: _ 8 – great baseline tone, marred by lisp on 33% of ‘s’, & frequent throat clearing (can delete.
mic tech: _ 10
writeup: _ 7? Not sure how thorough at Idea Development page 10.
Writeup: not necely or simply transcribe, often add new content, or summarize – and-reword and add links and clarifn.
My writeup is a reaction.
The writeup sometimes or in some ways is better than or addl to the content in the recording.
Remembering points/factors: At first I was doing Multiple episodes per day, multi-part episodes.
Ever-varying early shows/ recordings/ approaches.
Episode notes in an idea development page & in a dedicated page.
Idea Development Site; Idea Development is King
Once, I had an idea while editing some page, and i didn’t want to dirty the page. i wanted to write up the idea in the / a correct page instead. by the time fumbled, THE INSPIRED STATE WAS GONE AND WASTED. Never again.
I loosened up where I type an immed idea.
Better to dirty a page — typing immediately regardless of which page/section — than lose an idea or idea session state.
with Throat Clearing Scrubbed, Intro & Outro Added
Also add a 2024 Foreword of some sort. Damn, GREAT “episode”, as I wrote, 10/10/10 – except lisping/slurring ‘s’ sometimes, which I can’t fix, and throat-clearing, which I CAN fix. Then create dedicated page.
Possibly delete a tiny bit of off-topic? It’s harmless and not unrelated. eg a brief mention of vocalizing, cussing.
Ironic that such a good episode was before concept of the Egodeath Show / Egodeath Mystery Show – but after i did short 1-off recordings and uploaded them. Was this the first LONG… one of the first LONG recordings, that was tantamount to a planned “show episode”.
Where was my head at then re: “I’m going to make a podcast-like, long recording”? I had done a few long recording sessions with some poor approaches, avoided here – found the magic combination. Like my great 1987 recording, implausibly great off-the-cuff speaking.
Annoyingly great like the Egodeath Yahoo Group posts. High bar! 2.5 hours PACKED with leading-edge substance.
Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: Spirit Plants, Magical Practices, Ecstatic States (Hatsis, September 11, 2018) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620558009
ebook format blows, for reading – good for Search. I finally got Hatsis’ book for real.
Got Print Copy of Hatsis 2018 book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions
Dec. 30, 2024 – I finally got the REAL version of Hatsis’ book:
Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: Spirit Plants, Magical Practices, Ecstatic States Thomas Hatsis, September 11, 2018
Nov 8, 2020, in the lead-up to discovering Great Canterbury Psalter, I got the Kindle edition – I hate that experience, other than skim & search. Even on desktop.
I must have print.
and for other reasons, I must have Find/Search electronically.
Comes down to: AMAZON SHOULD GIVE PACKAGE DEAL to buy print + Kindle version at a discount.
I got Hatsis kindle book and I HATE the experience of not having the real, printed book.
ebook/Kindle is good for Search – I always want and need BOTH the e-book and print book.
Today I received the REAL Hatsis book, in print: Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: Spirit Plants, Magical Practices, Ecstatic States.
Eager to see his chapter all about pilzbaum and mushrooms in Christian art, and about hellenistic mixed wine and myth.
I only read this in kindle version in Nov 2020 – probably saw only a few, selective spots, b/c can’t deal w/ reading ebook onscreen.
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness (2014)
Has article about the Egodeath theory.
Editors: Cameron Adams David Luke Anna Waldstein Ben Sessa David King
Why Didn’t Post Much About It since 2012? Why got book only in 2024?
Received hardcover yesterday, 2024/12/31.
Feels like I had Kindle of entire book, but apparently only a sample I got in 2022.
After 2012, I read sample online, and this book really stood out, not sure why I didn’t get this book earlier. Hard to believe I didn’t really post about it.
I got the Kindle version sample Dec. 2022 and hated that format. Doesn’t work for me, especially not for reading this massive book.
I think I added this 2012 book to my Amazon wish list in 2014 – FINALLY got the book 2024/12/31, 10 years later than I should have.
55 Episodes of Entheogen Show Podcast with Joe, Kevin, Brad [~2014/10 – 2022/05]
https://entheogenshow.com The latest episode at home page is March 2022: #55: FLOW STATES WITH BOBBY LYTE but I’m looking for Episode 3. Also my post has notes about: Episode 2: PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH RENAISSANCE, PART 2 /OCTOBER 14, 2014
https://entheogenshow.com/?offset=1533052200561 – Bad design makes impossible to view all episodes. Hosted by Joe, Kevin, and Brad. I think I listened to a number of the early episodes and will recognize the 3 guys.
Entheogen Show podcast Episode 3: 003: RESIDENT PSYCHEDELICISTS DISCUSS ENTHEOGENS VS. OTHER PATHS /DECEMBER 14, 2014 https://entheogenshow.com/podcast/2014/12/14/003-resident-psychedelicists-discuss-entheogens-vs-other-paths — TOPICS: Is the psychedelic experience “real”? Does that question have merit? Is taking entheogens “cheating”? Why do people think so? Is the entheogenic experience comparable to experiences achievable through meditation, yoga, shamanic drumming, etc., or is it substantively different?
Text Interview of Patrick Lundborg by Conradino Beb
We read it in church book club. The author joined our final session, where I asked him if anything’s left of the book after deleting all the “therapy” content/ framing, like Houot calls for an exploration fwk instead.
The Immortality Key – Brian Muraresku
Hardcover. Borrowed, marked it up so I probably will buy.
Motivation for reading this book: The McCarty & Priest article 2024 in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies claims that Mura claims that Ruck claims that “institutional Christianity elided/omitted entheogens”. So, I have been reading the Index entries’ Ruck pages to see if Mura mis-characterizes Ruck that way.
Actually Ruck’s position is a self-contradictory combination of two different assertions/ just-so stories, storytelling narratives, unresolved: The church got rid of psychedelics, and, the heretics in the church – and he later adds elites — “repeatedly reintroduced” The Mushroom and “brazenly displayed it in THEIR (??) places of worship”.
Entheogen scholarship is corrupted and abused by mis-using it to beat up on Christianity, and self-blinds and self-contradicts itself as a result
I am autistic and don’t care whether Church was good or bad. DON’T CARE.
I ONLY care about finding psychedelics in Christianity.
I never write anything about “big bad church” narrative – unlike everyone else, for me this is NOT a project of enabling myself to storytell about how awful Christianity is.
1st Gen entheogen scholarship is a project for the purpose of — like Allegro – storytelling how awful Christianity is.
Mis-motivated entheogen scholars have no interest in psychedelics phenomenology.
No interest in Amanita, either; the ENTIRE point for Graves Wasson Allegro Ruck Irvin 2006, is SECRET amanita.
These fake, mis-motivated entheogen scholars are motivated purely by smearing Christianity, and only use the topic of psychedelics in order to advance that project.
2nd-Gen entheogen scholarship needs to DROP THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN MIS-MOTIVATION PROJECT: OMIT SUCH NARRATIVE STORYTELLING ALTOGETHER
2nd Gen entheogen scholarship needs to DROP THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN MIS-MOTIVATION PROJECT.
It is two concerns that are at odds with each other.
John Rush cares about psychedelics – but he forgets that, chasing after attacking the Big Bad Church.
Rush’s book is a conflicting combination of two incompatible projects, that counter each other and cancel out.
Rush’s book cancels itself out like his site that’s down.
Narrrative baloney and self-aggrandizing smearing of Christianity – as your MAIN favorite motivation and goal and purpose — is a way of preventing discovering evidence for psychedelic tradition of Psilocybin inside the essence core heart of normal mainstream ordinary standard Christianity history tradition.
Crop by Cybermonk
Fly Agaric: A Compendium of History, (Kevin Feeney, 2020)
The Feeney Fly Agaric Compendium book is good; good reading, apparently.
Borrowed. Need to look at more, to decide if want my own copy.
Feeney’s chapter on Effects places Amanita more in the Deliriant class than Psychedelic. “The Experience” p. 425-444.
Got this around 2022/12/06. Appears I read whole Psil ch and ignored Aman ch. This Amanita chapter is probably largely good reading, and the Feeney Fly Agaric Compendium book is good; good reading, apparently.
“Robert Graves’ 1956 essay Centaurs’ Food is probably a myth; no one has ever seen it, though that essay can be considered the start of the first-generation, Old, “Secret Entheogens” Paradigm” (2021/01/28)
I’m glad to find that I made no progress whatsoever between start of 2021 and start of 2025, four years later.
That’s how well-developed my phrasing of ideas was, shortly after my Nov 2020 decoding and discovery of the Great Canterbury Psalter hanging image.
The image reminded me of the Egodeath Yahoo Group posts 2001 writing that:
Relativity/ Minkowski/ Einstein = non-branching, QM / Bohr = branching.
Led Zep: “There are two paths you can go by”. first branching, second non-branching. Stairway, climax of Davis book citing me. about Zep 4.
I wrote: “Robert Graves’ 1956 essay Centaurs’ Food is probably a myth; no one has ever seen it, though that essay can be considered the start of the first-generation, Old, “Secret Entheogens” Paradigm, which I took up and transformed and repaired to form the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm.”
Funny b/c w/ Cyberdisciple nov/dec 2024 we confirmed Graves is confused when claiming in 1973 book that he wrote in 1956 aug atlantic the article; his diary jun 27 1957 says he sent that day to New Yorker, “what food the centuars ate”.
Allergic to Term-Usage from Rational Psychonaut forum: Religion Bad, Science Good (what about Higher Religion, & Lower Science?)
False Dichotomy; Proper Science is Proper Religion, but anyway it all comes down to relevance: psychedelic eternalism
Houot does write at length about word-choice – yet I still get this feeling, about the use of terms as used by Rational forum, Rational Psychonaut forum.
[Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 11 pm] My eyes glaze when I read authors like Houot so naturally, easily, casually employ endefined terms:
“rational”
“secular”
“divine”
“sacred”
“God”
“belief”
He’s using vocabulary in a way that lacks self-awareness. Unrefined. Undisiplined. He TAKES FOR GRANTED that these words have a given, particular, given meaning that is shared and established.
WHEN YOU DISPARAGE “MYSTICISM” AND “DIVINE” / ‘sacred’ AND “RELIGIOUS FRAMEWORK”, YOU DIDN’T EVEN BOTHER DEFINING WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT YOU ARE DISPARAGING. Foo is bad! [failed to define what ‘foo’ is supposed to mean]
Huoto stoops to low Reason vs. low Religion; crude “science” vs crude “religion” – an unsophistication runs throughout the too-easy use of words by Houot.
“The religious framework is bad! The science framework is good!” – Houot. High religious, or low religious? High science, or LOW SCIENCE?
Low-grade “science” and low-grade “religion” are equally bad.
Houot takes/assumes the best version of “science” he can imagine, and pits it against the worst form of “religion” he can imagine. then he imagines all readers hold a uniform… he acts like in the little groups he’s hung around (Rationalist forums), everyone thinks of these terms in a completely determinate, uniform, unproblematic way.
I use best form of Science + best form of Religion.
FALSE DICHOTOMY is baked into Houot’s conceptual vocabulary. Throwing around loaded words as if their meaning is simply given. It reads as staggeringly immature/ unrefined, for such a writer. Like when the 4 horsemen of Atheism wrote books 2005 against “Religion” but I instantly confirmed that they say not one word about mysticism – they pick the worst version of their demonized thing, and act like “that’s the given meaning of the word”. Religion = “the worst I can think of. And everyone else holds the same definition I do; it’s simply a given, Religion means Belief in the Divine. Me: I have no idea what you are supposed to be talking about, throwing around your words
“divine” bad;
“sacred” bad;
“religion” bad,
“science” good
Is Houot just as low and vulgar and bottom dwelling as James Kent writing to me that:
“myth” bad
Pop Junk Writing Evidencing Lack of Sophisticated Thinking: Kent & Houot: “Religion bad.” “Myth bad.” “Science good”. “Surrender bad.” “Control good.” “Shamans good.”
It never crosses Houot’s mind, that maybe not everyone holds the identical meaning of those words as he does; acts like their meaning is a simple given.
I don’t like the WAY Houot employs such terms – he’s a parrot escaped from “Rationalist Forum”.
Religion is the same thing as Science.
When you Science enough, you get Religion.
Branching-message mushroom trees booklet article
article = booklet of best pics of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs w brief instructions summarizing interp
Giving a Voice to pilzbaum Artists
180 degrees opposite of Nagger Hatsis’s prejudiced reasoning, I give voice to the pilzbaum artists, liberating them from tyranny of the mere texts that serve to accompany their art.
in one article at Hatsis’ psychedelic witch historian site, he says that interpreting art oppresses and silences the artist (unless your interp matches Hatsis’ reductionist, literalist, genre-contradicting misreading of the image).
If your interpretation matches Hatsis’, you are allowing the artist to speak.
If your interpretation counters Hatsis’, you are disallowing the artist to speak.
That’s all taken for granted in Hatsis’ reasoning. todo: link
Why do pilzbaum deniers have no concern at all with good argumentation?
pilzbaum artists weren’t able to read the accompanying text anyway, in non-literate culture.
Highest Art Project: Canterbury Psalter Prints
Got some good glossy printouts yesterday of the worlds set of 3 best images proving that Christianity in Europe & England has a fully developed Psilocybin Cubensis tradition.
or, proving that Jesus was secretly a mushroom, and the “secret Amanita cult” alien infiltration made it all the way into the heart of Christianity.
Dec. 24, 2024 I made fridge magnets 4×6″, Crops by Cybermonk
todo maybe post url of hatsis vid / post / article
Thomas Hatsis is a Christmas History critic 👎
Tell Grinch Hatsis the Amanita Christmas denier to go back to his era, 1970, playing his endless 8-track tape loop of John Allegro.
🎄🍄🎁
more like the Christmas History Witch
the Christmas historian witch
🎄🍄🦌🏆🎅🤢😵💫🛷
Thomas Hatsis the psychedelic witch rebranded as the psychedelic historian – ie failed witch
🎄🍄🎁 🧐🤨
I Am Not a “Mushroom Theorist”
I am not a “mushroom theorist”.
I am a theorist of mental model transformation.
The Egodeath theory is not aligned with any position that’s discussed, affirmed, or denied by Allegro or Letcher or Hatsis.
