purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording day before yesterday
The title of the episode means Panofsky’s argument ( or cover story – who knows which it is?):
The reason why we are not permitted to conjecture or interpret Amanita as the Plaincourault fresco Interpretation is because there are too many mushroom trees all throughout Christian art –
not only the subset representing the tree of knowledge, but far beyond that subset
and it is most remarkable his proxy-driven thinking he takes as given.
Panofsky totally absolutely takes it as , unstated, as a given, that our interpretation of this one mushroom tree is physically locked together – it is the same exact interpretation that we are forced to apply to every single mushroom tree
he never even mentions the possibility of interpreting this one mushroom tree, only, as Mushrooms
well like Giorgio Samorini , imagining that we might hold a different interpretation for the remainder
Samorini uses ESP to speculate that one mushroom tree artist did not realize that he was drawing a mushroom, while a different mushroom artist did realize that he was drawing a mushroom
so this way SamRenee instantly robbed us right out of the gate of 50% of the evidence, by supposing that stupid “particularly ignorant craftsman” who have no sentience and no intention behind there mechanical, unthinking copying from templates, Drew Mushroom Trees without realizing what they were drawing
this is the tone of SanMarinois conjecture about intention on the part of the artists
Samorini plays right into this notion that it’s very likely that the mushroom tree artists had no idea, and they would be shocked, shocked! if someone interpreted their mushroom Trees as if intending Mushrooms
but in fact , they would be mad at us for failing to realize and perceive the ramifications of their mushroom trees – Or should I say, the lack of ramifications implied thereby, esoterically speaking – and damn Carl Rut damn you if you try to frame ‘esoteric’ as meaning hidden, and trying to block communication
because against you, is now added a big giant middle finger in my title, my revised, improved title of Brown’s Article, I emphasize pointedly the explicit, not implicit, depictions, specifically in order to communicate – against Carl Rut , not to hide, not to obscure, but rather, to *explicitly communicate* the payload message, which is *not* the stupid mushroom 🍄 object, like Carl Rut says, but rather, the *ramifications* are the *whole point*, ultimately, which is non-branching, experienced in the mushroom-induced state.
that is what the artist means
the artist does not mean “mushrooms”, the mushroom 🍄 object. childish, primitive, concretistic thinking from the Rut camp! a dead end.
the artist means the ramifications, the non-ramifications of the ramifications which are included to turn the mushroom into a mushroom tree
(to answer panofskys question why the tree of knowledge Not Mushroom of knowledge of good and evil)
Anyone with the slightest imagination obviously knows that it is both, it is both a tree with ramifications of mushrooms with ramifications of tree branching ramifications of non-branching experience in the Psilocybin mushroom-induced altered state, which brings the knowledge of branching-based moral agency as conduit of good and evil.
The mental world model of possibility branching-based agency & world is contradicted by the mode of experiencing & perception & thinking/cognition (cognitive mode) that’s revealed in the mushroom induced loose cog state.
Panofsky disagrees with Giorgio Samorini and Panofsky takes it silently as a strong absolute given that we definitely have to treat Plaincourault as a proxy Panofsky implicitly asserts with a 100% strong assertion implicit asserts that however we aim our thumb regarding this one tree it is automatically silently a given absolutely locked together that we are at the same
The same time aiming our thumb in that same direction for every single mushroom Trees and Panofsky absolutely takes it for granted, never mentions it explicitly, that planecrawled absolutely is a proxy
for example, mycollegests had been aware of the hundreds of mushroom trees it what is the impossible absolutely impossible for them to imagine or assert that this one particular instance of mushroom tree is a Amanita
this is one reason why I suspect maybe Panofsky is not an idiot but rather is a liar a conscious intentional cover up artist who is trying to deliver garbled specious party line to the public relations inventor are Gordon Wasson does Panofsky believe his own bullshit I can’t tell but why on earth would Panofsky hold the implicit cell
self-defeating implied premise that we have no option except to treat the plane corralled fresco as a proxy why doesn’t he ever mention the possibility of asserting that this one instance of mushroom tree means mushrooms while simultaneously asserting no position regarding the hundreds of other instances why else would he adopt the implicit proxy role ROLE ROLE for Plaincourault unless he
are motivated by fear the fear of the ramifications of angle in your thumb in an upward direction regarding this one instance
why else would he take it as granted that this will force us to , in that very same act of thumb angling, be voting by proxy on behalf of all of the hundreds (which means thousands) of mushroom imagery which is “so universal ” or “so universally ” present, and not only in the subset of mushroom trees which are used to represent the tree of knowledge, but even far more than that, more numerous orders of magnitude – by an order of magnitude, more numerous
and therefore he evidently, quite evidently believes and takes as granted, takes it as granted that we have no option, no alternative to taking this one instance as a proxy for the entire set of all of them
why does he act like this is an all-or-nothing decision regarding thumb angling?
That seems like a completely self-defeating assumption
why doesn’t he let go of that PROXY assumption?
I think it’s because he knows inside that how we vote on this tree, in fact, is a proxy for our entire paradigm
the entire lying, false paradigm stands or falls with our thumb angle direction regarding the single lone instance of PILZBAUM
regarding angling of his thumb of our thumb
direction that we angle our thumb
is he an idiot, or a liar?? it’s anybody’s guess, – a combination of the two? 🤔
he is, unfortunately, the “most influential” art history fabricator and cover-up artist, in servile service to his overlord, the Salvation Salesmen, frauds who are directly in conflict of interest against identifying ramifications of mushroom trees intended by Ardent intended by artists to explicitly – not implicitly – communicate , and not hide…
I am wagging my finger at Carl Rut
and these mushroom imagery artists use the gigantic humongous enormous Amanita to serve as the advertisement billboard to indicate – just as , exactly the same as head shops – the effective, clean, cognitive loosening agent, physically small and much less visually striking Psilocybin Mushrooms, the ramifications of mushroom trees, by which the artists intended to explicitly communicate the ramifications of mushroom trees, which is to communicate the message of non-branching – the narrow way, the narrow path of Jesus, with pre-existing control thoughts annihilating king ego’s false claim to steer among branching possibilities
both the king’s steering and the possibility branching vanish from experiencing, upon ingesting, being given the psilocybin fruit of the tree of Knowledge, by Christ and by the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; altered-state loose cog insight perspective about moral controller egoic agency.
The purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording yesterday or day before rather, as I have about the second or third chance of listening to that recording
the immediate purpose right now is to note in recording 128B, about 2/3 through about 70% through, because the timestamp on my mobile mobile player is not reliable at all
you can hear me in realtime making out what the handwriting from Panofsky is at the bottom of the second letter to Wasson, “my god”
Please keep my poor little pictures (meaning the two photostats adding to the Brinckmann book citation) as long as you wish.
and then the final sentence, handwritten, the final word from Panofsky to Wasson:
And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.
You deliberately impeded and deliberately censored and deliberately withheld Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brincmann’s 1906 Book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings which is the single only treatment of art historian’s on the subject of mushrooms
actually I believe there are more; we need to find the list of CITATIONS NEEDED!!
scour the bibliography of Sam Marini’s plane crawled Article 1997
and SamArrhenius Mushroom Trees Article 1998 which is incomplete-; he fails he makes mistakes and he fails to include some items that he sites in the body but forgets to add in the bibliography list like Clark Heinrich 1994 for example book strange fruit
and also scour the bibliography of brown and brown 2017 the psychedelic Gospels book
and scour the bibliography Brown and Brown 2019 article in journal of psychedelic studies Special and Issue on entheogens and Psychedelics in world history
right where I was yelling at Wasson or Panofsky in 2006 “where in the hell is the citations, we would of course obviously love to see these alleged numerous verbose and detailed exhaustive thorough treatments of debates of all possible positions by the art historians; where in the hell are they?!”
you , Wasson , intentionally, deliberately and multiple times, censored out Panofsky strong 2x recommendation that the world needs to look at Brinkman’s book.
but Wasson , you chose – multiple, multiple times , deliberately – this was no accident; you republished selective censored excerpts of Panofsky’s letter multiple times, and every time, you chose – you consciously, deliberately, knowingly chose to omit Brincmanns book citation that Panofsky strongly and repeatedly recommended that people read.
You are proven guilty, in your own handwriting , or equivalently your secretary / your wife, whatever – doesn’t matter
you are guilty of knowingly, deliberately deceiving everybody by censoring and deliberately withholding Panofsky’s two times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book
right where with Jan Irvin’s later added research in 2006, I researched in my copy of Wassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copy, photos at egodeath.com ,
and in 2006, in fact ever since 2006-2022 (when finally Brown and Brown revealed wassons a hittin cover-up Secret the photograph of the Panofsky letter in full published in 2019 which revealed the truth that Wason was hiding deliberately from us all that where their worst… Was in fact the much demanded citation needed
When I wrote my Plaincourault article for Robert M price’s journal of higher criticism, I was especially above all frustrated: where in the hell is the citation; CITATION WANTED / CITATION NEEDED!! in Panofsky’s letter to Wasson all there is is…… ellipses, Right where I demand (of course like everybody) demand a citation
citation needed citation needed please please please give us a damn citation for the alleged supposed claim that art historians have covered this matter of the problem the problematic problem that’s a problem for the lying fabricating art historian’s of how are we going to cover up all of our hundreds and thousands of mushroom trees where did they discuss which lie they are going to agree to tell are they going to agree to tell the lie of Italian Pines like Panofsky says and recommends or are they going to agree to tell the lie that Wassen later fabricates of so-called vague and hazy mythical so-called “Palestine tree type”?
this is what I am looking for where exactly did the art historians discuss among themselves in print to reach agreement on what fabricated false deceiving lie they are going to fabricate and agree to so that all employed art historians all agree as a Panofsky points out that if Wason asks all art historian who are employed all of them will give their opinion that there are no mushroom trees represented by the thousands of mushroom trees and furthermore the ramifications which are always present on every mushroom tree prove that mushroom trees are not mushroom trees
because they are trees with added ramifications beyond Mushrooms and Mushroom Trees have ramifications beyond just mushrooms say the art historian and therefore they do not mean mushrooms because there are more ramifications than merely an indicator of mushrooms and this is why it is important that we art historians thoroughly in detail publish copious numerous many many books and many many articles thoroughly discussing an exhaustive detail just like Panofsky wrote Tsawwassen in 1952 twice as brown exposes in the full light of truth in 2019 in the journal of psychedelics
Brown revealed that this exhaustive writings and many many books and many many articles where are historians have thoroughly analyzed and completely debated all possible debate positions regarding every aspect of mushroom trees and every ramification of every last tree and this long list of citations hidden behind Wisen ‘s… Cover-up… Cover up the abominable wassons abominable cover-up operation and what’s behind it all the list of citations consists of one book only and Wassen make sure to censor out that loan single book in which art historians have thoroughly exhaustively
debated every Single ramification of every single mushroom tree among the hundreds (which means thousands and countless thousands) of instances of mushroom trees, which Panofsky describes as “so universal” that its not just the tree of knowledge subset, but Pulaski in a second letter says that there are just far too many mushroom trees to allow the public to know that planecrawled fresco Means Mushrooms, with added ramifications
if they have covered the matter than dammit where in the hell can I see the coverage of this matter
and how does walls and help?
