Today I produced the pair of .wav files, VOX_TK_5984.wav & VOX_TK_5985.wav, recorded Oct. 22, 2023. The first recording has 4 minutes of guitar at end, produced as a separate .mp3 file.
Guitar
Probably Marshall Plexi with two EL34 valves, probably close-miked with SM57s on two Reference cabs, possibly with room mics too (AT 2020, CAD E100 R, likely).
God (Controller X), the pre-existing ground of being, the 4D block universe, can force the local control agent to will and think anything.
This is overwhelming and breaks the possibilism-reliant mind.
The mind needs possibilism-thinking, but that thinking is broken and threatened to be destroyed, when comprehending total vulnerability to the creator of all thoughts.
The same ultimate control source that gives the local control agent thoughts, also is experienced as the same source that gives harmful control agent/actors their thoughts.
Activism logic is destroyed or contradicted by the eternalism state of consciousness.
All future thoughts for the local control agent and all control agents, already are existing and forced upon everyone.
The mind can experience being controlled by the same Controller X that forces all other minds, too, to will and think harmful thoughts.
The Psychotic Psychedelic Peak State Can Break Control Stability
1:21 p.m. November 29, 2025
Angels and demons and armies and lions threaten personal control viable stability in the peak state, as depicted in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Recommend Reading About the Psychotomimetic Divine Madness State Rather than Personally Experiencing It
1:21 p.m. November 29, 2025
Advaita (and maybe Neoplatonism or apophatic mysticism) is awful for saying that words cannot convey experience.
Words are able to convey experience of peak divine madness and the psychotomimetic state, to both describe the experience and to warn against personally ingesting psychedelics.
Merkavah (Merkabah) Mysticism in the Hekalot (palaces) literature prior to Kabbala has the main theme: a war of angels (divine messengers/ teachers) against mystics, such that the only thing saving mystics from experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control is the mercy of God.
Prevent evil future-me from out-radicaling me; define an extreme position that cannot be outdone.
Describe the experience of feeling local control agency as a helpless puppet that’s controlled by the same Controller X (the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts) that gives bad, harmful people their bad, harmful thoughts.
The personal, egoic mind shatters under this pressure, as warned in Merkavah mysticism: even the angels cannot withstand God’s radiation that burns up from the inside.
The lyrics are merely relationship, but song title in context is ominous per Metal. More eerie is later album, song Shock Wave. Or Metallica: For Whom the Bell Tolls.
List of Fears
What do people on Psilocybin have to fear? The four claws of the dragon:
helpless puppet unable to resist bad control thoughts coming from the hidden uncontrollable source of thoughts, made to look down a bad path of loss of control, can’t shield the eye of awareness from too clearly seeing the threat potential
experiencing the threat of catastrophic loss of control, being made to want and need to explore the vulnerability & susceptibility to sacrifice and cause to self-transgress
future control thoughts already exist frozen in timeless eternity, snake frozen in rock
Deja Vu vortex pulls you in, re-arriving here where you remembered the timeless incident where you received thoughts of loss of control
Image: Sages Pulled into Hellmouth – f101 Great Canterbury Psalter
Image: Angel Harassing Army (Detail), f49, Great Canterbury Psalter
Image: Angel Harrassing Army, f49, Great Canterbury Psalter
Image: Christ Rescuing from Hellmouth, Golden Psalter
My main feeling whike reading the book Shroom was that Letcher keeps slipping between those two conflated distinct positions/ assertions, conflating them.
“Bait and switch” fallacy
“motte and bailey” fallacy
“moving the goalposts” fallacy
straw-man argument
misrepresenting the opponent’s position.
Letcher’s book Shroom argues against & fixates specifically on the proposed existence of a SECRET mushroom CULT, conflating that with the sheer basic proposal of mushroom use, eg the non- secret use of mushrooms, which is my assertion.
Letcher’s phrase “Hoffman et al” conflates others’ Secret Amanita position with my Explicit Psilocybin position.
I am totally apathetic re: whether Christian use of mushrooms is framed as “secret” or a bounded, walled-off group characterized as a “cult”, “community”, “sect”, etc.
Such a postulated, limiting boundary does my proof no good, and causes blindness to evidence.
My motivation is to interpret myth as corroborating my core theory, that religious transformation is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism; psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
Introducing a “Secret Group” barrier explanatory construct does nothing to assist my objective and is entirely irrelevant; I couldn’t care less.
Stop relying on the word ‘secret’. That word is on the block list.
The less we use such “boundary construction” words, the more entheogen scholarship will advance. As I proved.
i can trump all his denials: i proved PEAK religious experiencing is depicted, not just any relig exp, thus proving for free all the intermediate points in Letcher’s chain by which Letcher hangs himself.
The problem with [reviewer Michael] Hoffman’s position is this, why is there no corroborating evidence? We have records detailing the most obscure heretical sects from the Middle Ages, why not the mushroom cult?
The rule is this. Not everything that looks like a mushroom in art is a mushroom. Not everything that is a mushroom is a magic mushroom. Just because it’s a magic mushroom doesn’t mean that it was used intentionally for its psychedelic effects. Just because it’s used intentionally, doesn’t mean that it’s used for religious purposes (here I recommend Steve Beyer’s excellent book, Singing to the Plants. In Mestizo shamanism, people do not take ayahuasca to have religious experiences – though that’s what we in the West do – they do so to get well. Very different).
In the absence of other evidence, each link in the chain remains inferential only, and the parsimonious explanation is that we’re not looking at a secret, or suppressed Christian mushroom cult. If any evidence turns up, I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
In any case, I don’t set out to prove or disprove anything, merely to assess what evidence there is and to see which theories fit the best. That may be none or many.
By contrast, Hoffman et al. use an outdated methodology whereby they start with a premise, and then selectively cherrypick as much evidence to support it as possible. It was used by scholars such as J. G. Frazer, Emile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade, but the new historicism of the 1970s found it severely wanting. I take my lead from Ronald Hutton, who is the master of the new methodology, and I thoroughly recommend you read his Pagan Britain to see how it’s done.
BTW, I have absolutely no problem with people having religious, spiritual or mystical experiences under the influence of psychedelics. My problem is with the assumption that that is the motivating factor for all people at all times. It is patently not true of our time, where people take psychedelics for all manner of reasons, recreational, hedonistic (that is, for aesthetic or intellectual pleasure), occult, psychological, animistic, shamanistic etc etc. To project it onto the past is an act of colonialism, one that silences the many other voices that rarely get heard.
Andy Letcher
Denial of psilocybin Christianity is the height of colonialist silencing of artist psychonauts’ voices.
Why do the Deniers not care at all about good argumentation?
These are obvious objections that Deniers should have addressed, instead of losing the pilzbaum debate — if an actual 2-way debate were to occur.
The “Single Reason” fallacy
A false dichotomy: recreational vs. religious use of Psilocybin mushrooms.
The “Single Reason” fallacy: The assumption that a person has a single reason for ingesting Psilocybin.
Which purpose does this psilocybin session have? For healing, or for therapy, or for recreation, or for religious experiencing, or for mental transformation, or for metaprogramming, or for developmental maturation.
Worldline in Block Universe, Snake in Rock, Transcending the Block Universe
Creation of Plants, right pilzbaum pair, reversed
The Nature of this Episode Content
Discussing what content to include in my broad-scoped article that’s a supplement to branching-message mushroom trees article for Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
0:00 – Intro, from end of the yesterday’s Thanksgiving 2024 recording. “Intro 6246 VOX_TK_6246”
Egodeath Mystery Show with Cybermonk . You’re on the leading edge of altered state theory. Thursday, Thanksgiving, November 28, 2024. VOX_TK_6246.wav.
0:24 – Content Part A, 15 minutes
I ‘m not present in Hanegraaff’s thought world.
I rejected in 1985-86 I believed in ego transcendence, Transcendent Knowledge.
Why did I take mystics seriously in their general claim?
I called it egoic thinking vs. transcendent thinking: figure out the difference, explain it clearly and succinctly, per STEM communication.
Ken Wilber has a 12-stage scheme, Alan Watts has 2 stages.
Satori/ enlightenment/ those on the inside, must be a simple trick.
They must be presenting something that can be expressed more simply.
Upon breakthrough on Jan. 11, 1988, my project changed: now, explain mental model transformation, not to expect posi-control like during my Oct 1985-Dec 1987 phase.
1997 outline summary uses almost no analogy.
5:00 – they aren’t interested in psychedelics; Ruck instead…. Stoddard in Reply to McCarthy & Priest, “wildly speculative and inherently sensationalistic“, cites Allegro 1970 & Mura 2020. They are wildly speculative, as charged. Separarting entheogens from Church
10:00 – Ruck’s approach: construct Prohibition. My approach: build model of Transcendent Knowledge; mental model transformation, in 1986 then change direction in 1988. 2001: assume myth comes from psil. thus expect them to report same expereiences. I was still in 1997 allowing meditation.
17:48 – radio spot “intro VOX_TK_3442”
18:00 – Content Part B, 15 minutes
20:00 –
31:48 – Radio spot: You are on the leading edge… “LeadingASC – VOX_TK_2928”
30:00 –
31:58 – Content Part C, 15 minutes – Moving Past Mysticism article debate
40:00 –
45:25 – Radio spot: my websites (3)
45:38 – Content Part D, 15 minutes – 3 paradigms.
Hanegraaff book Esotericism and the Academy implies 3-4 approaches, none match mine, my approach is not to write a history of Western Esotericism.
I’m an engineer / Cognitive Scientist writing a useful explanatory model of mental model transformation along with a theory of religious myth & religious art as analogy that describes that cubensis-driven mental model transformation.
Huggins’ article denying mushroom trees implies two paradigms and I am a 3rd. He sloppily says PMTs, psychedelic mushroom theorists, but doesn’t define “psychedelic mushroom theory”, doesn’t define his position, as a denier.
Affirmers (“PMTs”) – Bennett 1993, Irvin, John Rush, Ruck & Staples Conjuring Eden 2001.
My theory. pilzbaum aren’t trees, and aren’t mushrooms. Pilzbaum are branching mushrooms to make viewers think of psychedelic eternalism.
50:00 – Ruck is assuming ppl are demanding to explain/ fabricate a story about secrecy. Stop making that your project. Explaining mushrooms in religion has nothing to do with secrecy. 10 year moratorium on word “secret”. Stop putting forth explanatory hypoth about secrecy; simply say: mushroom were there/used. End. My motivations – I’m a successful example – my approach had no consideration of secrecy; would’ve been counterproductive. the Explicit Cubensis paradigm completely avoids all of that distraction and hindrance that makes you blind. The concern about storytelling causes blindness and causes ddeleting mushroom, and causes serving the false king amanita.
discuss lash, girrifiths vs johhnson: Moving Past Mysticism, need to bring these diverse things – shallowly – a survey article, my global broad perspective on the field of entheogen scholarship and the various paradigms…. one-stop shopping for my view on:
debagtes, tendencies, paradigms in entheogen scholarship
Psych Science, Q-airs, superior merit of DED / OAV over MEQ/CEQ.
oav
ceq fixed
artificially fabricated Grief subset
10 mini-articles in one.
Heimarmene level 8, astral ascent mysticism – explain the basic model, quote Erik Davis’ two pages in LZ IV book.
State of the field of entheogen scholarship. What it did right, wrong, succeeded, failed, putting the Secret Amanita paradigm behind us as dead end, make red serve blue, not vv. Eadwine does that as a model: he showed IY red in Creation of Plants, nice, but reversed.
Red Shift in Irvin & Entheos 3 including explain Mith’m and astral ascent mysticism , and contrast 2-level Transcendent Knowledge of Early Antiqy vs. 3-level in Late Antiqy, Cosmology and Fate book – see my review, extract the 3-item summary system.
the master xfmn of Early Anti
55:30 – In Early Antiquity, the master (most-emph’d) transformation was from possibilism-thinking to eternalism thinking.
in Late Antiquity, the master (most-emph’d) transformation was from (naive possibilism and) eternalism to qualified possibilism. To out-do Early Ant’y. Hanegraaff quote: d/k where to put fixed stars: planet 7, or Ogdoad?
Creation of Plants id’d as Pan Lib Cub Ama on Dec 13 2020. Moral: we had since 2000, in 2020 figured out – 20 years! slow! This (entheogen scholarship, & psyched science) is a pre-science in its infancy, it can only be called a science now with since 2023, with my interp in hand; psychedelic eternalism.
1:00:00 –
1:01:31 – radio spot – “EDMS Left Right Wet Dry rvb80pctSpread”
Cyberdisciple – Against the Assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in Pre-Modernity.
Max Freakout Transcendent Knowledge podcast, re: Ruck
“The more evidence Ruck collects, the more a contradiction arises: Entheogens were everywhere, but no one really knew about it. So which is it?”
Freakout, Max – article on perception per:
The Egodeath theory
the Core theory, of:
mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
mental model transformation from ordinary-state possibilism to psychedelic eternalism
mental model transformation from: [omit ‘literalist’] [ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control] (OPAC, not LOPAC) to: [omit ‘analogical’] [psychedelic eternalism with dependent control] (PEDC, not APEDC)
vs the Mytheme theory, which is Analogical.
The Mytheme theory has excellent decoding power.
The mytheme theory is fluent in Analogy for the things of the ASC, purpose-built/ optimized.
The mytheme theory is not based on analogy.
The Egodeath theory (incl the mytheme theory) is based on STEM clear direct explanatory model efficiently presented by leveraging separately analogies.
Highly capable of decoding analogies to identify the ultimate referent, the non-analogy referent directly identified clearly,
The referent mental dynamic (thing experienced in the asc, loose cog state) is clarified by analogies (
By the definition of ‘analogy‘, this application of analogy is exactly the purpose of analogy: to clarify explanation of a thing being explained and described.
The cybernetic theory
Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism
Analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
Psychedelic eternalism
Psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
{knife} = threat of loss of control, driving mental model transformation
[11:24 pm Nov. 29, 2024] Saint Martin frescos knife = threat of loss of control, weilding it by higher mind against lower control-system mind, disprove branching world and control, but harm not the boy.
Preserve deluded thinking, possibilism-thinking, needed all the time.
But cleansed of delusion about it that bedevils, causing loss of control.
Stabilized control by learning eternalism and transcending it actually.
By conforming to eternalism.
Not just “tool to cut branches”; knife = potential loss of control, the higher mind sacrificing the lower mind, violating it formally, to come into coherence.
Stable control eventually when reached is clean, righteous, innocent in God’s / Creator’s court.
I am a virtual-only control agent, so, clean, pure, not offending the higher controller.
Lower local control agency is not set against the uncontrollable higher mysterious controller. Cleansed puppet of God
Mysterious Control Agent the Mystery Controller Mystery Source of Control Thoughts fountain
/11:24 pm nov 29 2024
Question 54! 😱🐉
Dittrich: APZ, OAV, 5D-ASC
Studerus: 11 Factors
+ Virtual factor 12 & Shadow factor 13, & the two top-level factors – containing factor items and non-factor items (virtual factors to magically ignore when doing Science).
therefore: Giant Grief coun$elling factor.
Convert Transcendent Terror to Grief, make $ – Griftiths
😞🍄🤑💰 👞💥🐉🗑
piggybacks on OAV taken from 5D-ASC, plays shell games with “factors” at two levels, creating non-factor factors, or non-factor items/ effects questions.
Panke, SOCQ, MEQ42, MEQ30
CEQ disaster, pulled from MEQ, 5D-ASC, only the 11 Factors subset of 5D-ASC ie OAV, ended w/ 18 of 21 Angst effects being deleted and replaced by Grief coun$elling.
To create CEQ, start w only 13 of 21 Angst items, end up keeping only 3 Angst effects items.
Tell W Hanegraaff about this Rejected Knowledge: CEQ rejected 18 of 21 of Dittrich’s Dread psychedelic effects.
Justification: vague math, arm waving, behind the scenes juggling “items” arbitrarily.
The Red Shift Corruption of Art by Entheogen Scholars, to Delete Blue Mushrooms
cover of Entheos 3 reverses Taurus (disaster!) and shifts violently from blue to red, rendering the Psilocybin mushroom invisible.
Irvin gallery in THM red-shift to try to force Dancing Man from Blue to Red – quote Huggins ~2024 Dizzy article who points this out.
Source Recordings: 6246.wav
VOX_TK_6246.wav – Celestial Planisphere notebook p. 41: 2 lines. Raw length: 1:36:08.
see the new Incoming Ideas entries at bottom of this article.