The Egodeath theory (the theory of psychedelic eternalism, incl. the Mytheme theory) cannot adequately be framed as any other position, school, philosophy (eg “perennialism”) or theory.
Any critiques of the Egodeath theory must be SPECIFIC to the Egodeath theory.
You can’t lump me in with some previous school.
The Egodeath theory does not assert that “Jesus was a mushroom”.
In 1998, I wanted Jesus, and then Paul, to confirm the Egodeath theory, but I immediately found a la The Jesus Mysteries book by Freke & Gandy, that religious founder figures are ahistorical, and incorpd countless themes, including The Mushroom.
The Genre Problem: Religions are actually religious myth, eg the Bible.
I switched, between 1998 & 2001, from using Mr. Historical Jesus & Mr. Historical Paul to corroborate the Egodeath theory, to using religious myth to corroborate the Egodeath theory.
In using religious myth to corroborate the theory of psychedelic eternalism, the topic of secrecy is counterproductive, irrelevant, unjustified, and unhelpful.
Secrecy is a wrong, false, ineffective explanatory theory.
The premise of secrecy and suppression has no explanatory power.
The less we employ the premise & topic of secrecy and suppression, the greater our explanatory power.
Entheogen scholarship has been derailed and abused for the polemical purpose of demonizing & delegitimizing Christianity, since Allegro 1970
Chris Bennett says his motive for doing entheogen scholarship is to attack Christianity:
New article about anti-Catholic Bennett vs Brian Muraresku & Graham Hancock.
Starting in Phase 2 around 1998:
The purpose of the Egodeath theory (phase 2) is to explain religious myth as description of enlightenment per psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
The 1986 motivating motive of the Egodeath theory is to usefully explain mental model maturation in the psychedelic state.
to explain psychedelic mental model maturation.
ie Explain enlightenment, Transcendent Knowledge, & mental model transformation per satori, Gnosis, enlightenment, regeneration, revelation, initiation, completion, maturation, spiritual transformation.
I judge against Christianity the same as I judge against esotericism:
The flaw of Christianity is its poor communication of Transcendent Knowledge.
Rev 22:2 Tree of Life with 13 Manner of Fruits Crops Every Month Means Cannabis with 13 uses
the Egodeath theory says tree of life means 13 entheogens, especially Cubensis, not just cannabis.
entheogen scholarship = premature conclusion no Cubensis growth or usage, like the official conclusion in 1915 that Mexico lacks Psil mushrooms usage.
At least in 1915 they bothered to look, instead of 1952-2024 no entheogen scholars bothered to try to look for Cubensis in Europe/England. It’s gone, big bad church disallowd and also, it doesn’t grow there, by Pope decree.
– Pope Stamets, whose lowest pri intèrest is Cubensis in Europe, so he wrote 4 words carelessly: not known in Europe.
Hall of Shame: feeblest coverage of a topic
Signed Copy of Bennett Book Using Pot to Crush the Church
[1:39am Dec. 26, 2024] It sounds like Bennett’s whole motivation for his 2001 book is specifically my verse of interest, Rev 22:2, identifying the 13 manner of fruits crops – his shaking revelation was that 12 fruits means Hemp which has 13 uses, in 2001 when he signed my book and unchanged in 2024 yesterday.
My reading Rev 22 again recently paid off — good timing for reading this new interview in which Bennett practically quotes his 2001 book’s key passage I found the other day.
“Muraresku even sent Bennett’s girlfriend $60 via Paypal for a signed copy of Sex, Drugs, Violence and the Bible, a rarity in his catalog.
“Can’t wait to dive further into your opus,” Muraresku told Bennett, referencing the authors then soon-to-be-released tome Liber 420: Cannabis, Magickal Herbs, and the Occult.”
i am superior to Mura bc i paid nothing to get my copy signed to me.
i visited Bennett and he signed his book to me in person.
I actually don’t believe in respecting scholars. Mixed bag.
“Anyone interested in the entheogen theory of religion should get and read this book.
It is largely devoted to ferreting out the many entheogen references and allusions in the Bible.
It covers most books of the Bible in order.
High-quality scholarship.
Aside from some distracting typos, it is highly readable and reveals how interesting and complex many of the Bible stories are.
As is standard, it assumes the literal existence of Bible characters — an assumption which entheogen scholars are increasingly calling into question.
I’m grateful for this book spurring me on to take on studying all the books in the Bible.
Highly recommended for entheogen and religion collections — essential, in fact, especially in light of how few books there are about entheogens in Christianity.”
16 people found this helpful
Secret Amanita Cult 🤫🍄⛪️
My Forgot Plot
Insofar as I am an entheogen scholar, …
The Egodeath theory is an integrated combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Focus not on “when mushrooms were forgotten” or suppressed, but rather, when psychedelic eternalism was forgotten; part of when esotericism was rejected. eg Around 1687.
in 1986, I disrespected books on enlightenment.
I read the best given by my father, but Watts and Wilber, I selectively pulled from while rejecting, to vastly supersede them.
Western Esotericism deserved its failure around 1687, because of its unhelpful poetic obfuscation
replaced by scientific clear direct expression & Usefulness per Engineering Technology
Western Esotericism ought to have been re-expressed like the Egodeath theory in plain useful direct terms.
I reject – I disrespect, and the Egodeath theory supersedes, any previous, garbled, occluded and concealed explanation of Western Esotericism or perennial philosophy.
Mushrooms (psychedelic eternalism) were forgotten when Western Esotericism was rejected, when Natural Science & Protestantism rejected esotericism, eg 1687, the year of Newton’s Principia Math‘a.
In a ~2007 podcast, Max F says conflating Amanita & Psil as “magic mushrooms” is a big problem.
psychedelic eternalism was forgotten at some late point.
That is not praising any previous expressions of psychedelic eternalism.
the poor expressions of Western Esotericism are what killed Western Esotericism.
Western Esotericism should have been expressed in terms of Natural Science after 1687.
Not based on relying on poetic obfuscation.
Culture forfeited esotericism and got what they deserved: the entire loss of esotericism comprehension.
What do you expect?!
OF COURSE esotericism died off, because its foolish advocates hid and obscured it.
With advocates like Carl Dr. Secret Ruck, who insists on branding The Mushroom as always heretical and secret, despite all evidence, entheogen history gets lost, killed by its own internal bad strategy of barrier construction, reifying Prohibition perpetually.
Ruck frames heavy handedly, POLEMICALLY MOTIVATED, his morality-tale storytelling runs away with the whole field.
Can we please have entheogen scholarship WITHOUT any of the unnecessary storytelling that is self-defeating?
Stop focusing on identifying which “groups” had or lacked The Mushroom. Forget entirely the imagined explanatory construct of the “have/lack the mushroom” barrier.
The Ruck school is incapable of saying 1 word about psychedelics without using it as an opportunity to crybaby and tale-tell about our protagonists, the oppressed secret heretical sects cults groups communities, their fortified barrier wall built by the moderate (read minimal) entheogen theory of religion.
tail wags dog: entheogen scholarship becomes corrupted and used as a mere tool to prop up the morality tale telling.
Who is calling all Amanita users “heretical sects”? Ruck, in all 3 Entheos issues writes:
so-called heretical sects
Pope Ruck is the only one who called anyone who used The Mushroom a “heretical sect group”.
Analogy vs. Metaphor
pilzbaum art sucks (has limitations), and integrated {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} visual art motifs sucks, unless treated correctly per the wonderful dictionary definition of the word ‘analogy’ and ‘analogical’, way better than using metaphor.
The Egodeath theory is STEM, Science, a Technology, Engineering, bc of its communication style and analysis style.
pilzbaum art must not and cannot stand on its own; pilzbaum art must be treated as ANALOGY that explains and clarifies psychedelic eternalism, articulated clearly and directly, without relying on analogies or metaphor.
Perennialism (as Expressed Through Esotericism) Fails at Communication & Comprehension, a Dead end, Deservedly Abandoned – Not a Usefully Presented Body of Knowledge
The problem of esotericism or perennialism was always poor communication; esotericism as a writing style was the problem, that I fix.
Esotericism as a body of knowledge was killed by esotericism as a writing style.
Entirely alien from my thinking, and absent from it, is any notion of “secret” entheogens use, or any kind of “cover up”.
What is a given entheogen scholar’s Forgot Plot? In what historical era does their plot line drop from upper left to lower right?
Wouter Hanegraaff tracks when and why esotericism was rejected: when esotericism was rejected by the bickering parties (Natural Science & Protestantism),
Mushroom knowledge was rejected and forgotten when the culture’s attitude flipped from respect to disrespect for pagan wisdom, when psychedelic eternalism was rejected, as part of rejecting esotericism.
Not only did culture reject the expression style of esotericism, culture lost the occluded payload content that is Western Esotericism, as a (garbled) body of knowledge.
The date range per W Hane’s book Esotericism and the Academy. 1687 is an ok point of reference; Newton’s Principia.
Whoever Letcher 2006 & Hatsis 2015 is critiquing, it’s not me.
Letcher & Hatsis are critiquing at times:
Wasson Russia 1957, SOMA 1968
Allegro SMC 1970
AstroSham (Irvin & Rutajit 2006) Conclusion First Sentence: Irvin Restricts Secret Amanita to the Elite Only – The Storytelling Narrative Demands It
Irvin AstroSham 2006 Conclusion section, first sentence, about “The elites always kept The Mushroom secret from the masses.” Actual quote:
Irvin 2006 attempts to limit mushroom use in Christian history to only the elites, which is “completely unfounded” (Irvin’s words against Ruck in THM p 104); so, that “elite” Concl sent. was deleted from AstroSham 2009.
But per Irvin p 104, [mainstream, normal, mass culture] Christianity itself was based on entheogens.
McKenna Food of the Gods 1992
Given I am looking to religious myth to corroborate the Egodeath theory, I always took a greedy approach: presence means presence, presence means my theory is correct.
Not presence means secrecy means absence.
Presence of evidence for mushrooms in Christian art.
Hatsis the #1 Fan of Allegro Projects and Fights against His Own Gullibility
The Sacred Mushroom is one of my favorite books. Top 10, easily.
Thomas Hatsis, weblog post “Reading Allegro Again”, 2015
Since my follow up [Psychedelic Mystery Traditions] to The Witches’ Ointment will be an unbiased appraisal of Allegro’s work and what conspiracy theorists like Jan Irvin and John Rush have done to it, I started to read The Sacred Mushroom [& The Cross] again for the first time in years.
___
I am again struck by the brilliance, clever writing, and sheer magnitude of the subject, which Allegro so eloquently displays.
I thought back to my first reading of it, when I believed every word, every aspect of the theory.
Looking back, I can see why.
It literally appealed to the very core of my own beliefs.
But as I got older (and hopefully wiser) I realized that my beliefs and historical truth were two very different things.
Historical truth cared not about my beliefs. Ignoring this (or rather trying to) brought no comfort.
___
I do not think Allegro fabricated this whole thing – even Letcher doesn’t think that anymore.
___
In Shroom, Letcher theorizes that Allegro might not have believed a word of his own theory and merely wrote it as a moneymaker, which it was.
Over shepherd’ s pie in Oxford, Andy disclosed that he had been wrong about that.
He still doesn’t think Allegro was right (I don’t either), but he does concede that Allegro truly believed what he wrote.
___
But I’m getting off-topic.
The Sacred Mushroom is one of my favorite books. Top 10, easily.
And I think there is something to be said about entheogenic drug use in the ancient world (I deal with it in my forthcoming book), I just don’t think that Jesus was a mushroom.
___
The problem is the hermeneutical lens with which mushroom theorists view the Bible.
To them, mushrooms represent deeper realities of love and universal tolerance – ideas born in New Age utopian understandings of the mushroom experience (at least according to Letcher).
___
But that simply wasn’t who Jesus was.
In our modern popular culture, Jesus (for those who think he existed in history), is imagined as taking on all the attributes of a hippy, if not a very liberal democrat.
No. Paul might have been that (you know, after he was done persecuting Christians before his own conversion on the road to Damascus), but Jesus was not.
He was a radical rabbi, an insurgent magician, who caused trouble in the community in defiance of the bastardization that the Temple – the seat of the God of the Universe’s terrestrial home – had become.
___
Mushroom theorists have largely bought the popular culture narrative of Jesus, which is why their “theories” are so sub par.
They don’t understand Christianity as historians do, and quite frankly, neither did Allegro, regardless of his philological credentials.
___
The Sacred Mushroom, to me, represents the work of a brilliant mind.
It is, however, a ludi mentis aciem – a mind that cannot see it’s own shortcomings.
One of the biggest problems for the Jesus-as-mushroom theory is that an apocalyptic rabbi hellbent on overthrowing the Roman government and crucified for trying was not at all uncommon for that time; the worship of a mushroom and subsequent “cover up” is.
Don’t get me wrong – there are some real fascinating nuggets of historical awesomeness strewn throughout The Sacred Mushroom. It’s the overall thesis that is problematic.
Okay, I just saw how long this post got. Imma call it a night! Good night, mushroom people!”
Motivation for this page: Give attention to this podcast series (2007-2009) comparable to my page about Max Freakout Transcendent Knowledge podcast episodes.
First episode of Max’s Transcendent Knowledge podcast: Apr. 5, 2016 Final Max-hosted episode of Psychonautica podcast: Dec. 25, 2009
Egodeath.com Home Page Mentions of Psychonautica
2007 episode interviewing Michael Hoffman
at Egodeath.com home page are links, copied to below:
Discussion of questions in preparation for my interview on the Psychonautica podcast. August 1, 2007. Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4
Max’s questions:
How did I first begin to formulate the Egodeath theory?
How important are the various domains for the Egodeath theory? Is the Theory a form of Eastern, Western, or Shamanistic religion?
Is the issue of freewill of central importance to ego death?
How did I get the idea that the issue of freewill is of such central importance to ego death?
Explain the ordinary understanding of autonomous control which the ego-death experience proves to be illusory.
What does the ‘transcendence of no freewill’ mean and involve?
Explain the concept of block-universe determinism and time as a spacelike dimension.
How does Egodeath theory relate to the shamanic ability to heal?
Does saying that drug-free meditation is ‘bunk’ mean that there is no value to the practice of meditating?
Explain the idea that ‘drug-policy reform’ is conceptually brainwashed.
What should pro-justice activists focus their efforts on doing, to be most effective?
