I heard Logos Media Irvin give less than faint praise to entheogens, but have not heard a full, adequate re-accounting & re-valuation of the entheogenic Eucharist.
Presumably Irvin believes ahistoricity.
Irvin changed his coverage field & some of his relevant values.
Compare James Kent’s revaluation of psychedelics. Book: PIT: Psychedelic Information Theory.
I treat the books Astrotheology & The Holy Mushroom as if representing Irvin’s 2022 views, but that’s hardly possible, given his flip against entheogen scholarship, or against the bulk of entheogen scholars.
I’ve always written critically, from above & outside the field of entheogen scholarship, as a repairman from outside the field.
My views are constant, explicit, articulate, elaborating over the years, developing more detail.
My repetitiveness (progressive spiral circling) over the period of 1997-2022, or longer, has advantages.
My values about myth and entheogens have stayed the same: my posts began as articulate, & were further articulated in the same, clear, specified direction.
So it’s easy to discuss the Egodeath theory over the decades.
My Phase 2 work (1998-2022) added Mytheme/analogy theory & History to my Phase 1 (1985-1997) Core theory (psychedelic eternalism with dependent control).
I always wonder how the Core theory should be somewhat re-shaped by the later analogy-mapping theory, for ease of mapping.
But I never seem to get around to revisiting the Core theory to revise it to make mapping to mythemes easier:
re-expressing the Core theory in terms of {branching vs non-branching}? Not sure what that revision involves.
The nature of my theory revision is to add connections, not to modify existing values or content/ connections.
Motive for creating this webpage: this is an errata, where in Egodeath Mystery Show Episode 138: In Defense of Myth, I do my frequent error of incorrectly reading aloud text! 😵 re: the myth that’s referred to in the name of the episode.
This dvd is a version of Irvin & Rutajit’s book Astrotheology & Shamanism. Named per Jonathan Ott’s good duo-book that includes The Angels’ Dictionary.
See excellent book review by Justin Case, got more upvotes than my earlier review 😡, quotable Suppression Assumption statements.
Justin Case wrote, summarizing Ott’s historical model:
“the rise of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman empire meant the downfall of Western civilization into the Dark Ages in which all effort was made to eradicate science, independent thought and any practice involving entheogens and knowledge thereof.
“Central to this plunge into ignorance was the deliberate substitution of the ages old entheogenic sacrament provided to seekers in the Eleusinian mystery rites – the sacrament that gave one an undeniably profound experience – with the innate Christian Eucharist that gave no experience but which required faith in order to have any meaning at all.”
The evidence shows that the above recounting is largely false.
Thomas Hatsis and I largely agree here.
We need to throw away the entheogen scholarship old, Moderate(Minimal)/ Suppression paradigm, as I’ve been calling for since 2002, and develop instead the Maximal/Normalcy, opposite paradigm & explanatory framework theory, the Maximal/Normalcy entheogen theory of religion.
Reject 👎 the Allegro/ Ruck/ & sometimes Hatsis, Moderate/ Suppression entheogen theory of religion.
I have been proving my rightness, the superiority of my framework over that pushed by the Dr. Rut Secret Amanita committee, constantly and strongly ever since then.
Good job defeating yourselves, loser idiot entheogen scholars!
Ott pushes hard, & directly – Ott defines & asserts, the Suppression Assumption that Christianity has no mushrooms, so the Supreme Court can say “The entheogen scholars confirm that our own religious history lacks any psychedelics, therefore Prohibition is justified.” 😵⚰️
GOOD JOB OTT, PUSHING THE FALSE, entheogen-denying, pseudo-history which is the main product of “entheogen scholarship” per the Moderate (read “Minimal“) entheogen theory of religion – the Suppression of Entheogens paradigm. 😖
The Normalcy of Entheogens paradigm (the Maximal entheogen theory of religion) is the case; is the truth; is the fact of the matter; and also is strategically powerful to repeal Prohibition of Psilocybin.
Idiots! Fools! Whose side are you on?!
Effectively, functionally, the entheogen scholars are working on the side of the Prohibitionists!!
Amanita is worthless, undesirable, low/insufficient efficacy, & legal – and Carl Ruck strenuously promotes this decoy, dead-end, phony substitute mushroom, the lowest-grade psychedelic, this weed, this false alternative.
Meanwhile, Psilocybin is effective, targeted to produce cognitive loosening & mythology experiencing – and illegal.
No coincidence.
Entheogen scholars strive to steer us down the disempowered, dead-end, suckers’, fools’ gold path of non-targeted Amanita, to steer us away from the psilocybin Truth, of history and metaphysics and mythology.
The Psilocybin truth about History:
Against the “entheogen scholars”, the truth is, Psilocybin was centrally influential throughout Christian history, and normal and predominant, and widely understood – against the story that the defeatists are striving to tell.