Friday Dec 13 2024 i must create idea dev p 21, bc 20 is too long, hung.
when entering text at top, line wrap on mobile takes 10 sec, unresponsive.
try new page, test responsiveness line wrap.
switched from desktop to mobile authoring, data loss?
i will date entries.
The First Scholar to Identify Mushrooms in Greek Religious Myth: Robert Graves, “What Food The Centaurs Ate”, Shortly After June 27, 1957, in New Yorker
Who was the first scholar to assert that mushrooms powered Greek religion and myth? When, where? Answer: Robert Graves, in the article “What Food The Centaurs Ate”, which was first published after June 27, 1957, in New Yorker.
I drove this research, pointed out the two conflicting claims in two versions of a Graves article in Atlantic later in Difficult Questions book, about where & when Centaur article focusing on Dionysus & recipe for ambrosia first appeared.
Then Cyberdisciple found this huge lead: Graves’ diary: https://robertgraves.org/diary-search — 1957: June 27th. Thursday: “Finally got What Food The Centaurs Ate off to New Yorker.”
So, against Graves 1970 Atlantic article & 1973 book Difficult, the Centaur article was first published around June/July 1957 in New Yorker.
Not August 1956 Atlantic (no Graves article).
Not the Aug 1957 Atlantic article “Mushrooms, Food of the Gods” (barely mentions Dionysus; this is NOT the Centaur article).
Samorini article “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault”, 1997, Eleusis journal, p 34 90% down & p. 35 67% down:
“in a description of the small chapel made at the … end of the previous [century] by a certain Abbot Rignoux, … Rignoux described the tree as “a mushroom with several heads”. “
YI crop by Cybermonk thxgv nov 28 2024 7:40 pm.
nov 29 2024 note: Blue plant has minimal / less branching than red plant; the blue plant is cleaner of branching
Red plant reversed into in std YI orientation: braching on the Left (possibilism is mapped to Left), no branching on the Right (eternalism is mapped to Right).
smooth red ball on Right (less branching)
segmented blue cap = relatively more branching than smooth blue ball; IY here.
tan & salmon mushrooms mirror each other too.
A single instance is an Anomaly. Two instances is a Pattern.
Cybermonk
fresh good recording after reread Hanegraaff book Esotericism and the Academy 6246.wav Good outline of my broad article “Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship”. 1.5 hours.
my motivation purpose for visiting the field of entheogen scholarship: i needed myth to confirm the Egodeath core theory: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
Ruck integrated myth and entheogens.
f&g book The Jesus Mysteries: we met & discussed entheogens, the authors were mostly censored.
I NEEDED a greedy approach; i needed & declared the maximal entheogen theory of religion in 2002, was vindicated Thanksgiving 2020 by the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Ruck motive: construct identity secret heretic boundary utilizing Secret Amanita to fabricate narrative of us suppressed heretics. the great secret is amanita.
it helps ruck to restrict enth, storytelling Suppression framing laboring to construct a heavy boundary barrier wall separating our good secret amanita from then the big bad suppressors.
john Lash: “i cannot allow evil jesus/ moses to have had entheogens”
Ruck presents a crudely defined incoherent confusing & confused crayon tale of boundary wall defining Them Establishment Prohibitionists vs Us Heretic Counterculture Sects – same p 56 , Daturas Virgin, Ruck screws up , attributing mushroom trees to Wasson as if he publicly agreed affirmed them, infuriating me & Irvin.
Irvin falsely attribg them to Allegro-/ who never wrote affirming pilzbaum all mushroom trees purposelfully meaning mushroom features as well as tree features (non/branching).
all world religious myth is description of peak cubensis experiencing.
i broke ways w ruck after entheos 2nd issue.
i followed the direction of “Conjuring Eden” article 2001, but using an Explicit cubensis-focused approach, not Secret (Amanita).
post Samorini 1997&1998.
i don’t care for p 14 Ruck’s invented, myth-type tale of boundary identity construction.
In 2002/2003 i declared Ruck merely moderate, but we / i need the maximal entheogen theory of religion, to confirm my core theory, analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
Hanegraaff’s History of Deleting Fixed Stars Heimarmene Level 8
book Esotericism and the Academy page 176: magia of different types for each level:
1) sublunar: natural magic.
Moon: skipped.
2) celestial magic = above the moon, below the fixed stars. ie the planets; Mars Venus Sun Mars Jupiter Saturn.
Fixed stars: skipped.
3) ceremonial magic – above the fixed stars.
What about at the level of the moon?
What about at level 8: the fixed stars/ heimarmene/ Fate/ eternalism?
The Dissolver of ‘Entheogens’, Hanegraaff, on Faivre’s Traits of Western Esotericism Being Employed to Dissolve Rather than Usefully Demarcate a Field
Hanegraaff defines ‘entheogen’ as any practice or substance that ‘CAN‘ produce the same effect as psilocybin – for example, imagination, breathing, sneezing, singing, or literally anything at all: light bulb, oven, car engine: I explained how these items are all entheogens by his infinitely lenient, excessively good-faith definition.
Anything you can name meets this wide-open definition of ‘entheogen’, and is elevated to the same level of efficacy as psilocybin, through this magic trick of definition and the falsely binary word ‘can’ (which is actually a matter of degree & likelihood).
rather than demarcating a field, it [Faivre’s definition of ‘Western Esotericism’] ends up dissolving its boundaries. [bc it’s too easy for any practice or belief to meet Faivre’s checklist criteria] … only the scantiest evidence [is] sufficient to magically turn [anything] into species of “esotericism”.
p360, Hanegraaff book “Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture”, 2012
The Pre-Paradigm Phase of the Field of Transcendent Knowledge
Relative to the fields of theory of religion/ Cog Sci/ Mysticism/ Spirituality/ Mythology, prior to the Egodeath theory, there is no “previous paradigm”, just a heap of “secret” exoteric-esoteric formless mush and eager pop anti-rationality.
Within entheogen scholarship, the Old Paradigm is Secret Amanita; the new paradigm is Explicit Cubensis.
Using My Voice Recordings
Too much time is required to produce & upload & textually summarize my voice recordings.
My voice recordings have good content; good delivery; & good miking.
I simultaneously play back a voice recording while recording new commentary.
I profitably listen to my nice voice recordings.
Room Miking Setup
Easygoing about background noise (appliance, ventilation) when using room mics.
When the room is more noisy, I use the center close-mic only, with a noise gate — no stereo room mics & far center-miking, then.
Long-term miking setup to date:
Left room mic AT 2020 (a MDC) w dead cat 😵🙀 4′ aimed at rear Left guitar cab 12′
Center mic E-V 635A “omni” dyn 6″ or 3′
Right room mic CAD E100 (a LDC) aimed at rear Right guitar cab 4′ (12′)
compressor on 3 mics, noise gate on Ctr mic, 80Hz bass cut & Limiter on the deck.
i have my ideal miking dialed in – stereo room mics + center mic.
My Electro-Voice 635A center mic is now officially Vintage, bc no longer manufactured 😭, this tv interviewing mic, no proximity boominess (“omni”), an RF- quiet dynamic mic.
“Reach out and Consult the Competent Art Historians; I Was Impressed by the Unanimous Celerity of Their Disavowals” Is a Totally Improper Farce & Travesty!
Not Academic Standard Practice!
The “Special-Case” of Pilzbaum (Taboo), Completely Absurd and Abnormal; the Deniers Lost this Debate
TOTALLY IMPROPER!! academic approach: “I reached out to consult the top competent art historians to interrogate how quickly they disavow & deny pilzbaum.”
I reached out to consult the top competent art historians to interrogate how quickly they disavow & deny pilzbaum.
Huggins, Wasson, even Brown re: Marcia Kupfer
BECAUSE THEY WROTE/ PUBLISHED 0 SENTENCES on this topic, and are thus manifestly not competent; more like A COMPROMISED ART HISTORIAN.
A dirty posturing move, a fallacy. Arg from authority.
Paradise Pilzbaum / trees subset of Pilzbaum. Panosky critical reading of letter 1. uncensored. & 2. Directionless Ruck entheogen scholarship, not Psil Repeal.
Was there a Cubensis tradition in Christianity? An unthinkable question during the Secret Amanita paradigm of entheogen scholarship 1952-2020.
The new paradigm (2002-2020+): Explicit Cubensis, my thinking framework since I announced the maximal entheogen theory of religion in 2002.
U CENSOR U LOSE
Cough up the flimsy Brinckmann citation & 2 photostats, Wasson, LOSER OF DEBATE.
Pics to add to branching-message mushroom trees article
4 plants / Creation of Plants – Great Canterbury Psalter / Paul Lindgren 2000; blue is Correct / preferred YI orientation.
Red has improper/ nonstandard IY orientation, though plausible deniability.
Eadwine insults the Red mushroom, praises/ affirms the well-formed Blue mushroom.
Tauroctony – bent legs x4 , bull = lower Sol impurity thinking cleansed
3 versions of Splendor Solis – Philosophers Beside the Tree: Gate below R foot; Cut right branch/ basket; Amanita at feet.
Now I bolstered looking from pov of the branching morphology language of this genre;
I looked for the first time today at “Creation of Plants” from the pov of Branching morphology.
The mushroom eternalism genre
The Cubensis eternalism genre
I first identified Creation of Plants in Great Canterbury Psalter Dec 13, 2020, a month into my Great Canterbury Psalter research (not counting my 2006 gallery of pilzbaum for my Plaincourault article, which included a Great Canterbury Psalter image).
“Creator of Plants” was discovered by Paul Lindgren, a credited picture on the 2000 cover of James Arthur’s book.
Mushrooms and Mankind: The Impact of Mushrooms on Human Consciousness and Religion. James Arthur, 2000. Cover: Inkjet choppy pixelated “Creator of Plants”.
I had phone convs w Arthur after reading his book in 2000. I have a bk rvw at Amaz. He agreed with all my theory.
Browns’ 2016 book cover has nice good, best presentation of the 4 mushroom pic from Great Canterbury Psalter:
The Psychedelic Gospels: The SECRET🤫 History of HALLUCINOGENS 🍄 – Brown, Brown, & Brown
[8:20 am Nov 26, 2024] L pair 🔱 mirrors & R pair mirrors each other YI IY
[10pm Nov 25 2024] should’ve written timestamp: at what moment did I ask:
wait, is Blue uniquely YI; the only of the 4 that’s missing the Left arm/ branch?
Predicted and confirmed.
What made me think consciously to seriously analyze branching morphy in this pic? memory of inconsistency had been growing bigger, and it bothered me more that the trident shape is not meaningful. as if all 4 had boring symm trident – but not the case! Blue seems Special, most Correct like horses’ tree blue crown is the Correct one.
Concl: this is another example of indicating Cubensis as Eadwine’s fav of the 4 mushroom types.
in f177, in the horses tree, the Correct cap is blue fruit.
In f134, the leg-hanging (balancing) tree is Cubensis, per shape and per cattle row 3.
In f145, king orders gathering and securely storing blue fruit.
blue: YI
red: IY, more branches, elab’d / emphd
tan, salmon: balanced L/R arms
Eadwine likes Blue, not Red.
🔱 🔱 YI IY
10am Nov 26 2024:
Given: YI = Correct/good, & IY = Incorrect/bad:
Eadwine ranks the 4 trees: Tan = neutral; Salmon = neutral; Blue = Good; Red = Bad.
i wasn’t planning on including Creation of 4 Plants pic in branching-message mushroom trees article, but realized there are some signif branching forms to point out
this is a famous pic on two book covers: 2000 (discovery pic from Paul Lindgren), 2016 (Browns)
Blue (mushroom 3) is unique, special, & “Correct”: no Left limb/ branch / arm, resulting in YI (the favored) form. 🍄🟫🔵👍 🌳🐍 YI
Blue (#3) form mirrors Red (#4) form. Red’s form is “Wrong”, IY form; ie red has branching on the right, which is backwards. an insult to Red 🍄👎 🐍🌳 IY
This art genre does not always equate “Right limb = non-branching”, (= good, for stable control) but it’s understood to be the standard normal mapping convention.
God L hand is IY, Red is IY
plant 1 & 2 mirror each other and reinforce/ confirm that 3 & 4 are contrasted as a mirrored pair .. like St Eustace Crossing River has two pairs of contrasted-form plants.
i might put these two pics grouped together in the article.
Creator displays different L & R finger shapes, highlighting think about L vs R ie {handedness} motif
artist = the Blue brotherhood in a pop Red msh world
Hatsis’ Theology Reductionism Reading: Pilzbaum Denier bc Theology?? 🤔🤔🤷♂️
Huggins complains that pilzbaum affirmers dgaf about the background info about the scene and mundane basic facts about the scene and textual context.
eg the theology context helps interpret Plaincourault. how is that theo context put against pilzbaum? might modify and expand pilzbaum. not to deny pilzbaum. theol cant deny pilzbaum.
ITS NOT A MUSHROOM 🍄 ‘COS FALL OF MAN; QED.
🤔 🤷♂️
todo: review Hatsis’ arg in light of recent devmt- which logical fallacies is this manner of argn
Review how Hatsis uses a theology arg or perspective to deny pilzbaum.
Which logical fallacy is behind that? Is it a right perspective?
im always shocked & puzzled, baffled, by the strange arg vectors taken by pilzbaum deniers.
in his book, i have ebook good Search, but need print too, to see how bad the brief treatment, trailing off bafflingly at “see my online writings”. $ Bk was somewhat a ripoff for me, bogus, barely any discussion of the evidence fir for pilzbaum, m
Made it difficult to deduce what he might mean, where in his web of vagueness – hey Hatsis shut up your smokescreen distraction-lecture on methodology: reach a basic standard of academic writing and stop self-righteously lecturing us while thin delivery.
i an shocked at Rolfe 1025, writing “the fall of man!! 😱🤯 ” Plaincourault fresco
id call it “the tree of knowledge” scene, not “OMG THE FALL OF MAN!!!” scene.
Hatsis turns the pilzbaum interp to base on Theology, surprising me.
Motivation for this page
i often need to log a single idea without creating a whole article.
idea development page 19 is short, 6 sheets of print preview 2-sided, not 60 sheets per average for idea development pages 1-18.
6 2-sided sheets is about the right length for this limited mobile app that becomes unresponsive.
date range in page 19 is mar-jun 2023, dont want to add Nov 2024 content in that era’s batch.
need short page #20 for mobile.
mobile WordPress app gets bogged down at like 20 pages.
hiatus is bad bc there’s no record timestamp of when i thought of ideas, other than voice recordings’ metadata or spoken date stamp.
LSD was Free and Legal Between Oct 1966 – ~Jan 1970 in U.S.
LSD was legal to possess and use.
Illegal to make or sell, ie ppl were legally required to give away free.
So there was WAY more use & strongly encouraged use than I realized.
Was legal through late 1960s into 1970.
I misunderstood it as illegalized in Oct 1966.
Ambiguous Hoffman vs Specific Cybermonk
“Hoffman” in entheogen scholarship = Mark & Michael.
“Cybermonk” specifically is Michael, since like 1995.
Decoded Blue Bones in “Creation of Plants”!
[7:15 Nov 25, 2024] Cubensis stems are white bones that stain blue.
Scroll down a few pages to the 4 plants isolated picture crop.
This explains the blue bones in crown/cap of the blue plant 3.
i just now finally thought of a successful interp for {blue bones} in blue cap, white stems blue, to finish my proof of my identif of “God Creates Plants” (Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita).
My categories identifications 100% make sense.
They match my many photos of live specimens, unambiguously lining up with the 4 plants.
James Arthur was way off, poppy pod & rue?! no! not even close!
Browns got plants 1&2 mixed up – another elementary mistake, like their major, embarrassing screwup re: St. Walburga tapestry, “Amanita doesn’t have a serrated base” 🤦♂️
Browns based their whole narrative on rejecting that art piece, then flubbed it colossally, a newbie error. A useful error to note as a good example.
Browns’ identification of the four plants is likewise mixed up: dock double penalty, because both Brown AND Brown signed off on this irrational identification — quadruple penalty, because twice published.
Browns point to plant 2, the triangle semi-spear parasols with gill striations and nipple, and say “Panaeolus”, astoundingly, when clearly it is Liberty Caps in the crown/cap.
Could Browns be so drastically mistaken, making such a basic newbie error?
Yes: “Amanita doesn’t have a serrated base.”