What are the vulnerabilities of the Wasson-Allegro-McKenna theories of the origin of religion?
What is my take on McKenna’s idea of the ‘stoned ape’?
What is the relevance of the ahistoricity of Jesus to the Egodeath theory?
How do I envision the future for the development of the Egodeath theory?
What is the relationship between the disappearance of the separate-self sense, the experience of nonduality, the intense mystic altered state, meditation, and the problematization of personal control-power in light of the part/whole (self/Ground) relationship in the dissociative cognitive state?
Why bother spreading the truth about the nature of religion and religious origins?
How does the Establishment treatment of topics shut-out coverage of entheogens in religious history?
What is the way forward so that the mainstream culture integrates the maximal entheogen theory of religion?
What evidence and arguments are there that the original Christians used drugs?
Discuss the assertion “There’s no need to assume drugs in primitive Christianity.”
To what extent were drugs used in the history of Christian practice?
Is New Testament Christianity more important than purely mystical Christianity, because of including a political vector on the mystical insights?
Are John Pilch, Jonanda Groenewald, Marcus Borg, John Ashton, and Stevan Davies on the right track? Can they be converted from their standard academic “alien social-psychology” theory of “alternate states of consciousness” to the simpler drug-use theory?
How was Wasson (or Allegro) great? How did he limit or cripple the field?
What will be retained of Wasson (or Allegro)? What will be rejected?
Why bother setting the record straight on the errors of Wasson and the merit of some of Allegro’s ideas?
“Max Freakout returns to Psychonautica for the 100th episode.
“Max, KMO and Olga talk about the very temporary demise of Silk Road and how technology and the Dark Web have made psychedelic chemicals more easily available than ever before regardless of the law.
“They weigh the virtues of traveling to the Amazon to drink Ayahuasca versus finding a situation that suits the seeker’s needs closer to home.
“KMO has a conversation with Rak Razam about his Amazonian Ayahuasca adventure as well as the book and film that came out of it.
“Rak was in NYC for a screening of his new film, Aya Awakenings.”
Psychonautica 83 – Apr 20, 2012 – Psychonautica creator KMO; Z-Realm co-host Olga K; restart the Psychonautica engine for first time in over two years
Psychonautica 82 (December 25, 2009) – Grof, end of seminar ‘Psychospiritual death and rebirth, a visionary journey’ from the World Psychedelic forum.
This appears to be the final episode of Psychonautica in which Max is host.
“In the Christmas day special episode of Psychonautica, Max Freakout plays the final installment of Stanislav Grof’s seminar ‘Psychospiritual death and rebirth, a visionary journey’ from the World Psychedelic forum.
Grof talks about
Einstein’s astrological transits and how they correspond to different parts of his scientific career,
the importance in astrology of knowing your time of birth accurately,
how to construct and interpret a natal chart, how to identify archetypal energies that affect your life from an astrological chart,
the meaning of planetary and lunar transits,
the eliptical orbit of Pluto,
the astrological charts of famous people,
the role of non-ordinary states and astrology in the future of psychiatry,
the importance of correct diagnosis in medicine for appropriate treatment,
the controversial nature of psychiatric diagnosis,
psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia and natural kinds,
differing opinions among psychiatrists about the correct choice of treatment to use in a given situation,
changes in psychiatric diagnosis between subsequent editions of the DSM,
diagnosis of hysteria in Freud’s time compared to now,
the recent epidemic of multiple-personality disorder,
the implications of multiple personality and dissociation for the mind/body problem,
the different perspectives of Jung and Freud, and
their relation to their astrological charts,
different kinds of therapists attracting different kinds of patient,
the lack of clearly defined diagnostic categories and universal opinions within psychiatry,
a joke about behaviourists having sex,
the extreme importance of the death/rebirth experience for the spiritual life of humanity,
the occurence of the theme in shamanism and rites of passage,
the theme of death and rebirth in world religion and mythology,
the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus about the second birth,
the theme of the twice-born in Hinduism,
the use of perinatal themes in political propaganda,
George Bush’s religiosity,
the reduction of personal freedoms during the cold war and war on terror, and
how to get started training in holotropic breathwork techniques.
“Afterwards, Max plays a short comedy sketch from Dave Chappelle talking about living with a crack-addict landlord, taking drugs in old-age, weed as a ‘background substance’ and Chappelle’s trip to the barber on mushrooms.
“In this episode of psychonautica Max Freakout interviews Jan Irvin, the host of the Gnostic Media podcast [2024: https://logosmedia.com] and author of Astrotheology and Shamanism [2006 1st Ed., 2009 2nd Ed., just before this podcast] and The Holy Mushroom [2008],
Jan talks about the work of Jack Herer,
the dispute between John Allegro and Gordon Wasson over the depiction of mushrooms in Christian artwork,
mythological allusions to entheogens and entheogen-experiences,
the origins of the Jesus story,
the meaning of the word ‘catholic’,
the similarity of Jesus to other mythic figures such as Mithra and Shiva,
relation of christianity to fertility cults,
the mushroom as a representation of phallus and yoni,
the relation of the Caduceus symbol to medicine,
the virgin birth of Jesus as a representation of the lifecycle of the mushroom,
entheogenic use of Amanita mushrooms and its reliability for triggering religious experience,
combining Amanita mushrooms with Psilocybe mushrooms,
the natural variability in potency of natural entheogens,
entheogen diminishment fallacies and the relative efficacy of entheogens compared to drug-free techniques such as meditation for triggering religious experience,
ergonomic accessibility of religious experience and
the phoney logic behind the war on drugs.”
Psychonautica 66 – Dale Pendell: Psychedelics and Buddhism
“In this fortnight’s installment of psychonautica, Max Freakout
talks about issues raised in listener emails and forum posts, including
the war on drugs and its effects on entheogen users in the U.S,
the difficulty in making large profit from psychedelic drugs compared to addictive drugs,
the 1960s hippie movement and varying opinions about its legacy in the modern world,
irresponsible use of entheogens,
the progress of youth culture since world war 2,
a comparison of the persecution of homosexuals to the illegalisation of entheogens,
the effects of cannabis on dreams,
the unhelpful and completely inaccurate drugs education given in modern schools,
the official policy of lying about drugs,
the possibility of a drug taking licensing system,
the need for a shamanic context for drugs-use,
the magic mushroom scene in Amsterdam compared with ayahuasca groups around Europe.
Max then reads out a sample from forthcoming novel ‘Beyond the Basin’, and goes on to talk about Norse mythology, its references to entheogens such as the viking ‘brew of poetry’, and the broader picture of the relation between mythology, life and entheogens.
then Max reads out a brief Salvia trip report including an experience of ‘seeing the future’, then talks about
the relation of entheogens to Buddhist practice, including the entheogen-diminishing bias in modern Buddhism.
finally, Max reads out an email about a listener’s experience of science-fiction induced psychosis, negative visionary experiences, and the importance of entheogens in the battle against fundamentalism.“
“In this fortnight’s edition of psychonautica, Max Freakout discusses
the hippie movement of the sixties, debates about its successes and failures, the ambiguity of the word hippie, and also
debates about Tim Leary ad Ken Kesey, and who was really responsible for ending scientific research into psychedelics. Also Max talks about
the implications of the discovery of psychedelic shamanism, and cultural values as paranoid neurosis. Next Max talks about
lucid dreaming and its efficacy as a tool for regenerative healing, the difficulty of learning how to trigger lucid dreams at will, sleep paralysis, the film ‘Waking Life’ and oneirology, the study of dreams. Finally Max talks about
“In this episode of Psychonautica, Max Freakout talks about
Laura Huxley who died recently, and
Ken Kesey and Tim Leary their attitude to psychedelics, then Max reads out a
poem by Mrs Freakout inspired by a salvia trip.
Then, in response to the last episode Max talks about the ‘flying’ experienced by SM afficionados, ‘an ecstasy beyond orgasm’, Aleister Crowley’s idea of ‘erotocomatose lucidity’, the Lakota Indian’s painful sundance rituals, and the difficulty in establishing a direct historical link between tantric sexual practises and psychedelics.
“Next, Max talks about conservative attitudes to sex and drugs,
freedom of speech on the internet,
egodeath theory and the free will debate,
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle,
the possibility of quantum computers,
Sartre’s idea of radically unlimited existential freedom, and its implications for the controllability of your future self,
the archaic revival,
widespread boundary dissolution and synaethesia.
Finally Max reads out an excellent 2-C-I trip report from Dyminshin. including lots of information about a number of different research chemicals.”
“This fortnight’s episode of psychonautica is beamed live from the Dolphins coffeeshop in Amsterdam, and features a
3-way conversation between Max Freakout, The Seeker and Ravi.
First Max reads out an LSD trip report from Dopey J, then the trio discuss ‘crisis’ experiences,
the new Blairwitch spinoff movie ‘shroom’,
LSD doses,
psychedelic and psycholytic psychotherapy,
safety issues of tripping in public environments,
the role of music as a tool in combination with psychedelics,
Neurolinguistic programming, and other techniques for overcoming addictions,
the relevance of addiction to problems of self-control and egodeath theory,
isolation/floatation tanks and their potential for combination with psychedelics, ketamine, dissociation, sensory deprivation and the womb-regression experience.
Following some herbal refreshments the trio return to talk about
the idea of a paradigm shift,
the authenticity of taking entheogens in contrast with other spiritual practices, and
evolutionary advantages to plants which contain psychoactive chemicals.”
“In the 20th installment of psychonautica, Max Freakout talks about
a recent podcast by kmo about meditation and psychedelics, and
the recent dopecast Amsterdam meetup. Then in response to listener emails, Max talks about
salvia divinorum addiction and safety issues,
the importance of ‘set’ in the outcome of a psychedelic experience,
the medicinal use of various psychoactive drugs,
entheogenic plants as a ‘trojan horse’ to Western societies from shamanic cultures,
vaporizing DMT successfully in a herbalair vaporizer and the ‘afterglow’ of the DMT breakthrough.
Topics raised in the psychonautica forum are also discussed, such as
smokable DMT extracts,
cultivating Salvia Divinorum and
exotic strains of psilocybe mushroom,
ayahuasca analogues,
the chemical similarity of psilocybin to DMT,
the distinction between mycophobic and mycophilic cultures and finally
the relation of psychedelics to sexuality. E
Psychonautica 19
This episode recording is corrupt, jumbled, but I listened to it. Seems like double length; I don’t think any content is missing.
My station ID (choppy) is at 49:45: “This is Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com and you’re listening to Psycho Nautica with Max Freakout [Freakout, Freakout – increasing pitch and rough distorted sound]”
“in this fortnight’s installment of psychedelic information, Max Freakout reads through a selection of listener emails and forum posts, the topics covered include
the proposed ban on fresh magic mushrooms in Holland, including
the history of the legal position of mushrooms in Europe,
salvia divinorum tolerance and addiction,
the forthcoming psychonautica outing to the World Psychedelic forum,
listening to music while tripping, synaethesia,
psychedelic cough-syrup DXM including, safety issues about purity and after-effects and its intereraction with dramamine, its auditory and visual effects, and a dxm trip report from scaredstraight.
Max mentions this weekend’s dopecast meetup in Amsterdam, then
reads out a mushroom trip report from Matty THC, involving a group trip in an isolated log cabin with some wild visuals.
Next Max talks about trip-synchronicity with some personal examples,
the experience of ‘other’ intelligence during a trip,
insanity as an ‘occupational hazard’ for psychonauts and
“In this fortnight’s episode of psychonautica, Max Freakout first announces the forthcoming dopecast meetup in Amsterdam, and then addresses a selection of listener emails.
“The topics which are raised include the difference between a narcotic and a psychedelic in the context of shamanic practice,
Mike Hoffman’s egodeath theory as a new, ‘practically applicable’ religion,
the relation of the psychedelic insight to the validity of inductive reasoning,
the parallels between Terence Mckenna’s theories and the egodeath theory,
safety precautions and contraindications of salvia divinorum (including the salvia sleepwalk and the combination of salvia with cannabis),
the varieties of ecstasy pill and the potential pitfalls of using a volcano vaporizer to vaporize DMT.
“Finally, Max reads out a salvia trip report from Ottonomy involving some classic salvia phenomena.”
“This episode of psychonautica is the second half of the
conversation between Max Freakout and the Seeker from the last episode. They discuss
entheogens and spiritual practise, including the state of consciousness brought on by kundalini yoga. Also
the differences and similarities between DMT and Salvia Divinorum, including an in depth discussion about the salvia experience, it’s effect on time, space and eternity, including comparisons to Buck Rogers and Star trek.”
“In this episode of psychonautica, Max Freakout talks about the Dutch smartshop scene, the recent ban on yohimbe and forthcoming changes in the Dutch policies on magic mushroom sales, then in response to a recent dopecast, Max discusses the benefits and dangers of MDMA and ecstasy, their potential role as ‘love drugs’ and their psychedelic properties, and the attitudes of mass-media towards illegal drugs versus the legal ones.
Hear an announcement of the forthcoming World psychedelic forum in Switzerland and a discussion about some of the speakers who are going to be there including a brief explanation of Stanislav Grof’s contributions towards psycedlic psychotherapy, then
a review of Andrew Letcher’s recent book about magic mushrooms including a discussion about
the differences between amanita and psilocybe mushrooms and
the importance of that distinction for theories about the origin of religion.
Finally Max reads out a 2cb trip report from shaggz1297 involving paranoid delusions and passionate romance.
Two versions of the Resolution composed at the occasion of the World Psychedelic Forum, and signed on site by speakers and participants of the conference call for the decriminalization and the legalization of psychedelic substances. A version signed by the speakers can be found here: english / german
…
“In January 2006 the International Symposium “LSD – Problem Child and Wonder Drug” took place at the occasion of the 100th birthday of Dr. Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD.
Several thousand visitors and more than 200 media people from 37 countries gathered in Basel to hear speeches from scientists and historians, to exchange ideas and disseminate information.
It was the biggest conference of its kind worldwide.
For the first time since the turbulent 1960s, a wide range of psychedelic issues and topics has been brought back to public discussion and re-evaluation.
The “World Psychedelic Forum” will expand upon this renewed interest, presenting a unique opportunity for experts, researchers, and interested persons from all around the globe, to exchange views and hear presentations of the latest research on the value of these remarkable psychedelic substances in medicine, psychology, science, religion, culture and the arts.”