The entheogen scholars – nearly all of them – tell major, harmful falsehoods about the history of Christianity, that promote Prohibition of Psilocybin, by denying that Psilocybin was centrally, influentially present, as is manifestly clear from the description of the Eucharist and banqueting & Mystery Religion and mythology and religious art.
10:50 AM March 14, 2022 I noticed that the Psalter reader, his bench rests on the stable base of the column, and his right foot is down, implying he’s sitting on his right leg on the bench that’s on the stable column base.
Psilocybin directly puts the mind squarely into the realm of comprehending mythology as description of the transformational phenomenology of the loose cognitive experiential state.
The Worthless, Useless Dross Weed of Amanita; the Infantile, Non-Targeted, Kiddie Mushroom
In contrast, the more we hear about Amanita, the bigger of a worthless, useless question mark Amanita is; legal & good for nothing.
No wonder the bogus “entheogen scholars” are pushing and promoting always Amanita (never Psilocybin), led by Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck’s Dr. Secret Amanita committee with the evil M. Hoffman.
Reject their bunk, substitute product! 🚫🍄
The Atman Project is the effort to attain transcendence by means🍄 which prevent it.
in the recording at 50%, I wrongly said the word ‘Christian’ several times, when the word thats written is the word ‘Christmas’. At end of paragraph:
Unlike his colleagues, Allegro was not beholden to the Catholic Church and therefore was able to develop his theories and interpretations free from Catholic dogma.
The result was the radical claim that Jesus was a psychoactive mushroom.
In particular, Allegro argued that the mythology and symbolism surrounding the Christ figure all point to Amanita muscaria mushrooms,
the iconic red and white mushroom so common in Christmas symbolism and imagery.
Martin Ball
I criticize Martin Ball for using a comma at the end, to falsely attribute holding the Amanita Christmas myth to Allegro.
I doubt that Allegro asserted Amanita Christmas.
While reading aloud, I was thinking the word ‘Christmas’, and I thought that I had said the word ‘Christmas’ – but the word that I actually said was ‘Christian’, several times; hallucinated.
~~39:00 Wasson’s eventual exposure as a fraud and anti-academic obstructionist, pending interpretation of the covered-up pair of Panofsky articles and their argumentation and citation Panofsky tried to provide & 2 plates.
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita
There proved to be a ton of valuable things I was wondering about, wishing to locate – quotations, dates, all kinds of stuff of value to me
it’s quite a wide ranging article
found about eight errors: typos, forgetting to say where I copied a quote from, and then
the greedy wish that, I came so close to realizing: given that there must have been citations presented, because never would an academic make such bold claims as Panofsky without providing citations to follow up to read more information.
The good news is that I accused Wasson of withholding details, and I said in parentheses “(assuming that there are any details to withhold)” re citations
But I did not mention the ellipses: I did not see the ellipses, and Asson snuck it past John Irving and me; he got us 😞
I had my guard down
I let my guard down regarding ellipses; I never noticed them
and now I always put a main attention on footnotes, and main attention goes on ellipses
What evil doings are going on behind those masking veil of dots?? 😱 under the cover of night and ellipses
but there is no excuse for my failure to include my summary list which I wrote last
the very last thing I wrote was my summary list at the top of the article, and I failed to summarize my eight paragraphs where I repeatedly bitterly complained all throughout the article, “Where’s the frickin damn citations??!!“
I absolutely neglected and should have made the first point that I should’ve made in the article was:
this whole message from Wasson is worthless; it is completely worthless empty argument from authority, because he has not provided us with any scholarly citations
what kind of a joke sick travesty of scholarship is this?!
what kind of a scholar would provide no citations?!
and as I wrote literally, Wasson withheld the details, and I didn’t realize how literally right I was, but I really do pretty much literally accuse him, in the article, of withholding citations, and I’m proud of having been that astute,
Though still there is no reason for my oversight; there is no justification for my oversight of failing and neglecting to list that as one of the top takeaway bullet points at the beginning of the article:
there are no citations provided from Panofsky by Wasson, and therefore everything that Wasson says is worthless garbage and a joke and a travesty of scholarship.
this is the opposite of scholarship that he’s providing to us, while Wasson withholds all details, as I wrote and accused him of, later in the article:
Why should we trust Wasson’s stated judgment (“what I have found is the unanimous view of those competent in Romanesque art”) and his unstated process of his finding of competence, especially when he declares that “those competent … Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms”? Wasson refrains from giving us even a single shred of evidence, withholding the details (assuming there are any details to withhold) that led the art historians to their conclusion – or dogma or party line – that mushroom trees aren’t mushrooms. He delivers forth only the supposed conclusion, painting a scene as hazy, undefined, and unspecific as Saint Paul on the earthly life of Christ.
contra Hasis (the anti-mushroom “psychedelic witch”):
if pagans accused early Christians of all bad things, how come pagans didnt accuse Christians of using mushrooms?
