The high quantity and quality of my previous writings

Rummaging through the Egodeath Yahoo Group archives, it’s, as always, very impressive – lots of really top-quality: good writing, good theorizing, and massive quantities of it, and not filler material.

I always underestimate the quality and maturity that I expect to see in my earlier writings, and I find the opposite of Inferior; the opposite of lower quality;

I find I was aiming & hitting extremely high, and making a lot of, doing a lot with what I knew at any given time.

My old posts are best-case, not shambles that pale.

If anything, reading my Plaincourault article and archived posts makes me fear that my recent sloppy voice dictation and recent ideas lack innovation, and pale compared to my previous writings and breakthroughs.

there is a low degree of theory revision or correcting mistakes that’s needed.

instead, what I see is a building out; accumulation; extending; adding to; adding yet more.

it is not the case that the older ideas are lower quality and they have to be improved in their quality, but rather, they just have to be added to.

we could express this in terms of Paul Thagard’s book conceptual revolutions and his model of different types or categories of ways in which a theory is modified.

There is little correction needed of my previous theory, except only in the minor sense that I need to “correct” my ideas because they were not complete enough.

for example, Nov 2011 I said that I completed translating the language of mythology.

but that was false, because everything I translated so far was solid and valuable, of lasting quality, but just not complete.

for example, my dictionary at that time lacked adequate expansion of ideas about {left vs right equals branching vs non-branching}; or {left heel lifted}.

more than “posts”

describing them as “posts” I think is underestimating or under-selling them; they’re not just “posts”.

just like what I write now are not “web blog / blog entries”.

that is merely the medium for my expansive writing.

a so-called “post” or a so-called “discussion group post”, or a so-called “weblog/ blog entry” is not really what you find in my writing;

my writing transcends these little bucket designs.

Found a pre- Egodeath Yahoo Group, re-post of my March 2001 post to the Entheogens Yahoo Group: a massive, long, well-written, mature post.

My “posts” are consistently solid writing, consistently solid content.

It’s remarkable how much quantity of solid-quality work is necessarily involved, to match the ancients’ rather advanced language of Mythemese, which I have written the whole dictionary to translate this entire foreign language – no small, no mean endeavor!

A lot of sweeps across repeated themes (especially funny how my “very latest” points are made 10 years ago, the exact same points), but tangible accumulation of forward progress over the years, undeniably.

Motivation / focus of the present webpage

motivation for creating this webpage: a place to answer the mystifying question: what the heck did I announce on

Thanksgiving 2011 and

Thanksgiving 2012

if not duplicate of what I announced and discovered on

Thanksgiving 2013

or vs my first thinking of the branching question:

“isn’t branching vs nonbranching a major theme in mythology?” maybe October 2010, during hiatus from public posting at the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

not to mention discovering the formula {left vs right = branching vs non-branching} in the context of Canterbury Psalter, in November 2020.

March /April 2022

and the redundant duplicate realization of that same thing March 2022.

2015

not to mention dancing man {right foot equals eternity thinking} announced on Christmas 2015.

not to mention, the precursor to that announcement, posted on November 7, 2015.

Posts November 2011

Subject: Mythic metaphor code fully cracked

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-110/#message5622

focus: male thought/injector vs female thought-receiver. not {branching}, here.

Posts November 2012

Su: Re: Key dates: Nov. 21, 2011: Deciphered metaphor “psyche = female”

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-118/ – Says I did some {branching} work in 2011 & built on that in 2012. Commentary on building connections – the mountain range model.

Posts November 2013

incl dec 3 2013

Good indicator of what I did and didn’t figure out in 2013: the word “left-hand/ left arm” is missing, woefully 😞

from discovery of two seconds ago ( yesterday, or the day before) I realize the degree to which we have to ask:

is her {left heel lifted}?

i’m listening to the podcast Egodeath Mystery show from only two episodes ago extremely recent, I still failed to grasp obviously, Ariadne Holds branch specifically in left hand.

this is still this elementary kindergarten level realization of the obvious

regarding my mosaic Dionysus picture in my main article climax 2006, I only figured it out two seconds ago, and my most recent voice recordings still fail to realize that!! 🤯

🤯

she holds a mythical stylized palm branch.