Psychonautica 13 – Interview with Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
“In this fortnight’s edition of psychonautica, Max Freakout interviews Michael Hoffman, author of the egodeath theory and the entheogen theory of religion, and the man behind egodeath.com.
“They discuss the nature of free-will and the idea of transcending it, the concept of block-universe determinism and its role for facilitating an understanding of the egodeath theory, and the role of the shaman as the tribal healer.
“Also, the controversies concerning Hoffman’s outspoken views on drug-free meditation and drug-war activism are covered.
“Finer details of the theory are also discussed, including the idea of myth-as-metaphor, and Hoffman’s critisim of Mckenna’s stoned ape theory of evolution.
“Finally, Max gives a run-down of the competition winners with their prizes in the post, and a shout to the team at www.realitysandwich.com.”
Email … leave comments, Skype us, and join the ever-growing Psychedelic community hanging out at the forum.
Playlist: Rush – Free will The Beatles – Help!
Psychonautica 12 – Listener questions about the Egodeath theory
“In this episode of Psychonautica, entheo-pundit Max Freakout recaps on the last two episodes, dealing with the issues that arose from them, and brings to a close the trip report competition started in episode 10, everyone’s a winner!
“Max clarifies some points from the ego-death/freewill podcast (episode 11), such as his use of the word ‘religion’ and the concept of affirming and then then transcending ‘no free-will’ in the dissociative cognitive state.
Max talks about the controversial debate between psychedelics and meditation/yoga as effective spiritual practises, trying to be as even-handed as possible, then discusses the concept of synergy, and corrects an error he previously made concerning average LSD dosages.
The psychedelic properties of cannabis are discussed, then finally Max recommends some psychedelic web-links including a video documenting the Hungarian psychonaut scene, to finish off there’s a public service announcement about medical marijuana from fellow podcaster Zandor and a song about picking mushrooms in the wild.”
“Email … leave comments, Skype us, and join the ever-growing Psychedelic community hanging out at the forum at http://forum.thegrowreport.com/“
Psychonautica 11 – Free will vs. determinism per the Egodeath theory
“In this week’s instalment of Psychonautica, Max Freakout first gives a reminder about the competition started in the last episode, 2 weeks remain to submit your trip reports in order to win some sporeprints for magic mushrooms cultivation, and some other entheogenic treats.
“Then Max proceeds to talk about the philosophical issue of free-will and how it relates to entheogens, with much reference to Michael Hoffman‘s website, egodeath.com.
“This issue broadly involves subjects like the entheogenic origin of world religion, and refutation of the common ‘entheogen diminishment fallacies’ aimed at downplaying the role of entheogenic experiences in an individual’s spiritual development.
“Finally Max talks about the hypocrisy involved at the higher levels of the ‘war on drugs’, mass media doublespeak and the problems of remaining impartial when considering the pros and cons of psychedelic drugs.”
addr: Maxfreakout dopefiend.co.uk leave comments, Skype us, and join the ever-growing Psychedelic community hanging out at the forum.
Podcast: Psychonautica: Max Freakout on Egodeath theory Psychonautica episode 11 July 13, 2007
“In this week’s installment of Psychonautica, Max Freakout discusses the philosophical issue of free-will and how it relates to entheogens, with reference to Michael Hoffman’s website, Egodeath.com.
“This issue broadly involves subjects like the entheogenic origin of world religion, and refutation of the common ‘entheogen diminishment fallacies‘ aimed at downplaying the role of entheogenic experiences in an individual’s spiritual development.
“Max talks about the hypocrisy involved at the higher levels of the ‘war on drugs’, mass-media doublespeak, and the problems of remaining impartial when considering the pros and cons of psychedelic drugs.”
Psychonautica 10 – Cubensis Cultivation – Max Solo
“In this extra special tenth episode of Psychonautica, Max Freakout finally takes over full podcasting responsibilities, KMO who got the show on the road will be sorely missed.
Max goes through the process of basic home cultivation of magic mushrooms,
and to celebrate his first solo podcast, there is a competition where lucky winners can receive sporeprints to grow their own shrooms, plus some other entheogenic goodies.
Then in the second half of the show, Max deals with
the issue of under-age psychedelic use, and
plays an excerpt from a recent ‘Mind States’ conference featuring the Shulgins and Allyson Grey.
Finally, Max talks about the ideal choice of psychedelic for a first-time experience, and dopefiend’s recent low-dose mushroom voyage.”
“In this, our 9th psychedelic romp, Max Freakout and KMO delve into the Psychonautica forums on the Growreport.com website to answer your questions and riff on some of the most excellent thoughts that you folks have been posting there of late, and they stick pretty close to the topic of
psilocybin mushrooms and their potential enhancement with Syrian rue.
It works wonders for some folks, but as you’ll hear from Max, it’s not without its risks.
Later, they pick-over the Dopefiend’s recent low-dose mushroom trip.”
KMO examines new ways in which researchers are delving into our bodily effluvia and coming up with new ways of gauging the prevalence of drug use in society.
Max Freakout takes a solo turn at the tiller and steers the ship through interesting waters as he
reads some trip reports and
explains why taking acid in a Las Vegas casino might not count as the best choice for set and setting.
Lash yourself to the mast and take in the siren’s song of this week’s Psychonautical adventure.”
“In this week’s Psychonautica, KMO and Max Freakout finally manage to manifest in the Cyberpsychedelicatessen at the same time for a wide ranging discussion that includes some analysis of
Joe Rogen’s increasingly famous DMT rant and
Graham Hancock’s new book, Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind.”
“In this fifth installment of Psychonautica, Max Freakout takes the tiller and navigates the treacherous shoals of psychedelic chemistry. He’s recruited a reliable guide in the form of Psycherelic, and together they’ll walk us through the Marsofold Tek for extracting smokable DMT from mimosa hostilis using readily available ingredients. Psycherelic assures us that it’s as easy as baking a cake. Given that it’s a cake made with flammable and explosive ingredients, you may do well to leave the baking of this particular cake to the experts, but if there’s no stopping you, here’s how.
If you couldn’t make it to Dopestock, the Cyber-Psychedelicatessen is the next best place to spend 4/20. Join us for some psychedelic kitchen chemistry.
Psychonautica 4 – Salvia Divinorum, Daniel Seibert
“Welcome, fellow psychonauts, to the third Freakout Friday.
Let the vigilant sentries stationed at the portals of your mind take five as Stealth Maestro KMO and the Dopefiend network’s very own certified psychedelic scholar slip inside your mind and upgrade your memeset with new distinctions, like
the difference between flashbacks and HPPD.
Ponder the source of the mysterious “voice” of the mushroom and ayahuasca spirits and
review past lessons with return visits to KMO’s conversations with Lorenzo of the Psychedelic Salon and LSD researcher, Dr. Charles Nichols.
delve into listener email
“the undulating geometric patterns crawling over the living, breathing, inter-dimensional walls.”
“In the second of our new series of verbal psychedelic journeys live from the Psychedelicatessen, hallucin-anchor KMO and entheo-pundit Max Freakout venture behind the curtain to bring
legal highs, particularly Salvia Divinorum,
discuss the abandonment of mass-media by an ever-increasing self-educated cyberclass, and
the growth of the term “entheogen” with Psychedelic Podfather Lorenzo Hagerty of the Psychedelic Salon, and also
welcome LSD researcher Charles Nichols from Louisiana State University to the show to discuss
the brain science behind the LSD experience, and
whether Tim Leary was good or bad for the mind-expansion movement.”
Drop your shrooms and fasten your safety belts for a mindblowing ride into the alternative conciousness otherwise known as Psychonautica! In Dopefiend.co.uk’s incredible new series KMO and Max Freakout introduce you to a parallel world of hallucinogenic delights, discussing the origins of the terms “entheogen” and “psychedelic”, the science of memetics and the internet as a psychedelic tool, and the different benefits of natural substances versus synthetics.
The Psychonaut’s Ship: Pairing Technologies with Psychedelics to Augment User Agency (2022)
Phenomenology for Psychedelic Researchers: A Review of Current Methods & Practices (2021) [end of move down
Edited revision of review
bold = rev; edited at Amazon to read as follows:
Alan Houot’s basic idea in Rise of the Psychonaut is that instead of restricting psychedelics to the therapy approach and the mysticism approach, we should also (or, instead, exclusively?) use the “Science explorer discoverer, using tools and technology” approach to psychedelics. 5 of 5 stars for Houot’s much-needed basic idea.
But, be warned! In adversarial fashion, on p. 10, Houot implies that you are immature, irrational, mentally ill, and unfit to do science exploration discovery, if you are at all in any way interested in esotericism/ myth/ religion/ mysticism/ spirituality, or if you use any other approach to psychedelics for any purpose and motive other than “Science” and “Technology” exactly as the author conceptualizes it — which is, approaching psychedelics as if exploring the physical external world like ships in the 1400s, and alien entities contact in the psychedelic state, like NASA.
A psychedelic church’s astute book club immediately picked up on this false-dichotomy, adversarial quote:
“Please put this book down if you’ve never ingested psychedelics or if you take them for therapeutic, recreational, religious, spiritual growth, personal growth, cognitive enhancement, creativity-inspirational, or self-actualizing purposes. It’s not for you … With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.” – p. 10
Later in the book, Houot writes that we should not entirely write-off religion, because that would be closed-minded.
Houot covers analogy, and calls for mapping experiential phenomenology of the altered state, without discussing how Science uses analogy, like religious myth, to explain and clarify the dynamics of altered-state experiencing. I’d like to see more discussion of using Engineering product development to usefully package the findings of Science, and analogy, used well, would be part of such a technology and mapping.
Houot’s particular conceptualization of Science and exploration (as well as his rational atheist-brand conception of Religion and mysticism) is narrow and quirky.
It’s unclear what useful, relevant tools and technologies are provided so far, by Houot’s approach. How exactly does reading Houot’s publications help the psychonaut during the peak window of the intense mystic altered state, to have viable, stable control? Mystical surrender is not an option, theorizes Houot, but we could use shamans’ successful technologies such as dance and drumming.
My book review includes, as background, Houot’s interests per his dissertation and article: Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control; The Psychonaut’s Ship: Pairing Technologies with Psychedelics to Augment User Agency.
To develop his model, Houot can model the dynamics of “surrender” to produce stable control in the altered state, per a book of useful even if merely folk wisdom that I can recommend, Michelle Janikian’s book Your Psilocybin Mushroom Companion: An Informative, Easy-to-Use Guide to Understanding Magic Mushrooms.
I wish Rise of the Psychonaut treated Houot’s next-favorite topic after alien entities contact, his critique of ‘surrenderism’, contrasted against shamans, who have full self-control in the psychedelic state due to their superior technology, and never need to do something like ‘surrender’. It would be really interesting to analyze and discuss the concept of ‘surrender’ with Houot: what are the dynamics there, to produce stable control? How does personal control transform, rather than just staying as-is and handing over the wheel of control, untransformed, as-is, to the revealed level of control that’s hidden behind the scenes?
Houot doesn’t engage with altered-state based Rock lyrics reporting problems with steering a ship (Rush: No One at the Bridge; Ozzy: S.A.T.O.), or the myth of Dionysus and the pirates, where the captain doesn’t honor Dionysus and is killed, while the pilot honors Dionysus and is saved.
Houot should question whether shamans have full stable self-control, and should approach myth/ esotericism/ religion as analogy to be used effectively by a Science-based approach, rather than a scorched-earth, wholesale rejection of any interest in a mystical approach to psychedelics. When Science recognizes esotericism as analogy describing psychedelic transformation, then Science can use analogy properly and powerfully, to explain mental model transformation in the altered state (as a 1st-tier concern), and also, as a 2nd-tier concern, explain how religion is analogy trying to describe psychedelic mental model transformation.
Then use Engineering product development to deliver a useful tool that’s ergonomic, relevant, clear & simple, to help and suitably equip cognitive scientists and everyone to endure and explore the altered state.
It’s a hard book to review, b/c the author REALLY IS that adversarial, I can provide quotes that would shock any book editor, and I provided THE quote, page 10.
Am I the bad guy, for doing what Amazon says to do: tell readers what they need to know about this book.
I and my book club could barely get past the introductory barrier the author sets up. People need to know that.
It’s a constructive review, highly substantive and relevant to Houot’s project and mine.
My Book Review of Rise of the Psychonaut (Houot, 2025)
5 of 5 stars April 16, 2025 Title of the review: Defines a Science explorer discoverer approach to psychedelics
Alan Houot’s basic idea in Rise of the Psychonaut is that instead of restricting psychedelics to the Therapy approach and the Mysticism approach, we should also (or, instead, exclusively?) use the “Science explorer discoverer, using tools and technology” approach to psychedelics. 5 of 5 stars for Houot’s much-needed basic idea, advocating for a Science explorer approach to psychedelics as an alternative to the Therapy and Mystical approaches.
But, be prepared: on p. 10 and others, this book, voiced in a personal tone, says that you are immature, irrational, mentally ill, and unfit to do science exploration discovery, if you are at all in any way interested in esotericism/ myth/ religion/ mysticism/ spirituality, or if you use any other approach to psychedelics for any purpose and motive other than “Science” and “Technology” exactly as the author conceptualizes it — which is, approaching psychedelics as if exploring the physical external world like ships in the 1400s, and alien entities contact in the psychedelic state, like NASA.
A psychedelic church’s astute book club immediately picked up on this false-dichotomy, adversarial quote:
“Please put this book down if you’ve never ingested psychedelics or if you take them for therapeutic, recreational, religious, spiritual growth, personal growth, cognitive enhancement, creativity-inspirational, or self-actualizing purposes. It’s not for you … With that said, my message will not resonate with everyone.” – p. 10
Later in the book, Houot writes that we should not entirely write-off religion, because that would be closed-minded.
Houot covers analogy, and calls for mapping experiential phenomenology of the altered state, without discussing how Science uses analogy, like religious myth, to explain and clarify the dynamics of altered-state experiencing. I’d like to see more discussion of using Engineering product development to usefully package the findings of Science, and analogy, used well, would be part of such a technology and mapping.
Houot’s particular conceptualization of Science and exploration (as well as his rational atheist-brand conception of Religion and mysticism) is narrow and quirky.