-4 points, because the obvious mis-identification of plant 2 as Panaeolus was asserted by:
Brown 1 in 2016 – error
Brown 2 in 2016 – error
Brown 1 in 2019 – error
Brown 2 in 2019 – error
That’s the same elementary error made 4 times.
James Arthur is driven by a Soma mix theory, 5 plants.
Eadwine’s (artist’s) 3 varieties of Psil msh thus get reduced to only 1.
Arthur and Browns (3 authors!) both start Right to Left starting with Amanita, which gets way too much attention, directly at the expense of Psilocybin mushrooms.
I have a LIST of examples where the Amanita Primacy Fallacy causes deletion of Psilocybin evidence and blindness — NOT OK!
Amanita is a bully weed wiping out superior Psilo.
Europe culture history is wrong in focusing too much on Amanita, when the best myth and effects came from Psilocybin.
Pop cult runs now after Quantum Mysticism.
The same people previously went crazy for 2nd-rate Amanita, throughout European history, overshadowing Psilocybin.
Amanita entheogen scholars abuse Psilocybin by forcing Psilocybin mushrooms to serve their advocacy of Amanita as “the” Holy Mushroom, suppressing Psilocybin into a mere supporting role in service of false King Amanita.
The best, superior art & mystics knew Psilocybin is the brains behind the operation.
We are the elite minority brotherhood of Blue, against the low-quality superficial Red mushroom, with its pop exoteric esotericism. John Lash, Eadwine, Cybermonk.
Paul Lindgren in 2000 only pursued the Amanita pages in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Irvin writes in The Holy Mushroom book, Psilocybin mushrooms are irrelevant.
😇🍄🥾💥🍄🟫➡️🗑️
Eadwine’s favorite mushroom is Cubensis, not Amanita. (This got confirmed at end of day when inspected branching in Creation of Plants.)
Y’all claimed the 2nd-rate single-plant fallacies, and left me to settle for owning the BEST single-plant fallacy: Cubensis.
Ok, I’ll take the Cubensis single-plant fallacy, including all 300 psilo’s in a supporting role, along with Amanita placed down in a supporting role, for headshop art decoration marketing.
It was left for Lash and me to discover all the Psilocybin mushrooms in Great Canterbury Psalter, because the only pages that the pop Amanita fanatics cared about was the pages which had “the” mushroom, Amanita.
The pop entheogen scholars – exoteric esotericism – insulted that page’s Psil mushrooms as just a bonus footnote of lesser interest.
“First, starting from the right, we have Secret Amanita, the Holy Mushroom.” — all entheogen scholars bewitched by the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Hatsis refers to non-Amanita mushroom trees as “lesser looking”.
Challenging puzzle for pop Amanita fans:
I am revolting against that suppression of blue, that Amanita is doing. 🍄🟫>🍄
Arthur used to phone me, but I hadn’t formed my identification yet to discuss this picture (Great Canterbury Psalter: Creation of Plants) as 4 types of mushroom.
I identified the four mushroom types a few years ago; search my posts to determine the date.
In Pop Cult, Psilocybin = Cubensis, No Awareness of Liberty Cap or Panaeolus
9:30 pm Nov 25, 2024
Friend advised me to label and market the blue paradigm as:
psilocybin-driven entheogen scholarship
the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm
instead of my terms:
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
My favored terms/ labels I’m advancing are to go up against terms:
Amanita-driven entheogen scholarship
the Secret Amanita paradigm
friend says no one knows the word “Cubensis”, but everyone knows the word “Psilocybin”.
Ironic and interesting that the more technical, modern, molecule name “Psilocybin” is universally known, while no one knows the more specific concrete species word, “Cubensis”.
But friend didn’t know that I am crafting a PAIR of labels.
The parallel of “Amanita”, to effectively go up against “Amanita”, is not “Psilocybin”, but “Cubensis”.
The parallel of “Psilocybin” is not “Amanita”, but “Muscimol (and Ibutenic Acid)”.
“Cubensis” is the species name that can go up against “Amanita”.
Penis Envy strain is Cubensis.
Schedule 35 in Colo is ground Cubensis capsules.
Psil mushroom extract capsules is Cubensis.
Our best art evidence is Cubensis, depicting advanced skill and comprehension — not Lib Cap, Pana, or Aman.
Oss & Oeric book 1970s was how to cultivate Cubensis.
St. Eustace Crossing the River window is Cubensis.
Great Canterbury Psalter best panels f134, f144, & f177 are Cubensis.
Instead, when “consulting” the expert authorities, you have to have “pers. corr.” like Huggins and Letcher, with stopwatch in hand to see if the authority is sufficiently quick in disavowing pilzbaum.
⏱
Doesn’t get any more credible than this, just like Wasson’s ellipses … about which Huggins says nothing, and fails to celebrate Brown 2019 for blowing the lid off censorship of Brinckmann by the pilzbaum deniers since 1968 in SOMA by Wasson.
Ordinary-State, Literalist, Reductionist Misreading of Esoteric Art: The Perspective of Those on the Outside
Inside the gates of the City of God in Rev 22, is cybernetic peace and control stability; the bride of Christ; lower control agency made to submit to the higher, uncontrollable root of control-ability; the hidden, uncontrollable, mysterious source of thoughts.
Outside the gates are the tormented, blade-poked, demon-harassed, flame-roasted, wailing and gnashing of teeth, autonomous self-control grinding its gears trying to bring childish, polluted thinking through the psychedelic eternalism gate.
WordPress mobile app can’t compose long webpages, so I’m posting this as a separate short post. Slightly improved at the present page.
“Reading secondary scholarship can be useful: it can serve as launching pads to new heights of interpretation.
“I set as a test experiment, to see what value there is in reading and commenting on secondary scholarship.
“As I was reading, more and more connections started to click, like turning the lights back on in this part of my thinking.
“Then I started to make new connections between the topics.”
I often experience that I grasp and figured out something new, even though I seemingly wrote the idea before.
Connections and perspectives are increased, like added connections in a Paul Thagard computer model of a historical paradigm shift in a field of knowledge.
A superpower that an effective scholar must have is, the ability to transform other scholars’ garbled, mis-framed, confusion-driven, clueless writings, by Those on the Outside.
Never write off a scholar altogether in a given field, especially a field that is underrepresented and only has a handful of scholars contributing any writings on the topic.
I have benefitted enormously by engaging and transforming the writings and arguments that are contributed by deniers of mushrooms in Christian history, even though they contribute an exercise on logical fallacies and wrong framing:
Wasson, Panofsky, Bennett, Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins.
Their on-topic though badly argued writings have the potential for an astute scholar to transform them productively.
Thomas Hatsis, previously pushing against former entheogen scholar Jan Irvin, has lately contributed less on the topic of mushrooms in Christian art.
But Ronald Huggins (Hatsis Jr.) has stepped in to fill the roller derby skates of the banana Thomas “Allegro is my favorite author” Hatsis 🍌🛼 to keep the river of logical fallacies productively flowing.
Huggins contacted Wouter “Stumbling on a rock is an entheogenic practice because it can produce the same effects as a high dose of Psilocybin” Hanegraaff, in the Dizzy Salamander article.
None of them could figure out the (literalist, reductionist, ordinary-state) reason why the salamander is replaced by a Phoenix after the man kills the salamander.
“The question of how a salamander came to be depicted as a bird is beyond the scope of the present essay.
“The author [Huggins] consulted Professors Wouter J. Hanegraaff and Peter J. Forshaw of the University of Amsterdam, both specialists in Western esotericism and Hermetic philosophy.
“They were also puzzled by the images though noting their similarity to standard depictions of the Phoenix.”
I haven’t seen such puzzlement from the top historian of Western Esotericism since Hanegraaff wrote:
Saturn [the Hebdomad; the 7th sphere] … Whether the fixed stars should be included or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [the 8th sphere] remains an open question for me.
For his dizzy article, Huggins recently contacted Letcher Hatsis (the Psychedelic Witc– Historian) in order to copypaste the same level of quality of argumentation — “sound, tried and true historiographical methodology; see my articles somewhere on the web.”
Sound methodology such as using bad argumentation and mistranslated texts, read reductionistically as if literalist writing, to constrain the meaning of the accompanying art, as if the artist’s intent is just to illustrate the text, and has no other purpose, agenda, and message to communicate.
Huggins wrote “the weight of Hatsis’ arguments has not really been appreciated within the PMT [Psychedelic Mushroom in Christian Art Theorists] community.”
I fully appreciate the weight of the failed psychedelic witch’s argumentation.
Artists purposefully present mushroom imagery in Christian art together with {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, to depict how the threat of loss of control teaches, prods, and drives mental model transformation from the branching-possibilities model of control with automous control agency, to the eternal non-branching model with 2-level control.
The final result of this mental model transformation is figured as a marriage pact from Mithras to Sol to authorize Sol as a stable, viable, effective, consciously virtual-only control agent and locus of controllership.
Sol is vulnerable to Mithras as the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, frozen in the heimarmene rock of pre-existing fatedness.
Sol is trained and taught by Mithras, to be reshaped and brought into full practical conformity with eternalism, in a sense stepping outside of the heimarmene serpent-wrapped cosmic rock, spiritually lifted up into the Empyrian beyond the rule of fatedness by the rock-born god, Mithras.
pilzbaum – Term coined by art historians eg Brinckmann 1906 meaning trees that look like mushrooms, in Christian art. German for mushroom-tree.
Art historians eg Brinckmann 1906 coined the term ‘pilzbaum’, meaning trees that look like mushrooms.
They assert: there exists a non-empty, easily identifiable set, in Christian art, the set of tree images that looks like mushroom to such a strong extent such that the artist must agree that the image makes viewers think of mushroom.
pilzbaum Affirmers
affirmers = anyone who asserts that any mushroom-trees are purposefully meant to be viewed as mushrooms.
pilzbaum Deniers
deniers = anyone who denies that any mushroom-trees are purposefully meant to be viewed as mushrooms.
The Pilzbaum Affirmers’ Assertion
Official definition of their assertion in the debate:
Same Given, not in dispute: The artist drew the tree using mushroom elements imagery (for portions or aspects of the tree, not the whole tree in all aspects) so strong that it makes viewers think of mushroom.
Assertion: And there is a purpose for making viewers think of mushroom. The purpose is, expressed on 3 scales:
1) Make viewers interpret the tree image as mushroom. (inferior affirmers; the Secret Amanita paradigm).
2) Make viewers interpret the entire image as description of religious psychoactive mushroom experience.
3) Make viewers interpret the entire set of entire images as description of peak religious psychoactive mushroom experience of eternalism, figured as non-branching of possibilities. (superior affirmers; the Explicit Cubensis paradigm).
Found together integrated are {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, which together are meant to describe Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level control, per the Egodeath theory 1997/ 2007/ 2022.
/ end of Assertion definition
Pilzbaum affirmers are called “the mycologists” per Panofsky in 1952, meaning John Ramsbottom, Rolfe & Rolfe 1925, etc.
Do not equate “the mycologists” with affirmers, as Panofsky does.
The Actual Message is not “mushrooms”, but rather: On mushrooms, possibility-branching thinking produces loss of control; eternal non-branching thinking produces stable control
The artists’ ultimate concern is to express, depict, & describe visually: on mushrooms, possibility-branching thinking produces loss of control; eternalism-thinking produces stable control.
The artists’ ultimate concern is to express: and depict & describe visually: possibilism-thinking produces loss of control; eternalism possibilism-thinking produces stable control.
“They [mushrooms] do not occur in the Bible, so far as I know [when read literally, as describing the things of the ordinary state].”
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs are not all the ultimate message.
{mushrooms} – mostly a mere carrier for the message.
{branching} – the ultimate message.
{handedness} – a mere carrier for the message, to express that there are two distinct mental worldmodels.
{stability} – the ultimate message.
In-depth discussion in voice recording VOX_TK_6216 .wav Nov 18 2024 (unreleased). I’m considering producing Ep264 using wav files mentioned: 6216, 6220, 6225 (recorded Nov/Dec 2024).
The Pilzbaum Deniers’ Assertion
Official definition of the pilzbaum Deniers’ assertion in the debate:
A given, not in dispute: The artist drew the tree using mushroom elements imagery (for portions or aspects of the tree, not the whole tree in all aspects) so strong that it makes viewers think of mushroom.
Assertion: And there is no purpose for making viewers think of mushroom.
/ end of Assertion definition
Do not equate “the art historians” with deniers, as Panofsky does.
Deniers have no arguments that stand up to pushback; their position is indefensible and very easy to refute.
The Three Positions/ Assertions: Secret Amanita; Debunking Secret Amanita; Explicit Cubensis
I define the best Affirmers & Deniers positions.
Pop-level “debunking” of one particular narrow specific theory in order to try to appear to win “the” debate that there were no mushrooms in Christianity.
Huge problem from the start: What exactly are the positions being debated/asserted? By who, against who?
Conflation Game
Position 1: Secret Amanita
Wasson 1957; Allegro 1970; Ruck 1976.
The Moderate entheogen theory of religion.
Giveaway locutions/ lexicon: THE mushroom; A “cult”, “a mushroom”, “the Holy Mushroom”, “the sacred mushroom”.
First, Gordon Wasson proposes a single secret Amanita cult, that started in Ural mountains that spread around the world from there.
Similarly, John Allegro placed such an original secret Amanita cult at the start of Christianity.
Carl Ruck 1976-2006+ puts most of his focus on Hidden Secret Amanita.
Ruck is more enthusiastic about Secret than Amanita, in his confabulated narrative discourse fairytale cartoon moralistic story, ritually repeated at every opportunity, to construct his own personal identity as counterculture heretic (the Good Guys in the tale).
The narrow, specific, brittle Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck Secret Amanita position/ scenario (which is Presentism).
Mainly based on Motte-and-Bailey fallacy aka moving the goalposts.
Ironically, by the time the first of these debunkers wrote, the field had already broadened and switched from Secret Amanita (announced 1997 Samorini) to Explicit Cubensis.
The debunkers aimed at an outdated position/ model/ theory, addressing a behind-the-times Pop audience.
The Theory 1 Debunkers claim they disprove [mushrooms in Christianity] (a la Position 3: Explicit Cubensis), but the only thing they disprove (if anything) is the [Secret Amanita cult spread] position/ argument/ assertion – a hybrid of Wasson & Allegro.
I can grant that the Secret Amanita Debunkers won their debate. But the field (Samorini 1997; Michael Hoffman 2002; and (post-Letcher 2005): Brown 2016) had already moved past that debate/framing/position.
Timing of Hatsis: When 2013-2015 Hatsis wrote against Irvin, I was already tracking the forthcoming book by Brown 2016. Hatsis was writing prior to Browns’ book.
Hatsis in 2018 wrote book with poor handling of mushrooms in Christian art, that failed to step up to the debate, but lectured instead on historiography: Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (2018)
Psychedelic Mystery Traditions (2018) is a ripoff of $ re: mushrooms in Christian art; fails to do what it claims to do- SLOPPY ARG’N:
“For the proof supporting my self-aggrandizing methodology lecture, disproving mushrooms in Christian art, leave this book that you paid for, and instead see my articles somewhere on the web.”
The desirable Bailey that the deniers wish they were able to defend = [there were no mushrooms in Christianity].
Sell books to pop audience marketed as disproving mushroom in Christianity – that only actually argue against the narrow, specific, brittle Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck Secret Amanita position/ scenario (which is Presentism).
The undesired, worthless Motte that the deniers are able to defend = disproving [the secret Amanita cult theory per Wasson originating in Ural mountains and then spreading from there].
Position 3: Explicit Cubensis
Samorini 1997; Michael Hoffman 2002; Brown & Brown 2016/2019/2021.
The Maximal entheogen theory of religion.
Within the set of all Christians (not “a group”, “a cult”, “a community”, “a heretic sect”, etc.), there was use of Psilocybin (Cube, Lib Cap, Pana) – as well as, incidentally and of merely minor concern, Amanita mushrooms.
There were at least two instances in any region/ era.
Not rely on concepts like “a tradition” or “traditional use” or “a tradition of use” or “a mainstream psychedelic tradition”.
This position rejects the a priori presupposition of Suppression, ie. the assumption that we should helpfully, as our proposed explanatory construct / mechanism, divide Christianity into two parts by constructing a dividing line:
On one side of the taken-for-granted barrier/ boundary line is “mainstream = Prohibitionist“; on the other side of the taken-for-granted barrier/ boundary line is “counterculture = Psychedelic“.