Wassen helps
and how does Wassen help advance the field of entheogens Scholarship?
answer: he helps by deliberately, multiple times censoring out the citation, right where we are yelling “please give us a citation for the alleged art historians’ discussions of mushroom trees” because Panofsky says every single art historian is entirely, thoroughly aware of all of these hundreds and hundreds (which means thousands and thousands) of mushroom trees, & Mushroom imagery of all kinds, that entirely is found all throughout Christian art and I retorted in 2006 in my article, if the art historians have allegedly thoroughly become familiar and have completely discussed in great exhaustive detail these hundreds and hundreds of mushroom trees, then for Christ’s sake, give us a goddamn citation!!
and what does Wason do to help out here? he replaces Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book by INFAMOUS “…” DOT DOT DOT deliberately
and that is after he has his secretary or his scholar wife or himself (same diff) goes to the trouble to write out Brinkman’s name in full, full middle name, and completely, accurately write out the actual title of Brinkman’s book in his own hand (for all practical purposes; his secretaries hand, his wife’s hand, whatever ; doesn’t make any difference at all) Wasson is guilty – in his own hand!
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
“why is there no citation here?! ” I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco – and the answer is that Wasson got rid of the citation, deliberately withholding it, which Panofsky two-times recommended, both via typewriter in the first letter, AND via hand writing on the second letter, Added, urging Wasson at the very end at the bottom of the second letter, his final word to Wasson was see Brinkman’s book, I strongly, strongly, highly recommend Brinckmann’s book
because it’s the only thing literally the only thing that we have that art historians have treated ,
The one and only single loan place (book or article) where we art historians have explicitly taken up the matter and admitted that the problem 🍄 exists, this problem this great problem for us that we have to struggle to cover while actually covering it up and covering it over, that we have to cover it so as to prevent anybody from seeing
here is the book in which we announce how we will conduct our cover-up operation to fabricate our lie about art history.
psychedelic historian = professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flash of Christ through which we are saved the only means by which we are saved the Eucharist the Psilocybin Mushroom let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are
deeply committed against the so-called those whom we dub dogmatist in the Article dogmatist debacle like Dr. Brown we shall disparage them disparage the people who are committed to asserting and perceiving and publishing Mushrooms all throughout Christian history and art and the word Eucharist everywhere is mushrooms mushrooms and more mushrooms and the people who are guilty of seeing mushrooms everywhere which Dr. Brown disparages and distanced himself from, as ARDENT ADVOCATES & DOGMATISTS (= Jan Irvin a John Rush and Egodeath.com; same paragraph; see Browns 2019 )
[dup para? I ended up dammit deleting the paragraph above, which was a mistake so I’m keeping this following; dammit I think I lost one or two sentences]:
professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flesh of Christ through which we are saved, the only means by which we are saved , the Eucharist; the Psilocybin Mushroom
let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are deeply Committed against those who are committed to asserting Mushrooms in the Eucharist and therefore everywhere ubiquitously throughout Christian history in contrast we are at historians are deeply committed and we psychedelic deliriant pushing Witches and “psychedelic historians” ( which means fabricator and cover up operator of inventing fake history, for which we get rewarded by being flunkies and complicit servile obedient puppy dog proponents of prohibition good fucking job leveraging your fake history studies to assist in Psilocybe in Prohibition a Prohibition compliant servile flunky and henchmen the witches are in cahoots with the pope the salvation Salesmen pope those who sell fraudulent substitute for the bona fide Psilocybin
Eucharistic sacrament through which we are saved
because we sure are not in lightened by mandrake and scopolamine and false art history lies and fabrications thanks to our Panofsky leveraging the one and only book in which art historians have ever admitted the problem of mushrooms and explicitly discussed their lying cover-up operation, cover story, bedtime just so tale, just so story.
Panofsky assures Wasson that if he asks any (employed) art historian (who toes the line and agrees to the fake cover-up story), they all agree that, in their “opinion” , Mushroom Trees- with added ramifications – do not mean mushroom 🍄 trees, and please stop asking questions
and you will find that all (*employed*) art historians agree with me (and all *employed* Christianity scholars agree that Jesus existed)
in other words, the conclusions of all Christianity scholars and the conclusions of all art historian scholars on this matter are completely worthless, totally worthless, because their opinions are coerced, COERCED, and they have no option except that they have to toe the damned party line and lie.
all of them are liars ; they are all coerced into lying and denying that obviously mushroom trees, with added ramifications obviously mean mushroom trees with added ramifications and cut branching possibility, which is mystic-state metaphorical analogy describing the mushroom altered state, obviously, as the ego death theory explains in full detail and clarity.
the Egodeath theory = experiential mental model of {Analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control}, instead of {literalist ordinary State possibilism with autonomous control}, transformed mental model in the loose cognitive association binding state from re-dosing Psilocybin mushrooms as represented in the countless thousands of mushroom imagery all throughout Christian Art as slightly barely studied by art historians in one loan isolated book by Brinkman written Way back in 1906 covering only something like four Paintings of Mushroom trees, out of the many hundreds – which means countless thousands of instances
the easiest thing in the world is for people to find more images Of mushroom imagery in Christian Art and upload them to the World Wide Web; do it now.
ignore the accursed lying art historians, professional inventors and fabricators of history is their job as “extremely ignorant craftsmen” , to
throw back Panofsky’s words at him , defaming the Plaincourault Mushroom tree painter who deliberately retained the added ramifications Branching that are shown in Pulaski’s false, phony, made up lying invention of the alleged “distorted templates”, which did not exist.
this whole “distorted templates” bedtime just so story cover-up lying fabrication by the (unfortunately) most influential art Scholar Erwin Panofsky, professional liar about history – unfortunately, the most influential art historian, which means: the most influential fabricator of false, lying history
“distorted templates” my ass! you liar, there’s no distorted templates
you’re making sht up , you liar
distorted templates my ass
there’s no such thing ; you fabricated it as a cover story to protect the Salvation Salesmen, who fraudulently replace the genuine bona fide Eucharist, which has always been understood as Psilocybin Mushrooms, represented by announcement new point early morning about 6 AM this morning April 28, 2022 note I note this morning the idea vividly occurs to me and strikes me this morning I received this message observe this observation the size and physical mass and size of amanita I have seen it I have photographed it I have uploaded to the World Wide Web my own personal specimen photograph of the double holy grail 10:10 AM on 1010 2010 October 10, 2010 photograph and I’m not making that up I literally photographed these whole set of 12 group of 12 and they were clusters all over the place and I photographed the double holy grail fountains in the rain with ripples very large my point that I am announcing is it they are very large and very massive much bigger than psilocybin 100 times bigger jumbo huge gigantic Mushrooms Amanita is far far 100 times bigger incise and mass then tiny little psilocybin mushrooms and this is why I am Anita is the face of psilocybin ingesting and amanita will always be the billboard advertising Psilocybin Mushrooms use and knowledge and this is why eat wine in the Canterbury Psalter page 1 shows God is creator of sacred plants which are not opium brown correctly objects and I think maybe Brown helped me to get my thinking clear on this matter of identifying the four plants because probably James Arthur and probably people like Chris Bennett wrongly asserted miss identified the four plants which God creates according to Eid wine who is the best top mushroom tree artist and what Eid wine intended to depict is not opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of miss identification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
Version one of identifying the four plants people like James Arthur maybe or people like Chris Bennett incorrectly said that the plants are different families of psychoactive such as opium and cannabis in this panel or the next panel which both show for mushroom plants the correct identification is closer to version to which Dr. Jerry Brown gives he is closer to correct identification because he identifies it as for groups of mushrooms for types or classes or categories but my explanation is better and or uniform I agree with Jerry Brown that the for mushrooms plants or mushrooms and not cannabis or opium but Brown gives a garbled and vague and overlapping messy classification scheme and my classification scheme is actually orderly and coherent and uniform level of specificity I identify in this version three identification I finally get it right unlike the scholars before me according to eat wine the correct set of four sacred plants which God created R, from memory, left to right yes my memory I remember vividly it goes number one in Panaeolus number two liberty cap number three Cubensis number for amanita this is not the faded pastel image but the more vivid image which probably James Arthur used on his book cover and which I’m looking at right now the cover of the psychedelic Gospels book 2016 by brown and brown
Brown incorrectly identifies the IV Mushrooms Plainc Sacred Plants which he shows on the front cover of his book I correctly identify it more specifically and in a more coherent orderly way than Jerry Brown and Brown Julie
they take a step in the correct direction
just like the Saint holding the vial, where I showed exactly how Jan Irvin is correct that the Saint holds Amanita
in addition to , I explain exactly how Brown and Brown are correct, that the saint holds a vial
I solve the problem and reconcile that the saint holds a vial which is deliberately designed to look like amanita features, although the proportions are those of a vial, and not of an amanita specimen. la
The amanita-shaped vessel which the saint holds in the tapestry identified positively as Amanita by the serrated bass
The base is larger, and the cap is smaller, so that the vial can function as an effective vial container, with a relatively large body and relatively small cap, compared to the natural proportions of an actual Amanita specimen in its early-stage developmental form.