The fact that pagans didnt accuse xns of msh isnt evidence that xns didnt use msh; it is in fact evidence that pagans venerated msh, which increases the likelihood xns used msh.
His pagans/early Christianity argument backfires. And gives credulity to pagans’ accusations. And contradicts his medieval era argument.
In fact, everyone used and venerated mushrooms, including pagans and Christians.
Psilocybin was the engine of the mystery religion banqueting tradition.
Thomas Hatsis asserts that in the early Christian era there was mushroom Prohibition, therefore we know Christians didn’t use mushrooms.
Thomas Hatsis asserts that in the medieval Christian era there was not mushroom Prohibition, therefore we know Christians didn’t use mushrooms.
(as if pagans’ accusations had any credibility) – 3 problems here w Hatsis’ argumentation.
he needs to reconcile his contradiction.
But not to take him seriously in detail of corrective epicycles he’s forced to invent to desperately try in vain to save his failed model (ie, his incoherent heap of assertions);
rather, we need to state the truth of the matter, the simple coherent truth: the Normalcy entheogen theory of mushrooms in Christianity, per Professor Jerry Brown.
we need to pursue like cyberdisciple’s webpages “against the assumption of suppression of psychedelics in pre-modernity” and his webpage about allegro assuming Suppression and taboo, and his webpage about Ruck pushing outdated 1880 anthropology fertility cult theory.
and we need to gather Cyberdisciple’s classification of outdated theories of myth, gathering all citations: what has Carl Ruck asserted about suppression of mushrooms in the 4 periods?
what have these writers written to assert Suppression of Mushrooms in 4 periods, 4 historical eras
4 eras:
1) Ancient Greek religion
2) Hellenistic Religion
3) early Christian
4) medieval Christian
in a limited sense which I have yet to identify, there is a single paradigm, which is the Allegro/Ruck/Hatsis paradigm of suppression assumption, which causes them all to be completely mistaken, in contrast with the Maximal Entheogen Theory or the Normalcy entheogen theory, against their shared same beliefs
Thomas Hatsis has the same beliefs on key points on key assumptions about mushroom Prohibition Suppression, Thomas Hatsis agrees with John Allegro.
Thomas Hatsis agrees with John allegro, who agrees with Carl Ruck’s uncritical unexamined presupposition: the assumption of the suppression of mushrooms in these historical eras.
But that is a complex partial truth; that needs quotation citations from each of these authors – and Robert Graves too.
what does Jerry Brown assert because
Jerry Brown is Maximal per the Normalcy entheogen theory, and he simply says “the way that Christians had religious experience was through Sacred Plants”.
THE CARL RUCK SCHOOL = THE MINIMAL ENTHEOGEN THEORY OF RELIGION
Egodeath Mystery Show episode 134b ~~50:00 – Clear articulation of why I created the the Maximal entheogen theory of religion in 2002.
Reading aloud (from bottom to top) my 6-page October 2002 posting at the Egodeath Yahoo Group proposing the Maximal/Normalcy entheogen theory of religion, against the Ruck school’s Moderate[~= actually, Minimal]/Suppression assumption.
2002 is before Valentine 2004, therefore post here both urls of the announcement: the egodeath.com copy & the Egodeath Yahoo Group wordpress archive.
every time I search early archives of Yahoo group prior to valentines day 2004, I’m reading the archived upstream copy of egodeath.com website.
I identified at that time what Carl rock failed to do : he failed to describe the extent of the normalcy and predominant influence of visionary plants at the origin and later in Greek and Christian religion
my view brings my core theory, analogical psychedelic eternalism , to perceive the evidence much more clearly than Carl Ruck school is able to do in their negative and underestimating limited ability for their theory to make the evidence visible and recognize mythology as describing the experiencing, and not just the physical form of the plants
See my amazon book review of Carl rocks book about “consciousness”, which articulates this limitation of the Ruck school.
It would be much better during 2002-2022 to contrast the maximal entheogen theory of religion vs the moderate/minimal entheogen theory of religion . The weird thing is that the Moderate entheogen Theory if I can convey I need to do this in a voice recording the Moderate entheogen Theory is Minimal when we say moderate you see it is the opposite of what it pretends to be if they say Moderate it Carl Ruck says he asserts a moderate theory he’s actually asserting a minimal Theory Moderate Theory pretends that it is different than a Minimal Theory but really it’s essentially not different than Minimal TheoryThe weird thing is that the Moderate entheogen Theory if I can convey I need to do this in a voice recording the Moderate entheogen Theory is Minimal when we say moderate you see it is the opposite of what it pretends to be if they say Moderate it Carl Ruck says he asserts a moderate theory he’s actually asserting a minimal Theory Moderate Theory pretends that it is different than a Minimal Theory but really it’s essentially not different than Minimal Theory
It is a myth that there is any difference between the Minimal Theory versus the Moderate Theory there’s no real difference between McCanna saying that the ancient period Had no mushrooms but only the archaic period Had mushrooms, vs Ruck’s view. t
he Ruck school says the presence of msh in greek & Christian religion is minimal. though present.
less confusing is Normalcy vs Suppression labels for these opposed positions.