(Position 4: Debunking Explicit Cubensis)
Might be able to scrape together a little argumentation from the Deniers that fits this model.
The Fallacies
The Abstract Description fallacy: Pilzbaum can’t be mushrooms, because pilzbaum have “branches” (ignore that fact that those “branches” look like mushrooms)
Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article re: “Creation of Plants” Image
Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 right – “Creation of Plants”/”third day”
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 Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right
Look at these branches, which prove that these mushroom-looking plants that the art historians describe as pilzbaum do not look like mushrooms.
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Crop by Cybermonk
Special Pleading
Art has multiple meanings (except pilzbaum)
Art interpretation basic principle: Art has multiple meanings.
What about pilzbaum?
In that special case, art can only have a single meaning, and the meaning is the non-mushroom one.
Artists have intentionality and freedom (except pilzbaum)
Art interpretation basic principle: Artists have intentionality and freedom to express themselves.
What about pilzbaum?
In that special case, artists are especially ignorant craftsmen with no freedom and no intentionality, a human copying machine forced to follow prototypes, which eventually became accepted by the art world. 🤷♂️
Viewers: Looks like mushroom.
Artist (according to the greatest art historian EVAR, Erwin Panofsky):
I don’t know anything about. It’s just the way it is. Don’t ask me, I just transfer the corrupted, re-drawn prototypes onto walls as I’m told to. I don’t have anything to do with the meaning of the picture. I am not responsible for making you think of mushrooms by painting mushroom-like features. It doesn’t mean anything at all to me, just a randomly, corruptly stylized literal tree. Don’t ask me, I’m just a craftsman.
pilzbaum artist
in all other art cases:
“The painting has 5-1/2 layers of meaning:
The literal level for children and rank outsiders ignorant of loosecog.
The analogy level, the real ultimate referent: psychedelic eternalism, how to think as an egoic agent after being taught the fatal instability of the egoic possibility-branching control model.
– unless the subject of the art is pilzbaum, in which case, the purpose of religious art is literal trees, snakes, and rocks, stylized as mushrooms non-purposefully (ie randomly corrupted templates that the art world had come to accept).
Failing to Respond to the Best Articles/ Writings: Writings that Must Be Discussed, Else Lose the Debate that Counts
Huggins doesn’t reply to my points in my 2006 Plaincourault article, doesn’t reply to Cyberdisciple’s webpages. doesn’t cite Brown’s March 2021 article in Huggins’ Feb 2021 article. doesn’t cite Brown 2019 where Panof letters published – instead says footnote 56 & 57 slightly garbled citation of the Wasson archives, “drawer, W3.2, Folder 20”.
Does Drawer W3.2, Folder 20 include two photostats of pilzbaum?
A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom.
A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap.
Entheogen scholars need to see which pictures, and find hi-res of them online, and analyze them for {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case Ronald Huggins, 2024 Die Bibel in der Kunst / Bible in the Arts Online-Journal 8, 2024 PDF: “Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_th.pdf”
Footnote 56. Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson (May 2, 1952), in Tina and R. Gordon Wasson Ethnomycological Collection Archives, ecb00001, Series IV, drawer,[sic?] W3.2, Folder: 20. Botany Libraries, Economic Botany Library of Oakes Ames, Harvard University.
Footnote 57. Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson (May 12, 1952), in Tina and R. Gordon Wasson, Ethnomycological Collection Archives, ecb00001, Series IV, drawer, W3.2, Folder: 20. Botany Libraries, Economic Botany Library of Oakes Ames, Harvard University.
The Presentism fallacy
Projecting 1970s Mainstream Prohibition and Counterculture Psychedelics onto Pre-Modernity as “a Suppressed Cult”.
Emperor Nixon in 71 declared War on The Mushroom.
🍄🗡👑🐀
The Single-Referent fallacy
In art, things have multiple meanings, except in the unique case of mushroom imagery, where things can only have a single meaning — therefore not mushroom.
Chris Bennett: The tree is a Palm, therefore it is not a mushroom.
The image refers to a tree, therefore the image does not refer to a mushroom instead.
Dismissing pilzbaum is extremely easy [& worthless; strawman]: simply state the Captain Obvious literal meaning [which is not actually in dispute], and then declare victory, & exclaim extreme ignorance on the part of the opponent.
Also call the artist inept, crude, sloppy, un-conscious, and incompetent.
Chris Bennett: “Badly draw trees.” God Creates Plants – “poorly drawn ones with which it would be difficult to say what they represent.”
Based on my observations of specimens growing, they are stylized Panaeolus; Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Amanita.
Not opium or rue per James Arthur 2000.
Not “Psilocybe; Panaeolus; psilocybin mushroom; Amanita” per Brown 2016.
The Strawman fallacy
Projection, & Moving the Goalposts: Misrepresenting the Opponent’s Position
Universal comment for everything Chris “sic” Bennett writes: As I wrote in my book review of Drugs & The Bible:
Typos and grammar errors in the original.
Wasson … according to the Browns, … was thus theoretically bound to cover up theorized secret mushroom cult. … the Browns explain:
“Wasson … his position on the absence of entheogens in the Judeo-Christian tradition after 1000 BCE, … that the “mushroom-tree” in the Eden fresco at Plaincourault is indeed an Amanita muscaria … expanded the theory on the role of entheogens in religion to encompass the origins of Christianity.”
Chris Bennett, “The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels”, p. 11
Brown wrote generally & expansively, that the point in dispute is:
entheogens in the Judeo-Christian tradition after 1000 BCE
the “mushroom-tree” in the Eden fresco at Plaincourault is Amanita
the role of entheogens in religion encompasses the origins of Christianity
Bennett wrote instead, narrowly and specifically:
theorized secret mushroom cult
Brown doesn’t employ the Allegro/ Hatsis explanatory construct “a secret Christian Amanita cult” or “a secret mushroom [=== 🍄] cult”, or “the theory of a secret cult of the Holy Mushroom, Amanita muscaria 🍄”.
The person who employs that construct is Hatsis, the #1 fan of Allegro, whose thought-world & framing is centered on and bounded by Allegro’s thought-world.
Hatsis, following Allegro’s lead, constructed the “secret Amanita cult” theory & the explanatory construct “secret Christian Amanita cult”.
Wasson may have constructed that too.
Attributing the Allegro/ Hatsis explanatory construct to Brown is strawmanning and projection; narrowing the goalposts; bait and switch; & the motte and bailey logical fallacy.
Bernward Door: Not Secret, Therefore Not Mushroom (strawman)
There really might exist some “gullible pop believer in the Shroom theory the “secret Amanita cult” theory, the Secret Amanita paradigm.
There are two warring positions: Young Hatsis vs. Old Hatsis who is out to debunk Young Hatsis. There might be two different people, one who wants to assert the “secret Amanita cult” theory and one who wants to debunk that very theory. I’m off to the side, DGAF about “secret” anything and suchlike important storytelling narrative discourse of identity definition.
Hanegraaff says un-scientific historians tell a story for themselves: a story about the Other (rejected knowledge; W Esotericism) in order to define themselves.
Non-scientific historians invent an Other, to define themselves in opposition to it.
Insight about Bernward Door Handedness
[4:20 pm Nov 24, 2024] – Bernward door: the Blame panel: Adam and Eve have crossed arms (right arm visually cut), serpent cutting view of Eve Right leg – forming {cut right arm or leg}.
Adam points at the YI Liberty Cap tree.
Adam and Eve are standing on R foot, in Eating from Tree of K panel. In Blame panel, they are on L foot, God on R foot.
This solves a problem/ antipattern I ran into: I expected Adam & Eve to stand on Right foot, lacked that – but that is present, in the Eating panel above this Blame panel.
YI branching tree morphology.
Chris Bennett merely sees a dud mushroom-tree in the “Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” panel of Bernward Door. p13-15 = section The Door of Salvation.
Bennett claims that there is no connection between the fig leaf tree in the Eating from ToK panel & the Liberty Cap tree in the Blaming panel below that panel.
Both panels’ Eden trees, positioned as the Tree of Knowledge, have YI morphology.
Isaiah: Angel’s Left hand fingers are splayed, matching Jesus’ splayed fingers to the right.
Where Brown 2016 wrote “The particular gesture with which the angel displays the coal”.
Was there “a Secret Amanita Cult”? I prove no; no mushroom in Christianity
Conflating bare entheogen claim with “secret” , “Amanita“, & “cult” modifiers specifically, to narrow the claim (moving the goalposts)
Conflating the bare, expansive claim with the “secret” , “Amanita“, & “cult” modifiers specifically, to narrow the claim (moving the goalposts)
Bennett assumes what we are debating is whether there was “a secret mushroom cult”.
Is Brown asserting that stupid, unhelpful, unproductive, unneeded framing, that does nothing but confuse thinking?
Alas the stupid field of entheogen scholarship is trapped, fixated, developmentally stunted, hung on that unproductive, overloaded question.
Andy Letcher in Shroom: The mushrooms on the Bernward door are not secret or hidden, therefore your guyses claim is defeated, and there is no secret mushroom. (Therefore there is no mushroom.)
Top priority for a German Reader to Assess: Brinckmann Book
Mandatory.
Attention Brown etc:
Need a German reader to check for 3 specific points in Brinckmann’s book, to check Panofsky’s claims that the book supports the pilzbaum deniers.
re: Brinckmann 1906 book
Have a German language reader check at Archive site or copy of 1906 book:
Key Questions as Page Numbers in Brinckmann’s Book
What page # discusses development of trees/ pilzbaum from pine to mushroom imagery?
What page # discusses corruption of prototypes?
What page # says that that development was universal & widespread?
What page # says that that gradualness of progressive development proves that the artist had no purpose in making viewers think of a mushroom?
Commentary about Key Questions
In 1906, Brinckmann cannot imagine any purpose like desirable magic mushroom for religious ecstasy.
His book probably lacks any notion of “purposeful” mushroom imagery, and he sees no reason to discuss whether there’s a purpose – he cannot imagine a purpose for mushroom imagery in religious art.
In 1952, Panofsky reads that lack of concept of “purpose of mushroom” as if Brinckmann had asserted “development gradually from pine to mushroom proves lack of purpose of mushroom imagery”.
Brinckmann probably wrote nothing about purpose or lack of purpose, in 1906, being purely ignorant of claims for religious ecstasy or recreational experience from mushrooms.
Pilzbaum was not a “charged”, “hot”, contentious topic, whereas in 1952, that idea was just beginning.
Brinc has no reason to fabricate and desperately steer away, and no reason to think of whether there is purpose of the mushroom shape.
In Brinc’s thought-world, there’s no such thing as “purpose” for mushroom imagery; mushroom imagery means nothing, just like branching and non-branching features used to mean nothing to me eg in 2006 when I added the “St. Eustace Crossing the River” picture to my main article b/c “Look Mummy there’s a mushroom!” – blind to branching meaning, as Brinc was blind to any mushroom meaning.
The “No True Scholar” fallacy
No competent art historian asserts pilzbaum purposefully mean mushroom.
If they were to, they would become “not competent”, and not institution-employed.
No tenured academic — with a relevant degree — who teaches on this — and who publishes on this – and who has an advanced degree — in this exact topic — asserts the ahistoricity of religious founder figures.
Also: moving the goalposts.
Argument from authority: “Consult” the authorities (in person, because they wrote nothing)
Wasson, deceptively withholding a key citation provided by Panofsky twice & Panofsky’s two photostat art pieces, wrote that Panofsky’s (a “competent art historian”) investigations of this topic concluded in denial — without giving most of Panofsky’s evidence & argumentation.
Giveaway cliche: “I reached out and consulted the art historians” — because they wrote/ published 0 sentences on this taboo topic.
Panofsky only has one weak, old, “little” book to cite, to back his claim that scholars have a firm basis for denial.
The Deniers Censor and Lie by Omission; Commit ACADEMIC FRAUD
Censored by Wasson:
Panofsky two pics of pilzbaum attached to letter 1; the twice strong recomm / citation of Brinck bk; existence of Panofsky letter 2.
Liar Huggins pretends we had Pan letter 2 since 1957 Soma. Huggins covers for Wasson’s deception & abusive insults. Wasson’s ACADEMIC FRAUD.
rauWasson’s ACADEMIC FRAUD.
The Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology
There is no sign that Brinckmann’s book supports denial. The book supports affirming.
That’s why Wasson (the father of obstructing research) censored the citation that Panofsky 1952 urged on mycologists twice, as we now know thanks only to Brown 2019.
The two photostat art images support affirming; that explains why Wasson censored them and lied by omission, repeatedly.
To punish Wasson, we can justifiably deduce and count these as two additional art pieces that support affirming.
Wasson’s credibility is in the toilet since Brown 2019 exposed both of Panofsky’s letters.
My branching article will have two placeholders to make this point — Censored by Wasson:
We will figure out which two pilzbaum pictures Panofsky likely sent Wasson with the first letter. Look for them in the Wasson archive.
Panofsky wrote:
“Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens:
A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom
A miniature of 990 which shows the inception of the process of gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape — CENSORED
“a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape,
and
A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap
A glass painting of the thirteenth century which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown — CENSORED
“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.
I HAVE STRIPPED WASSON OF HIS TITLE, “THE FATHER OF ETHNOMYCOLOGY”.
I bestow on Wasson, with hammer and nail, a new title:
THE FATHER OF OBSTRUCTING EUROPEAN ETHNOMYCOLOGY.
The “Coerced position statement” fallacy
A cliche that pilzbaum deniers write, in their mass of obvious logical fallacies and bad argumentation:
“I reached out to ask a competent art historian whether pilzbaum mean mushroom ” —
The affirmers’ retort: thought of/ articulated by me:
The reason why you had to ask the art historian is because they wrote 0 sentences on this topic, and are therefore not competent on this point – or, to be more precise & relevant:
Their position statement on this tabooed topic is coerced; they are not permitted to affirm, or else they would lose their corrupt-institutional standing as “competent”.
Art historians are required to be deniers.
Public, non-anonymous denial proves nothing about what the art historian privately actually believes.
Corrupt-institutional art historians are permitted (but discouraged) to write either:
nothing; silence on the topic (preferred)
“pilzbaum are not purposefully mushrooms.”
Art historians employed by compromised institutions that are driven by taboo are not allowed to write “pilzbaum are purposefully mushrooms”, else they would lose their corrupt-institutional credential as “competent”.
The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle
When interrogating/ probing/ pressuring a “competent” art historian to go on record making a public statement affirming or denying that pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms, and measuring/ observing the resulting response:
If the art historian were to affirm, we would know that they believe the affirmative (a sincere position statement), given the coerced denial.
The art historian would lose their corrupt-institutional designation as “competent”, becoming unemployed as an institutional art historian.
That affirming doesn’t happen, because that would be a self-incriminating, forbidden position declaration.
If the art historian denies, we don’t know what the art historian believes — because the position statement is taboo and coerced, thus meaningless.
They have an incentive to lie and pretend to deny, but privately affirm.
Their negative statement or declaration (made “with impressive celerity” – Wasson) is likely an insincere position statement.
Superior Affirmers & Inferior Affirmers
“secret Amanita” theorists affirm pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms. Reductionist.
1) Make viewers interpret the tree image as mushroom. (inferior affirmers; the Secret Amanita paradigm).
3) Make viewers interpret the entire set of entire images as description of peak religious psychoactive mushroom experience of eternalism, figured as non-branching of possibilities. (superior affirmers; the Explicit Cubensis paradigm).
Ruck’s position: Pilzbaum are mushrooms and nothing else; not stylized trees
I reject Ruck’s position statement “mushrooms and nothing else, not stylized trees”:
Well known now are the many documented depictions of the Paradise Trees as mushrooms: mushrooms and nothing else. They look like mushrooms and that is quite frankly what they are, not stylized trees, for the mushroom played a role in Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects. [cites Samorini 1997 (Plaincourault) & 1998 (pilzbaum).]
Jose Celdran, Carl Ruck, “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56, 2001, Entheos Issue 2
Ruck writes “so-called heretical sects” or “so-called heretics” in all 3 Entheos issues (including in the online notes for Issue 3: Mithras article).
Nov 26 recg 6240 per nov 17 voice recg 6203 — Ruck error p 56 article Daturas Virgin: Ruck says Paradise pilzbaum are “mushrooms AND NOTHING ELSE”; they are “NOT STYLIZED TREES”.