similarly, brown and brown are on the right track to make steps towards improvements of identification & interpretation of msh in Christian art, after I add my corrections of their direction, and
I am the one who correctly identified around November 2020 at this website Egodeaththeory.wordpress.com :
I correctly and specifically, art-appropriately identify, unlike brown and brown, the four mushroom plants which God creates on the cover of their book, left to right, based on my 75 mushroom trees plants inventory of the Canterbury Psalter. I remind you that inventory in the character there are so very many mushrooms in the Canterbury Psalter that it took me a year long project from maybe February 2021 to February 2022 to resume and get back to the exhausting major project of writing to webpages one of them about every relevant seen every relevant picture and then the second derivative webpage catalog database of art specimens art instances and I even made a third version not published of every single Of every mushroom zoomed and cropped that I am withholding for some reason because it is too scientific and mood and character but my second webpage which I did publish is derivative from the year long exhausting cataloging process because there are just too many mushroom trees the system can’t handle it the website is simply not designed This platform can’t handle the overload of too many mushrooms throughout Christian Art it’s run out of space there’s just not enough space to contain the thousands and thousands of instances the easiest thing in the world is to find and upload additional instances of mushroom imagery in Christian Art to the World Wide Web its child’s play as a Panofsky says mushroom trees are “so universally” present that it is impossible for him to believe that the one single instance of plain corralled fresco cannot possibly be a mushroom because there are so universally ubiquitous Mushroom trees everywhere in Christian Art that therefore we cannot permit this one instance to be interpreted as Mushrooms because he says that we would be forced he implicitly says and he does not explicitly explain his emotion driven argument it’s all implicit it’s all kept on the down low and implicit but evidently what he’s thinking is that it is impossible for us to admit that plane crawl fresco is a mushroom because there exists hundreds of this type which means countless thousands of this type of mushroom tree everywhere so universally he says he writes Mushroom Trees are so universal and not only limited just to the subset of the tree of knowledge but are used for general purpose ubiquitously universally everywhere all throughout Christian art and therefore it is impermissible to admit that the plane crawl fresco is amanita because therefore he implicitly argues, we would be forced to admit that all of the countless thousands of mushroom imagery ubiquitous universally everywhere all throughout Christian Mark Art is all Means too many ramifications of too many branching mushroom trees everywhere and therefore we must concoct any lying fabricated history cover-up story we can dream of dredge up to cover the fact the Mushroom Trees with added ramifications me and Mushrooms because of the ramifications are too many and besides,
he argues in his second letter which fortunately Brown and Brown published in the light of day against the scheming deceiver or Gordon Wasson who worked hard to deceive and stunt and retard and impede the field of visionary Plainc Scholarship visionary Plants Panofsky second letter March 12, 1952 shortly after March 2 1952 first letter in both letters Panofsky urged our Gordon Wasson
be sure to read Albert E Brinckmann’s book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings 1906 the one and only place where we public relations propagandist Liars cover up artist and fabricators of fake and phony History have a greed on what our cover story is so it is important that you read Brinkmann’s book because this is where we are at historians art historians have established are funny cover-up story iPhone our phony fake cover-up story is laid out
Brinckmann book and therefore as one cover-up public relations artist to another we have to coordinate our lying cover-up story and this is why in both of my letters I am strongly urging you that you must obtain Albert Brinckmann is 1906 book so that we get on the same page of our painting a false picture cover up story of our lying fabricated so-called distorted templates malarkey fabrication
so that you can tell the same story as the popes hired henchmen Brinckmann about the supposed distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket templates so be sure to have your secretary right in her need to cursive knit cursive writing the accurate name of the book and the full spelled out authors name so that U can get on board with R ex
With our explanation of why on earth, why in gods name, mushroom tree artists in England would have desired to depict a southern Italy Mushroom looking Italian umbrella pine. The story that we have decided among ourselves the cover-up story we have a greed on agreed on is distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket distorted templates and accidental it is the fake lying story that you are to tell is that it is “purely fortuitous “in other words completely a coincidence the mushroom trees look like mushrooms and also you can use this argument Wasson which the psychedelic which psychedelic historian Hatsis tells – or failed to tell, rather,
are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
why didn’t Thomas Hatsis make this specious dumb ass argument that Bryniarski makes as his final argument the ultimate reason why we know that mushroom tree artist did not intend to draw mushroom trees because if they had intended to draw Mushroom they would have omitted the added ramifications which are shown in the distorted alleged distorted templates the added Branching which is present on every single branching message mushroom trees is proof that our category that we call mushroom trees has nothing whatsoever
none
whatever to do with mushrooms and this is our cover-up story which we have published in the one and only place where we have admitted this big problem that we have of the bona fide genuine Eucharist being revealed together with metaphorical Revelation of nonbranching which is the one and only publication we have allowed to be published of art historians treating the matter of mushroom trees which is 1906 Albert Brinckmann book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings so you need to get with the program and learn to tell our cover-up story of the
“distorted templates “of Italian “umbrella pine “here’s the cover-up story in my two letters together with a citation of 1906 Brinckmann book which lays out our lying fabricated cover story from one public relations fraud to another propagandist in-service of Salvation Salesmen in alliance with the psychedelic Witch Carlos Ginsberg psychedelic historian Thomas Hatsis who has absolutely proved wink wink confidence artist that witches witchcraft Witches which is used non-drug fertility cult methods which Hatsis totally fails to specify what the fuck he’s talking about of what exactly did Carlos Ginsberg excuse of how allegedly the fertility cult practices whatever the fuck that means against a Jan Irvin and I agree with you on Irving
John Irving who firmly asserts as a ardent advocate and a dogmatist and rightly so and necessarily so a counter dogmatist here we have Thomas Hatsis the dogmatist the anti-Mushroom demonize her he says that the pagans should have demonized Christians as ingesting Mushrooms because half this reveals that he believes Mushrooms are the kind of thing that you should smear and attack people for you
using how to takes it as if granted that all pagans held Mushrooms in very low esteem and this proves that Christians didn’t ingest Mushrooms because if Christians did and just mushrooms we know for sure that pagans would have condemned them and smeared and insulted them for being so low as to use despicable and a cursed Mushrooms and hear how this reveals his true feelings as a witch against Mushrooms he projects his own anti-Mushroom
values falsely and incorrectly he totally and absolutely miss reads the value system so much for being a historian he completely gets the value system entirely wrong because in fact as a Jan Irvin and Egodeath.com and John Rush who are all listed in brown section called ardent Advocates and who has his calls dogmatists as if he is not the biggest anti-Mushroom dogmatist of all let us talk about the dogmatists debacle and look in the mirror Mr. dogmatist Mr. anti-Mushroom dogmatist you dogmatic pusher of the Eucharist as deliriant scopolamine and you vigorous committed dogmatic Ardent advocate of removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist so as to disempower it and replace it by a mind scrambling Mandrake instead you dogmatist this is your debacle back in your face just like Panofsky his argument massively blows up in his face when he says we know that plane crawl fresco is not mushrooms because otherwise we would have to be forced to assert and
admit that all of the hundreds of mushroom trees which is to say all of the countless thousands of mushroom Trees and Mushroom Imagery the characterizes Christian Art as widespread as mixed wine in antiquity banqueting banqueting that all of them are mushrooms because we know and we don’t even need to spell it out explicitly in the two letters Tsawwassen to our Gordon Wasson that if we were to admit that plane crawl Frisco the single case this specific instance proxy
clearly the rules would be revealed the rules are you SERUSE RUSE would be revealed the jig would be up and we would of course be forced to admit the ramifications branching out from there from that one instance we would be forced to admit the truth about history God for bid art historian should be forced to admit the truth about history Thomas Hatsis is doing everything possible to help out cover-up history and fabricate a false history because we receive our orders from the Salvation Salesmen
and they have ordered you are Gordon Wasson banker for the pope you are to stop investigating Mushroom trees and you are to follow Brinkman’s lead in the one and only art historian publication where we know thoroughly well we are completely intimate with mushroom trees and here is our fabricated funny cover-up story funny cover-up story you need to read Brinkman’s book and get on board with our propaganda cover up lie which is published in only one publication the name of the citation is 1906, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
be sure to have your secretary hand write in neat cursive the accurate title of the book and the full name of the author, Albert Eichart Brinckmann.
that book has just enough coverage examples of mushroom trees to specify our lying, fabricated cover-up story.
be sure to omit this citation every time you repeat selected excerpts from this letter for public consumption.
Panaeolus, liberty cap, Cubensis, amanita.
Eadwine used my above categories; Eadwine did not use brown & brown’s categories, which are expressed inconsistently & too vaguely, in terms of “Psilocybin” & “Psilocybe”, as Brown & Brown incoherently and vaguely write in their book and article, 2016 & 2019.
dup para? be very careful bc deleting = data loss!!! … opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of misidentification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
You lying professional liar fabricating falls history inventing and fabricating your tall tale bedtime story of distorted templates there were no templates there were no templates there were no distorted templates you made shit up you fake fabricator of history professional unfortunately most influential art historian Erwin Panofsky professional fabricator of lying false history cover up operation distorted templates my ass liar fraud, phony, actor, Fessional fabricator of false pseudo-History propagandist head of public relations
so we have the head of public relations of false establishment cover up operation “art history ” , Department of Fake History, writing on the letterhead of the institution of lying about art Princeton Department of fabricated falsified history, Institute for advanced lying & fabrication of study
and he is advising another head of lying propaganda public relations bullsh*t , Wasson , and telling Wasson “here’s how you are to pretend to try to cover up the truth about mushrooms in our own Christian history”
and which his wife wrote a neat handwriting diligently looked up the title and we don’t know at present weather Wasson ever looked at the book what we know he deliberately refrained and withheld when everybody would demand a citation in 2006 I complained about this I said of course we are all very interested when we saw Panofsky’s letter in the book soma of course we all wanted more information about these art historians discussions there are many many detail discussions because art historians know about these mushroom trees so very intimately well and that every first semester flunking out art student is perfectly aware of hundreds of these mushroom trees
THEN WHERE IS THE GODDAM CITATIONS?!
Answer: Wasson deliberately, multiple times, not just once but multiple times, deliberately censored out Panofsky’s two- times, type written and hand written, urging of Wasson please be sure to see this book by 1906 Albert Brinckmann
and then where does Wason help us out by pointing us all to Brinkman’s book so that we can follow up on the very interesting claims that art historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees?
but right where we need Wasson to help us research the matter Dr. Brown calls this Wisen’s paradox Wasson suddenly turns into the obstructionist deliberately maliciously
Wasson was malicious
Wasson was deceptive
Wasson was evil and a jerk for deliberately intentionally censoring out Pulaski’s two times recommendation that we all must see Brinckmann’s book
Wasson is definitely – verdict: proven guilty guilty guilty
wasson you jerk , you enemy of entheogen scholarship
Wasson shame shame evil awful terrible person Wason
dup voice transc.: andWassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copieregodeath.com and I was especially above all frustrated where in the hell is the citation needed in Panofsky’s letter Tsawwassen all there is is…… Right where I demand of course like everybody demand a citation why is there no citation here I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco and the answer is that Walton got rid of the citation Witch Panofsky two times recommended and
Panofsky , Unfortunately the most influential parts it was most guilty for everybody being stupid, did not song Albert E Brinckmann name nor did he get the title accurate as he noted, In Panofsky’s first of two mentions of Brinkman name Panofsky mentioned Brinckmann in both letters even going to the trouble of hand writing at the termination of the second letter the final thing that Pulaski rights to Wasson is an emFattic strong recommendation again to look up brakeman’s book
and Wasson then went to the trouble to hand write Brinckmann’s full name or here’s a good gas here is a good guess employing my ESP Wasson secretary wrote please identify whether the handwriting belongs to Wason or Wasson secretary at the bank or wife or his wife Wasson handed Panofsky’s letter to wassons wife and in her neat handwriting she wrote the full name of Albert a Brinckmann and she wrote the full correct German title of Brinkman’s book what we need to know is Diaz Wasson on Brinckmann’s book did Wassen check out the book from the library did Wason have the library order the book or did Wason purchase the book for his personal library did Wason go any further than having his wife or secretary write in her neat cursive writing on Pulaski’s first letter did Panofsky finally read Brinkman’s book as Panofsky I meant to say did Wason finally read Brinkman’s book which Panofsky in Fattic Lee recommended to him twice and I am still mad at myself in 2006 why didn’t Jan Irving and I catch the three dots the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation a Brinckmann’s book because I’m emphasizing here I emphasize that my main
my main feeling about a Panofsky’s letter in 2006 was where in the hell is the citation every single person obviously would yell at Panofsky where is the damn citation citation needed dammit where the hell is the citation that was my main feeling reading Panofsky’s book because he claims that are historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees and I said wow I am extremely we are all extremely highly interested in art historians discussions please please please provide a citation where in the hell this is a damn citation that was my number one main feeling and frustration with Panofsky’s letter so why was I so stupid
that I failed to notice in my copy of Wason’s book soma where he put dots literally physically in the exact spot in the exact place physically right where I was yelling where oh where please somebody show me where the citation is and obviously right there is where the three dots are it is extremely obvious that the dots are hiding a citation because that is precisely where you would expect and everybody would demand of course a citation we are very interested Brown does a good job and Brown does a good job he even has a Section heading labelled wassons paradox
and Wason’s paradox defined by Jerry Brown and Brown is that he is reputed to be indefatigable in going to the ends of the earth to study Mushrooms and yet when panofsky two times strongly recommends Brinckmann’s book, Wassen then plays the part of the obstructionist! Wasson took measures and actively took steps to prevent progress in the field of Wasson absolutely is guilty pronounced verdict guilty definitely guilty Wasson is definitely definitely guilty of deliberately withholding Brinckmann citation right there in Wisen’s on hand (or exactly equivalent same I don’t care I don’t give a damn it’s the same thing it might as well be for all practical purposes it is Wisen’s own hand writing) on Pulaski’s first letter and he deliberately did not tell us !
he deliberately did not mention brinckmann!
wasson you jerk you -sshole
fcking Wassen fcking Wasson, you obstructionist fcker !
why in the hell is Wasson striving to prevent us from knowing about Brinkman’s book
what is your excuse you evil demonic liar Wason demon from hell you fraud you
phony you fake you liar you deception are R Gordon “deception” Wasson
Wasson equals deception
why is Wason trying to act deceptive
this is why Jan Irvin angrily exited the field
he said you guys are all deceivers your phonies actors
this is all a fraud
And Irving took his 100 interviews of 103 entheogen scholars and watered wadded them up into the trashcan and said you guys are lying fraudsters fraud phony deceivers this is a sham and a pretext and I a put on
you guys are fake and a fraud and phony deceivers
you’re not what you’re pretending publicly to be
your all actors liars and deceivers trying to deceive everybody
entheogens Scholars equals people who are out to deceive everybody
And Jan Irvin angrily stormed out of the field and exited and changed from gnostic media to logos media and said fck all of you evil phony fraudulent deceivers
dup voice trans.:
dup block? careful of data loss – are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
this is text announcement of some discoveries I made while recording Egodeath Mystery show
Brown and brown article 2019 figure 5 genesis the creation of the stars:
Brown says there are two distinct type of plants: umbrella shaped down swept cap by which means each of the three are that shape
I disagree about the tree on the right.