1:30 probly starts w reading my 2006 Plainc 🍄 fresco article after ” buried-away endnote”
read Brown 2019 article excerpts: defining the psychedelic gospels theory.
main topic: mushroom imagery in itself means mushrooms regardless of baloney claims that
🍄 doesnt mean 🍄
🍄 doesn’t represent 🍄
which are meaningless nonsensical statements like:
this does not mean a circle: ⭕️
⭕️ <– doesn’t mean circle
a nonsense claim. a false claim.
Wasson’s nonsensical depiction of Panofsky’s argument convinced Robert M. Price, the Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism! (a center of the field of ahistoricity)
this image doesn’t mean a mushroom; this image doesn’t represent mushrooms
this episode has solid quality content.
Timestamps
Timestamps Nice: big limitation of timestamps here is, not credible; my player app gives very dubious timestamps.
Production: Minimizing Overhead
it went really well my approach to creating this episode. downside of skipping detailed production steps: might be quiet, a single long 3.x hour mp3.
I created very clean raw voice recordings via strategic short recordings & other combined strategy of clean initial recordings to require almost no processing, thank goodness.
Cutting production time ratio… max recording time, + minimum production time is crucial.
A major milestone event in the field of entheogen scholarship is Brown & Brown’s recent 2019 expose publishing the secret pair of letters (sans 2 plates) from Panofsky to Wasson.
We are in the Post-Publishing era of entheogen scholarship now that Brown June 1, 2019 has published the suppressed pair of letters from Panofsky to Wasson, which Wasson tried to hide and censor and cover-up the extreme impotence and brazen self-contradiction of Panosfky’s manifestly embarrassingly poor and weak argumentation and total lack of art historians’ treatment of the problem-for-them mushroom trees & mushroom imagery all throughout Christian art.
Wasson hid the flimsy citation of Brinckmann’s book which Panofsky, in both censored letters, described as “little”.
The lead Mycologist, John Ramsbottom, demolished and exposed Wasson’s bad-faith, committed-skeptic admission, without Wasson finding out for 17 years, 1953-1970. Poetic justice!
http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm 54-page article written prior to Browns’ revelation, pre-Publication of the secret pair of censored, covered-up letters which reveal the totally flimsy case and specious argument that the art historians crowed and bragged about while doing a psychopathic level of insulting, abusing, & smearing, of Mycologists & artists alike.
The 2006 article accuses Wasson of withholding scholarly citations, withholding any details of art historians’ alleged treatment of mushroom trees.
The article should be subtitled “Citation Frickin Needed!! (& Withheld by Wasson the Anti-Scholar Obstructionist to Investigating Mushrooms in the History of Our Society)”.
I knew that Panofsky’s massive huge claims surely must be accompanied by what the first thing any scholar would do: give citations.
Panofsky cited Brinckmann’s book and provided two images, which Wasson misleadingly suppressed, a repeated set of lying by omission, omitting many relevant aspects of Panofsky’s pair of letters.
Gordon Wasson misrepresented Panofsky’s pair of letters, and withheld Panofsky’s poor argumentation, and weak, totally unconvincing evidence that would get people to pursue asking more questions about the additional, exposed examples of mushroom trees.
Omit art, call people insults in text only, to prop up the art historians’ indefensible denial of the self-evident.
“This whole thing stinks, something is fishy!”, I said in 2006 , “Any art historian making such a massive claim would provide citations.
So why doesn’t Wasson provide citations and demand citations from the top art historian scholar??!! This stinks; I smell a rat!”
Deceit & misrepresentation to mislead the world away from the OBVIOUS mushroom referent, but even the Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Robert M. Price, in his inadequate attention, fell for Wasson’s deception propaganda.
Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels
Abstract:
“In light of new historical evidence regarding ethnomycologist R. Gordon Wasson’s correspondence with art historian Erwin Panofsky, this article provides an in-depth analysis of the presence of entheogenic mushroom images in Christian art within the context of the controversy between Wasson and philologist John Marco Allegro over the identification of a Garden of Eden fresco in the 12th century Chapel of Plaincourault in France.
“It reveals a compelling financial motive for Wasson’s refusal to acknowledge that this fresco represents Amanita muscaria, as well as for Wasson’s reluctance to pursue his hypothesis regarding the entheogenic origins of religion into Christian art and artifacts.
“While Wasson’s view – that the presence of psychoactive mushrooms in the Near and Middle East ended around 1000 BCE – prevailed and stymied research on entheogens in Christianity for decades, a new generation of 21st century researchers has documented growing evidence of A. muscaria and psilocybin-containing mushrooms in Christian art, consistent with ethnobotanist Giorgio Samorini’s typology of mushroom trees.