False; pilzbaum are both mushroom and trees, i.e. branching and non-branching motifs + mushroom motifs.
Pretending Artist Denies Pilzbaum Looks Like Mushroom (the bait & switch fallacy)
Samorini 1997 article p 36 Eleusis journal, “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault”: “did the painter intend deliberately a second (esoteric) message, or unconsciously repeat an iconographic scheme without recognizing its features … the possible fungal meaning?”
Samorini entertains the possibility, a poor position, that MAYBE ARTISTS ARE BLITHERING IDIOT MORONS WHO DISAGREE THAT PILZBAUM LOOK IN ANY WAY LIKE MUSHROOMS.
He tends to try to assess the IQ of bumpkins in his 1998 article.
Ruck advocates the poor position “pilzbaum are mushrooms and nothing else”, proving SECRET Amanita CULT. Datura p 56 2001.
Winning the non-debate by calling the artist a mentally defective, blithering idiot who is incapable of recognizing the screamingly obvious.
Art historians forfeited this argument the moment they coined the definitional classification term ‘pilzbaum’, which is a given that this is a non-empty set.
We are interpreting a set of tree images that objectively exists, so it’s not relevant to fantasize or propose or debate whether the artist is too stupid to agree to the self-evidently obvious.
“win” by denying-to-death the artist’s competence.
I made this clear (I shut out this junk move) in my official statement of the two positions assertions and what is under debate.
We are not debating whether the artist agrees that the image makes viewers think of mushroom.
The art historians’ own term pilzbauminherently asserts that the artist agrees.
They objectively look like mushroom, thus there is no need to switch the debate to the topic of the artist agreeing on this point; it is a given, not the point in dispute.
The actual debate (the point that’s actually in dispute) is whether the artist has a purpose in making viewers specifically think of mushroom.
The debate is not actually about whether the artist is too idiotic & incompetent to know which tree images are meant by pilzbaum.
No one actually, sincerely asserts that the artist fails to comprehend that their pilzbaum image looks like a mushroom.
An insincere argument that “wins” by losing & forfeiting the real argument; avoiding the actual point of dispute.
The art historians admit by definition pilzbaum objectively look like mushroom such that every viewer and every artist – as a given – must affirm that the image causes viewers to think of a mushroom.
Non-Sequitur fallacy
Means does not follow.
eg Panofsky: “The gradualness of progressive development of tree representations from pine to mushroom proves that the artist had no purpose in making viewers think of a mushroom.
“The smooth development proves that the mushroom direction of development was accidental, unintentional, and purposeless.”
retort: The development is evidence that every decade, artists purposefully tried to make trees look even more like mushrooms.
Development is evidence for purpose, not evidence for accidental clumsy unintentional corruption of alleged “prototypes” that were employed by (or even fabricated by) Panofsky as an attempted cover story.
eg: Erwin Panofsky: “There are multiple, ie hundreds! of pilzbaum, therefore, no pilzbaum purposefully means mushroom.”
His argument depends on 2 unstated items:
Silently Given: Christian art does not contain hundreds of purposeful mushrooms.
Silent Assumed Proxy Agreement: Our position on Plaincourault drives our position on all pilzbaum.
Hatsis explicitly wrote that claim of an agreed proxy commitment:
“The entire mushroom-tree debate stands or falls with Plaincourault alone; we need not consider other instances.”
No affirmer agreed on that – eg Brown, me, or Cyberdisciple.
Even Panofsky says affirmers should look at Brinckmann’s book and two photostat pictures – against Hatsis.
eg: Hatsis argues: There is no Church edict written prohibiting The Holy Mushroom (🍄) therefore no one used Amanita, and the “secret Amanita cult” theory is a myth.
Retort: There is no ancient edict, because the Church Fathers knew and believed and revered the Eucharist is Cubensis, depicted via Amanita imagery.
The “secret Amanita cult” theory (SAC)
Fallacies here include: bait and switch; move goalposts; motte and bailey.
Hatsis mentally shackles himself, limiting his thinking to the small Allegro universe, and centers his thinking around Allegro.
Allegro sets the center and boundary of Hatsis’ thought-world & concerns.
A Hatsis blog post says “Allegro is my favorite author.”
Hatsis projected; he claimed that our (the affirmers’) position is “there was a secret Amanita cult a la Allegro”, and he tried to dictate that our position/ assertion is that.
Hatsis wrote to me that we are not allowed to be interested in psilocybin mushrooms in Christian art, because that would contradict our SAC position, which is based on Allegro — that our position “came from Allegro”.
In fact Brown, Cyberdisciple, & I never held SAC, and that is not our frame of reference or an important, helpful idea.
We affirmers do not agree that that is the point being debated.
IDGAF about SAC.
I reject Allegro’s frame/ narrative/ paradigm, SAC.
I reject the Secret Amanita paradigm.
I have always held & formulated the Explicit Cubensis paradigm.
I did not read Allegro until after my 1997 core theory.
My 2002 formulation of the maximal entheogen theory of religion, ie the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, was a rebuttal to Allegro, Ruck, SAC, the Amanita primacy fallacy, & the “Secret Amanita Under Prohibition” paradigm.
The “secret Amanita cult” paradigm does not help my project of using myth to prove my 1997 core theory.
Affirmers pay no special attention to Plaincourault, and are not especially concerned about this particular mushroom-tree.
Motte-and-Bailey fallacy
The desirable bailey that the deniers wish they were able to defend = [there were no mushrooms in Christianity].
The undesired worthless motte that the deniers are able to defend = disproving [the secret Amanita cult theory per Wasson originating in Ural mountains and then spreading from there].
More specific than “moving the goalpost” fallacy or “bait and switch” fallacy.
The bailey= aggressive valuable assertion advanced; rich land, that the person wishes to defend.
The motte = weak, worthless, trivial retreated-to assertion that the person is able to “defend”; a cold sterile castle that is easy to defend, but worthless in itself, and not what the debate is actually about (ie not what the person wishes to defend), so, losing the actual argument, by trying to win some other pretended debate that no one actually cares about debating.
eg Thomas Hatsis trying to force the debate vs Brown to be about specifically “whether there was a Secret Amanita Cult (SAC)”.
Brown (ie the affirmers) is not asserting or defending that “there was a Secret Amanita Cult”, and Brown wins the actual debate, Brown’s assertion stands, bc the debate is actually about whether mushroom imagery purposefully means mushrooms.
Brinckmann 1906 lacks the concept of psychoactive mushrooms
so his interpretation of pilzbaum is invalid & irrelevant to this debate.
A point never published by anyone until now: I realized about a week ago, Nov 2024:
Brinckmann in 1906 has no concept of psychoactive mushrooms.
Or has a very thin concept connotations, siberian shamans including Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.
Brinckmann’s alleged treatment of Pilzbaum in 1906 lacks the concept of psychoactive mushrooms.
The French mycological society didn’t assert that Plaincourault is Amanita until 1911.
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita
Wasson wrote: “This fresco, an expression of French provincial Romanesque art, was first called to the attention of the learned world in the Bulletin of the Société Mycologique de France in 1911 (vol. xxvii, p. 31).”
(I didn’t copy that article from Egodeath.com to the present site.)
False Dilemma fallacy (reductionism, literalism)
Huggins 2024 article’s Conclusion section presents rules to decide whether a pilzbaum is a literal tree or a literal mushroom.
Whole/Part fallacy (moving the goalposts; Motte and Bailey)
Deniers pretending asserters claim that the tree image as a whole, on the level of the entire tree, in every visual aspect, means a physical mushroom (moving goalposts, or more precisely, bait and switch or motte-bailey)
Actually, affirmers say a pilzbaum includes mushroom imagery fragmentary elements, together with tree imagery fragmentary elements, eg branches — and cut branches, eg {cut right trunk}.
Reductionism, literalism
Mis-reading imagery that serves to describe {Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-Level Control} as if its ultimate meaning and purpose is to describe the motifs at a literal level.
Huggins: “The accompanying text proves that the depicted man is trying to kill the salamander.”
“I reached out to consult a competent Western Esotericism scholar, Hanegraaff, who has written 0 sentences on this tabooed, controversial, forbidden topic.”
“Neither Wouter Hanegraaff nor I were able to figure out why the salamander was replaced by a phoenix, in this alchemy image series.”
Conclusion section of Huggins’ article: Pilzbaum means either literal tree or literal mushroom.
That’s a false dilemma, & reductionism & literalism.
Also a bait & switch, given that no affirmer says just mushroom:
Affirmers assert pilzbaum mean both mushroom AND tree in some sense – especially, non-branching, ie depicting by analogies, psychedelic eternalism.
Huggins falsely writes that mushrooms lack branches. Mushrooms contain branching, as effects.
Mushrooms contain effects of contrasting the branching experiential model of control vs. experiencing the revelation of non-branching control-possibilities.
Cyberdisciple’s 3 categories of mushroom imagery overlap in items 2 & 3: the {stylization of physical mushroom} as branching & non-branching is also {depiction of mushroom effects}, in my article on compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control
Motivation for My Entheogen Scholarship: Use Myth to Prove My Core Theory
Motivation for My Entheogen Scholarship: Use Analogies in Religious Myth and Entheogen Imagery to Prove my Core Theory, Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level Control
todo: Add to the above article:
The integrated combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs is compelling evidence & criteria of proof for positively identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The concept of ‘secret’, group-contained/ -bounded (“cult”, “communities”, “sects”), “suppression” hypothesis/ explanatory construct, and the moderate/ restrictive entheogen theory of religion impede, not assist, my project.
To collect maximum data for MY hypothesis/ proposal, I need a generous net cast, not restrictive.
Motivation for Ruck’s entheogen scholarship: Construct a Prohibition Barrier Identity
The Motivation and Project Objective of the Ruck School: Construct a Prohibition Barrier to Restrict Our Entheogens to the Counterculture, and Self-Aggrandize by Pushing the Narrative of How Bad the Church Is
The Ruck paradigm is Prohibition-enabling, Prohibition-amenable, and does NOTHING to strategically repeal Psilocybin prohibition.
The purpose of Ruck’s Restrictive entheogen theory of religion is to identify with and cheerlead for the “heretical sects”.
Bennett covers this point, at “Catholics were suppressing …”
Up to this point, the Browns have been claiming evidence of mushrooms in medieval Catholic Churches and holding the view these were Catholic secrets, however here they refer to the Gnostic sects the Catholics were suppressing.
…
As with Allegro and Wasson, the Brown’s are ready to flip flop [silently expanding or contracting their hypothesized presence or absence of entheogens, in an inconsistent, self-contradictory way] whenever it suits their presentation.
Bennett, The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
Bennett points out how Brown, by overemphasizing the “Secret” explanatory hypothesis, waffles and contradicts themselves.
🧇👨🍳 🍄 🚫🍄
Actually, Ruck is the wafflemaster 🧇👨🍳 here, striving to get high by telling his narrative that the big bad church eliminated entheogens, AND the Christian counterculture (or later Ruck says a few elites) had entheogens everywhere (but only a few, the initiates, knew the secret).
I reject the Ruck project of laboring to construct restrictive internal walls and barriers inside the whole inclusive group of all Christians.
My project requires simply asserting the presence of entheogens within Christianity, anywhere, regardless of imagined internal divisions and barriers.
It DOESN’T MATTER, among which Christians there were or were not entheogens present – only that there were multiple instances of entheogens present, used by some Christians of whatever type.
It is not a needed, expected, useful, helpful, or clarifying explanatory construct/ hypothesis, trying to limit and identify the boundary line within Christianity.
But constructing that barrier wall is the main motivation for the Ruck approach: to cheerlead for the imagined ancient counterculture, requiring Ruck’s perpetuating Prohibition forever.
Against the Assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in Antiquity
Reading religious myth and alchemy esotericism and medieval bestiary (w religious images) as if the genre & suitable effective interpretation mode is Literal-type writing & art.
The actual genre is analogies describing Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with dependent, 2-level control, contrasted against Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism with autonomous control.
The ultimate purpose of the religious-myth genre is to describe by analogies, mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.
Not to depict a literal tree, mushroom, salamander, killing of salamander, or phoenix.
eg: Panofsky letter 2: “medieval religious artists had no reason to think of mushroom because the Bible, so far as I know, & saints stories lack mushrooms.”
Medieval artists were evidently finding tons of good reasons to think of mushrooms, including in the Bible.
People who read the Bible as Genre: {analogies depicting psychedelic eternalism}, find Amanita in Gen2-3, manna, Eze, Rev 2:7, 2:17; Rev 10; Rev 22.
“Those on the inside” recognize the genre, mode of interpretation/ communication, as analogies describing psychedelic eternalism.
re: saints stories: The “St. Eustace crossing the river” window in Chartres cathedral shows literal Cubensis.
Circular Reasoning fallacy (Assuming that which is to be Proved)
Given that Christianity doesn’t have hundreds of purposefully mushroom-looking trees, any pilzbaum cannot purposefully mean mushroom.
Both of Panofsky’s letters to Wasson rely on this fallacy.
aka Assuming that which is to be proved.
Proxy Premise
Panofsky silently takes it for granted that both sides agree that how we decide re: Plaincourault (affirm or deny) must apply to all pilzbaum.
If Plaincourault purposefully means mushroom, then all pilzbaum must also purposefully mean mushrooms.
No need to debate the hundreds of pilzbaum; as Hatsis (denier) wrote – and no affirmer agrees – “the entire pilzbaum debate stands or falls with Plaincourault; no need to examine any other pilzbaum.”
eg both armies in a battle agree to become slaves to the other if their best soldier loses in a proxy 1-on-1 fight, instead of everyone getting harmed in battle.
5 Things Censored in Panofsky by Deceiver Wasson, Lying by Omission
Brinckmann citation 1.
A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom
A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap
Letter 2.
Brinckmann citation 2.
Voice rec’d VOX_TK_6220.wav Nov 19 2024 6:47 am, not published
17:00 – 5 items Wasson censored. Identified the 3 questions of what pages of Brinckmann asserts things for Erwin Panofsky to use him to deny that pilzbaum purposes mushroom.
Mushrooms have branching, and especially non branching – in their effects.
27:00 tree of life produces 12 fruits + healing leaves = 13 entheogens. Not just Amanita per Clark Heinrich, or cannabis-only per Chris Bennett with “12 uses”.
Text-First Fallacy: Text or It Didn’t Happen
Pics or it didn’t happen. Here, the demand is: Text or it didn’t happen.
Art interpretation basic principle: Artists are independent from the accompanying text.
What about pilzbaum?
That’s a special case. It’s reversed evidence-types, in this case. Artist is slave to the text, serving to illustrate the text as literalistically as possible.
Scholars Huggins and Hatsis are used to approaching texts, not visual messaging.
They expect that artists, too, approach communication via text first. Art explains the nain thing, text.
Illustrate what the text says, to help users/ viewers/ “the reader” to understand the real thing, the text.
Pictures exist to serve the text, they wrongly assume.
In fact the artists have an independent agenda/ purpose.
The purpose of the picture is to express Transcendent Knowledge, psychedelic eternalism, not to serve the text.
The referent of the text is psychedelic eternalism.
The referent of the art is psychedelic eternalism – not the text, as Huggins assumes.
The art’s purpose is to serve to describe psychedelic eternalism, not to serve illustrating the text, as Huggins wrongly assumes.
Art was a first-class primary communication medium.
Huggins tries to demote the art to a mere 2nd-class communication medium, reflecting his bias as a modern-era scholar who assumes a text-first, illustration-second approach.
Kettle Logic
Presenting a set of arguments that contradict each other.
Panofsky letter 2 sentences 1-3:
“Maybe medieval witches in France used Amanita TO INDUCE ECSTASY.”
Panofsky letter 2 sentences 7-8:
“Religious medieval art had LITTLE REASON TO THINK OF MUSHROOMS at all [because] they do not occur in the Bible, … nor in the legends of the saints.”
What the artists were actually thinking about in this genre is not mushrooms.
Art’s message is not mushrooms, but rather, psychedelic eternalism induced by mushrooms.
Mis-Reading Non-Naturalistic Art by the Rules of Naturalistic Art
Vagueness & Self-Contradiction Supporting the Motte and Bailey Fallacy: Pilzbaum don’t “look like” Mushrooms
Branching stylization does not “rule out” purposeful mushroom imagery.
Art historians call them & describe them as pilzbaum, contradicting any vague claim that “the branching features makes pilzbaum not look like a mushroom.”