It’s unclear what useful, relevant tools and technologies are provided so far, by Houot’s approach. How exactly does reading Houot’s publications help the psychonaut during the peak window of the intense mystic altered state, to have viable, stable control? Mystical surrender is not an option, theorizes Houot, but we could use shamans’ successful technologies such as dance and drumming.
To develop his model, Houot can model the dynamics of “surrender” to produce stable control in the altered state, per a book of useful even if merely folk wisdom that I can recommend, Michelle Janikian’s book Your Psilocybin Mushroom Companion: An Informative, Easy-to-Use Guide to Understanding Magic Mushrooms—From Tips and Trips to Microdosing and Psychedelic Therapy.
I wish Rise of the Psychonaut treated Houot’s next-favorite topic after alien entities contact, his critique of ‘surrenderism’, contrasted against shamans, who have full self-control in the psychedelic state due to their superior technology, and never need to do something like ‘surrender’. It would be really interesting to analyze and discuss the concept of ‘surrender’ with Houot: what are the dynamics there, to produce stable control? How does personal control transform, rather than just staying as-is and handing over the wheel of control, untransformed, as-is, to the revealed level of control that’s hidden behind the scenes?
Houot doesn’t engage with altered-state based Rock lyrics reporting problems with steering a ship (Rush: No One at the Bridge; Ozzy: S.A.T.O.), or the myth of Dionysus and the pirates, where the captain doesn’t honor Dionysus and is killed, while the pilot honors Dionysus and is saved.
Houot should question whether shamans have full stable self-control, and should approach myth/ esotericism/ religion as analogy to be used effectively by a Science-based approach, rather than a scorched-earth, wholesale rejection of any interest in a mystical approach to psychedelics. When Science recognizes esotericism as analogy describing psychedelic transformation, then Science can use analogy properly and powerfully, to explain mental model transformation in the altered state (as a 1st-tier concern), and also, as a 2nd-tier concern, explain how religion is analogy trying to describe psychedelic mental model transformation.
Then use Engineering product development to deliver a useful tool that’s ergonomic, relevant, clear & simple, to help and suitably equip cognitive scientists and everyone to endure and explore the altered state.
— Michael Hoffman, theorist of ego death
/ end of review
I’m describing my own approach per the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism; thank you Houot for encouraging me to write a book.
todo
Condense all “talks down” points, summarize as 1 point in book review.
Create page to welcome Ruck to conference, Ruck book on “consciousness”.
Crop by Cybermonk. Per Ronald Huggins, the branches prove that these mushroom trees don’t look like mushrooms.
Why No Mention of Surrenderism?
Heavily focused in dissertation & article on ship. surrender
Janikian good book uses folk concept surrender.
in pdf Sample of book, Find ‘surrender’. __
Citation and Link
Rise of the Psychonaut: Maps for Amateurs, Nonscientists and Explorers in the Psychedelic Age of Discovery, A. M. Houot (“Ooh-Oh”), Feb. 3, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DPSJGMFR (paperback, ebook, & audiobook)
Outline of Headings
transcribed by Michael Hoffman
Parts and Chapters
Rise of the Psychonaut
part 1 issue
Introduction, a landscape continuously in the making 3
1 metaphors we trip by 13
2 psychedelics are tech technologies 27
Part two invitation, 41
3 the academic pale, 43
4 into the wild 63 five psycho
5 psychonaut: what’s in a name? 79 six being, or having, enough 95
Part 3: resources 107
7. Your unnatural attitude 109
8. Shift the paradigm 123
9. a dash of anarchy 100 37
10. Become a better reason or 100 51
11. Psychedelic – technology relations 100 71
12. Innovation by, and four, explores 100 89
13. Contact with hyper dimensional 207
14. A recipe for eating sacred cows 225
Part 4: destination, 200 37
15. The psychedelic age of discovery 200 39
16. Explorers: all systems are go! 257.
Conclusion: the horizon approaches 275
Bibliography 301
Index 329
Acknowledgments, 345
All Headings
Disclaimer …ix
PART 1: ISSUE …1
Introduction: A landscape continuously in the making …3
Chapter 1: Metaphors we trip by …13
Psychedelics are psychotomimetic …15
Psychedelics are trips …16
Psychedelics are sacred or divine …17
Psychedelics are teachers …18
Psychedelics or medicines …19
Hide and seek …21
Conclusion …25
Chapter 2 – Psychedelics are technologies …27
Metaphor: psychedelics are technologies …28
Potential objections …30
Pyychedelics can be medical technologies …30
Overlap between the psychedelics are trips metaphor and the exploration motive … 31
Psychedelics are technologies to communicate with divine beings …31
Examples of technology metaphor language use …31–3
Motive: Exploration …33
PART 2: INVITATION …41
Chapter 3: The academic pale …43
Inside the academic pale: established and defended …45
Legal status …46–3
Managed by the elderly …47–3
Academic freedom (so they say) …49–3
Applied research always drives out pure …52–3
Funding return on investment …53–3
Institutional review boards …58–3
Conclusion …59
Chapter 4: Into the wild …63
Democratization …65
Gathering, analyzing, submitting …69
Anecdotal evidence …72–3
intimate knowledge …73–3
Conclusion …77
Chapter 5: Psychonaut: What’s in a name? …79
What do we call ourselves? …83
Types of psychonaut …85
Rational psychonaut …87–3
Secular psychonaut …89–3
Psychonaut explorer …90–3
Where are all the explorers? …92
Conclusion …93
Chapter 6: Being, or having, enough …95
David versus Goliath …97
____enough …99
Calling for a critical mass …103
Conclusion …105
PART 3 – RESOURCES …107
Chapter 7 – Your unnatural attitude …109
The four steps …112
Step 1 of 4: Natural attitude (putting the taken–for-granted in a box, and then placing that box to the side) …112
Step 2 of 4: Reduction (seeing old things with new eyes) …114
Step 3 of 4: Imaginative variation (imagining different scenarios to arrive at a phenomenon essence) …117
Step 4 of 4: Enter objective confirmation (are you experiencing that too?) …119
Describing lived experience …120
Conclusion …122
Chapter 8 Shift the paradigm …123
Discovering anomalies …126
Being good enough …132
Conclusion …134
Chapter 9: A dash of anarchy …137
against method, but for science …139
Galileo: Copernicus’s publicist …143
1. Change the sensory core of every day experience …144–3
2. Change conceptual components through persuasion …145–3
3. Buy yourself time for history to catch up …147–3
Conclusion …148
Chapter 10: Become a better reasoner …151
Inductive reasoning …153
Prepare, don’t predict: Black swans …154–3
Counter induction …157-3
Deductive reasoning …158
Socrates is mortal …159–3
How to test claims …160–3
Abductive reasoning …163
Analogical reasoning …165
Conclusion …168
Chapter 11: Psychedelic-technology relations …171
4. Psychedelic enables use of non-physical technology …173
3. Psychedelic inspires physical technology …174
2. Psychedelic is technology …177
Osmond’s scope …179–3
1. Physical technology pairs with psychedelic …182
Push the envelope but avoid breaking it …184–3
Conclusion …187
Chapter 12: Innovation by, and for, explorers …189
Disruptive technologies (and ideas) …194
User innovators …197
The power of the crowd …200
Conclusion …203
Chapter 13: Contact with hyperdimensionals …207
The foundation of anthropological research …210
The basics of non-ordinary fieldwork …212
Native …216
Contact …219
Conclusion …222
Chapter 14: A recipe for eating sacred cows …225
Plant teacher, coyotes, sober lessons …228
Conclusion …235
PART 4: DESTINATION …238
Chapter 15: The psychedelic age of discovery …239
Renaissances …239
Ages of discovery …242
First age of discovery …243–3
Second stage of discovery …246–3
Third age of discovery …248–3
An age’s crowning moment …250
The grand gesture of the psychedelic age of discovery …251
Conclusion …255
Chapter 16: To explorers: All systems are go! …257
Naysayers be damned …261
Giggle factor …265
Useless doesn’t mean worthless …268
Conclusion …270
Conclusion: The horizon approaches …275
Risk and opportunity …275
NASA of psychedelics (or we need a hyper space program) …281
Training …284–4
Data collection …285–4
Technology …286–4
Maps …287–4
Infrastructure …287–4
The information trade …289
Competition as collaboration …294
Witness to a changing world …296
Conclusion …299
Bibliography …301
Index …329
Acknowledgments …345
Quotes …347
Template for Fast & Good Reviews of Books
sketch: b/c Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022
— kicked my butt, it was so hard to pinpoint his massive error and few days ago i finally PROVED he is wrong, drastically wrong, in thinking Ogdoad = no fate; it = 100% pure fatedness.
He’s the only one who gets it all f’d up backwards.
NOW i am able to review Wouter Hanegraaff book! use template, fill in.
Template:
Title of review: _
Pros:
x
x
Cons:
x
x
Key words for each chapter:
1) heading – key words
2) heading – key words
DONE!! sketching template.
Email to Book Club 2024/12/29
Summary of email & discussions among topical expert readers:
2nd edition needs to replace page 10 by a positive, non-insulting, non-churlish equivalent (to stop driving off everyone in the world), hiring a professional editor/P. R. person to scrub all adversarial, talking-down phrases that are scattered throughout the book.
[March 2025 todo: format/ copypaste/ revise other book club emails]
email excerpts:
Dec. 29, 2024
Semi-available now; I received book today, paperback, but link has gone 404. I predict this book will become consistently available sooner than Feb 6, 2025.
I’ve already read a lot by this author including this book through p. 25. Looks as good as anything. Advocates scientific explorer framing instead of other framings such as “therapy”.
Houot claims that shamans have control, and rejects / disparages mystics’ surrenderism.
Actually we need better comprehension of “surrender”, and I doubt the contrast between shamans vs. mystics will pan out; too apples/oranges.
Ironic that this advocate of a “technology and science” approach idolizes shamans as “having control”, I doubt they have control of the sort that the author advocates.
I hope that the rest of the book after page 25 has more to add than what I’ve read by Houot so far – appears to be good.
Available and Not Available, in Dec. 2024
The book arrived today Dec. 29, 2024, not Feb. 2025.
Dec. 29, 2024 – There’s some funny business going on, my link in Amazon says I received the book, but the link at Amazon has become 404. Only seeing ability to order Kindle version. Seems I lucked out; not clear if you can get printed book at this time.
I guess I’m insane on Hatsis’ mail-order Datura, delirious, but the book is here and I can photograph it:
Best Format for Book Reviews
Pros [written for audience of the Egodeath theory first, general audience 2nd]
Cons
Chapter titles & my key words characterizing each chapter
Benefits of 3 Book Formats
New idea March 23: 2025: I always want a book in print (hardcover preferred) AND audiobook [new decision/analysis of benefits] AND ebook.
very happy w/ audiobook format
I already analyzed benefits of ebook and print book
print book: Pros: highlighter + pencil markup for close reading. Cons: Index but no full text search.
ebook: Pros: Full text search, and ease of access eg my library is in storage. Cons: Awful for reading.
audiobook: Pros: Play and ignore, feels zero effort. Cons: Can be hard to digest eg Great Courses university lectures.
I have the print book and the audio book of Rise of the Psychonaut.
Words to Search for in Ebook of Rise of the Psychonaut
I do not have the ebook of Rise of the Psychonaut, but if I did I would be able to full-text search the book eg “analogy” counts vs. “metaphor” count. Find:
religion
myth
egoteric
analogy
metaphor
Houot covers analogy in chapter 10 at 33:22, 80% through. Section: Analogical reasoning, p. 165, simile & metaphor too. todo: analyze book phrases.
p. 165: “The main vehicle I use to deliver this book/s central thesis is analogy … compare two … different things … come to the same conclusion for both.”
Snapshot of prices:
Paperback: $19
Ebook: $10
Audiobook: $25
Rise of the Psychonaut: Maps for Amateurs, Nonscientists and Explorers in the Psychedelic Age of Discovery A. M. Houot, Feb. 3, 2025 (planned to start shipping per Amazon)
Keyboard Shortcut for Houot Book with Amazon URL (new type!)
Rise of the Psychonaut rotp
Rise of the Psychonaut (Houot, 2025) rotpm
Rise of the Psychonaut: Maps for Amateurs, Nonscientists and Explorers in the Psychedelic Age of Discovery, A. M. Houot (“Ooh-Oh”), Feb. 3, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DPSJGMFR rotpl
“Much of the world’s landmass is already known. Deep sea and outer space are beyond most people’s reach.
There are fewer places left to discover.
Psychedelics reveal worlds that remain obscure.
Altered states offer modern, 21st-century audiences boundless opportunities to explore what a human being can experience.
Be a capable discovery-maker, sample-collecting naturalist, and rational thinker of visionary phenomena.”
“In the same way European explorers left their shores 500 years ago in search of spice routes by using technologies to get to the other side of the world, you can use psychedelics to get to the other side of ordinary perception and back.
How to gather data, conduct experiments, and make contact with the locals; equipped to chip away at the mystery.
Conceptual tools to shape your new mindset, taking an active role.
Make more sense of your experiences.
How you can become part of the Psychedelic Age of Discovery.”
Pollyanna “Can-Do” – True, but {gate}
Houot writes “Be a capable discovery-maker, sample-collecting naturalist, and rational thinker of visionary phenomena.” —
never mind the shadow dragon monster, eternalism gate guarded by death-angel wielding {flaming sword}
[10:39 am Dec. 8, 2024] Just realized that {flaming sword} per Genesis 3:23-24 “keeping the way of the tree of life” [kjb] combines {flame/fire} and {sword} which recently I clarified mean (i feel i got clear on this Nov 2024) ability to disprove local control power; ability for higher thinking to threaten-to-death egoic control agency.
Genesis 3:23-24
NIV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203&version=NIV – “So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [/ placed in front] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.”
KJB: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203&version=KJV — “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
“I’ve been doing research on the creation of the totally bunk and useless Roland Griffiths psychometrics questionnaire, the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) which simply DELETES 18 of 21 “Dread” questions, and replaces them by a new, Grief category.
“Hi Michael, I agree that the MEQ is flawed, as I described in my master’s thesis. But everyone seems to use it de facto. We need new protocols. I viewed the link you sent. Please keep me posted regarding what comes from your research.”
“If you honor Buddha or Christ or Zeus or Jupiter, then put this book down, it’s not for you”
If you do not shake your fist angrily at the gods, do not read my book, it’s not for you.