Brown says the tree on the right is an Italian pine with upswept branches.
but it doesnt look even remotely like an Italian pine; it looks like a leaf of an ivy vine; it is a nonbranching Brinkmann vine leaf tree.
the time stamp in the voice recording is 10:10 PM April 26, 2022
Egodeath Mystery Show “Ep128b Too many Pilzbaum” ~~1:43:00 but that player time is usu very wrong
Thus we have a trident branching mushroom tree on the left, and then we have a nonbranching ivy leaf tree on the right, the pairing expressing the major theme of left [leg] equals Possibility Branching Thinking and right leg equals nonbranching Thinking in the Mushroom altered state.
I have decoded and pointed out and explained the parallel in the Canterbury Psalter between the mushroom trees and the vine leaf trees, which express nonbranching.
no thanks to the censorious pope-buddy Wasson who has blocked and harmed the field of entheogen scholarship; against his efforts, I have gotten through – Panofsky has communicated through to me, to put me in touch with Brinckmann.
thanks to Cyberdisciple for locating the book.
thanks to brown and company for translating 1/4 of the book into English which helped to find Brinckmann’s construct of the {vine leaf tree}.
figure 14 God creates plants Great Canterbury Psalter Folio one: here is how Brown identifies the four mushroom types from left to right
1) Psilocybe
2) Panaeolus
3) Psilocybin
4) Amanita
Browns id’n /class’n is garbled. inconsistent, vague, imbalanced, anti-systematic.
I have catalogued and analyzed in great detail and high resolution all 75 mushroom plants of the great Canterbury Psalter
my morphology analysis identifies the four mushroom types as follows:
1) Panaeolus
2) Liberty Cap
3) Cubensis
4) Amanita
My scheme is more useful, coherent and meaningful, and specific in a suitable way, with balanced, meaningful categories.
most interesting, the above, semi-conflicting 1-4 lists demonstrates how the New Theory (Cybermonk/Egodeath) is more articulate than the Old, quasi-“theory” (Brown).
I have quite a few micro Announcements of Breakthrough theory connections of of art interpretation during my voice recordings of the ego death mystery show
for example :
Brown talks about the knives on the table with the mushrooms in the hem of the table cloth connected together at the base, in the same chapel where the youths are cutting Mushroom branches, and so therefore:
the {knives} on the table are directly connected to cutting Possibility Branching at the last supper; ingesting psilocybin mushrooms and then cutting ramification branches with Christ the redeemer.
ep128b One form Kino one Porten king [???] – separate wireless earbuds give even worse voice dict. = Hatsis filter output – though he has no monopoly on incoherent, incomprehensible writing in the entheogen scholarship field.
typing out the above: voice recording announcing the above {knife} mytheme connection.
I need someone to interpret; my voice dictation is speaking in tongues.
[pers. corr.: Jan. 22, 2023 Prof. Jerry Brown:] copied from Idea Dev page 16:
“As a result of that visit, the Wasson Archives sent us the image of Wasson and Richardson with Maria Sabina, which we published as color plate 4 in the book.
“We also read a good deal of Wasson’s voluminous correspondence, including with Robert Graves, and in the process came upon the two 1952 letters from Panofsky.
“We requested [in 2012 or in 2019 when writing the article] and received the images of the two letters along with permission from the Wasson Archives to reprint them with proper citation.
“For this reason, the Panofsky letters are cited as follows in this [2019] article:
Figure 2.
Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass
Figure 3.
Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass
“To honor our responsibility to the Wasson Archives, this [the above] is the way to cite the Panofsky letters when you reprint them, along with the fact that they were published in our article …”
Ruck, M. Hoffman, and Brian Muraresku set up Wasson West:
The Wasson-Ruck Entheogenic Research Institute and Archives (WRERI) http://wassonwest.com
6:49 AM May 1, 2022 – applying more reflection and weighing the indicators, I must conclude/ we must conclude that Panofsky in letter number two is not in fact just considering the lone question of the planecurled Fresco
it is evident because his reasoning doesn’t make sense if he’s only talking about a single tree
he rigidly conflates this one tree question with the question of interpreting all mushroom trees.
His letter overall doesn’t make sense if what he has in mind is only exclusively the single tree.
This whole reasoning is very much emphatically proxy-assumed, proxy shaped
clearly he believes, it is plainly clear that he believes that planecrawled is a proxy.
his letter and his reasoning cohere if you assume that what he has in mind is the question of how to interpret all mushroom trees all together all at once
Errata
Ep128b Too Many Pilzbaum – MORAL: yet again I see the downside of when I’m trying to analyze a passage while reading it aloud for the first time
I instead I am supposed to shut up and stop my dang commentary and first read the whole passage, entirely and accurately.
This is really bad – I’m listening to when I then finally did a straight reading and I swear I misread during a straight reading I wrongly said the word “project” but I’m rubbing my eyes now and it says the word “product” not “project”
this is a pretty embarrassing inexcusable misreading.
read the entire passage smoothly and accurately word for word before I comment on it
do not dive into analysis before I have ever finished reading the first the whole paragraph – But my problem here is worse than that: I am just plain misreading it.
even when I simply read the passage aloud, I’m misreading the word.
I need to focus on accurately reading the paragraph as is , to comprehend which word choice he is using, before I spout off and go off under my own delusion that the author wrote the word “project”, when in fact if I would shut up and read, and stop going off prematurely, I would accurately comprehend and firmly consistently grasp that the author wrote the word “product”, not the word “project”
in fact the only “project” going on here is I projected my confused misreading onto his writing word choice
I need to read the whole paragraph first before I spout off and dive into analyzing it.
I keep failing at this
I keep misreading, a terrible mistake and teetering of mine – and I keep flip-flopping between Panofsky’s phrase “the finished product” and my misreading as “the finished project” because the font of the typewriter font maybe blurry and because it was my first time reading through his often unclear leaps of reasoning and presuppositions but he writes “the finished product” he describes the alledged gradually distorted templates
therefore the fact that he wrote “the finished product” in the context it must mean that he’s talking about the templates were misread as mushrooms, not that – as I incorrectly interpreted during my initial run, I incorrectly interpreted and decided that Panofsky was saying that the artist(s) misinterpreted their own “finished project” but rather Panofsky was talking about the artist(s) misinterpreted the finished product of the alleged (FABRICATED) pine tree “gradual transformation process” which he keeps on emphasizing and going way out of his way to emphasize and which I describe as
what’s going on here as in fact it is Panofsky who has manufactured a conversion process, a transformation process of his own invention
Panofsky developed and fabricated his Pinetree conversion process actually in fact for the purpose expressly of converting mushroom trees to pine trees
the only templates that were involved and the only alleged transformation process and conversion process gradual conversion process is that gradually Panofsky made sht up and fabricated this whole conversion process for the purpose of the reverse of his lying invented fabricated story
or maybe Brinckmann fabricated and invented it , but the purpose of this story about the transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible
distortion The transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible
Panofsky refuses to say the templates or the mushroom trees, he always expresses and forces himself on us , shoving down our throats his “the transformation process” “the conversion process” of pine trees
but in fact what we have here is his own fabricated lying invention of a transformation process to transform mushroom trees – which is the given data – per his phrase “the finished product”( which I keep mispronouncing as the finished “project”) and I am good at reading, so this proves how bad we are at reading) into imagined as if original pine trees
he fabricated and invented the conversion process – which actually in fact is it a conversion process of converting mushroom trees to pine trees, but pretending and putting on the pretense and pretext that the conversion process goes in the other direction, from pine trees to mushroom trees conversion
orig timestamp of page here
I just noticed, I just discovered that neatly handwritten on the first letter from Panofsky to Wasson is the correct German title of Brinkman’s little book.
also in my exhausting/ exhaustive word by word analysis of Panofsky’s bizarre reasoning and thinking style with the incredible lack of imagination and rigid unimaginative thinking 99% of it unstated and implicit only.
all kinds of arbitrary assumptions making it difficult to follow what his train of argumentation even is , with gigantic leaps premised on unbelievable unimaginative assumptions and arbitrary assumptions that are as
they’re both pre-judged prejudiced presuppositions and considered not explicitly spelled out there arbitrary
everything is wrong with this
what passes for thinking
this seems more like sleepwalking
The first letter
we must see the photographs that Brown and Brown have provided of Pulaski’s letters
everything is left out of them all the time
people never even mention these things these important things
I’m finding all kinds of key observations and these two letters from Panofsky to Wassen
there’s a ton of relevant stuff here that nobody talks about, nobody pointed out, and I’m pointing out a whole pile of points that people haven’t made .
Panofsky makes an argument “they can’t be mushrooms, because they have branches.
“the artist didn’t mean mushrooms, because if the artist meant mushrooms, the artist would have ignored the distorted templates and would have drawn the mushroom trees with no branches”
first Pulaski recommends Brinckmann’s book which wasson sensors out
then I discovered that Wassen or someone hand wrote the correct title of Brooklyn’s book on the first letter
and then I discovered that Pulaski hand wrote on his second letter to Wasson that “you may keep my poor little pictures” ; the photo stats, the two of them, of mushroom trees.
and then he adds the interesting sentence “but I do recommend to look into the little book by a e Brinckmann”
so two times Panofsky recommended Brinckmann’s little book which he twice Calls it a “little” book
Panofsky two times recommends Brinckmann’s book to Wasson, and additionally, handwritten on the first letter, is the correct German title of Brinkman’s book(!)
but tell me this, Carl Rut:
did Wasson ever write the word Brinckmann, for “the public” “consumption”??
and if not, why not?-banker for the pope
no direct, financial conflict of interest there
💰
The ramifications branch out from there
the Purpose of entheogen scholarship is to block and prevent entheogens Scholarship entheogen scholarship and protect the Salvation Salesmen’s racket.
and The Witches play right into it
their actions show which side theyre on, complicit compromise
Time for Jonathan Ott to lead a new entheogenic reformation
I haven’t analyzed all the ramifications, the branching ramifications yet:
My main question here to analyze is in Jerry Brown’s article where he disparages and distances himself from the Ardent Advocates.
How does Brown describe Carl Rut’s position?
Brown identifies several derby teams; I mean, interpretation groups of people, including conservative Christians.
Model and summarize interpreting the Browns’ article as defining several derby teams, or interpretation positions, or schools regarding interpreting mushrooms in art and then easily explaining them away using sound, tried-and-true historical methods.
And then from that schematization or classification of interpretations, figure out where does Carl Rut sit.
Is Dr. Rut considered an Ardent Advocate?