Captain Obvious: Pilzbaum have tree features in addition to mushroom features. Therefore a pilzbaum doesn’t look like a mushroom.”
Retort: Then it doesn’t look like a tree, either, by the same reasoning. Which would “rule out” a tree.
“This can’t be Amanita, because the dots are in neat rows (in this crude art).”
the image in the Fresco is a poorly drawn tree. Unlike a mushroom, it has branches, even three going up to the top portion of the tree, and the serpent holding the traditional apple is woven between then, which would rule out the single stem of a mushroom.
Although there are dots on the image, as with the white dots of the amanita muscaria, unlike the mushroom, where the white dots appear sporadically, on the tree these are structured neatly in rows, and there are lines indicating overlaying layers of growth. There is also an apple depicted on the right in the serpent’s mouth.
What this image is, is in fact evidence of how much things had fallen in the centuries known in the Dark Ages, and the skills of pre Christian art were largely lost, as were many other aspects of civilization and culture…. Child like art.
The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels, By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
(typos in the original)
This genre of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs represents more profound knowledge than smug, self-satisfied, hubristic, “those on the outside”, know-nothing, Modern commenters.
Deniers like Panofsky are eager to smear and dehumanize the artists they presume to study, to try to uphold their denial.
Bennett changes the topic to dumping on the big bad church, a hobbyhorse that is more important to most entheogen scholars than their Secret Amanita obsession and framing that they imprison their thinking in.
The Physical Threat fallacy: I am going to have those who believe this bullsh!t crying in a corner
Farewell to Reason Paul Feyerabend’s book Farewell to Reason, chapter “Progress in Philosophy, the Sciences and the Arts”, section “Progress in the Arts ” pp. 148-153, discusses advantages of diagrammatic non-naturalistic style to describe and depict things of the highest order, superior to the Naturalistic style, which is reductionistic, like Huggins’ 2024 article against mushroom-trees.
Brown article against Hatsis at Hancock site: Christianity’s Psychedelic History: Reply to Thomas Hatsis’ Review of The Psychedelic Gospels Jerry Brown 24th February 2022 https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/
Huggins Bets Everything on the Branches in Day 3 of Creation, Loses Everything
[4:20 p.m. August 22, 2025] Mobile phone screenshots. First, turgid paragraph is summarized in chat post. I just caught (secured) the big fish been hunting.
Last night (i think I was recording) voice recording — analogy created:
It’s one thing to have a fish on your line in the water; but it’s quite another thing to have the fish actually secured in a bucket on your boat.
context last night of that analogy:
dates timeline research, hazy question, When did I “figure out” branching – printout 7-9 of my church short article, dates years: candidates:
2xxx – figured out x.
2xxx – figured out x.
2xxx – figured out x.
The PMT’s fanciful interpretations have provided us with an opportunity in this article to reflect in a positive way, using as our entry point one of the most exquisite 13th century examples, upon the range of artistic solutions to the problem of illustrating the hexameron in the 11th–13th centuries, and especially the third day of creation (Genesis 1:9–13). The imagery of the third-day scene specifically features the creation of trees, making way for us to explore how stylized trees were commonly approached by the artists of the period. Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted [sic.; opposite: censored, Wasson, SOMA, p. 180] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work recommended by Panofsky in his letters [with an 🚨‘s’?!!🚨 one letter entirely censored by Wasson, the other heavily censored; both letters strongly recommending Brinc., & both citations of Brinc. censored by Wasson] to Wasson back in 1952.
HUGGINS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WORD “NOTED” MEANS, GIVEN THAT THESE WERE CENSORED TO HELL BY WASSON THE ACADEMIC FRAUD, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH P 180 SOMA IN WHICH HE INSULTS AND CHIDES MYCOLOSITTS (AFFIRMERS OF mushroom imagery in Christian art) FOR FAILING TO “CONSULT” – WHATEVER THAT’S SUPPOSED TO MEAN — THE ART AUTHORITIES? phone ’em up because per Huggins & Wasson, the authories never thought about trees or mushrooms, and are expert on “related topics”.
Duplicitous lying rhetoric written by the Devil himself. For Wasson, “consult” means censor. For Huggins, “branches” means mushrooms (one mushroom coming from left base of main mushroom stem; one right).
Liberty Cap Tree in Day 3 (Creation of Trees and Fruit) Connects with Tree of Knowledge Below It
The various Liberty Cap caps have, on each tree in cap grid:
L/R branches & fruit – tree of knowledge f11 Row 3 right.
L/R branches, no fruit
L/R fruit, no branches – red disks
The richest instance — tree of knowledge — sets the detail pattern
at 8:24 p.m. August 22, 2025 at the big scale, day 3 Liberty Cap sets the pattern so you clearly see L/R branch and fruit.
At small scale, tree of knowledge sets the pattern: each Liberty Cap tree within each grid-cap, is to be read as having the detail that the tree of knowledge has: L/R branch & L/R fruit.
At big scale, Day 3 (creation of trees & fruit)
You can’t reason, in orderly way, from Huggins confusion, — working from his garbled args — to reach truth.
Disproving Huggins’ Arguments by Starting from the Successful Decoding
It’s impracticable to try to start from Huggins’ mess, confusion & garble, and then proceed from there to the solution.
Rather, follow Hoffman’s independent analysis to find the solution, then after done decoding and established Eadwine’s solution, go back afterwards to the Hugs trainwreck and explain how he got it so f’d up and mangled in a knot of futility.
You (efficiently/ viably) must start with truth (elegant, coherent) – which only I am capable of decoding to give the intended Eadwine’s intended system – and when you locked onto that elegant system, then, you can explain where Huggins goes wrong at every turn.
Grok Fruit (L & R) in place of L & R branches, in Great Canterbury Psalter
The L & R Fruit Is the Message of Knowledge of Good and Bad, Stable and Unstable Control on Psilocybin
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
The fruit in f11 is the comprehension of the two models.
L vs R branch; L = branching and R = non-branching – that is the fruit; then show a fruit on L and a fruit on R. 5:59 p.m. August 22, 2025] chills, just a coincidence from suddnly noticing the AC: i am thinking [highly] of f11 tree of knowledge zoom on their eyes and hands and looking-lines and msiles of smiles of confirmation
Her L hand fruit held = branching . HER R HAND FRUIT HELD AT THE SNAKE; = WORLDLINE FROZEN IN ROCK BRINGS YOU THE SACRAMENT.
As already decoded, they look at the L and R fruit.
In the topmost mushroom, what do they look at?
the topmost = most special mushroom in the grid.
Huggins’ arg WOULD say that, of these inner trees with arms/fruit, or, each L / R branch “holds” or “has” a fruit. each L branch “holds” a fruit, each R branch “holds” a fruit. Each inner mushroom-tree has a L branch-and-fruit, and a R branch-and-fruit.
map L branch/fruit to branching map R branch/fruit to non-branching
grasping the contrast between the branching vs non-branching model of control and possibility = holding a fruit in L hand and in your R hand.
isomorphic: each inner tree holds a fruit in L branch & R each inner tree holds a fruit in L branch & R
possibility pssy
The Teaching Tree of Knowledge Detailed in Great Canterbury Psalter Under Day 3: Creation of Trees.
land vs. water. seed-fruit–trees fruit herbs veg’n
stars, days & years; celestial calendar, sun (light), moon (light), stars,
water creatures, birds,
land animals, man. food: man & animals [water sky land] may eat seed plants/ tree/fruit.
missed, day 3 6:33 p.m. August 22, 2025 – yes day 3 plant 1 & 2 are boring, but, they SERVE TO ESTABLISH LEFT VS RIGHT, L BRANCH VS R BR, AND L FRUIT VS R FRUIT. Looping around.
Plant 1 & 2: they carry the focus on L vs R (not “fruit” yet) wait YES they are FRUIT BECAUSE IT’S DAY 3: CREATION OF FRUIT TREES. 6:36 p.m. August 22, 2025 — thus the L stem-ball and the R stem-ball are = fruit, as held below two rows below in Row R tree of knowledge — Eve holds L fruit in L armhand, R in right. L & R branches = L & R fruits = L & R arms = comprehension of [branching vs. non-br] = hold fruit in both hands = the L fruit growing on the L branch & the R on R. 6:38 p.m. August 22, 2025
The L & R Fruit (Comprehension) of the Tree of the Knowledge of L Evil Branching and R Good Non-Branching
Also, “fruit therefore tree” – no. tree of knowledge grid and many others have exactly two fruit, in place of the two “branches” a left and right fruit instead of left 5:51 pm a.m. August 22, 2025] L & R branches.
3 in f11 row 2 left (Day 4): Panaeolus pointing at left pan of balance scale
“But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”
No trace of ramification (branches), so fails to meet Panofsky’s definition of pilzbaum, so, DOESN’T COUNT:
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Jan. 2025 hi-res.
Proof that Day 1 Creation of Light Scale Balance Bowls Contain Mushrooms
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman
Funniest point:
Each of the plants in the third-day scene also has branches. The mushrooms the PMTs wish to identify them with, however, do not.
Ronald Huggins, “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”, p. 17
Has branches — that look like mushrooms.
Day 3, Plant 2: Right Branch
Crop by Michael Hoffman
The branches that look like mushrooms make this tree not look like mushrooms.
Artists classify this as a tree that looks like mushrooms.
Wasson: “For convenience in discussion” – WHAT A LAUGH, AS IF ART HISTORIANS EVER DICUSS… WHERE IS THIS ALLEGED “DISCUSSION”? THERE
Who are these artists who are discussing pilzbaum and where are they discussing pilzbaum?
Mushrooms don’t have anything that looks like a tangle of branches under the tree crown.
The Psilocybin Mushroom Bible (2024 edition), Dr. K. Mandrake PhD, Virginia Haze
Outline: The 8 Sections of the Article and What Topics in Each
Bare TOC [don’t change]
Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Trusted sources?
3. The Great Canterbury Psalter: Jesus blessing a bowl of mushrooms?
4. Fleshing out the problem from the perspective of iconography
3. Schematized Trees (2nd “3.”)
5. Moving forward
6. Freedom facilitated by structure
7. Multiplying interpretive errors
8. Conclusion
Bibliography
List of Figures
Imprint
Sections for Commentary, & List of Topics per Section
Quotes from Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article here are condensed by Michael Hoffman.
See that article for exact quotes, to see just how confused, blundering, misinterpreting, and implausible the “reasoning” from Letcher Hatsis Huggins – a gallery of obvious logical fallacies, but more strikingly, these scribblers are notable for their astronishingly bizarre instances of obvious logical fallacies.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are of poor, low moral character, having to resort to censorship, argument from authority, false attributions, deception, name-calling, insults, threatening, strawmanning (even dictating the opponent’s position), moving the goalposts, and other commonplace logical fallacies, invention such as MAKING SHIT UP such as “parasols of victory”, to give the most flimsy possible token excuses to wave aside each isolated piece of evidence, while lacking any theory to make their kettle logic cohere.
The sour song of the Committed Skeptic:
If mushroom imagery is hidden, DOESN’T COUNT.
If mushroom imagery is explicit, DOESN’T COUNT.
If mushroom imagery has branches, DOESN’T COUNT.
If mushroom imagery lacks branches, DOESN’T COUNT.
If the evidence is in art, DOESN’T COUNT.
Here’s another claimed instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art, but [fill in random token ad-hoc made-up on-the-spot excuse], so, DOESN’T COUNT.
If [any case], DOESN’T COUNT.
ARTICLE SECTIONS OUTLINE
Abstract [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
“Some scholars and popular writers claim images of mushrooms hidden [NO, FALSE! LIAR! not necessarily “hidden” – I caught Letcher LYING about this meta-claim ] – in (mostly) medieval Christian art.
Psychedelic therapy and spirituality has focused on doing more credible work than 1960s.
The interpretations of these writers seeping unchallenged into mainstream scholarship.”
The ignorant, blundering errors and fallacious argumentation of the deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art — committed skeptics — has,
Unfortunately, the misinterpretations of these misguided and tone-deaf writers who deny mushroom imagery in Christian art has been seeping unchallenged into mainstream scholarship.
Huggins continues:
“The present article singles out the scene of the third day of creation in the 12th century Great Canterbury Psalter as an occasion to analyse and counter these claims.
“This article surveys the iconography of the third creation day in European illuminated manuscripts.”
“On the 3rd day, God created trees (Genesis 1:11). entheogen scholars identify trees as mushrooms.
“This article describes medieval stylized trees.”
Entheogen scholars know 100% thoroughly well thanks to what little the censor Wasson let leak through as leads from Panofsky in 1968:
Art historians describe medieval trees as “look like mushrooms”, and there are “hundreds of instances” per Panofsky.
1. Introduction [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
“Try to be more credible than before, to have success in today’s 2024 Psychedliec Movement. We need more credible schoalrship.”
Entheogen scholars are wrong when they try to look for “mushrooms” in art; they ought to be looking for {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Looking for flexibly re-combinable elements of mushroom imagery in Christian art; typically not on the scope of whole entire literal mushroom physical shape.
Huggins uses an arbitrary scope of “whole tree”; if “whole tree” doesn’t match “whole mushroom specimen”, he says this mushroom-trees “doesn’t look like mushrooms” — even though art historians say that these DO “look like mushrooms” when art historians use their own term that they coined, “mushroom-trees”; pilzbaum.
On June 7, 2023, I announced my proposal based on indirect evidence, that Day 1’s balance scale contains Cubensis.
On Jan. 13, 2025, I announced that that hypothesis was proved based on direct evidence.
On a narrow reading, the left pan contains Panaeolus; right Amanita; on a broad reading, the two pans contain Psilocybin from Liberty Cap, Cubensis, and Panaeolus, with Amanita serving as a symbol of Psilocybin.
“June 19–23, 2023, the Denver Convention Center hosted Psychedelic Science 2023, with some 13,000 in attendance, touted as the “largest psychedelic conference in history.”8
“Discussion of the relation of spirituality to psychedelics also occurred at the American Academy of Religion’s November 2022 annual meeting in Denver that featured papers on the subject in the units:
New Religious Movements
Contemplative Studies
Cognitive Science of Religion”
Cognitive Neuroscience of Religion is worthless junk: it takes the most boring form of shallow, exoteric, ordinary-state religion, and covers it in the most boring way possible. REJECT.
The field needs to try again, with a 10-strip of blotter this time, for Christ’s sake.
Spirituality Without Psychedelics Is Bunk
Per the maximal entheogen theory of religion, I firmly reject all noises of compromise like claiming that pigs can/ could/ might/ may fly.
Pigs can fly, but pigs DON’T fly, so this is a totally worthless, empty, tin “can”.
I am destroying 1997 Past Me, for writing in outline, various ways to access loose cognitive association binding.
The only “various ways” are the 300 species of Psilocybin mushrooms.
Past-Me, a Limp-Wristed Compromiser Sellout, Screwed Up, Wussed-Out, and Allowed a Gap for Aggressive Present Me to Slip in and Be More Extreme – Don’t Allow That
NO ADVOCATE MORE ARDENT Than Cybermonk
Non-drug make-believe “spirituality” or “meditation” or “mysticism” is phony, purely an avoidance strategy to avoid the only means (ie, Golden Teacher) by which we are transformed from possibilism to eternalism.
Huggins continues:
“The 2023 annual meeting of the Academy saw the introduction of a new Drugs and Religion unit chaired by scholars from Stanford and Emory University.”
2. Trusted sources? [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
3. The Great Canterbury Psalter: Jesus blessing a bowl of mushrooms? [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
4. Fleshing out the problem from the perspective of iconography [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
3. Schematized Trees [section in “Foraging Wrong”] (2nd “3.”)
Error: supposed to be 5., and increase subseq. numbering
Freedom facilitated by structure [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
Remember, the rules of non-realism art interpretation have a special-case exception for pilzbaum or other mushroom imagery in Christian art.
In the special case of mushroom imagery in Christian art, artists have no freedom, no intentionality, are helpless slaves of the “prototypes”, have no initiative, send no message.
Non-realism art is to be judged by standards of realism art – in this special-case topic, only.
An image in art can only have a single meaning, and that is the non-mushroom meaning (in this special case, only, of mushroom imagery in Christian art).
The special pleading fallacy.
Multiplying interpretive errors [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
Conclusion [section in “Foraging Wrong”]
END OF ARTICLE SECTIONS OUTLINE
How to Fail at Arbitrary Argumentation that Can Readily Be Countered by the Exact Opposite Argumentation
PMTs = psychedelic mushroom theorists; pilzbaum affirmers; affirmers of mushrooms in Christian art.