If you do not proclaim “The gods do not exist!”, then do not read my book, it’s not for you.
I will expand my page about Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut for my book club and possibly dabble in writing a book review, which would give me the opportunistic advantage over A. M. Whoah! A. M. Ooh-Oh.
Book Club:
“Cybermonk, Can we have stable control?”
Cybermonk:
“Stable Control?
“As stable as,
“Your future control-thoughts are existing frozen in rock.”
Book Club:
“Whoah!” –> A. M. Ooh-Oh
If myth = stupidity, as Ooh-Oh says, then so is Houot’s metaphor of {external world-exploration in a ship}.
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
“Myth Is Stupidity” – Ooh-Oh p. 37
davis definition of irrational vs natualistic, in Ooh-Oh p. ch 2, 22:30 = book page __ – Erik Davis criticizes McK …. myth =
p 37. “resist religious interpretation of psychedelic experiences, adopt a naturalist perspective, avoid untestable, tempting, religious explanation of psychedelic experiences. “
it is ambiguous what you mean by “religious explanations”.
Reject “Naturalism”, by the Same Token as Reject “common-core mysticism” and “Perennialism”
common-core mysticism and perennialism ccmp
I worship STEM as communication style, tho I reject quantum woo.
What’s with this anti-religion, NATURALISM dogma that’s pushed by Matthew Johnson, A. M. Ooh-Oh, and Chris Letheby?
Count me out! I use the Egodeath theory instead.
I reject all wildcard bait and switch approach labels.
I reject common-core mysticism; reject bait and switch Perennialism; & bait-and-switch “naturalism”, a stinky package deal mystery unstable construction that i do not control.
HARD PASS on the chef’s special, variable & indeterminate package deal you’re selling.
Do you not want to explain religion and explain religious mythology?
What Page # Is “Myth Is Stupidity”?
The sections of great interest to me: p. 84- 92 top. chatper: What’s in a Name? sections:
Piling Insult Upon Insult, Talking Down to Popular Audience, He’d Never Insult His Two Previous Articles’ Professional Audience Like This!
p. 84 – What can the reader exclaim to Who-Owe but “F You!!”:
I suggest you start thinking scientifically
Hey Houot: I suggest that you start thinking scientifically. – Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com.
The Ship Travel Metaphor/ Analogy
Does he ever use the word ‘analogy’? Yes, has a section on that.
It is better than ‘metaphor’, for science explanation.
Ooh-Oh privileges his metaphor.
Ooh-Oh INTENDS to privilege the broad general metaphor of {science explorer discoverer}, but in fact he privileges just the narrow, over-specific metaphor {explore Earth or Space external world in ship or space ship}.
LIMITED; false exclusivity.
Narrow minded.
The pot calls the kettle black.
Ooh-Oh says the other metaphor approaches other than science explorer are narrow minded – but his version of the {science explorer} metaphor is narrowly just {physically sail in a physical external ship / space ship to explore the external, physical world and its literal alien entities}.
What a terrible, opposite-direction approach, for exploring the internal mind.
p. 86-87: “cyber-psychonaut: ‘cyber’ simply means online”
Houot’s big-brain etymology analysis all of a sudden vanishes.
Houot fails to talk about — against pop usage – self-control cybernetics, self-control climax.
The most important part of Psilocybin transformation is passed right over, “cyber”, with zero recognition by Houot.
“I find the term cyber-psychonaut pointless since everything is online these days.” failure of deep, critical comprehension here. He analysized pscyo and naut and failed to think of analyzing cyber.
Houot simply accepts the terrible pop connotation, with no critical reflection. Pls engage brain, mr critical rational scientist POSER.
Scientist Houot Fails to Even THINK about Etymology of the Most Key, Central Term, ‘Cyber’
No Mention of Meditation [p. 86] or Thought-Watching, Shows Houot’s Inappropriate Focus on the External, Physical World
The Index fails to have a “meditation” entry; I would expect Ooh-Oh to discuss the pros & cons of meditation, conceived of as “observe your thoughts” – ideally, including observing the illusory source of control, in the psychedelic state (loose cognitive association binding).
Condensed Voice Transcription of My Fav Pages that Give Contradictory Takes on Religion
Houot’s Contradictory Takes on Religion
Rise of the Psychonaut
⚖️ I Believe for Control Stability
image: f177 row 1 panel 2: {balance on right foot held up by God holding right hand}
Crop by Michael Hoffman
shroud guy = the “stand-on-left-foot” guy; the “dead mental control model” guy has wrong limb arm visually cut, which contradicts the good trees to left. {stand on tower} = stability. vs: dead below tower = fell, unstable. dead, so cannot stand up.
I believe control instability is produced by {standing on left foot}.
I believe control stability is produced by {standing on right foot}.
control stability [an abstract term vs concrete term :stable self control]
stable control is from standing on right foot.
unstable self-control usc compare: loss of control
the {balance scale} motif in Great Canterbury Psalter is more like “stable control ” & unstable self-control, than like “control instability” or “loss of control”
Beware of etcloc! (the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control) [badass abbrev. award 🏅🏆]
the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control kind of a badass abbrv: etcloc
I asked Yugler if there’s anything left of the book and approach after removing therapy and healing; I mentioned vs Houot’s advocacy of a Psychonaut {science explorer/ discoverer} approach instead, in Houot’s forthcoming book.
“In the constellation of Cygnus There lurks a mysterious, invisible force [hidden source of control-thoughts] The black hole of Cygnus X-1 Six stars of the Northern Cross In mourning for their sister’s loss In a final flash of glory Nevermore to grace the night“
Invisible to telescopic eye Infinity, the star that would not die All who dare to cross her course [can’t look at the source of control thoughts and live, as monolithic, autonomous control agent] Are swallowed by a fearsome force Through the void to be destroyed Or is there something more? Atomized at the core [loose cognitive association binding dis-integrates the egoic personal control system] Or through the astral door [{transformation gate}] To soar
I set a course just east of Lyra And northwest of Pegasus Flew into the light of Deneb Sailed across the Milky Way On my ship, the Rocinante Wheeling through the galaxies Headed for the heart of Cygnus Headlong into mystery
The X-ray is her siren song, my ship cannot resist her long Nearer to my deadly goal, until the black hole Gains control [control is experientially removed from egoic personal control system upon perceiving the uncontrollable hidden source of control-thoughts]
Spinning, whirling, still descending Like a spiral sea, unending!
Sound and fury drowns my heart Every nerve is torn apart!
“The forthcoming book ‘Breaking convention: essays on psychedelic consciousness’ (currently available for preorder on amazon) contains an essay which is based on Michael Hoffman’s theory of mental construct processing (loosening of associations in the psychedelic altered state), and which includes several citations to the egodeath theory website.
“The title of the essay is ‘Cognitive phenomenology of mind manifestation’, it covers the following topics:
Relation of psychedelic tripping to the mind’s association and pattern forming capacities
Using analogies to describe altered state experiences
Plato’s allegory of the philosopher in the cave, and how it maps onto the psychedelic state
Frank Jackson’s philosophical thought-experiments about radically novel kinds of experience, and how they map onto the psychedelic state
Andrew Marr’s theory of visual perception, and Jerry Fodor’s theory of mental modularity, and how both these theories imply a broadly representationalist metaphysical view (perception mediated by mental symbols, as opposed to direct perception of external reality)
Michael Hoffman’s concepts of explicit representationalism and metaperception in the psychedelic state
Undulating qualia – the specific way in which ordinary perception of physical objects is altered in the psychedelic state, and how this alteration indicates a representationalist theory of perception
Edmund Husserl’s concept of phenomenological epoche (= deliberate ‘bracketing-off’ of natural, habitual assumptions for the purpose of carrying out phenomenological analysis), and how it describes both psychedelic tripping and schizophrenic/psychotic mental fragmentation.
Freud’s analogy of the mind as a crystal vase which shatters during episodes of psychosis, making the underlying crystalline structure become visible
Humphrey Osmond’s concept of tripping as ‘psychotomimesis’
Louis Sass’ concept of schizophrenic cognition as ‘hyperreflexivity’ and how this concept also applies to the psychedelic cognitive modality
The phenomenological inaccuracy of the term ‘hallucinogen’
Benny Shanon’s analysis of the ayahuasca experience, in particular his description of the way in which ayahuasca can reorientate a person’s ontological understanding
How the psychedelic state reveals the mind’s basic function of fusing together mental representations with their external referents
How Michael Hoffman’s analysis of the psychedelic trip effect explains the proper way in which tripping is related to hallucinating
Michael Hoffman’s concept of the mental worldmodel, and how psychedelic tripping can lead to a radical overhaul/restructuring of the mental worldmodel
Using the process of waking up from a dream as an analogy for the psychedelic mental reconfiguration
Paul Thagard’s writing on paradigm conversion and how it maps onto the psychedelic mental reconfiguration
Essay: “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”, in 2013 book: “Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness”
The forthcoming book ‘Breaking convention: essays on psychedelic consciousness’ (currently available for preorder on amazon)
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness July 5, 2013 Essay: Cognitive phenomenology of mind manifestation David Luke (Editor), Dave King (Editor) http://amzn.com/1907222227 – this url pattern no longer supported.
contains an essay which …
/ end of post
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness (Adams 2013)
Conference: Breaking Convention: A Multidisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Consciousness April 1-3, 2011
CJ: You spoke on “The Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”?
MF: Yes, its the study of what happens inside the mind of a person when they’ve taken mushrooms or LSD.
CJ: I appreciate how you break it down so clearly.
MF: Well, I try not to be too trippy. I want to be dry, rigorous, and logical. You can actually talk about psychedelic experiences in great detail and convey meaningful information. Its quite a lazy stereotype that these types of experiences are ineffable, beyond language.
CJ: Any advice?
MF: Terrence McKenna, a famous psychedelic bard, used to say: “Take five grams of mushrooms alone in silent darkness, and that will completely blow your mind.”
Max mentions the archive preparation, the Egodeath Yahoo Group rips, in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCqCGpOwDYA at 40:30, “how do we package the Egodeath theory”. 41:00 “do you have access to the the Egodeath Yahoo Group?” Ripping the group posts. Then MH added more content, missed a few of the last posts, have them in email. How to make searchable
[after that, around 2020, wrmspirit helped MH get the archive to upload it to WordPress]
DOC13/1770 – Omnes Concordant in Uno, qui est bifidus
FRICK, Karl R. (1972). Michael Maier’s ‘ Symbola Avreae Mensae Dvodecim Nationvm’ (Facs.) Akademische Druck- u Verlaganstalt, Graz, Austria.
The Dragon Hunters: Placing the Control Transformation Potential at the Center of Psychedelic Discovery
[December 28, 2024, Noon]
Asp (Aberdeen Bestiary)
Does the Egodeath theory say that you are guaranteed to run into loss of control, control vortex seizure? No, can’t say that. The point is that:
The most interesting and compelling and threatening POTENTIAL to discover is the gate, shadow dragon monster, control-threat engagement.
Your goal might be to avoid negative experiences.
Or, your goal might be to get the particular prize: the ability to go through the gates to get the tree of life, goal framed per end of Bible, Rev 22:14.
The Egodeath theory is for Loose Cognitive Science to be equipped to go through the gate and endure in the vulnerable state – not to simply “avoid” the threat, but to specialize in and focus on this potential of this threat-gate.
Not to avoid the shadow dragon monster, but to vanquish or pin or control this monster, to focus on mapping this monster.
Reliability of each motif in {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}
highly reliable but bc branching is more the main ultimate message than mushrooms, later genre images omit mushrooms and have branching instead,
eg mushrooms at base of Splendor Solis image of Philosophers Beside the Tree, one version.
{branching}
Reliable, showing non branching vs branching. main message, expect often.
{handedness}
The least reliable, the least consistently used/present.
It’s just an intermediate connector idea/motif:
There are two mental models.
There happen to be two directions: left, right.
So, we can map left to one mental model, and right to the other – but the mapping is arbitrary, and
the message is not “left vs right”, the message is “branching vs nonbranching”,
so, often, handedness is not used / not present.
{stability}
motifs – these are open-ended.
Eadwine in Great Canterbury Psalter uses:
stable column base [typically right foot touching; sometimes left]
stable building;
scale balance;
being threatened (by
angels,
demons,
army,
blade [spear, arrow, sword, knife, plow, scythe],
fire/flames,
lion).
smooth brow vs. furrowed brow
b/c open ended, less reliability of being present and definite, in the pilzbaum genre.
The Psychedelic Pseudo “Science” Community CONSISTENTLY IGNORES AND SUPPRESSES the Negative Mystical Effects of Psilocybin
todo: add to CEQ page
James 1902 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Stace 1960 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Pankhe 1962 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Richards 1975 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Griffiths CEQ 2016 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
MEQ is garbage.
“Mystical experiences are positive. Negative experiences are by definition non-Mystical.” Charles Stang got Griffiths to admit on video that the MEQ is bullsh!t. Griftiths’ excuse: “We catch negative effects in the CEQ.” False. CEQ omits 18 of 21 Dread effects, instead delivering irrelevant worthless feeble giant Grief category. BUNK as F!
PES/SOCQ is garbage. SOCQ = MEQ + distractor items.
CEQ is garbage.
OAV is solid.
HRS has some decent negative effects (review them).
SOCQ doesn’t have any negative effects? Review them.
Idea Development pages title pattern
Old naming pattern:
Idea Development page 21
“New” naming pattern, equivalent to past private text files named like “TK 2010-03.txt”:
Transcendent Knowledge 2024-12-13
that was ok for me privately; i knew the content of such text files is freeform.
or new naming pattern:
Idea Development 2024-12-25
for the audience, “Idea Development” is clearer than “Transcendent Knowledge” to communicate that this is freeform content. like saying:
that’s short for saying the title:
Transcendent Knowledge Idea Development page 2024-12-25
Moving Past Mysticism
todo: add to Moving Past Mysticism page:
todo: add to SOCQ/MEQ page:
article: Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love Ron Cole-Turner, Published: 26 April 2024 Citation: Cole-Turner, Ron. 2024. Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love. religions 15: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050537
That article cites:
The Psychedelic Experience Scale (PES) (Stocker 2024) – add to SoCQ page
The Revival of the Psychedelic Experience Scale: Revealing Its Extended-Mystical, Visual, and Distressing Experiential Spectrum with LSD and Psilocybin Studies Stocker, Kurt, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M Becker, Friederike Holze, and Matthias E. Liechti. 2024. Journal of Psychopharmacology 38: 80–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cole’s article says about that work, “a helpful review of the history of the MEQ from its earliest complete form in 1975 until the present version“
Abstract Background:
Research with the Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire/Scale (PES) focuses on questions relating to mystical experience (Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)).