“This article presents original photographs, taken during fieldwork at churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and the Middle East, that confirm the presence of entheogenic mushrooms in Christian art: in frescoes, illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, sculptures, and stained glass windows.
“Based on this iconic evidence, the article proposes a psychedelic gospels theory and addresses critiques of this theory by art historians, ardent advocates*, medieval historians, and conservative Catholics.
“It calls for the establishment of an Interdisciplinary Committee on the Psychedelic Gospels to independently evaluate the growing body of evidence of entheogenic mushrooms in Christian art in order to resolve a controversial question regarding the possible role of entheogens in the history and origins of Christianity.” – Brown & Brown
The Ardent Psychedelic Gospels Theory
Brown defines the psychedelic Gospels theory in a extremely basic way, that:
Early and medieval Christians got their inspiration experiences from visionary plants.
not a trace of limitation, restriction, reduction, the Suppression paradigm, the 1970 Allegro/Ruck “secret underground suppressed forgotten hidden encoded” paradigm that Allegro/Ruck, the Dr. Secret Amanita team emphasizes.
Brown silently sneaks in the word ‘all’ by the striking notable lack of any restrictive qualifiers which is Carl rut’s signature move.
It doesn’t make sense for Brown to speak in terms of the Ardent Advocates “arguing against” the psychedelic Gospels Theory.
Brown is a closeted Ardent Advocate agreeing with me and Jan Irvin and John Rush: the Maximal entheogen theory – the Normalcy theory of entheogens, rather than the Suppression theory of entheogens.
The dispute over the vial or blurry images is merely a dispute among the Ardent Advocates, who all hold & assert the psychedelic gospels theory.
in the aftermath of this article, the distinction, the false dichotomy between the psychedelic gospels theory “versus” the Ardent Advocates collapsed.
That false distinction was just a stance, a ploy, a marketing move, trying to strategy give the appearance that you should prefer the psychedelic gospels theory because it’s not crazy like these guys who go too far.
Brown artificially tried to depict Jan Irvin and John Rush and Egodeath.com (pride of place listed first in the section Ardent Advocates 🎉) as bad guys who go too far, to steer people away from asserting too many mushrooms, a strategy of sending people to the psychedelic gospels theory instead of to the Ardent Advocates, who see too many mushrooms.
Brown set up a false dichotomy by listing Ardent Advocates as an opposing position to the psychedelic gospels theory.
Brown tried to sell the psychedelic gospels theiry as a Moderate, ie compromised, self-canceling, diminutive theory, just like Allegro/Ruck’s Suppression paradigm.
Brown tried to side with the those who emphasize the absence of mushrooms, who hold that entheogen use was 1/10 of 1%, of secret underground hidden Suppressed rare abnormal deviant users, which is the Allegro/Ruck 1970 paradigm.
The psychedelic gospels theory is a fundamentally different paradigm, that entheogen use was mainstream and normal and not hidden and Suppressed, in early & medieval Christianity.
The psychedelic gospels theory is grouped with the Ardent Advocates, against the Dr. Secret Amanita team.
Anyone, no matter how ardent, who asserts that Christians got their inspiration from visionary plants automatically affirms the psychedelic gospels theory, as it is simply defined by Brown.
I don’t really think it works the way Brown tried to include the ardent Advocates in the list of positions/people that they’re defending the psychedelic Gospels Theory against.
There are particular disagreements between people, but it is not the case that John Rush rejects the psychedelic gospels theory.
Same with Jan Irvin and me.
it was just a lax approach to list ardent advocates as though they disagreed, in a list of people who disagree with the psychedelic gospels theory.
Irvin & Rush & I don’t deny the psychedelic gospels theory.
Brown screwed up by using the serrated base to falsely reject the deliberately Amanita-styled vial as intending amanita; this is a detail correction, not a theory rejection, & Brown needs to be a more ardent advocate than in 2019 by adding the Mytheme theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism.
Irvin was largely right, Brown largely erred; both were incomplete. The tapestry means a vial styled as Amanita, with vial proportions.
Browns’ theory is right but not ardent enough to fit the data & provide coherent, complete interpretation. – Cybermonk
“yeah, your poor little pictures & that little, 1906 book by Albert Erich Brinckmann aint gonna do the trick; i’ll pass, and resort to intimidation, posturing, & name-calling insults, pressure tactics, instead of revealing your evidence for critical consideration, which isn’t going to go our way.
And your branch-omitting argument just raises too many questions and invites investigation, which we are striving to head off.
I’ll handle this.
We’ve already let on too much, by exposing the fact of hundreds of mushrooms trees, which is liable to backfire on us, big-time.” – rgw
OSC-limited old fogie Robert M. Price, who uses the Prohibitionists’ lingo “hallucinogens”, disrespected Acharya S’ Allegro-favorable view as “a bit of pot-smoking hippie apologetics”, and Price was all too eager to lap up the Panofsky->Asson Prohibition-compliant horsesht claim that mushroom imagery in Christian art doesn’t connote mushrooms.