Each of the plants in the third-day scene has branches — branches that look like actual mushrooms.
The actual mushrooms that the PMTs wish to identify these pilzbaum with do not have branches, but they look like the branches that this image has.
Coherently, intelligently using this image to prove purposeful mushroom imagery:
The branches in this image look like the actual mushrooms that pilzbaum affirmers wish to identify these pilzbaum images with.
HEY HUGGINS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU:
YOU MENTION “Each of the plants in the third-day scene also has branches” AS AN ARGUMENT WHY PILZBAUM DON’T LOOK LIKE MUSHROOMS.
PRAY TELL, WHAT DO THOSE BRANCHES LOOK LIKE? [ANSWER: MUSHROOMS]
Huggins covers the right, relevant scholars & materials, state of the non-debate.
pilzbaum are either a tree or a mushroom, and cannot be a mushroom, bc per Panofsky’s argument based on {branching} motif features (while failing to perceive non-branching, eg {cut right trunk/ branch}).
In fact, the artists were messaging “psychedelic eternalism”, via branching mushroom imagery, to make viewers interpret the entire image (& genre, & religious myth overall) as analogies describing the psychedelic-state experience of non-branching, and showing how to re-train personal control by affirming non-branching ie eternalism.
That is WHY, the PURPOSE, artists depicted both mushroom imagery components and/ along with/ integrated with branching – and, non-branching, eg cut right trunk, meaningless to Panofsky/ Hatsis / Huggins, the reductionist literalists, “those on the outside”, tone deaf to meaning and the altered-state referent.
These deniers have no argument, just a wall of painfully (puzzlingly) obvious logical fallacies. What are they thinking/ assuming but not saying?
See Brown revealing Hatsis’ confusion, at Graham Hancock site.
The Deniers put forth half-expressed arguments that aren’t designed to endure any pushback; their argumenrs fall over with the slightest breeze of pushback, in a 2-way actual debate.
Why do the deniers not care at all about making good arguments?
It is exhausting, trying to decipher their muddled confusion underlying their garbled half-argumentation.
They start by assuming that which is to be proved, and then proceed to pile every logical fallacy on that soggy foundation, all downhill from there.
HIDDEN BY VILLAIN WASSON, REVEALED BY HERO BROWN
It is annoying how Huggins pretends we have had Panofsky’s 2nd 1952 letter, with the branching argument that Huggins copypastes, since the book Soma in 1968.
We only have the letter and its branches argument thanks to Brown in 2019.
No thanks to obstructionist Wasson, who tried to hide & censor Panofsky’s leads to discourage people from looking into mushroom trees.
Wasson knew Brinckmann’s 1906 book did nothing to help Panofsky’s denial, and sipported mushroom tree asserters instead.
So Wasson censored both recommendations of Brinkmann’s book, and kept secret that Panofsky included two pictures of mushroom trees.
“The text under the picture proves that THE MAN IS TRYING TO KILL THE SALAMANDER.
“Wouter Hanegraaff and I discussed this, and we can’t figure out why the salamander is replaced by a phoenix. No idea. We got nothin.”
🖼️🔍🧐🤔🤷♂️❓
Huggins’ theory of art interpretation:
The accompanying text, read literally, dictates what the artist meant.
Voice Recording VOX_TK_6226.wav
.wav file not published as of Dec 21 2024.
40:00 Eadwine is the ultimate psychonaut. Highly committed to Cubensis. He delicts the Cubensis lecturer. Avoidance factor: optimized to get you to stare at loss of control.
45:00 nice discuss Panofsky letter 2
leg hanging mushroom tree,
handedness 55:00.
0:00 Devil plot harlot amanita the scarlet harlot – Scarlet the Harlot, Agent Devil, the devil spread this junk Amanita everywhere, thus low-grade , deliriant Amanita. main effect: makes you sweat. pseudo fake entheogens like mdma, dud The tree(s) of life has 12 fruits, every month, not just 1. if it had one fruit, tgat ought to be cubensis, is most relevant, the real, high inspired source. THE TRUE KING OF entheogens – not Amanita, the pretty poser
16:00– double letter game;, either the solution hard, or a simple trick , once u know solution: branching vs non-br peak pinnacle god level enlightenment: br v non-br . solves this genre which here literally is a teaching puzzle, an elaborate detailed explanation. Eadwine ismost advanced devmt of the genre.
21:00 Amanita trap, Devil low grade substitute, slread all over by the Devil to give opl the lowesr poss grade of esoteric enl ightmt masked in confusion and fog barely visible awareness of Transcendent Knowledge almost expressed by accident, slchemy so extremely overgrown that it carries Transcendent Knowledge analogies but they are not visible … signal noise, have to know the crucial main theme.
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
the common lang of the time, Dark Ages knew about branching.
weight on l vs r foot. to refer to two models of control in world.
“His weight is on which foot?”
25:00 texts were rare. pictures were commonly read.
Huggins = “those on the outside”
Huggins is the voice of “those on the outside”
Why make the accompanying text drive art interpretation in this era where art>text. As Huggins reading texts out of genre, wrong intero fwk: litist reductionism applied to mis interp pic, spewing tge “those on the outside” view.
takeaway: 30:11 — look for {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
a narrow genre, most important – mushroom trees.
36:00 Heinrich deletes Psilocybin mushrooms 🗑️ by misreading REV 22 tree of life as producing 1 fruit: amanita only, not Cubensis.
Heinrich in Rev 22: 🥾🍄🟫
The Tree of Life produces 12 fruits every month, not just 1.
Cubensis is king, for actual ego death, not Amanita.
🥾🍄
I Own the Cubensis Single-Plant Fallacy, I Settled for #1
I own the psilocybin-containing mushrooms single-plant fallacy.
300 species
Saying the word “Cubensis” to include liberty cap & panaeolus: a Cubensis-first framework, precedent: Amanita.
Cubensis Eliteness
Cubensis-first
Cubensis is the best western esotericism engine, not popular (because it works), but the loftiest: psychedelic eternalism
we across history are a minority, favoring cubes the real deal, not ac substitute thats ego-compatible/ innocuous 🍄
we are the best/ highest/ on-point
Innocuous to the steersman ego 🍄
Fatal to the steersman ego 🍄🟫
The Cubensis eternalism transformation effect
Amanita is a false idol placed by the Devil who spread Amanita everywhere, as a decoy to keep you from knowledge of God.
🍄 🚫🤔
Amanita has always been popular, because it doesnt die/ fail ; it doesn’t pointedly cause ego death.
Amanita is popular BECAUSE it DOESN’T produce ego death.
Cubensis was unpopular in psychedelics history bc it works to target the interesting thought-source vulnerability, achilles heel, ego’s kryptonite.
Why does superman avoid specifically krootonite?
psil is the one thing that effectively kills/ targets/ aims straight for the egoic agency thought-source, an uncontrollable fountain given.
Ego death is Cubensis’ central effect; no other entheogen so focused. the evidence i have in Great Canterbury Psalter happens to be cube and awesome; it is successful bc based on specifically Cube.
Cube good enough for Eadwine, good enough to keep using cube as the main point of reference for the mytheme theory; Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level control
Cube is highly studied, psil & cube; the most relevant psil, Cube. synonymous; Cube is representative of relatively irrelevant lib cap. cube popular, lib cap not
Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
Comment about page “Book: The Witches’ Ointment”, at page “Mushrooms in Christian art discussed by Tom Hatsis and Jerry Brown at Graham Hancock’s site”
I wanted to put the following Comment on the older page https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/book-the-witches-ointment/, but there’s no Comment field there anymore. So I’m commenting at page Mushrooms in Christian art discussed by Tom Hatsis and Jerry Brown at Graham Hancock’s site
Andy Letcher, Thomas Hatsis, and Ronald Huggins write with the same voice and tone and argumentation style: the pilzbaum denial voice.
Brinckmann 1906 is a different case; he lacked the concept of “taboo psychoactive mushrooms as asserted by Allegro” – maybe in a limited sense, Brinckmann 1906 can be considered pilzbaum Denier, but he didn’t really have that concept and context.
That research has yet to be done: see if and where Brinckmann gives the evidence and argumentation that Panofsky claims is in that 1906 book.
Based on my study so far, I assume Brinckmann’s book support the pilzbaum Affirmers, not the pilzbaum Deniers.
Same with Panofsky’s two pilzbaum pictures that were attached to the first letter to Wasson.
At his “Witches Ointment” page, Cyberdisciple identified the question of whether Letcher and Hatsis are the same position as pilzbaum Deniers:
“Hatsis … website includes … debunking of … mushrooms in Christian religious iconography.
“The debunking seems to be in the style of Andy Letcher’s Shroom, which debunks the Wasson-Allegro-McKenna mushroom theory of the origins of religion.
“I intend to see whether Hatsis shares those limitations and can be grouped with Letcher or should be considered an independent position.“
Add Ronald Huggins, who wrote the “Dizzy” article in 2022, about Salamander bestiary aka Dancing Man, and wrote the “Foraging Wrong” article about Great Canterbury Psalter images in 2024.
Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins write with the same voice and tone and argumentation style: the pilzbaum Denier voice.
Challenge: differentiate Letcher vs. Hatsis vs. Huggins.
Huggins also acts as copy machine copy/pasting Panofsky’s argument from branches, from Panofsky’s 2nd letter, which we only had since 2019.
How to engage bad-attitude scholars
Cyberdisciple advises to stay focused on ideas and avoid argument from ad hominem; character-based argumentation based on “that scholar has poor character”:
I want Huggins to say where and how he found the two 1957 Panofsky letters and the Brinckmann citation, given that Wasson since 1968 censored them.
Huggins’ usage of these documents smells sleazy and dishonorable.
Huggins’ article contributes in the usual half-baked way for pilzbaum Deniers:
“Pilzbaum can’t be mushrooms, because pilzbaum have branches” — which look like mushrooms.
Huggins acts ignorant (“I had no idea I’m the only one who is aware of Panosky’s two letters and his Brinckmann citation”).
Either Huggins is unbelievably ignorant of the sordid state of the literature until Brown 2019, or, Huggins is dishonorably participating in a cover-up of Wasson’s egregious censorship and self-contradiction.
Wasson in SOMAsays to “consult”, while in the very same breath, actively censoring and suppressing the Brinckmann citation – thereby dishonestly, covertly switching the meaning of “consult” away from “consult academics’ publications” to “consult academics personally”.
The Huggins articles about mushrooms in Christian art serve largely as a literature review.
The overwhelmingly notable thing about Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article, totally overshadowing any content and argumentation, is Huggins’ extremely strange usage of Brinckmann’s book 1906, and of Panofsky’s second article.
Huggins acts like there is nothing amiss here.
Huggins acts as if he is covering-up for Wasson’s censorship of the deniers’ lone, “little”, scholarly publication.
Huggins cites Browns’ book 2016, but omits Brown 2019 article that presents and reveals the two Panofsky letters.
Huggins cites the Panofsky letters in a footnote, but not in his Bibliography.
Huggins mentions Brinckmann’s book and chastises the reader in his Conclusion section:
“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.”
Huggins provides the usual poor quality argumentation, as bizarre, convoluted, strained, and malformed, as is standard for pilzbaum Deniers:
“Panofsky [2nd 1952 letter than Wasson censored] provided a starting point … for determining … trees or mushrooms: (1) If it has branches, or … it is a tree not a mushroom [false dilemma fallacy], (2) If it has indications of layers of foliage … it is a tree not a mushroom, and (3) If it has fruit it is a tree not a mushroom …
“These three criteria rule out all the … alleged examples of trees representing psychedelic mushrooms in medieval art that this author [Huggins] has encountered in his extensive survey of their materials.”
“Extensive”, except omits my 2006 Plainc. article, and doesn’t cite Brown 2019.
Huggins fails to point out the hugest factor, that entheogen scholars weren’t given this Brinckmann citation until Brown exposed Wasson’s academic deception in 2019 by publishing both Panofsky letters.
Strangely, adding suspicion, the Bibliography of Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article omits Brinckmann (as well as Panofsky’s letters), and only mentions him in the article body.
The giant elephant in the room is that Wasson censored some five things, including:
The Brinckmann citation, in the same SOMA 1968 paragraph that Wasson insulted mycologists/ pilzbaum affirmers and berated them for failing to “consult”(??) art historians – while just 6 lines above, censoring the double-strong citation of Brinckmann provided by Panofsky to Wasson 1952 and shown only in highly censored form by Wasson in SOMA 1968.
See Also
Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art (Huggins, 2022) Dizzy, Dancing, or Dying? (Huggins 2022)
2nd-Rate Secret Amanita and Pop Physics Garbled Mysticism Is the Fault of Bible and Ancient Culture Not Just 20th Century Reduction
Secret Amanita and Pop Physics Garbled Mysticism Was Created by Bible and Ancient Culture not Ruck and Capra
I’m taking a look at Paul Feyerabend’s chapter in the book Farewell to Reason, critiquing Popper re Quantum Physics.
I an formulating a relatable explanatory version of eternalism-based psychedelic mysticism theory, that revolutionizes entheogen scholarship and stands on my own separate independent basis, yet also relates to world religious myth and the history of Western Esotericism, Christianity, and historical pop mysticism.
By far the most effective and efficient way of actual transformation/ initiation, is the theory of psychedelic eternalism based mysticism ie Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level control, that is clearly related to (co-explained with) historical muddled mysticism and mixed-bag religious myth – the overgrowth obscuring the underlying trellis structure; poor signal/ noise ratio.
Like my 2007 main article expanded on my 1997 core-theory outline summary (and included awesome art, decoded by 2022, not 2007).
Re: correcting entheogen scholarship, I’m doing like my rejection of writings on Mysticism as garbled poor thinking + poor writing (like the “Moving Past Mysticism” article in the Psychedelic Science field).
i am not only criticizing and surpassing the Carl “Amanita Promoter” Ruck school, I am criticizing the ancients for their Amanita-based murky half-enlightenment.
Me in 1986: “We can do better and think & write more clearly” – a Modern improvement, I determined to create.
Me in 1987: omg, Quantum Physics is eager regression into foggy magic thinking (I pushed back against professor in the classroom).
I loved Minkowski block spacetime, I immediately built my explanation of mystic transformation in terms of the psychedelic (loose cognition) experience of Minkowski block spacetime.
I equally hated QM, the opposite of that clarity that was previously developed for the theory of Invariance/ Relativity.
QM was created and embraced precisely BECAUSE Minkowski’s block spacetime so effectively and clearly insulted ego-power to death. I thus study the Psychology of QM.
My Modern Physics professor suggested books, but I found books agreeing with me against the Pop Physics spirituality & overhasty embrace of QM ~1925, criticized by James T. Cushing’s two books.
I am rejecting ancient Pop Secret Amanita spirituality – Carl Ruck didn’t invent that in 1975; the ancients themselves were too muddle-headed and overemphasized 2nd rate Amanita, and perverse obfuscation in writing.
The smartest ancients used explicit psilocybin mushrooms, such as Explicit Cubensis, instead of Secret Amanita.
Eadwine (art director of the Great Canterbury Psalter) agrees with me, in striving for clear communication about psychedelic eternalism high-powered mystic-state transformation.
I am allying with Eadwine’s crowd, the mushroom tree artists, against the low-grade pop mystics throughout history.
I am allied with the mushroom tree artists, against the Secret Amanita mystery inititates.
Eadwine and I are anti-mystery, other than the real “hidden mystery” that is the egoic childish immature initial possibilism-thinking that is meant to be revealed and explained forthrightly by clear-thinking, clear-speaking mature adults, like a modern, Cognitive Science STEM textbook, not baffling poetry revelling in secrecy and obfuscation a la (most of) the ancients’ perverse Secret Amanita paradigm.
We are the big-brain minority voice running throughout history, our distinct tradition of Explicit Cubensis depiction of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level (dependent) control, transformed away from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism with autonomous control.
Eadwine and I — the minority, yet more important school — are dedicated to clear communication, like Saint Martin painter and the window artist of “St Eustace Crossing the River”, both Eadwine (Great Canterbury Psalter f134, f145, f177) & St Eustace window showing botanical explicit Cubensis.
I bring my core theory (psychedelic eternalism) & the mytheme theory, to serve as the voice of the mushroom tree artists, explaining their synthesis of {mushroom} and {non/branching} motifs to Panofsky/ Hatsis/ Huggins, along with {handedness} and {stability} motifs, as well as the {mushroom hem} & John Rush’s {celestial erection} motifs.