The psychometric potential of the non-MEQ items of the PES remains largely unexplored.”
Translation: the non-MEQ items of PES aka SoCQ are worthless noise never meant to be anything more than “distractor items” to hide the MEQ.
Compare SOCQ [to PES], about which I asked same question.
I asked: Why did CEQ draw from SOCQ, given that SOCQ is MEQ (all unicorns rainbows) + dummy “distractor items”?]
Confirmed: “The Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire/Scale (PES), also known as the States of Consciousness Questionnaire” – my question remains solid after I saw:
Factor 8: Distressing Experience
Item 13. Emotional and/or physical suffering.
Item 16: Feelings of despair.
Item 28: Sense of being trapped and helpless.
Item 45: Experience of isolation and loneliness.
Item 52: Experience of fear.
My recent reasoning/analysis: guided by my question: What is the justification, when creating the CEQ, for drawing effects question items from these particular 3 q’airs: SOCQ, OAV aka 5D-ASC; HRS?
Especially unjustified seems SOCQ, which is the absurdly positive MEQ items + some random(?) filler fake junk sawdust questions, the “distractor items”.
These non-MEQ items within the SOCQ were not meant to complete the range of psychedelic effects by supplementing the “mystical” MEQ effects; they merely were “distractor items”.
My hunch there was confirmed today Dec 27 2024, upon seeing the poor “Distressing” category.
I CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND THE ONLY NEGATIVE Q’AIR QUESTIONS WORTH A DAMN ARE DITTRICH’S ‘A’ ANGST/ DREAD dimension of OAV aka 5D-ASC.
Yet those 21 items, only 3 are retained in CEQ!
In their money-driven zeal to fabricate a fake Grief subscale, Griftiths simply DELETED 18 of the 21 challenging fx from the Angst/Dread dimension of OAV.
86% of negative psilocybin effects (per OAV’s A/Angst/Dread dimension) were simply deleted, removed, omitted, by Griftiths team, from the CEQ that brags about being comprehensive and broader than other q’airs re: negative, challenging, unpleasant experiences effects items.
Stocker continues:
“Aims:
We investigated whether the PES also yields subscales besides the MEQ30 subscales.
Methods:
Data from 239 PES measurements (140 healthy participants) from six studies with moderate to high doses of lysergic acid diethylamide and/or psilocybin were included.
New subscales (with items other than MEQ30) were created and validated as follows:
(1) theoretical derivation of candidate items;
(2) removal of items with rare experiences;
(3) exploratory factor analysis; and
(4) confirmatory factor analysis.
Correlations of subscales within the PES and between the PES and the 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Scale (5D-ASC) were performed.
[That’s Dittrich; highest quality, includes OAV’s A = Angst / Dread dimension]
In addition, a cluster analysis using all items (except rare experiences) was performed.
Results:
The reliability of the four original factors of the MEQ30 was confirmed and four additional factors for the non-MEQ items were revealed:
paradoxicality,
connectedness,
visual experience, and
distressing experience.
The first two additional factors were strongly correlated with the MEQ30 mystical subscale.
Adding the new subscales to the MEQ30 subscales increased the explained variance with the 5D-ASC.
[not following; MEQ is absurdly positive; 5D-ASC ie OAV has A = Angst/Dread, which is a good dimension]
The cluster analysis confirmed our main results and provided additional insights for future psychedelic psychometrics.”
[future psychedelic psychometrics: trashcan the CEQ – and MEQ while you’re at it — and replace CEQ by my ECQ, Eternalism and Control Questionnaire]
Conclusion: ITS “VALIDATED” SO U KNOW ITS TRUESCIENCE NO MATTER HOW MALFORMED AND MAGICALLY ASSEMBLED OUT OF THIN AIR while under the guidance of a totally fictional and imagined notion of “mystical experience” that contradicts historical reports of mystics according to Charles Stang when interviewing Griftiths.
Stace 1960 “Mystical Experiencing”:
🦄💨🌈
Stocker continues:
“The study yields a new validated 6-factor structure for extended mystical experience (MEQ40: MEQ30 + Paradoxicality + Connectedness) and covers psychedelic experience as a whole more comprehensively than has hitherto been possible within a single questionnaire (PES48).
[that EXACT claim. “more comprehensive”, was made for CEQ, then CEQ threw all negative effects in trashcan totally arbitrarily, and replaced them by fake fabricated “Grief” category]
The entire PES (PES100) can also be used for further future psychedelic-psychometric research.”
Great Canterbury Psalter image f109 Analysis [Caught in Hell-Mouth Furnace Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean]
my comment reply to wrmspirit on my splendor solis page:
wrmspirit comment:
“Your discovery on Irvin’s book is incredible.
“The branch held by left philosopher between both philosophers in picture of ‘philosophers beside the tree’ looks like a divining rod.
“The words Irvin writes to you in his signing of the book is prophetic to the discovery.”
my comment reply:
Yes, agreed, I experienced this discovery as a much appreciated confirmation, recognizing most of the 4 motifs (handedness, branching, stability) in this version of this image.
I’d like to do a detailed writeup on what this was like to get this particular confirmation, stumbling across it, at this point in time, November 2024, after a hiatus since June 2023.
Irvin & Rutajit (2006) rely on red and white clothing to serve as the mushroom motif.
I found two more versions of this image:
one valuable because it has the {cut right branch} which I expected for the basket to hang from,
one valuable because it has the apparent mushrooms on the ground, not just red and white clothing – and also has bathers sculpted and the “gateway” framing foregrounded.
I plan to include the set of 3 pictures in the “branching-message mushroom trees” article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, but I’ll need to minimize text analysis in that article.
A picture’s worth a thousand words.
There’s sure no room in that article for covering a history of scholars’ folly regarding mushrooms in Christian art, though Cyberdisciple pointed out that a literature review and history of that scholarship, telling the story of dispute and discovery, would be interesting.
Comment Posting Dec. 23, 2024 at Cyberdisciple site: Breaking Convention Book 20214 Covers the Egodeath Theory
The Holy Mushroom by Jan Irvin 2008 is a must-have for entheogen scholarship. That book is a new purchase for me in March 2023, because I was sick of the foolishness in the non-debate between Wasson and Allegro, after the 2006 article “Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita”. http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
I lack the Failed God. I have both editions of Rush’s book about how Christianity entirely got rid of The Mushroom (🍄), as proved by the tons of mushroom imagery all throughout Christianity, per the Secret Amanita Cult paradigm and the Moderate (aka Minimal) entheogen theory of religion.
Mushroom Branches Prove Mushroom Trees Aren’t Mushrooms
Paul Stamets, crop by Cybermonk Dec. 22, 2024
Plant 2
Crop by Cybermonk
Plants 1 and 2
Crop by Cybermonk
Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems (Gartz, 1997)
Book referenced by Ruck’s Apples of Apollo re: Mushrooms Trees.
Apples of Apollo has “Goertz 1996”, Error?
in book Apples of Apollo, page 256 Biblio entry & p. 176 referenced re pilzbaum, incorrectly says Goertz along with English title & says 1996.
“Gartz”, according to book cover 1997 English printing.
Blurb:
“The first new book on psychoactive mushrooms in 10 years. [which mid-1980s book does he mean?] [0-1 years: Stamets 1996 Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide]
“Introducing a rich variety of psychoactive mushrooms from around the globe -including some rare and little-known species – the author describes dozens of species and covers a broad range of mushroom- related topics, from distribution maps to comparisons of cultural attitudes to laboratory analyses of active ingredients.
“One of the book’s most remarkable features is its multi-disciplinary approach: chemistry, botany, biology, history, anthropology, religion, pharmacology, medicine – all of these are among the fields contributing a diversity of data, questions and information that are assembled into one of the most comprehensive and intriguing portraits of psychoactive mushrooms ever created.
“Lavishly illustrated, well-organized and enriched by numerous accounts of mushroom experiences, this book explores the psychoactive mycoflora on five continents and reconstructs a continuity of psychoactive mushroom use throughout history, from as early as 10,000 years ago to the present day.
“You will also find detailed chapters on mushroom cultivation techniques, psychotherapy applications, the bluing phenomenon, the dangers of accidental poisonings caused by misidentification of species, and more.
“A treasure trove of information, illustrations and magnificent color photography, the book contains much novel information as well, such as the first report on the psychoactivity of baeocystin and up-to-date findings on the use of plant growth hormones to accelerate growth.
“Jochen Gartz has made an outstanding contribution to the field of mycology by embracing the Magic Mushrooms of Germany and from around the world and by pursuing their scientific study and investigation.” – Christian Ratsch, from his Introduction
130 pages, 8″x11″, sturdy softcover
30 color plates
36 black & white illustrations
3 maps of geographic distribution patterns
10 tables
18 reproductions of historic source materials and citations from the early mycological literature Bibliography of 250+ citations and sources FROM THE TABLE OF CONTENT:
Contents:
“Who Was the First Magician?” – Foreword by Christian Ratsch
1. Introduction
2. Fancy of Fools or Flesh of the Gods: Reflections on the History Study of Magic Mushrooms
3. The Current State of Knowledge About European Species
What About Cubensis in Europe? Blind Spot per ToC; Probably No One Has Ever Thought to Look for Cubensis in Europe/England
3.1 Psilocybe semilanceata – The Classic Psychotropic Species of Europe
3.2 Psilocybe cyanescens – Potent Mushrooms Growing on Wood Debris
3.3 Panaeolus subbalteatus – Mycology & Myths about the Panaeolus Species
3.4 Inocybe aeruginascens – Fast-Spreading New Arrivals
3.5 Gymnopilus purpuratus – Magnificent Mushrooms from South America
3.6 Conocybe cyanopus – Tiny Mushrooms of Remarkable Potency
3.7 Pluteus salicinus – A Little-Known Wood-Inhabiting Species
4. Mushroom Identification: The Potential for Deadly Mistakes
5. The Bluing Phenomenon and Metol Testing – Reality vs. Wishful Thinking
6. Mushroom Cultivation – Classic Findings and New Techniques
7. Psychotropic Mushroom Species All Around The World
7.1 Spotlight on North America and Hawaii
7.2 Mycophilia in Central and South America
7.3 Australia’s Mycoflora Attracts Attention
7.4 European Customs and Conventions
7.5 Japanese Experiments
7.6 Intoxications and the Oldest Known Mushroom Cult in Africa
7.7 Usage in Asia and Oceania
8. Remarks About Effects of Mushrooms from the Category Phantastika
9. Psychotherapy
10. Outlook
11. Bibliography (Reference Section with over 250 entries)
Fool’s Sponges: Psychoactive Mushrooms Around the World (Gartz, 2004)
“Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann and Roger Heim researched the psychoactive Psilocybe species of Mexico in interdisciplinary collaboration in the 1950s.
In addition to ethnobotanical and mycological research, the psychedelics psilocybin and psilocin were isolated and characterized as effective principles of mushrooms.
Over the next few decades, these alkaloids were increasingly detected in fungal species from other genera around the world.
Jochen Gartz researched all aspects of mushrooms on a scientific basis for more than 15 years.
He discovered several “new” species, which he named together with other researchers, such as the highly psychoactive mushrooms Psilocybe azurescens (USA) and Psilocybe natalensis (South Africa).
Favored by his previous work in drug research and his many years of involvement with all areas touched upon by such psychoactive substances, he is re-presenting this interdisciplinary standard work on psychoactive mushrooms here, completely revised and updated.
Based on historical aspects, this describes competently and yet generally understandably all areas of knowledge in which the species are networked in a mycelial manner.
The mycology and chemistry are described in just as much detail, including many color and b/w photos, as the individual culture processes.
Purely toxicological and medical-psychotherapeutic aspects have been linked to a large number of detailed descriptions of the effects of individual mushroom species at different dosages around the world.
The danger of confusion with deadly poisonous mushrooms is pointed out, as is the possible use of color reactions to differentiate individual species.
The interdisciplinary work is finally rounded off by an extensive bibliography with several hundred citations from a wide variety of areas.”
Psilocybin Mushrooms: New Species, Their Discovery and Applications (Gartz, 2018)
“Psilocybin and psilocin are highly potent natural tryptamine psychedelics and close relatives of DMT, 5-MeO-DMT and other molecules.
The active ingredients can be found worldwide in mushroom species of various genera and have accompanied people in their search for meaning and spirituality for a very long time.
Through the work of the Mexican curandera (healer) Maria Sabina and the founder of ethnomycology, R. Gordon Wasson, psilocybin-producing mushrooms became known as psychedelic catalysts.
Today they are becoming increasingly important in psychonautical and medical applications.
This book portrays the psilocybin mushrooms newly discovered and described by the German mycologist Jochen Gartz and colleagues since 1983 in monographs and describes their history, occurrence, possible applications, chemical nature and more.”
Equate Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins; Identify their Differences
Mostly overlap of Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins are the same guy, same voice.
todo: Identify the slight differences if any between the three poor reasoners on this particular topic, else biggest brains in universe on all other topics.
Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins just the same: The 3 Masters of Fallacies grotesquely malformed Logical Fallacies, Yaldabaoth: Lion Head Snake Body monster.
threatened control by {lion head} {snake body} monster {demanding sacrifice of the ruler}
be brought through the seizure-transformation gates
{pass through the {seizure-transformation gates} into the holy city of the clean who have the right} {wash your robes} {blessed} {have the right to {go through the gates} into the city} and {eat from the trees of life} become non-dying, non-ephemeral, non-temporary; lasting, mature, final form; perishable, imperishability, imperishable, become like us: imperishable
imperishable life: we who have been transformed from possibilism to eternalism with 2-level dependent control by the god mystery higher controller unknowable mysterious source of control-thoughts dependent upon.
transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
each Tree of Live has 12 different religious fruits crops every month, and leaves heal nations.
Trees of Life are on both sides of the River of Life with the Water of Life.