No coincidence that Price’s out-of -touch, squaresville (ordinary-state-based only) wife Carol Price wrote a clueless, psychedelics-free book about Rush lyrics.
These out of touch people, selectively “critical thinkers”, are exactly the kinds of half-attentive people that Wasson knew that he could fool, because of their biased presuppositions.
Wasson knows that we know he’s manifestly blowing smoke just in the exact same way as he just discussed with Eliade regarding arbitrary, prejudiced assumptions and baseless, intensely biased assertions about shamanism.
The ardent advocates of the sun-centered Copernican model act as if all physics everywhere is reasonably fit to that model, an eager band of cosmologists and overly Ardent Advocates of their new theory, which they only embrace because it seems to support their theory.
But I consulted with the eminent top art historians, and these ignorant advocates of the sun-centered system, these blundering, isolated Copernicus advocates, have not adequately at all consulted the art historians on this matter.
In their unread ignorance, the Disciples Coperniiae have persisted in their blunder.
Presumably they are aware of the footnote in which I dismissed their misapprehension, which they have been under a misapprehension about this for more than half a millennium.
I demand a full engagement of this new theory, the Copernican sun-centered theory, needs to do a detailed, in-depth engagement of every last epicycle of every corrective patch that we put on our well-established, earth-centered, Ptolemaic cosmology system.
This field of entheogen scholarship must not be permitted to move forward until we have gotten full consensus from the Salvation Salesmen confirming that we have refuted every one of their water tight, super-convincing arguments in full detail, such as the impossible to refute argument that this one mushroom tree in Christian art cannot possibly mean mushrooms, because it’s not the only instance of this.
if only these idiots had known that there were other instances, they would’ve never have embarrassed themselves by suggesting that this one instance means mushrooms.
How are you ardent advocates of seeing mushrooms everywhere ever going to recover from this devastating argument??
And so you can see, your complete inability to refute our argument shows that you were just wrong in asserting that the Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.
There is no way that you can argue against our “no mushrooms in Christian art” position, that the snake in the image means mushrooms, in a way …
The artist of this fresco had no inkling that by dumb coincidence, 1000 years before history (I am the first one to ever figure this out) but indeed the tree in the garden of Eden actually has a mushroom connection!! 🤯
You would never imagine such a thing, but my brilliance has brought this news to you, that there is actually a connection in the Plaincourault fresco image, through the serpent, which 1000 years before history began, used to be associated with the mushroom.
And so the stupid, ignorant painter, this especially ignorant craftsman, accidentally drew a mushroom-looking tree, unbeknownst to the painter, the mushroom-looking tree actually does have a connection with mushrooms – through the serpent, as known only to the very most astute historian (who is me) knows the ancient pre-history tradition that at one time, the serpent was actually considered the guardian and provider of the mushroom!
So this is why the new theory cannot be permitted to move ahead until the old theory is completely explained, to explain all the logic of the old theory, in full detail.
discussed in Egodeath Mystery Show episode 134c ~35:00
[private note to the leader of the ignorant, blundering, naive Mycologists:] Rightly or wrongly, I am going to reject the Plaincourault fresco as representing a mushroom.
Just for starters, this tree is actually painted blue, as explained by the great, exemplary Psychedelic Historian, Thomas Hatsis.
I’m going to just trust him on this, since he is a historian discussing art by using sound, tried-and-true historical criteria. 😑
The artist had no inkling that the Eden tree secretly has a long forgotten association with Amanita (via the serpent, which in pre-history, was considered the guardian and provider of the mushroom – a long-forgotten association that I’m the first one ever to figure out! 😊 🙌 ).
I’ve decided to abandon truth, coherence, intelligibility, and honesty, and join the anonymous writers’ committee of Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman.
It’s easier sailing that way.
It turns out, Mirceau Eliade’s made-up load of arbitrary, intensely biased & prejudiced nonsense is the truth:
The great shamans of long ago were able to will themselves into the mushroom state without resorting to the crutch of the fake, simulated, modern, degenerate method, mushrooms.
I now take it as granted that ancients all considered mushrooms as despicable and worthy of insult, as the anti-mushroom psychedelic witch Thomas Hatsis takes for granted, building his argument on the basis of that implicit assumption.
We know that Christians didn’t use mushrooms, because if Christians had used mushrooms, pagans would have leaped at the opportunity to smear Christians as vile users of mushrooms.
But pagans didn’t smear Christians as users of mushrooms; therefore, we know that Christians didn’t use mushrooms.
Use your head, people, duh! 😣
“the big problems laid out in this study: … How pagan authorities could accuse Christians of infanticide, incest, and cannibalism — far more appalling crimes than adulating a fungus — but not accuse them of eating a mushroom;”
I’m picking a specialization now, having officially joined the ranks of the Entheogen Scholars.