Also today’s voice recording, Egodeath Mystery show… Here I didn’t get straight to the point, so I forgot what my point is
Who cares about the show, just make my point.
Be assured, it was a very good point.
Anyway, it’s captured in the voice recording today.
unless my backstabbing equipment trashcans my work
So here is the proposal purchase of the player from the other team, Dr. Secret Amanita.
Implicitly, Jerry Brown was trying to join the Moderates; aka the self-constrainers.
Brown was joined with Dr. Rut, and Brown speaks favorably about him.
I have tried to persuade Professor Brown to leave the Moderate paradigm and convert to the Ardent Advocates; the extremist, dogmatic, Maximal, hard-core winning side, not the losers, those losers, the Moderate, self-defeating position, who says that even at the beginning, even back in 500 BC Greece – against Cyberdisciple – Carl Rut’s Moderate position says that mushroom use was suppressed, deviant, rare; abnormal; doesn’t count.
Also I talked today a lot, in Egodeath Mystery Show, about how Brown’s committee is a failure.
I think this was my point I was going to say:
Brown’s committee was a failure.
Nobody wants to join his losing team, because his committee is fair and unbiased.
But the problem is that the way that they approach trying to define an unbiased methodology, they are going to, by default, present their neutral, fair, toothless, wimpy, non-prejudiced, no fervent mission or commitment – an unbiased approach will suffer instant defeat.
That prophecy is obvious, and every time that I read my article title where Jerry Brown asked me to write to define neutral, unbiased, unprejudiced and fair criteria for judgment, and every time I read my article title, the prophecy loomed:
This will suffer instant defeat.
This is a losing proposition, guaranteed to fail.
The mathematical reality is, given the infinite negative prejudice against mushrooms in Christian art, the only team worth joining, the only team that will win is a dogmatic, vicious, mean, hard-core prejudiced, intensively weponized team, with a mission: to win; to ardently advocate and forcefully push and compel.
So nobody wanted to join Jerry Brown’s loser neutral team of wusses.
That everyone can see has failure written all over it.
Just like I read aloud the title of my article for him, and every time I read it aloud, every time I tried to read aloud my article for him, I couldn’t get past the loser title, guaranteed to fail precisely because it is framed as neutral and reasonable and unbiased and fair, which all translates to:
You are guaranteed to suffer instant death, defeat, out there on the roller derby rink.
We have to do the very opposite of this, and be weaponized and vicious and armored with artillery and spikes.
we are here to destroy you
we are here to intensively advocate a particular, specific interpretation: EXPLICIT PSILOCYBIN; the Maximal, non-suppression premise is our COMMITMENT.
you could argue against me, that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for.
Brown says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity.
but Brown doesn’t drive & push that point, like an ardent advocate needs to drive that point to, if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining which it is not, the committee would say:
To be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an Ardent Advocate; hang out at Egodeath.com and be a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the ardent advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article.
which you could argue against me that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for;
he says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity
but he doesn’t drive that point like an Ardent Advocate needs to drive that point to ,
if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining, which it is not, the committee would say: to be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an ardent advocate; a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the Ardent Advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article which has an Ardent Advocates section distancing himself, and where he declares his opposition to the Ardent and Advocates
Brown’s Ardent Advocates Section of his article fortunately lists egodeath.com as an Ardent Advocate.
I am in agreement with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media, Jan Irvin of Logos Media, and John Rush.
The Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of moderate compromisers
so I am proposing to purchase player Jan Irvin to join the Monks derby team, but kind of rename/ alt name the team as the ardent advocates, and then get Jerry Brown to abandon the Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of Moderate compromisers, self-defeaters, obedient secret suppression pushers, those losers.
in his article he is essentially declaring Carl rock to be the correct approach, of moderate reasonable and fair
but then how come the Carl rock gang refused to join Jerry Brown’s loser committee of failure?
Dr. Secret Amanita refused to join Jerry Brown’s team, because Carl Rut realizes that Jerry Brown is not one of the moderates
Jerry Brown is actually in fact a closeted Ardent Advocate.
Jerry Brown’s committee actually goes against Carl Ruck.
the reason people don’t want to join Jerry Brown’s committee is because the committee is defined and designed to be intensely prejudiced in favor of mushrooms in Christian Art and the pussies on Carl Rut’s team want to tell the exact opposite story.
The Carl Ruck gang looked at Jerry Brown’s definition of the committee, and said “you’re not a member of our team; you’re on the opposite team – you’re on the Ardent Advocates team , unlike the moderate position that’s held by Dr. Secret Amanita”
See cyberdisciple.wordpress.com webpage article about against suppression hypothesis against the hypothesis of suppression:
Previously I had put Jan Irvin on the Secret Amanita Team, but it is striking how many agreements that I have with Irvin
I don’t really think that Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media or I have the same view as Allegro, because Allegro was a actually a full on minimal position; Allegro said that even at the beginning of Christianity, barely anybody used or knew about mushrooms in Christianity; almost nobody at the start –
that makes Allegro like Terence McKenna; a Minimal position advocate.
Jan Irvin does not agree with the Minimal entheogen theory of religion.
Jan Irvin agrees with the Plaincourault fresco version of John Allegro, which is not a minimal, but rather a moderate position, at least – and this raises the question: can Jan Irvin of gnostic media era be considered as Maximal entheogen theorist?
I think so; eg:
Thomas Hatsis quoted Jan Irvin saying that “anybody who claims to achieve Mushroom altered state without mushrooms needs to be investigated”, and Hatsis retorted by quoting the authority Carlo Ginsberg, historian of witches, who belongs on the witches roller derby team, who I say is full of sht and liars.
I agree with Jan irvin of gnostic media: Carlo Ginsberg’s fertility cult practices do not in fact induce the psilocybin loose cognitive association state; that doesn’t happen.
That’s not how the mind works.
that’s a firm position, because I am a an extreme dogmatist, and I am extremely-
I am far more prejudiced and I am far more biased than even Panofsky and Wasson and Hatsis.
if you think Thomas Hatsis is biased and prejudiced against Mushrooms, I am extremely much more biased and prejudice in favor of them
This is the Ardent Advocates derby team; we are out for blood on the rink: don spikes & hit first.
Welcome to the mud wrestling club, Dr. Brown.
No one wants to join your losing, neutral Committee, which sits on the fence and doesn’t have the guts to take a firm, vigorous, committed stance.
Theory adoption is about commitment, and this is not expressed clearly enough in the book and article by Brown which calls for the committee that nobody is willing to join, because they know the prophecy of instant total defeat, given the intensely negative prejudice & bias that’s the given context of reality that we live in.
The only viable committee is precisely the committee which is run and driven by the Ardent Advocates, which Dr. Brown used to counter-signal.
Is the crucifixion nail in the picture the mushroom 🍄 object?? 🤔
Yes.
The only question is, in what specific way is the crucifixion nail = the mushroom object?
Only the Egodeath theory, including the Maximal entheogen theory of religion, explains the intelligent, precise way in which the crucifixion nail equals the mushroom object 🍄.
I am not an ardent advocate of mushrooms in Christian history.
Professor Jerry Brown, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Special Issue on Psychedelics in Religious History
Planning today off topic utility version of an Egodeath Mystery show Episode
although what I was really hoping to record this morning what is it review of the Thomas Hatsis articles and discussing the question of , on the one hand, it has been profitable to critique Tom Hatsis , but on the other hand, he is very poor at thinking , and he is very poor at reading, and he is extremely poor at writing.
and so he serves in a very limited clown roll the role of a clown – but that’s very Appropriate for this field of entheogen scholarship , which is , as Letcher Hatsis has pointed out – as a clown, he very well recognizes that this is a clown field, that’s so compromised, due to Prohibition, that turns us all into idiots, or tries to, and most people comply and become idiots, just like the prohibitionist Presupposition Matrix coerces people into acting/ reasoning like fools.
Thomas Hatsis is a product of the foolishness of coerced scholarly positions; they reward him for being dense and garbled and his thinking – if you can call it thinking.
I guess the bottom line is that Letcher Hatsis is limited, just like everyone makes limited contributions to the field.
you are crazy if you think that he can be treated straight, reasoned with a straightforward, above the board manner.
but on the other hand, neither can you deal with Wasson in a straightforward way, and this is why I had to write the stupid 70-page article on planecorral and Wasson versus Allegro: the whole field is a clown show.
so Hatsis is par for the course:
we have dimwit Carl Ruck versus dimwit Wasson versus dimwit art historian Panofsky & Brinckmann – the whole thing, the whole field is filled with dimwits – the damned Moderate entheogen theory of religion, which they all push.
and even Dr. Brown was trying to strike a pose , “look how reasonable and Moderate I am.”
F that!!!
Stop acting- stop putting on a show of being moderate and mild and reasonable, dammit, everybody you’re just being self-defeating!
The Curse of the Field of Entheogen scholarship: The Damned “Moderate” Bias, of Countersignalling Your Own Assertions
that’s the curse of the field of entheogen scholarship, is that everybody is coerced into being compliant and mild and countersignaling themselves and holding back and using the brake pedal; all the time the brake pedal, always the brake pedal, so that even when you affirm 🍄, you deny 🍄.
The accusation of the confused Jerry Brown and confused everybody who pretends to take the stance of “look how mild I am, look how mild I am, look how much I countersignal myself , look how much I hold back and deny the presence – even while I assert the presence of the visionary plants.”
“what a great show of being reasonable and mild and moderate and slight and small, look how small I am, look how small my claim is. I’m not one of those crazy John Allegro people, followers, disciples, Ardent Advocates like John Rush and Jan Irvin”, advertises Professor Brown.
professor Brown said “please don’t mistake me for an ardent advocate”
he published this in the journal of psychedelic studies, he advertised his stance, his posture, his pose; he said don’t mistake me for an ardent advocate of psychedelics in our own religious history.
good job, Brown countersignaling yourself, distancing yourself from ardent advocates asserting mushrooms in Christian history.
His published message in Journal of Psychedelic Studies was: please don’t mistake Jerry Brown as an ardent advocate of entheogens in Christian history.
I am not an ardent advocate of mushrooms in Christian history.
Professor Jerry Brown, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Special Issue on Psychedelics in Religious History
He has since retracted that posturing position statement to me (personal correspondence).
And that is the problem, this is the problem right there, this compromising self-defeating, telling the story of “look how small I am, look how small mushrooms are in our own religion, look how secret, look how deviant” – that’s the damned evil story that they are all intent on telling.
i’m putting on a great show of how mild, how moderate my assertion is, look how middle of the road I am, not like that John Irvin who errs in seeing mushrooms everywhere.
But actually I am saying that Jan Irvin fails to see 3/4 of the mushrooms.
you know how the accusation is when Jerry Brown accuses people the so-called ardent advocates?
he actually puts down, he actually insults John Rush and he actually insults Jan Irvin as a so-called “ardent advocates”.
but I am saying that Jan Irvin & Rush is not nearly ardent enough!
WE NEED TO SEE 🍄 EVERYWHERE, 4 TIMES AS MUCH AS THESE SUPPOSED “ARDENT ADVOCATES”!!
God did not create one type of plant, Amanita
Eadwine in the canterbury Psalter Clearly depicts that God created 4 plants s
So we need to see four times as many of these mushrooms.
we need to stop only seeing amanita everywhere.
we need to have & see & recognize the presennce of four times as much mushroom imagery in Christian art.
we need to add additionally three times as much:
we need to also see Panaeolus Mushrooms everywhere.
and also we need to also see Cubensis Mushrooms everywhere.
and also we also need to see liberty cap Mushrooms everywhere.