I critique ancient mysticism and its obfuscationism, by applying my core theory + the mytheme theory, to critique their garbled expressions of psychedelic eternalism, and their overuse of 2nd-rate Secret Amanita instead of 1st-rate Explicit Cubensis.
My role/ strategy/ labor/ project is to shape my core theory (Psychedelic Eternalism with 2-level control) so as to clarify the mythic muddle that the ancients delivered to us, by leveraging Eadwine, my twin and ally.
Late Antiquity rebelled against their Early Antiquity grandparents’ psychedelic eternalism as a “prison” to escape, by reworking and re-focusing their myth and Mystery initiation technology & narrative emphasis. T
Late Antiquity inverted & reworked the old, received Heimarmene-initiation narrative, as April McConick says was the Gnostics’ deliberate, strategic, rebellious inversions of received religious myth.
Unfortunately most bible & art is low-grade Amanita, but should’ve been 1st-rate psil msh instead.
Eadwine (art director of the Great Canterbury Psalter) agrees with me on this: explicit Cubensis eternalism is extremely efficient; red Amanita is just a symbol, as Dale Pendell says.
Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.
Dale Pendell, Pharmako Gnosis: Plant Teachers, first sentence of chapter “The World’s Most Famous Mushroom”
See Also
Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
VOX_TK_6232.wav; Nov. 22, 2024; 8:12 am 1000 MB 1:33:18
VOX_TK_6233.wav; Nov. 22, 2024; 9:52 am 57 MB
VOX_TK_6234.wav; Nov. 22, 2024; 5:33 pm 140 MB
{snake} = worldline in frozen block universe
{snake biting its tail} = frozen block universe as a bounded region (and boundaries are for crossing, via gates)
Decoded: OUROBOROS CIRCLE, SNAKE BITING Its TAIL [10:25 am November 22, 2024] means the eternalism block universe as a bounded container; the serpent-wrapped cosmos at the top of the onion layer 8: fixed stars — with the implication of affirming & accommodating eternalism, conforming your agency model to eternalism, so as to transcend no-free-will/ fatedness.
When you exert yourself as a control agent in the intense altered state, to avoid loss of control, you must assert yourself as a virtual-only control agent; a VIRTUAL control agent, despite seeing and knowing 2-level control, that you are a helpless thought-receiver, totally vulnerable – else loss of control.
The Cosmic Serpent is the idea of the eternalism boundary of the cosmos, a boundary to cross from 8th to 9th, from the Ogdoad to the Ennead, not skipping the 8th (the no-free-will/monopossibility level), as Wouter “naive freewill thinking” Hanegraaff does by censoring the sphere of fixed stars and deceptively redefining the term “the stars” to mean only the planetary (moving) stars (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn).
Thus (in that sense), you have “transcended” eternalism/ heimarmene/ fatedness/ no-free-will/monopossibility/ non-branching of possibilities.
title key words:
Minkowski Block Universe Invariance General Relativity vs Quantum Physics
Psychedelic Eternalism vs Pop Quantum Spirituality
Saturn Gate into Heimarmene Prison vs Fixed Stars Gate into the Virtual Freewill Supercelestial Empyrian with God and the (Perfected Completed) Elect Above the Stars / Serpent that wraps / bounds the eternalism/ heimarmene block universe. fatedness-ruled
In my 1991 ink brush drawing, a snake in the block rises past outside the block, crying “Liberte!” – that figure is equivalent to the {serpent wrapped around the cosmos}, (biting its tail) which is withjn the sphere of fixed stars, at the top/ upper layer of level 8.
How to Legitimately Leave the Eternalism Block Universe – Not via Quantum Spirituality ( = Naive Freewill Thinking)
Ouroboros = block universe boundary.
To exit the eternalism domain, to leave the block universe, be so good at accepting no-free-will/monopossibility & the control-thought inserter, as a helpless puppet of God, you have viable stable control in the intense Psilocybin loosecog state.
the cosmic serpent, the block-universe serpent ruler
General Relativity vs Quantum Physics =
no-free-will vs freewill thinking
Full awareness of the block universe gives the true kind of freewill; Quantum Mechanics-based pop spirituality sustains the false kind of freewill, prevents & successfully avoids {transformation by encountering terrifying psychedelic block-universe eternalism}.
QM = the bunk way to preserve freewill thinking. vs principled, virtual-only freewill thinking.
I assert myself as a consciously virtual-only control agent, helpless puppet of God, the creator of the frozen block-universe eternalism spacetime block.
Produces stable self-control in the ASC.
Pre/Trans Fallacy: Naive Free Will vs Virtual Free Will
We return to freewill thinking/ experiencing after the peak window, AND in the intense paychedlic state of hyper awareness we are able to effectively control, like an enlightened king.
WHY do pop spiritual people embrace QM quantum physics and ignore block-universe general relativity (called ‘invariance’ by Einstein)? Because QM does not challenge & disprove freewill thinking; QM preseves ego branching power.
The pre/trans fallacy a la Ken Wilber: affirming eternalism fully amounts to transcending/ escaping the heimarmene prison, in that the personal agent is able to cope and exert itself effectively when on the peak state, without loss of control.
That is the real way in which we “transcend” no-free-will/ monopossibility.
The fake, ersatz way to try to have spiritually legit freewill delivered, is to retain untransformed naive freewill thinking by adopting QM.
QM is foggy and mind-creates-reality, “conscious” observation collapses the wave; multiverse.
Every word-choice and version of QM serves the motivation/ purpose of empowering freewill ego power, reifying possibilism-thinking.
The purpose of Schrödinger’s Cat was to reject & ridicule & disprove QM.
I’ve done the QP experiments and written up the lab reports in a 1988 university course in Modern Physics, and got the record highest score on the Relativity exam:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely because when you throw a mass at a mass to measure the position of the latter, reducing the precision.
The limited precision has zilch to do with “conscious observation”. It’s merely that the mechanics of measuring disturbs the particle.
block-universe superdeterminism solves EPR – no faster than light info is transmitted.
first, we pass through Saturn gate at top of the Saturn sphere onion layer, to move from the Seventh sphere/ onion layer to the Eighth level.
Treatise on the Ogdoad (Eighth) and the Ennead (Ninth) – and Septoad (Seventh)
Hanegraaff’s book Altered States of Knowledge has those terms. he skips from freewill thinking (demonized as “heimarmene”) at level 7 straight to the 9th level, that’s outside of level 8
sphere of fixed stars = no-free-will/monopossibility = heimarmene = serpent = serpent boundary – see Ulansey online article about snake-wrapped.
Wouter Hanegraaff leaps past level 8 (heimarmene) & deletes it on his pseudo-transformational journey from naive freewill thinking to faux transcendent virtual freewill that’s really just regressive, untransformed, developmentally stunted, naive freewill thinking.
KEEP CALM AND CONTROL ON, to exit no-free-will/ monopossibility
First, starting in the top of the Saturn layer (freewill thinking in altered state), we repeatedly partially move through the gate into level 8: the sphere of the fixed stars; heimarmene consciousness.
Eventually the mind is fully transformed to be able to maintain calm control in the peak state of awareness of vulnerability, helplessly receiving control-thoughts from the uncontrollable higher controller; the uncontrollable source of control.
At that point, we (the completed/ perfected initiate) transcend no-free-will; we have moved from the Ogdoad 8th sphere-layer through an even higher, star gate, at the top of the 8th onion-layer, into the Ennead 9th sphere-layer.
The Empyrian = fire realm, here resides God the Creator and all of the Elect.
See David Ulansey ‘s article Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun; click here.
My publications have focused on the ancient mystery religion of Mithraism. For a summary of my book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford University Press, revised paperback 1991), click here.
Those of you who have read my book in English may be interested in several important appendices that I wrote for a German translation of the book. To read these appendices in English, click here.
For information on my forthcoming book, Mysteria: The Ancient Mysteries and the Evolution of Consciousness (based on a series of lectures I presented at the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco), click here.
For my article The Mithraic Mysteries, published in Scientific American (December, 1989), click here.
For my article Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun click here.
For my article The Eighth Gate: The Mithraic Lion-Headed Figure and the Platonic World-Soul click here.
For an article of mine on cosmic symbolism in the Gospels (from the Journal of Biblical Literature) click here.
For my article Cultural Transition and Spiritual Transformation: From Alexander the Great to Cyberspace, click here.
The Standard Mapping of Cosmology to Freewill
astral ascent mysticism levels per the classical geocentric model
9-11 = virtual freewill; practical freewill thinking based in eternalism-thinking
9-11 — virtual freewill, transcendent mastery of eternalism , the Empyrian fire outside the fixed stars, with the Creator & the Elect.
8 = no-free-will; eternalism-thinking (w/o a virtual-freedom emphasis)
This is where all the action is at in psychedelic transformation: entering into here via Saturn gate, then exiting upward via God gate, savior gate, to exit the heimarmene prison.
The sphere of fixed stars includes the zodaic (animals) band of 12 out of the 45 or 88 constellations.
The constellations can be viewed from above or below eg Taurus bull facing left vs right; per David Ulansey.
The image of {sage holding celestial sphere} means transforming thinking via psychedelics, first to no-free-will/monopossibility, and then upon completing roasting and burning off for transmutating, transforming to virtual freewill thinking, in which you are able to avoid loss of control while in the peak mystic state.
1-7 = freewill; naive freewill thinking
1-7 — naive freewill [thinking].
the planetary spheres: moon mercury venus sun mars jupiter, & especially SATURN (where is the sacrificing of the pleading/ praying child).
Sphere level 7 is Saturn.
The important Saturn gate is at the top of the Saturn onion-layer.
Hanegraaff’s Confused Cosmology Mapping to Freewill
geocentric cosmology levels:
8-11 = freewill thinking
8-11 freewill (Wouter Hanegraaff actually ends up with untransformed, naive freewill thinking)
biggest confusion: he deletes the fixed stars (ie heimarmene/ fatedness) from level 8, jams them down into Saturn, equates level 8 with TRANSCENDING heimarmene (totally garbled!)
Classically, level 8 = heimarmene (definitively), not yet transcending heimarmene (that doesn’t happen til level 9)
Hanegraaff Falls into the anti-Heimarmene Marketing Twists/ Reframings/ Modifications/ Claims of Late Antiquity
Using Luther Martin’s characterizations of periodization:
early antiquity = psychedelics transform the mind from naive freewill thinking to eternalism-thinking. end-state: no-free-will/ monopossibility.
late antiquity = rebellion against eternalism as the end-state. change the narrative framing; marketing depts:
In competition, all late-antiquity religions proffered an inverted, modified narrative (countersignalling the harsh psychedelic eternalism of early antiquity), that psychedelics transform the mind from (naive freewill thinking &) eternalism-thinking to virtual freewill thinking
The goal & marketing focus of salvation in late antuity is to move from level 8 to 9; concentrate on attaining freedom from the heimarmene/ fatedness prison that early antiquity (psychedelic eternalism) shackled us with.
All the religions of late antiquity invented freewill thinking, in competition against each other: neoplatonism; gnosticism, Christianity, hermeticism, & Mithraism. per my theory’s findings & discoveries.
Fully transforming into psychedelic eternalism = transcending psychedelic eternalism
transcribe / summarize voice recording made just now: VOX_TK_6233.wav length: 5:25, would be nice to upload as mp3.
Block Spacetime Mystic Transformation
Before Quantum Mechanics (QM) was formed, the basic idea of time as a 4th dimension was mathematically formalized in 1908 by Einstein’s math professor Minkowski — entirely prior to QM.
That math formalism was initially REJECTED by Einstein.
I built my system of mystic enlightenment (psychedelic eternalism) on that basic idea of block spacetime — not essentially based on the theory of Invariance/ Relativity, nor based on the later QM.
I’m an example of an entirely satisfying & successful mystic system that is not at all based on QM or Modern Physics, other than the basic idea of time as a 4th dimension (block spacetime), which I think was in the air in that era 1880-1910.
The block spacetime idea relates to (entheogen-based) Greek myth, eg {king saw snake, turned to stone}.
20 different versions, around 1535 & 1582 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendor_Solis – “Splendor Solis (English: “The Splendour of the Sun”) is a version of the illuminated alchemical text attributed to Salomon Trismosin. This version dates from around 1582.
The earliest version, written in Central German, is dated 1532–1535 and is part of the Kupferstichkabinett Berlin collection at the State Museums in Berlin. It is illuminated on vellum, with decorative borders like a book of hours, meticulously painted and highlighted with gold.
“The later copies in London, Kassel, Paris and Nuremberg are equally fine. Twenty versions exist worldwide.”
Date of Discovery: November 7, 2024
I recognized {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs on or shortly before November 7, 2024 Thursday (searched web on that date), on the front cover of Irvin & Rutajit 1st Ed 2006 book Astrotheology & Shamanism, which Irvin gave me on April 11, 2007.
Irvin cites that 2006 book in his 2008 book The Holy Mushroom, p. 104:
“Ruck and Gonzalez attempt to limit entheogens to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects” [abnormal Christians], but as shown in Astrotheology & Shamanism & the gallery in present book, this is completely unfounded, as there is enough compelling evidence to show that [ordinary, mainstream] Christianity itself is based on entheogens.”
I increasingly figured out birds & fence gate a few days after that.
2pm Nov 11 2024, while composing this page and goal-driven / template-driven fillling in the 4 motif lists, I found versions of the image that have mushrooms at feet, and basket hanging from {cut right branch}.
This is a form of prediction & confirmation; know what to look for, eg non-branching; if yields fruit – or mushrooms + cut branches — that confirms the hypothesized pattern.
“Philosophers beside the tree” has the 4 motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability}.
These page photos are of the 2006 1st Ed., not 2009 2nd Ed.
20 Versions of the Image
{mushrooms} 🍄🟫 🍄
mushroom birds
red & white garments
mushrooms at feet
{branching} 🌳 🌴 ✌️🤞 🖐️🫲
cut right trunk
crown is far from branching & encompasses branching + cut right trunk
fruit basket hangs from cut right branch, not falling
hold or touch removed branch with left hand
{handedness} 🤲 👐 🙌 ✋🤚
left hands touch cut branch; negate left / negate branching
weight on R leg on ladder
fence boundary gate passageway below right foot
trees on left; gate on right (no trees)
{stability} ⚖️🔥💥🏹🗡️😵💀🪦⚰️👑🚪🦁🐉
balanced on ladder
right hand holding onto stem far from branching points
Looking at Taurus from Within Heimarmene Sphere or from Outside It
bull facing left = you are below/ inside the sphere of fixed stars (serpent-wrapped heimarmene, fatedness, no-free-will, monopossibility, non-branching, superdeterminism, eternalism , frozen block universe, the crystalline ground of being
bull facing right = you are above/ outside the sphere of fixed stars; virtual freewill
Gold Metallic Amanita
Secret Amanita Conclusion: Irvin “Attempts to Limit” the Entheogen to the Elite, “Completely Unfounded”
In his 2008 book The Holy Mushroom, Irvin condemns:
“Ruck & Gonzalez attempt to limit entheogen usage to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects”. As was shown in Astrotheology & Shamanism (Irvin et al, 2006), … this is completely unfounded, as there is enough compelling evidence to show Christianity itself is based on entheogens. … the Chapel at Plaincourault was built by the Knights of Malta, a sanctioned Catholic order headquartered in Vatican City to the present day. They are certainly not a “so-called heretical sect”.
Yet Irvin 2006 1st Ed likewise attempts to limit entheogens: “kept secret for the kings, priests and the elite.” The first sentence of the Conclusion section. So Irvin had to delete that sentence from the 2009 2nd Ed.
Limiting entheogens is baked into the Secret Amanita paradigm, per the moderate entheogen theory of religion.
The Secret Amanita paradigm is crafted so as to accomodate Prohibition and work/ labor to restrict entheogens to a fabricated “counterculture”, foolishly working against their own interest.
In sharp contrast, the Explicit Cubensis paradigm is strategic toward actual Repeal – along with delivering Transcendent Knowledge.
Purple rectangle pen = where a Secret Amanita paradigm writer tries to construct a prohibition barrier wall to keep The Mushroom 🍄 (infantile kiddie Amanita, only) from Christians.
Purple rectangle indicates the words that are used to construct a boundary, a wall, circumscribing each instance of entheogens to keep them only on one side of a dividing barrier.
The Egodeath theory 