🤔
What type of entheogen do you think I should specialize my scholarship in, since it’s customary to wed a single-plant fallacy, and I’m kind of done with the Psilocybin single-plant fallacy, since it restricts you to only 250 different species of Psilocybin-containing mushrooms, and I want to broaden out a little bit in my chosen single-plant fallacy that I push.
I think I’m going to specialize in exclusively pushing Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens.
“Although the terms “entheogen” and “entheogenic” were invented with specific reference to the religious use of psychoactive substances, it is important to point out – although this broadens[ie completely inverts & negates the essential purpose & definition into its opposite] current understandings of the term– that the notion of “entheogenic religion”, if taken literally, does not strictly imply such substances: after all, there are many other factors that may trigger or facilitate a state of ε’νθουσιασμός (“enthusiasm”), such as specific breathing techniques [iehyperventilation = Psilocybin], rhythmic drumming, ritual prayer and incantations, meditation, and so on.
“This was already the case in antiquity[please ignore my footnote 3], and remains so today.
“It will therefore be useful to distinguish between entheogenic religion in a narrow[ie drug-based entheogens] and in a wide sense[ie non-drug entheogens]: with respect to the wider category[ie non-entheogen based entheogens], one could think of such cases as the ritual practices known as “theurgy”, described for instance by the third/fourth-century neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus,3[footnote: ‘may be plants‘] the complicated techniques known as “ecstatic kabbalah”, developed by the Jewish mystic Abraham Abulafia in the thirteenth century,4 or even the experience of being “filled by the Holy Spirit” in contemporary Pentecostalism.
“The historical evidence in Western culture for entheogenic religion in a narrow sense (that is, involving the use of psychoactive substances) is a contentious issue to say the least, and discussing it seriously would require a book-length treatment; but in order to establish that we are not pursuing a chimaera it suffices, for now, to point out that the existence of such kinds of religion in indigenous cultures is well documented, particularly in the Latin American context.5
“The present chapter will focus exclusively on one particular trend of contemporary entheogenic religion – in a narrow sense [ie drug-type entheogens ] – which may be defined as a form of Western esotericism and has not yet received the attention it deserves.”
“Footnote 3. See e.g. Shaw, “Theurgy”; Luck, “Theurgy and Forms of Worship”. Luck suggests that Neoplatonic theurgy may in fact have been entheogenic religion in the narrow sense[ie entheogen-based entheogens rather than non-entheogen based entheogens].”
Never trust an entheogen scholar.
Trust me on that; I’ve decided to become one of them.
Was there mushroom use in Christianity? Yes, but No.👎
Are you following my assertions?good. You are following my new mode of coherence.
I’ve ascended to the Ken Wilber Trans-Rational level, be sure to keep up.
Branches Prove that Mushroom Trees Don’t Look Like Mushrooms
Eadwine had NO INKLING that this mushroom tree (despite its branches) causes a distinctly mushroom impression. If the medieval, impressionistic artist Eadwine had wanted to give art historians a mushroom impression, he would have instantly set Erwin Panofsky’s precious meaninglessly sloppily accidentally distorted Pine tree templates on fire and consulted nature instead, and cut off the branches of this mushroom-looking tree.Brown 2019 https://www.academia.edu/40312824/Entheogens_in_Christian_art_Wasson_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Gospels –
the kept-secret, second letter from Erwin Panofsky (the most influential art historian) to Gordon Wasson (the father of obstructionist ethnomycology), 10 days after the first letter.Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown; used by permission. Image processing by Cybermonk.Panofsky-compliant, ramification-omitted, non-tree, naturalistic mushroom with all branches removed
Real, normal Christianity (the kind that counts) has never used mushrooms, despite all the mushroid Eucharist texts and mushroom imagery.
The mushroom-tree artists had no inkling of the archaic-only, forgotten, obscure, “serpent-provided mushroom” association, and they would be shocked, shocked! if you were some especiallyignorant craftsman laboring under the delusion, stuck to a naivemisinterpretation made as a band of ardent advocates, in your blunderingmisapprehension and error due to your naiveignorance & isolation, that the mushroom-looking distorted templates are impressionistically styled to consciously & intentionally produce the impression that art historians describe as mushroom-looking trees (which art historians actually refer to as ‘Pilzbaum’ in German texts).
The mushroom-looking impressionistic meaningless accidental distortions in this Italian Pine depiction have no connection whatsoever with intending mushrooms, and this image has no place in any mycology discussion.
But however, the serpent in this Italian Pine picture (in a way of which the artist had no inkling at all), back only in the archaic era, used to have an association with the mushroom.
But I am the only one who’s figured that out, ever since 1000 BC! 😊 🙌
However, note that Panofsky has proved that this serpent-looking animal can’t possibly be intended by the artist to mean a serpent, or else the artist would have omitted the legs altogether.
That’s my sincere public profession of faith position official stated stance, despite my resulting necessarily 8-way direct self-contradiction.