Successful voice practice review recording today
This was a warm-up to discuss the great limitations of Tom hatsis
a main point that I plan to say is that the problem is not only him; he is typical, he is a symptom
the badness of Tom Hatsis is a great example of a symptom of what’s fcked up about this retarded, self-defeating field of entheogen scholarship, the damned accursed plague of the mere Moderate entheogen theory of religion
if you argue that we should ignore Tom Hatsis because he’s so lame and can’t think his way out of a paper bag and can’t even express his own ideas he completely fails basic writing ability including in his published book not just his casual emails to me
the guy can’t write, he’s like the worst writer in the whole field
and he may be the worst thinker in the field too
his arguments don’t cohere, and I demonstrated that reading aloud his email on yesterday’s recording the second Segment in Egodeath Mystery show of April 25, 2022 episode I think 126, called titled ” Liberty Cap shape anachronistic”
But if you argue that his argumentation is incoherent and he should be ignored and that he is irrelevant to the field, as cyberdisciple has argued, then by that same reasoning, you would say that Wasson is irrelevant to the field, and allegro is irrelevant to the field, and Carl Rut is irrelevant to the field, too, by the same token. which is like what I asserted in October 2002 I said all of these guys are going nowhere and I reject their whole paradigm and I am going to go against everyone of them
and I’m saying that they are all irrelevant all these authors all these self contradicting Moderate compromiser’s
we need to stop compromising
we need to stop countersignaling ourselves
we need to make a firm, bold, strong assertion – put some muscle into it, dammit!
stop waffling and prevaricating and putting forth a reasonable, mild, small, moderate, PUNY proposal, and theory of the role of entheogens in our religious history!
every one of the adherents to the the accursed Moderate entheogen theory of religion puts forth garbled, self-contradictory reasoning.
if you accuse Tom Hatsis of being self-contradictory or inconsistent, well, the whole king of being inconsistent and self-contradictory is none other than Carl Rut himself, Dr. Secret Amanita.
Voice Skills – casual standard voice
Voice dictation here I just did a full reading and warm up and review recording
looking forward to listening to it
might upload it as a independent Recording or maybe some sort of like alternative like off topic portion or aspect of ego death mystery show maybe a separate numbering scheme or OT in the
it is beneficial for me in multiple ways to publish my coverage of off topic things
OT in the Episode name meaning off topic
something like that but
I think
the recording of reviewing my voice and Mike techniques
I’m looking forward to listening to it
I think
this morning’s recording was big progress but
the challenging thing for me is how to not sound angry when I am emphasizing force when I’m making a point when I’m making a scathing negative critical point how do I not sound angry
on
another voice that I hate is the lecturing chiding
I can list the voice character that I hate:
I hate the lecturing chiding voice character
I hate the soft flowery overly gentle voice in character
and it is pretty tricky to target truly the casual standard voice which DJs are the master of
it is so hard to just sound normal and friendly and welcoming and clear
it is really a refined cultivated skill and
I tend to sound angry hyper pronunciation
or soft and flowery
or formal and serious too much sounding serious
or too clownish
you see so it’s not a single character that I dislike of tone of voice and character of voice
the challenge is more complicated:
how to make the character disappear.
that’s the challenge :
how do you make the character of the voice disappear and vanish so that you have transparent communication.
To have transparent communication.
improving
but I do feel with my sheer approving[?]
proving the ability to do the great reading of the webpage that I did this morning
I feel like I’m really moving into the territory of putting the fine polish on it Control of voicing in conjunction with Mike in technique
which requires always keeping up the guard
don’t let down the guard
keep trying and keep critiquing
always be critical and improving
always be improving or trying to push toward the ideal casual standard voice with flexibility and dynamic balancing out all these different factors
it’s pretty complicated
and then eventually want all of that to be natural and to come feel like it comes naturally
when in fact – perhaps this does come naturally to some DJ types but I would say definitely,
for most people, they are very very far from 1) number one mastering all of these aspects and 2) number two having that field feel natural aspect one is being able to balance out all these factors
an aspect to is to do so while experiencing that as natural , when for most people, accomplishing that voicing – that transcendence of the voice character and transcending the cultivated voice apparatus is the very opposite of natural and easy and can require a lot of diligent debugging and troubleshooting and identifying flaws and correcting them and coming up with strategies: how am I going to correct this flaw
for example of closing the nasal passage when emphasizing things and then sounding like nasal Terence McKenna
it is just mind blowing how often I sound like Terence McKenna clamping down the nasal passage at top back of throat
That is something most recently I have been learning to hear when listening to my voice every 10th word I do a turns McKenna Kermit the frog, due to closing of the nasal passage resonance cavity – it’s a habit of a way of emphasizing.
Transcendent voiceover
cultivated casual standard voice
Make it sound natural, when in fact it takes for me at least years of diligent troubleshooting and critique and analysis and practice critical listening, judging and identifying what is the goal , how / what is it to sound good
what do we mean when that person has a good voice like
Martin ball has a very good voice
; Martin Ball has a very very good voice
except maybe you could say errs on the sound of he sounds too gentle
he doesn’t sound neutral, he sounds gentle; he errs on the side of gentle.
I err on the side of sounding sharp and critical and serious. and lecturing and trading alternating with sounding too soft and flowery alternating with sounding too soft and flour
and also cramped into a midrange, locked into a midrange RESONANCE
to resonate a midrange resonate
too much clamping into a clamping into a distinctive narrow voice spectrum instead of staying open and flexible and dynamic
the hard thing I’m working on now is to sound smooth and neutral and friendly without sounding clownish and without sounding stern and lecturing and over pronunciation but casual instead of stern or goofy or flowery and soft or Kermit the frog Terence McKenna closed resonance chamber
Long list of improvements made since January 2021
But I could list now a long list of improved my technique and a long list of improved voice technique compared to January 20, 2021 when I essentially started voice recording series, the Egodeath Mystery Show
Crossfader, or at least two faders
and I remembered a great hook up idea though I really want a cross feeder does anyone make a little guitar pedal size Crossfade or to Crossfade between Mike and music that’s what I really need
I could hook it up with my synth synthesizer as at least for a temporary measure until I get a more simple dedicated hardware
I advocate since 2002 the greedy entheogen theory of religion and I was disappointed and surprised, even shocked to realize in 2002 that what Clark Heinrich and the evil M. Hoffman and Carl Rut are pushing is not greedy entheogen theory, but rather, they are substituting it with the false and bogus negative defeatist planned failure, designed to fail
The Carl Rut paradigm is like McKenna declaring and robbing us – just like Andy Letcher and Thomas Hatsis are robbers they are anti-entheogen scholars, they are fake entheogen scholars pretending to assert visionary plants, when –
look at what they’re actually doing, is they’re doing everything possible to minimize the most important type of visionary Plants in the most important, relevant religion.
they’re trying to block entheogen scholarship at precisely the point where it matters the most
they are trying to give us low priority and unimportant irrelevant entheogen scholarship,
they are trying to be prohibition compliant
they are trying to be compliant flunky henchmen of prohibition, in service of the salvation Salesmen
we have Hatsis the supposed “Psychedelic Witch” & supposed “psychedelic historian”, who is actually in cahoots with the Pope.
Hatsis is in cahoots with the Salvation Salesmen, approving of explicit coverage of scopolamine plants in texts, while doing everything possible to deny and cover up the plants that actually matter: the Eucharist, Psilocybin mushrooms.
The Prohibitionist establishment laps up Thomas Hatsis’ bullsht , lying, fake, fraudulent “history”.
They give him a little reward pellets, and little lapdog that he is , he goes right along with their ruse, their deception.
He eagerly takes their reward pellets.
The Prohibitionist Establishment loves it when Letcher Hatsis publishes the entheogen-diminishing, stingy story.
They permit him to write half of the truth, and then steer the rest of it into the ditch, along with Wasson and all the Prohibition-compliant, fraudulent, fake scholars in the cover-up operation, complicit servants & flunkies of the Salvation Salesmen.
He’s just another fcking cover-up operator.
Letcher Hatsis is nothing but a Prohibition-compliant cover-up operator, who is intent on doing everything he can think of, & all the specious, nonsensical, and inarticulate “arguments” that he can pull out of a dark place, to prop up his lie that there’s no Psilocybin mushrooms in Christian history.
Which one is he: an idiot, or a liar? or is it a combination? 🤔 Letcher Hatsis is functioning as a “useful idiot”.
The Prohibition establishment rewards him for being stupid & ignorant.
He doesn’t even know what he’s doing, but he knows he gets his little stupid reward pellets from the Prohibitionist Establishment to write his bullsht half-false books,
he doesn’t even have to articulate a coherent position statement, or define exactly who is pushing against.
they’re telling all kinds of nonsense, popular notions such as “Psilocybin is only in South America not Europe there was no psilocybin in Europe until 1975”, according to Letcher Hatsis.
Hatsis asserts falsely, copy/pasting Letcher, that there’s no psilocybin mushrooms in England until 1975.
My main point that I’m yelling at you here is:
if that’s not what your flimsy cover-up story is, to (as you BRAG about) “easily explain away” “mushrooms” (🍄) in Hellenistic religion & in Christianity, then what the hell exactly is your story?
be clear this time.
be specific this time.
write in clear black-and-white clear ink, make a position statement.
what in the hell is your position, when you claim “anachonism”?
what in the hell are you talking about, “anachronistic”?
be clear, be articulate;
specify what your exact position is, you stupid, inarticulate, mumbling, muddled thinker.
I’m going to accuse you of asserting what you asserted to me in email (personal correspondence) : you use the word anachronistic.
I need to provide a link and I need to add that to the hall of shame, the scholarly fail quotes hall of shame: see my idea development page 13 I think is where I quoted it; I need to go copy paste that here.
written by Thomas Hatsis: “There was no psilocybin in England before 1975.” – signed, Thomas Hatsis
after all he said to me that psilocybin in Christian history would be “anachronistic”
so make him own his massive claim; put that, quote that in gigantic billboard letters, signed Idiot Letcher Hatsis, Prohibition-compliant lapdog slave, servant of the Prohibition establishment.
oh you say I’m strawmanning Tom Hatsis’ position?
well for one thing, yes , we do indeed need to talk about strawmanning
you bastard, trying to lie and tell lies that that Brown and I assert the John allegro position – what a lie, what a liar! so much for your historical sound tried and true historical methodology”, manifestly equals lying and strawmanning , at a industrial-level scale
well I’m going to strawman you right back, – Except that I’m not Straw Manning you; I’m accurately stating your incoherent stated position:
you asserted that psilocybin is “anachronistic” in Christian history, hand-in-hand, holding hands with Andy Letcher , the other lapdog flunky servant slave spreading the lies of the prohibition Establishment;
Letcher said there is no Psilocybin Mushroom Existed in England before 1975
please please please prove me wrong, and state CLEARLY what your damn position is, you inarticulate, mumbling, sorry excuse of a writer, failed example of a “historian” writer, who can’t even state clearly what his position is.
and, you completely grotesquely misstate the position of other historians – of actual historians.
I am more of a historian than you are, and I’m not even trying to be a historian. (I’m a cognitive theorist of the altered state including interpreting analogies.)
so much for being the “psychedelic witch”; you mean deliriant flunky slave propagandist for the Pope, more like.
they are robbers, they are trying to remove Psilocybin from Europe before 1975
Andy Letcher and Thomas Hatsis are robbers who are trying to remove psilocybin from European history.