Your reward for eating the scroll in the hand of the angel who told you to eat [fact check that todo] – does he demand:
GIMME YOUR AMANITAS NOW 🍄 angel dude i prophecy you will hand them over to make my stomache hurt, then delirious deliriant delirium style of writing, like scopolamine
Look into “whether Hatsis shares those limitations and can be grouped with Letcher or should be considered an independent position.
poorly theorized;
limited explanatory power
limited relevance
not very helpful or useful
review the descripotions by Michael Hoffman at Egodeath.com –
i included this book in recent cross-literature study of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
The book Shroom is a must-read mixed bag:
“Bernward door art is not hidden, therefore, can’t be mushrooms (there’s no other possible explanation anyone could possibly come up with to counter my overwhelming storytelling power mixed with every fallacy all at once)”
“the Blame panel, not the Eating panel shows the literal liberty cap specimens – so, DOESN’T COUNT”
Goal posts now are here, cloer in, as i RUN from Baily assertion to worthless retreat to worthless Motte assertion thats not even contested, you win the fail medal of dross, Fools Medal for giving US the win by your defaulting on the relevant smartly defined position that we must be focusing on: THE MOST INTELLIGENTLY DEFINED POSITION OF ASSERTION EG the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
not the kiddie, lesser, deliriant theory
the delirious theorizing & delirious argumentation from Hatsis the witch, high equally well on Datura scopolamine or, interchangeably, the deliriant Amanita muscimol ibutenic acid.
the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
the Secret Amanita paradigm
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
Psilocybin put in service of the glory of king Secret Amanita the frikkin GOD of entheogens 🙌 🤫🍄
👶 🤫🍄 😯
Cyberdisciple page about Transcendent Knowledge podcast Episode 10, my 2018 Comment Failed to Note Amanita Leopard Fountain
My Comment Dec 20 2024 posted on page:
Episode 10, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast: Plato – my comment dec 20 2024: OMG I can’t believe that Psilocybin fanatic with his single-plant fallacy was blind to the spotted leopard’s balancing Amanita kylix fountain, both in the 2006 article and 2018 comment above.
What is this world coming to! Never trust an entheogen scholar. Ariadne would shake the removed branch held in left hand, at such folly.
But first I need to read the text that this mosaic is illustrating and accompanying, to check what species of branch Ariadne is held to hold, according to the backstory that we are required to know, to drive and constrain our interpretation of this imagery.
Look what success Brown & Brown had with such a research approach, in their strenuous, big-brained textual research on the backstory of Walburga – turns out she’s known to hold a vial – who would’ve known! Therefore, not mushroom.
Huggins 2024: These pilzbaum have branches, which make these not look like mushrooms at all
Just look at these branches that disqualify these pilzbaum from looking anything like mushrooms
Crop by Cybermonk; branching morphology analysis: 🔱🔱 YI IY Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right discovered by Paul Lindgren 2000 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoomCrop by Cybermonk Look at these branches, which prove that these mushroom-looking plants that the art historians describe as pilzbaum do not look like mushrooms. Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Crop by Cybermonk Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right, plant 4, right branch “f11-row1-right-msh4-right-branch.jpg” 16 KB, 10:48 am, Dec. 21, 2024 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Huggins’ article “Foraging Wrong”
fact check treasure hunt: of my earlier writing. [8:39 pm dec 19 2024 ] development phase seeing how close the author comes to writing exactly this argument. I hope there is one paragraph containing these contradictory points.
find ‘branch’ in Huggins’ article “Foraging Wrong”. found the quote! twisted!
Crop by Cybermonk – Great Canterbury Psalter f221 row 2 left, Spain painters, not Eadwine
My 3 fav Great Canterbury Psalter images are the only 3 that have Cubensis lockbox bins.
My high-res poster of f134 145 & 177 is almost ready. The lockbox images.
Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” Article
Huggins in “Foraging Wrong” has some counts of pilzbaum in Great Canterbury Psalter i want to contest/ inventory/ count.
Huggins’ article’s subtitle scope proposes to bet the farm on “The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Test Case”
— like Browns did with their non field research during their field research, to NOT see firsthand the Walburga tapestry – & hugely lost their bet-the-farm proxy bet (to advocate the mild middle moderate position/ assessment of pilzbaum)
I dont do proxy bets; “test case” ok Hugs, but what is this, Plainc 2.0? I am MOST HAPPY to accept your offer, Hugs.
yes let us art historians publish written articles that scholars can ACTUALLY “CONSULT”; put down your telephone and stopwatch mis-“consulting” art historians, LetHatHug. You say text matters?
I HEARTILY AGREE that scholars in the debate (pilzbaum; mushrooms in Christian art ) need to “consult” “texts”:
IF ART HISTORIANS WANT TO DESERVE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, THEY MUST PUBLISH, IN WRITING; IN LIBRARIES; IN BOOKS, IN ARTICLES — NOT POSTURE AND DENOUNCE “WITH IMPRESSIVE CELERITY” like trained seals owned by the lying establishment
eg Wasson the Censor of Brinckmann and Panofsky (awkwardly condoned by Huggins).
👎🖼️🚫🍄 ⏱️
You’re a bit slow to disavow pilzbaum – are you sure you are a “competent” art historian? 🤨
Hatsis decrees: “every claim of mushrooms in Christian art stands or falls with the Plainc fresco” – the Proxy fallacy.
wrmspirit wants myth coverage, which is fun & rewarding, but doesn’t see how Big-Game-Hunting the psalters & pilzbaum are.
mushroom trees are the main mushroom imagery in mushrooms in Christian art
my white boxes on images f134 145 177 show how many various mushroom shapes are there.
Victory, successful decoding, requires full vigorous engagement; tepid treatment of pilzbaum won’t cut it 🗡️🔥
wont cut these possibility branches, to get through the eternalism gate, to get the treasure of altered-state compatibility
I continue to find basic points of connections / interp in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins the notable thing is his weird sneaky handling of the censored Panofsky letters & Brinc cit as if NOTHING REMARKABLE HERE, pan told wass about Brinck WAY BACK IN 1952″ – sure huggs
BUT WASSON CENSORED THAT CIT; HOW THE HELL DO YOU ACT AS IF WE HAD THAT CIT SINCE 1952 or 1968??!!
Why do you fail to cite Brown 2019 where we got Pan’s letters?
WHERE WHEN DID U FIND PANS TWO LETTERS YOU ARE CASUALLY USING AND WHERE DID U HEAR OF BRINC CIT?
“Sect”, “Cult”, “Community”
Walled-off Communities: Barrier Construction narrative tale-telling
Arbitrary moral narrative of suppression driving the storytelling, done by entheogen scholars, to Prevent Diffusing Entheogens throughout Christianity.
To prop up their fabricated moralistic tale, entheogen scholars have to keep The Mushroom [picture kiddie amanita 🍄] from mixing within the entire mass body of all Christendom.
the boundary of presence|absence of The Sacred Mushroom [🍄 🚫🤔] secured by entheogen scholarship
as a wall to keep The Mushroom from being within Christianity as an entire whole “community”
with The Mushroom used now and then by whatever Christians in that inclusive mass body of everyone.
Not “sect”, that’s a forbidden word ; not “cult”. Everyone; anyone.
Stop fabricating tale-spinning, storytelling narrative focused on boundary construction, the “groups” to which YOU, Ruck, confine the poor Amanita
Pope Ruck decrees, ex cathedra — HE is the only one who is calling ancient Amanita users “heretical GROUPS or SECTS”;
Ruck never frames ancient Amanita users as freely mixing individuals, now and again, here & there, within the set of EVERYONE.
I report evidence of mushrooms in Christian history as an entirety, not just by “certain Christian groups“, as Samorini in 1997 wrote.
I proclaim a 10-year hiatus on even THINKING about the wrong, blinding, stupefying, Prohibition-constructing question “where is the boundary wall between presence vs absence of The Mushroom [👶🍄]?
Ruck always emphasizes enclosing users within his walled “heretical sects” construction.
“CERTAIN Christian GROUPS” – Samorini 1997, “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault”
“The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault” 1997 Samo:
p 31: “… initiating a series of new investigations on the relationship certain Christian groups in the middle ages may have had with entheogens.”
why not just say “some people”?
Why “groups” or “sects” or “cults” or “communities” , or whatever boundary-constructing terms you use interchangeably, like you’re making it up
BOUNDARY-CONSTRUCTING, NARRATIVE WALL-BUILDING, TO ISOLATE “THE MUSHROOM”
the Ruck cult of SECRET (amanita)
To what extent mushrooms in Christendom?
‘mushroom’ meaning mainly Cubensis; Amanita as symbol of Cubensis
Cubensis, along with its supporting-role Panaeolus & Liberty Cap types, with Amanita serving its standard function as signage indicating Psil mushroom ingesting, per Pharmako Gnosis by dale pendell :
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.”
AMEN, nailed
Amanita is a deliriant thats used as a symbol for psychedelics.
Amanita is a symbol that means Cubensis.
Datura is a good substitute for Amanita, according to Ruck.
Amanita’s suitable replacement by Datura scopolamine, a comparable deliriant – per Ruck “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 Entheos 2 p. 56
it is not one sentence, but split across two+, because he writes an an indirect poetic way
he might in my mind sound like he’s making an argument for the usual story of replacing Aman by Psil but no, here he is setting up to change from Aman — the real deal — to the mere adequate substitute Datura – (not to Psil, which is the usual tale of substn , eg in Heinr SF )
unfortunately, our glorious sacred Amanita got replaced by different plants, that we do not care about, that play a mere minor, supporting role here:
they settled for psilocybin, as a makeshift lesser substitute. 🙁
they settled for Datura, as a powerful substitute for Their Msh [🍄]. 👍
Psil was used in a minor supporting role, to prop up our grand/ master narrative, Secret Amanita storytelling.
entheogen scholarship is all about mythmaking storytelling, folk fiction factoids.
First-gen entheogen scholarship was not about Psilocybin advanced use throughout society at large.
In society, Psil was used at an advanced level.
Proved by pilzbaum‘s combin of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
In certain closed-off separate sects, or groups, or cults, or closed communities, Psil was used at an advanced level.
in the society — not “certain Christian groups … may have had … entheogens” Samo p31 1997, “The mushroom-tree of Plainc”
the Ruck (& here Samo) moderate-to-minimal entheogen theory of religion at work
After Samo’s field trip and then the famous 1998 broad pilzbaum article, delivering tons of mushrooms, would Samo still write weakly, “CERTAIN Christian GROUPS”?
presence means absence;
groups had; but therefore the whole mass lacked The Mushroom
only CERTAIN GROUPS had The Msh, no one else; society lacked, Christianity lacked The Mushroom
No individual person ever used or knew The Mushroom — only “sect” members, or call em whatever; doesn’t matter:
“cults, heretical community groups, exclusive collectives”
it’s STORYTELLING TIME, myth-based historiography.
see W Hanegraaff on why not to do this.
entheogen scholarship is Myth-based historiography, warned against by Hanegraaff.
LetHatHug is right on this, they smell storytelling mythmaking misguided by all
Psilocybin Abused in Service of Giving All (Stolen) Glory to Amanita
the bad, abusive, disrespectful attitude that the Secret Amanita paradigm has against Psil, as if Aman is better than Psil rather than the reverse
Aman steals credit from Psil
Hatsis : “nevertheless, we shall employ those lesser ones, “lesser looking”
Tom “Secret Amanita Cult” Hatsis writes, “these lesser-looking mushrooms|trees”, he says of non-amanita pilzbaum.
check quote , search here
Amanita serves as a symbol, the signage of Cubensis, per std lang hdshop art
put to use the poor-to-ingest, pretty, deviant type, 🍄 USED as signage of Psil 🍄🟫
no more 🍄🟫 in service of 🍄
that’s backwards, as normal in this field of entheogen scholarship. rightly,
🍄 in service of 🍄🟫
{spots on mushroom} means trip; psil | blot
{spots on msh} in art gives no thought of Amanita ingesting — pass , i’d rather be straight
I have a mushroom art calendar, maybe rendered, that has almost no spots in the caps, surprisingly, avoids that dominant stylization standard visual language
the calendar artist is an activist against the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
4x Error Penalty for Brown & Brown 2016 & 2019
re: “Creation of Plants” image, poor identifications by Brown: x2 penalty bc both Browns, & x2 penalty when they duplicate the same mistake in book and article.
Both Brown AND Brown both made a certain mistake twice, double penalty — or quadruple penalty, in the case where both authors in both publications (book and article) made the same mistake.
eg serrated base folly Walburga tapestry is both botched in 2016 book SECRET Hallucinogens in “Certain Christian Communities”, by both Brown & Brown.
Samorini wrote the awful phrase “certain Christian groups” in 1997, a red flag: note the boundary-construction wall-building labor by Samorini: “cult, closed group, walled off community, sect walled off”.
Wound in Right Side
5:42 pm dec 19 2024
the pieces fit this time thru:
eve born from rib in adams side: wound in right side = ctrl seizure/ tc transcendence birth passageway gate = become Female Semele, helpless overpowered thought receiver
Poster, made higher res than ever, 3 crops stacked: f134🙃 f145👑 f177🐴
Huggins’ sleazy use of Panofsky’s Brinckmann 1906 cit (missing in Hugs Biblio) & pan’s 2nd letter from Via Brown 2019 NOT CITED IN BIBLIO but footnote strangely. no mention of two attached pics. Hugs is Acting strange around Panofsky cover up wasson deception, why not credit Brown? Why not cite Brown 2019?, who published both panofsky letters (tho not the two pics)
hugg says brinc cite way back in 1952
how did you find it? bc wasson hid 5 things for 1952 to 1968 to 2019 Brown exposed the hidden leads
citation
two pictures
Panofsky’s 2nd letter
2nd strong urging to see Brinckmann citation, consult cit.
wasson, deceit tactic
The two legs of the Egodeath theory: The core theory & the mytheme theory
At my site map, added “Cyberdisciple Articles” section, listing all my Cyberdisciple pages (lacks the sections about Cyberdisciple that are within my Idea Development pages).
Updated my site map page of Cyberdisciple site.
todo: In my site map page of Cyberdisciple’s site, indicate my favs/ freq used.
todo: post Comment at a Cyberdisciple site page about Letcher and Hatsis wondering if Letcher is same as Hatsis – now, add Huggins.
). 
The Egodeath theory 