Read the Art History Publications About Mushroom Trees, You Ignoramuses!
Read an art history book, you ignoramuses!
(but I won’t name the one, litttle 1906 book that exists and briefly touches on this topic of trees that look so distinctly like mushrooms despite their having branches.)
quick check CONFIRMED my theory: left heel lifted = relying on right leg –
= non-branching thinking = eternalism = moved from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, in 🍄 Psilocybin loose cognitive state
lion explains
Rush also corrobs {lifted garment} which i heard from his book.
I read and posted years ago his book, but my memory of his art pieces is blurry and grainy
i developed successful mature ideas (mapping mythemes to loose cog dynamics experiencing) partly w Rush’s inadeq input, required decades of my idea development, not simple all at once, not moment in time, though bursts.
Years long testing mixed w corrobn & r&d.
Rush’s Narrative Reveals He’s Striving to Separate Mushrooms from Christianity
My critique of John Rush pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory. My expose of Rush’s narrative, contradicting his evidence, of his 2022 2nd Edition book:
wasson’s mission was to obstruct and prevent investigation while pretending to criticize mycologists for not reading the art historians, at the same time he deliberately deceives mycologists by censoring out the one and only place where the art historians have ever discussed pilzbaum, because Wasson is all threats and all posturing and all big claims and personal insults left and right
and the only thing they got is this one “little” book (as Panofsky unhelpfully describes it both times in both of his two (2), count them TWO, count them two letters) is all you got!!
One lousy flimsy small “little” tiny totally unconvincing book from Brinckmann
his job was to prevent people from investigating and replace it by a smoke and noise and thundering of no substance
because they got nothin
and any investigation Wasson knew perfectly well that if he were to invite investigation that the Mycologists and Allegro would instantly totally win
and so Wasson could not permit an investigation, and he tried intimidation, bluster, & harassment tactics instead, to try to shut down the conversation and prevent any actual investigation of Pilzbaum such as Samorini and I and Brown have called for
and so he yelled at Mycologists for being ignorant and not reading the art historians’ many, many (nonexistent) articles & books critically considering pilzbaum & reaching sound conclusions as the Authorities that Mycologists must submit to
while at the same time he hid their one and only book where the art historians ever treated the matter of Pilzbaum
they got nothin
Wason was hiding the fact that they got no citations and that they only have one single citation, of the one, “little” book.
and obviously the Mycologists and Allegro would not buy it, and they would have won, if Wasson had passed-on the one citation.
Wasson knows that the Mycologists and Allegro were right (of course) and that they would have won.
and that is why he did not give the one and only citation available.
it’s all empty posturing, pretense, bluff, con artist propaganda, nothing but that.
wasson didn’t believe a single word he said
he was manipulating and unethically deceiving everybody about his conflicts of interest & rudely deceiving and misleading everyone, trying to pretend like he only had the one letter,
trying to berate mycologists for not reading the art historians, and then turning right around and censoring out the one and only citation that they got
because they got nothin
and Wasson knew that if he let the Mycologists see this one “little” citation, witch Panofsky hardly helps his own case by saying they got only one citation and it is little; he twice says ” little” – he would invite (guaranteed) victory for the Mycologists & Allegro, and he knew it.
Wasson knew the Mycologists were right.
he knew perfectly well, of course.
but none of this should come as any surprise.
we just are discovering the minor details of what we knew was lurking underneath the whole time as soon as these liars denied Plaincourault with their pompous name-calling, posturing, and insults.
we already knew that
we only merely had to discover the details
it was clear already in 2006 I already said that it’s quite clear that they’ve got nothing, because they didn’t provide any citations
and Brinkman’s book was infinitely far from accomplishing what Panofsky wished to use it for, and Wasson knew it.
Wasson knew that to invite investigation by the Mycologists – rather than just insulting them for being unread – would guarantee that the Mycologists & Allegro would win & Wasson would lose, pope buddy would lose, the art historians would lose.
they all were putting on a show, of course this should not be a surprise to anybody
but it is sure ugly and infuriating to see the ugly details of Wasson’s deception.
However I do need to dig out my copy of soma to see:
does Wassons books list Albert Brinckmann’s book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings – you know, the book which Wasson hand wrote the author’s full name and full title on Panofsky’s first of two letters, TWO (2)LETTERS
Jesus! This article is ridiculously long!! 😵
it just never stops
but it’s not because of repetition or anything
there’s just really is this much to say
this is kind of the whole Egodeath theory: it’s just a ton to say
it shouldn’t be a surprise that there’s so much to say
Art Historians Got Nothin
i developed that theme, spoken, at about Egodeath Mystery Show ep134b ~12:00 (dubious timestamp)
this little Brinckmann book is all you got??!! – Mycologists & Allegro to Wasson & Panofsky after Wasson’s decades-long harrassing & namecalling them & aggressive hot-air posturing
The Egodeath theory 