They pretend to be entheogen scholars, but look at what they’re pushing: they’re pushing the denial that our religion and our history has Psilocybin.
These half-baked entheogen scholars are more driven by The Agenda (they are complicit in the Prohibition agenda) than by a sincere desire to reveal the truth, to plainly and loudly tumpet the truth, out and out plain and simple, no if’s and’s or buts, no goddmn word “secret secret secret secret secret”; every other word in every title, in every subtitle, always amanita, always “secret” , every single time.
It sure must be easy writing so-called “entheogen scholarship” books, when you toe the Prohibitionist party line, like a compliant lapdog and tell the lying, bogus story that they want you to tell – sure makes life easy, doesn’t it, Letcher, Hatsis, & Rut.
These are fake, fraudulent, phony, anti-entheogen scholars, who pretend to be entheogen scholars, when their real purpose and function that they serve is, they are willing, complicit slaves.
Letcher Hatsis is a compliant, complicit slave of the Prohibition Establishment, a flunky; a henchmen for the Prohibitionists, cover-up operators.
A main part of Hatsis’ fake stage act is the claim and statement that he wishes there were mushrooms in Christian history.
Yet, he is devoted to doing everything he possibly can to contribute to the cover-up operation and deny and minimize and remove Mushrooms from Christianity.
He’s an actor, a phony, and he is trying to harm and destroy and eliminate the scholarly field of mushrooms in European history, including removing Psilocybin Mushrooms from European history & from the Eucharist.
Hatsis the fake “witch” is anti- ethnomycology, an anti-scholar pretending to do scholarship, for the purpose of covering up and hiding the truth.
“Ethnomycolgy”‘s purpose is a cover-up operation to delete/ remove/ hide the Psilocybin mushroom basis of european and ancient mediterranean & ANE religion.
The purpose of the Moderate entheogen theory of religion is to hide and diminish and reduce the amount of prominence and presence of visionary plants, particularly Psilocybin Mushrooms in European religious history, including ancient Mediterranean, including ancient Greece.
The purpose of the Moderate entheogen theory of religion is to cowtow and toe the line and be stingy and downplay and emphasize the absence, rather than the presence of Psilocybin mushrooms in Greek & Christian history.
While pretending that the purpose of their “entheogen scholarship” is to emphasize the presence of these visionary plants, the actual function of the evil, false, Moderate entheogen theory of religion is to diminish as much as possible the effective, Psilocybin Eucharist.
What passes for “entheogen scholarship” is actually the opposite of what it pretends to be
it’s a cover-up operation , anti-entheogen scholarship
it’s the phony , fraudulent Moderate version for what passes for entheogen sholarship, designed expressly to *not* reach the true conclusion, but obscure and drive it underground and hide it and deny it
the purpose of the Moderate entheogen theory of religion is to deny the normal presence of visionary plants in religion – that’s the function that it serves, compliant with Prohibition – good job, losers.
The Moderate, ersatz, substitute, phony version of “entheogen scholarship” is the opposite of what it pretends to be.
Terence McKenna robbed us of our Psilocybe in history – jerk , idiot, claiming that to recover Psilocybin we would have to regress to the archaic lack of civilization – an evil idea.
These robbers, the Moderate entheogen theory robs us of our Psilocybin history.
The Moderate entheogen theory of religion is anti-entheogen scholarship, pretending to be pro-entheogen scholarship.
The Moderate entheogen theory of religion is as disastrous of a strategy as the psychedelic 60s saying “we have a brand new technology that was never used before”.
Good job, dimwits, morons, self-defeating
you’ve already declared defeat before you even started by saying that nobody before us used visionary plants.
… which is completely false and awful and harmful, and a defeatist, self-defeating strategy that’s guaranteed to fail and lose.
Good job; now your wrong presuppositions that you didn’t even give any thought to at all , together with nonsense lies like “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics” – what baloney, complete baloney!
Now thanks to your disastrous catastrophic stupid strategy and presuppositions , now your incorrect presuppositions are baked into international law.
good fcking job, dumbasses – the fcking Moderate Entheogen Theory is anti-entheogen theory.
it’s helping to limit and stunt and retard and drive into a dead end instead of opening up
it’s designed to fail
it’s a stingy rather than greedy Scholarship
I’m disappointed in you guys
I thought, I expected from you in your book Apples of Apollo in 2000, I expected you to take a greedy, assertive, manly vigorous stance
grow some fcking balls you fcking UNIX Ha ha ha
A greedy approach is the definition of the Maximal Entheogen Theory
a stingy approach is the definition of the moderate entheogen theory
this really is the contrast in a nutshell
this is how to define the two positions against each other
stop being stingy, be greedy – that is my message of 2002 October, in the wake of the stingy book Apples of Apollo, that leaves everything all the winnings are left behind on the table
they come away with nothing but worthless dross, the stupid dirty inefficient Amanita – and only secret use, at that.
🍄 -> 🗑
my technical definition of the difference between my maximal entheogen theory versus the sucky, suck-azz , self-defeating losers’ Moderate Entheogen Theory:
the Moderate Entheogen Theory of religion is for losers
it’s designed to lose and fail, dead end, go nowhere and be a Prohibition-compliant Moderate view – good job, losers
Wassons job was to create a new field, “ethnomycology”, in order to steer it into a ditch and steer it away from the truth and to prevent revealing the mysteries, which is that our own religions come from visionary plants, at their origins and throughout their history.
Wasson constantly insulting mycologists and “commanding” them to stop asserting that mushroom trees mean mushrooms – as if he had any credibility on this matter, which he does not.
Wasson has zero credibility on this matter, and Dr. Brown does cover that in his article, and so does Jan irvin in his book, the Holy Mushroom.
Pope Wasson/Panofsky, the Salvation Salesmen, just like the Meditation Hucksters of the East, are selling a fraudulent, false product, in place of the real deal, which has always been psilocybin mushrooms.
Gordon “Conflict of Interest” Wa$$on
Psilocybin Mushrooms is:
the Eucharist
the mushroom trees
mixed wine
“contemplation” (give me a break)
kykeon
the initiation Sacred meal
see Jerry Brown’s article in journal of psychedelic studies, which states that its purpose is to reveal the financial conflict of interest that Wasson had.
and Jan Irvin; I need to buy his book.
I have to buy his book with color plates, the expensive version
I can’t avoid this tiresome, very tiresome topic, of all the lies and deception.
Wason is a liar; he is a deceiver, he’s dishonest, he strives to spread deception.
his purpose is to spread lies and falsehoods and prevent us from knowing the truth.
Go to Hell Wasson, trying to replace – how dare you replace the authentic psilocybin Eucharist by wine, crackers, and priestcraft; magical thinking!
spreading egoic delusion – thanks a lot Wasson, lots of “contributions” you’ve “contributed”: they’re contributing to driving the field into a dead-end ditch, together with Carl Rut 🍄⚰️🛑⛔️🚫
it’s the age-old battle between exoteric versus esoteric;
between what Elaine Pagels calls Orthodox versus Gnostics sets of views,
between the (lower) Psychics versus the (higher) Pneumatics;
between literalist ordinary state possibilism with autonomous control versus analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
Miracle occurs: voice transcription got the above correct – even the casing.
The two legs, the two views, the two interpretations of religious mythology, the two presupposition matrixes about visionary plants in the origin and ongoing inspiration wellspring of our own religions.
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown, used by permission. Processed by Cybermonk – Holding branch with left hand (asserting possibilism) & cutting branch with right hand (asserting eternalism) – May 2, 2022 https://www.academia.edu/40312824/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospelsleft cut branching trunk = standing on left leg = stable control during loose cog state from psilocybin = eternalism-thinking, salamander affirms w left paw and w nonbranching tail the nonbranching parts of the msh tree (tree’s nonbr-assocd hand touches tail)
tree’s branching-assocd hand doesnt touch the post roast salam snake-w-legs
Oh my God I’m embarrassed to be adding another one that when I created this draft posting a few days ago I didn’t and couldn’t have thought of it because I was too stupid at the time to include the reversed Lucas Cranach painting “Eve tempted by the serpent” (yeah but what about the subsequent 15-year-delayed images i realized in the next day 😨 ):
gnihcnarB😞😭 “bnah\mra tfel” brow eht etirw ot beliaf
podcast challenge: in a segment, summarize interp of a art piece eg
tauroctony or
diomysus victory mosaic
moses Y branching john rush upper & lower panels:
brinckmann Y branching tree of knowledge:
canterbury msh tree w 2 men & sword comic panel or
dancing man salamander
Segment Length
segment in my context i suppose connotes maybe 20 minutes or 15 minutes
10 min short segment
15 minutes
20
30 longish
Episode Length
tend to target 1.5 hour episode,
for me this has seemed a good unit for playback but not clear why, or if true
pros & cons of 10 min or
1 hr
12:27 am April 26 2022 – the {bound hair} of Ariadne riding (not steering) in Dionysus’ chariot is like mental model #3; qualified possibilism thinking, after tightcog returns but mental model retained but egoic freewill mode returns (qualified).
I think it was the reading aloud next episode to hear my read aloud Brown’s question to me “where is my evidence what is my evidence that amanita in art means ingesting Psilocybin not Amanita” .
in my joke errata below, I wanted to include a mention: Panofsky calls any student who disagrees and any art historian who disagrees is implicitly smeared and slurred and defamed by Erwin Panofsky,
he is calling them, those who reveal the Mystery, he will impugn you as “some especially ignorant craftsman”.
so if you disagree with the (unfortunately) most influential (sorry to hear it) art historian Erwin Panofsky
and if you go against him and declare the truth and state the truth, which is that Mushroom Imagery Means Mushrooms then he says – he is announcing here in the letter to Wasson, he will smear and slur and defame you as a “some especially ignorant craftsman”.
You must conform to our professional standards and toe the line and tell the party BS fabricated false history.
you must comply; you must conform; you must assert our coerced conclusion.
iirc, in the next episode, i read my initial assertion *after* reading my final explanation that I immediately composed and sent to Professor Brown, invented on the spot, just like Hatsis “easily explaining away” and inventing specious arguments (aka “sound, tried-a-true historical criteria”, aka dogmatically just make sht up) one by one to dismiss each instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art –
remember, it only counts if hatsis makes up a rule on the spot, pulled out of his ass on a case by case basis as needed, that now suddenly it only counts if it’s what Thomas Hatsis, the greatest historian of all time, deems to be “devotional”.
see, you didn’t know , but we are strictly exclusively now talking only about devotional art.
art images in devotional documents, only.
that’s the new rule you have to follow because I just now made it up to save my pathetic failing case
and the salamander bestiary does not meet my brand new criteria I just made up two seconds ago, called “only ‘devotional literature‘ counts”.
therefore I have easily explained away your mushroom in Christian Art yet again
Also please note that your Canterbury Psalter doesn’t count either, because it doesn’t meet my theological criteria for typical Christian art documents , because it is an illuminated Manuscript thus neither fish nor foul; and it fails to meet cyberdisciple’s categories that you have committed to , which is a sharp distinction between texts versus art , but the illuminated manuscript is neither text nor art, so it doesn’t count. 😑
so subtract those 75 mushroom trees that you proved, because they don’t occur in authorized Christian art , but rather, in unauthorized illuminated Manuscript Witch doesnt count, because of the new rule I just made up two seconds ago on the spot on a case-by-case basis, as needed to bolster my failed case and try to save my sinking ship as my Hatsis Industries Witches Scopalamine Supply stock corporate value plummets into the ocean bottom
this is the great achievement and accomplishment & methodology of the Moderate entheogen theory.
I was as quick as that, in fabricating a response for Professor Brown, based on evidence from mushroom hunt and based on evidence from our contemporary experience ingesting both types of mushroom.
I did not yet have the head shop art analogy, when I replied to Professor Brown.
nd I read aloud my … actually I don’t remember if I read aloud my posting where I asserted as much and then I did read his no I don’t think I read his posting all of them mixed up all but anyway that’s in the next episode
aggh ERRATA – joke error !
I said that Wasson claims that “every flunking-out art student, beginning first semester flunking out art student knows that mushroom trees do not mean mushrooms”
that was a joke error
that was incoherent because I should have made the point that it is the A students, the passing students are the ones who “know” mushroom trees don’t mean mushrooms.
it is precisely the flunking students who assert that mushroom trees mean mushrooms (truth).
this is how the Persephone’s winnowing and filtering process works.
the students & the academics who assert that mushroom tree equals Mushroom are not employed, and the students to assert that do not pass.
only the art historians who toe the party line are allowed to be art historians
and only the art students who toe the party line are allowed to continue on to further classes
you’re not allowed to complete your degree if you tell the truth and reveal the mysteries
because remember, hint hint, “the punishment for revealing the mysteries is death”, which means, flunking and not getting the professorship.
maybe dup below:
– there’s a totally believable conclusions that the intellectual academics reach the conclusions that they are coerced and forced to reach which is why Panofsky brags to Wasson go ahead, ask any (employed, approved) art historian , ask any (passing) art student.
but please do not speak to the unemployed art historians and the failing students, who we are failing because they do not toe the party line and reach our coerced conclusions that we force them to reach.
joke error: I said that Wason claims that every flunking out arts to beginning first semester flunking out art student knows that mushroom trees do not mean mushrooms
that was a joke error that was incoherent because I should have made the point that it is the A students the passing students are the ones who know mushroom trees don’t mean mushrooms
it is precisely the flunking students who assert that mushroom trees mean mushrooms
this is how the Persephone’s winnowing and sorting
update: 11:52 AM April 24, 2022
my present feeling is that it’s the least work is to create a new episode 126 I have a ton of new fresh material this morning recorded and instead of ending it adding it to the end a pending it to episode 125 I have to just see how many hours of material it is though I do feel like my
Reading aloud of my response to Professor Jerry BrownProfessor Jerry Brown is kind of missing fromintended Reading aloud of my response to Professor Jerry Brown is kind of missing from
episode 125 above all out of the five to eat five or six or seven or eight segments that I recorded this morning , the one that seems missing from episode 125 is my reading of my reply to professor Jerry Brown explaining why amanita is the face of ingesting Psilocybin.
so I am deciding whether[no] to do official v3 release of episode 1 to 5 maybe just adding my reading and commentary about my reply to Professor Jerry Brown answering his question on what Evidence do I have for my conclusion that Amanita in christian art means and indicates the presence of ingesting Psilocybin.
if I add that segment[no] I will probably end up with a 1 1/2 hour episode 1 to 5 which I feel is more worthy
it’s a great great episode but a little bit on the short changed
my next material coheres very well with the 126 v2 short episode, and also has a heavy coverage of Canterbury Decoding, and advanced three-level model of , the three mental models, the series of three mental models.
I will now announce that , which I announced with an earlier time stamp in the voice recording a few minutes ago, but I will make another timestamp here in text form 11:57 AM April 24, 2022 a little bit different way of thinking of it then before the mind undergoes a series of three mental models which way we may describe as a sequence of three legs or three mental models in a series as follows
number one : NAIVE Possibility thinking
number two: eternity thinking; eternalism
NUMBER 3: QUALIFIED possibility thinking. I discovered during this voice recording a few minutes ago that we are posed with a second class exam instructor testing the student in row two of F134 image of Canterbury Psalter right side of row two we again have a exam scene in the marketplace the red initiate is being examined by the instructor you must interpret both of my feet above the ground well I have a John Rush while I have a John Rush celestial erection lifted garment and I have a solid good mushroom folded him per John rush which is as if growing out of the column base for control stability and the initiator says displays his left hand not his right hand this time and says interpret my left hand higher than my right hand displayed to you this time in this exam if the correct answer was right hand displaying the right hand in row one left exam scene scenery then what does displaying my left hand mean during the ordinary state after advanced initiation how is my left hand a good positive statement combined with having both feet off the ground and not having my right foot on the ground how am I in lightened given that I don’t have my right foot on the ground the answer is transcending eternity thinking
persephone lives after revelation of enlightenment when we return to the ordinary state persephone Queen of our underworld where we live as shadows and we continue to control and rule and reign and steer through virtual possibility branching in the ordinary state after full completed enlightenment and initiation the rest of our lives are entirely spent see Ken Wilber regarding states versus stages and regarding the pre-trans fallacy although we rely on possibility thinking in the ordinary state after enlightenment
no longer do so naïvely like before we were in lightened and redeemed out from the prison block rock universe and restored to the ordinary state like the bottom 2/3 that I didn’t finish cleaning up Max Freakout episode end of the episode debate about episode 28 summarizing the core Egodeath Theory debate about why cyber disciple restored to stable control upon prayer was it during the peak the answer is yes or was it because of
loose cognition wore off The loose cognition wore off and what do we do with the reality that we experience free will for the rest of our life in the ordinary state for the rest of our life steering like a king steering in a branching tree are we just naïve are we wrong because we ought to be experiencing in a way that is other than how the mind works are we saying that the mind is incorrect in the ordinary state?
orig; earlier
Notice: Scheming to create v3 of Egodeath Mystery Show Episode 125 – Leading Edge of Hallucinogens
I totally meant to read this good post and add it to the episode, and now that I found & brifly read it, it adds good points:
v2 of ep125 is NOT what I intended – I got distracted by phone call and forgot to locate that explanation writeup and record reading it.
I do like the resequencing and intensive fixes in v2 of short solid ep 125, but it is missing the intended segment. it’s good, but incomplete & too short. i prefer 1.5-hour episodes.
I also think that now that the sequencing is fixed, I could reinstate Cyberdisciple Autobio reading, which describes his long-standing passion for anthropological theory of Rock and Roll lyrics (due to its fascinating shamanism primitive beats 🥁 ); & Hallucinogens, esp. The Mushroom 🍄
& it would be nice to read his page asserting that the only mystery religion we should study is Eleusis – a strong, Hatsis-level sound, tried-and-true argument for the exemplary historiographical methodology of applying the Proxy Principle:
Instead of complicating the field, the effective approach is to cover only a single place location instance eg Plaincourault, or Eleusis, to efficiently cover-over & easily explain away the data which we study, so that we dont get our theorizing confused by introducing data, which just complicates the field of entheogen scholarship aka Psychedelic History, by which we mean the History of Deliriants.
We can just repeat & re-write the Witches Ointments book, as if it’s coverage of Greek & Christian mystical esoteric practices & traditions. it’s how we historians work.
1) add the above leadin to Cyberdisciple for context integration thematic
4) could finish up by reading Cyberdisciple: Over-coverage of Eleusis , which he wrote for evil M. Hoffman, bc episode 125 is a roasting of trigger words way overemphasized ultra narrow Brian Muraresku
5) read the present page eg trigger words
I feel like I could really go off on the stupid ridiculous field, this comedy clown show of a field of entheogen scholarship
the field of entheogen scholarship is become reduced to a comedy routine, but don’t worry, Witch Hatsis is here to help 🤡
1) Hatsis-type figure incl left hand lower; 2) left hand up, right hand down, like God; 3) ” (+ compare bearded’s lifted garment to that of the passing student in upper left [2:40 am April 24 2022] also msh hem touching stable colume base, & transcending eternalism-reliance; 4) no limbs
houston we have a problem
3:20 am April 24, 2022
this morning, less than 24 hours ago, about 6 AM April 23, 2022, I realized that:
my traditional fault-finding (since about 2006?) with the Mithraism book by Manfred clause fell quite short, because I only criticized Mithras’ head being made to turn to look to the left instead of the right – but I failed to criticize him for the huge massive extreme error of making Mithras stand on his left leg instead of on his right leg – a major violation of meaning!
yes, that error is along the exact same line as turning left versus right with the head, but the image is emphasizing everyone’s legs, not everyone looking to the right.
all five pairs of legs are what’s being presented, especially in this particular high-resolution image that I like of the bull slaying scene.
in this morning’s April 23 episode 124 of Egodeath Mystery Show at ~~25:00 (unreli timest) I discuss this increase of scope
in terms of… this increase of scope of theory revision and correction;
see the book conceptual revolutions by Paul Thagard regarding types of theory revision.
this would be a kind of example of increasing a point and increasing a correction of an old theory.
instead of just finding a smaller flaw with the old theory, I’m finding that it is 10 times bigger of a flaw.
The author of the book, right on his front cover, proves 10 times more than I thought/ previously realized, until April 23 (or essentially April 22, the initial breakthrough day), that Manfred Clauss doesn’t get it at all, and he has big-time grotesquely failed to interpret the iconography of the bull slaying scene – unlike my superior, successful theory, the new theory.
A similar idea is that the people describe the twins as having “crossed legs”, when the crossing is not really the point, and they have the legs crossed in such a way that their weight is entirely on one leg it is not symmetrical as is implied falsely by the term “crossed legs”.
Egodeath Mystery Show Episode 124 ~~38:00 (but totally not trustworthy timestamp from this app), I mention and discuss “legs crossed”, how that’s not the correct interpretation.
“equally /symmetrically crossed legs” is not depicted and is not the theme.
throughout the five pairs of legs, rather, the theme throughout the five pairs of legs is the question of which leg your weight is resting on; which leg is carrying you, that you are based on as your basis, which is to say, which mental model of time and control and possibility branching you consciously hold and are relying on.
Academia forces you to write in a self-canceling way – this is total BS!
my God it is so tired, the Carl Rut approach
just like Andy Letcher says and just like Thomas Hatsis says, the field of entheogen scholarship, led by his good buddy Carl Rut is a joke and a laughingstock, it is a self-parody (it’s Jan Irvin’s fault – he’s left the field, but thats ok, we can just use Jerry Brown & Cybermonk as proxies for Jan Irvin, to keep deflecting attention from the real culprit, Carl Rut)
we have Jan urban exposing the agency is all directing these clowns to get stuck in a rut
steering us into a ditch, going around in circles, circling planet Amanita stuck trapped locked in trapped in orbit around planet Amanita forever and ever stuck in antiquated 1906 anthropology theories which are as primitive as the savages that they tried to study when they talk about “the Mushroom”
🙄
after 30 years of scholarship, he managed to accomplish switching the little amanita and the big amanita in the lower left corner of the popular children’s book from 1976 , A golden guide: Hallucinogenic Plants, recast as the 2006 book titled The Sacred Mushroom: Secrets of Eleusis 🍄🍄 by Carl Rut
The Sacred Mushroom: Secrets of Eleusis by 🍄🍄 Carl Rut
Trigger Words 😱
Eleusis
secret
Amanita
Good Friday Experiment Good Friday Experiment did we mention Good Friday Experiment be sure to summarize Good Friday Experiment
every article ever written about visionary plants has to be sure to recount yet again Good Friday Experiment
did we mention Good Friday Experiment
Good Friday Experiment, Good Friday Experiment
like a parrot
🦜
the mushroom
Allegro
Plaincourault
Wasson
Carl Rut
hallucinogens
the traditional methods of the mystics
marijuana (speak English!! the word is ‘cannabis’, not “maria juan”, an ethnic slur, lunkheads!
The Egodeath theory 