here’s the kicker – even in the context of my hitting my head saying “why didn’t I realize that Eve holds the branch in her left hand” then I mention Ariadne – my failure to notice that she holds a branch or my failure to grasp the branching meaning of holding the branch – even in that context, I failed to realize that Ariadne holds the branch in the chariot specifically in her left hand (& contrasted with Dionysus Holding nonbranching Spear in right hand).

also at the moment in time just yesterday or couple days earlier, when I realized the Ariadne holds a branch or branching, did I at the same time contrast that against Dionysus holding a non-branching spear, or was that an hour or a day later??

and even then – here’s another thing that you would think that I would instantly simultaneously realize, that:

I failed to mention until an hour or a day later:

also if we’re going to be talking about Ariadne’s left hand, are you going to stupidly fail to mention her clothing held in left hand?

yes answer: yes, you are going to stupidly fail to mention at that same time, that not only does she hold a branch in her left hand, she also holds clothing in her left hand, which of course obviously demands interpretation; is a question that faces us.

what is the question that demands answering or else

how can you say I had a realization about the mosaic, if you fail to mention the clothing at the very same time that you mention holding her holding a branch?

how can you fail to mention at the same time that she’s holding her clothing?

and that obviously this mosaic demands elementary explanation of the clothing Theme.

you would have to be really pretty much affectively blind to fail to mention the clothing, at the same breath in which you mention holding Branch (also; along w clothing) in left hand.

Cybermonk 🙈 Examining Mystical Mythology Art 🚫👁

Even though clearly, {touching} is a major mechanism of this genre

🤦‍♂️

well I wouldn’t expect to realize that right away, since it was only the other day Christmas 2015 frickin six years five months ago 😖

it’s just a stupid cartoon drawing, which Thomas Hatsis explains shows a man overdosing from keeling over due to taking those noxious mushrooms that he warns us against

Hatsis the Fake Witch spreads his intense Anti-Mushroom Prejudice Bias

The Fake Witch Thomas Hatsis has an anti-mushroom prejudice bias.

Hatsis idiotically expects pagans to demonize Christians for ingesting the noxious and vile, despicable mushrooms.

His argument for how we know Christians did not use mushrooms is that pagans did not smear and defame Christians as users of mushrooms, therefore Christians must not have used mushrooms or pagans would have taken advantage of this moral defect.

– which reveals and exposes that Thomas Hatsis thinks that ingesting mushrooms is a moral defect.

and that he thinks (ie he UNTHINKINGLY ASSUMES; total failure to do historical thinking; fake historian) that pagans in antiquity thought the mushrooms were despicable and suppressed.

Hatsis’ implicit, evident, unthinking presupposition exposes & reveals that Hatsis is just another fool pushing the Suppression paradigm that’s typical of this rotten field of self-defeating failure; the loser field of entheogen scholarship.

Hatsis projects his own severe anti-mushroom prejudice onto pagans.

a fake witch, fake fake fake

Hatsis the good little Prohibition-compliant obedient trained lapdog 🐶 trying to cash in on the anti-Mushroom Psilocybin Prohibition scam fraudulent racket

Dancing Keeling

so it shouldn’t take more than maybe five minutes to analyze this silly Bestiary non-devotional Christian art, that doesn’t count as example of mushrooms in Christian art, because it’s non-devotional (according to the great esoteric theologian Thomas Hatsis), so it doesn’t count.

so it shouldn’t take more than about five minutes to analyze.

it certainly won’t require 6 1/2 years to realize the elementary basic elements of this simple cartoon picture 😑

voice mis-transcription

This terminology change from “Maximal/ vs Moderate vs Minimal” to simply “Normalcy vs Suppression” theories labels is in line with my move away from depending on technical jargon and specialized usage of words, and speaking more as simply & directly as possible. as the mystical artists do.

the Egodeath Yahoo Group posting Subject =

“entheogen use constant in religion” = my oct 2002 announcement of revolutionary Maximal theory, the maximal entheogen theory of religion, against the Suppression view,

To find this posting at EgodeathTheory wordpress site, you can find in the site map the “Announcement” page thats called “the maximal entheogen theory of religion” . The post is in archive page Digest 23 (that # 🤔 ) msg 1162

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/announcement-the-maximal-entheogen-theory-of-religion/

the post:

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162

Mystical artists are always looking for the simplest and most elegant ways to express profound basic elementary Transcendent ideas.

For example {branching vs non-branching} is easy to depict, and easy to describe using commonplace words – not philosophy talk, or theology talk , or cognitive science talk, but ordinary daily language of common pop altered state language.

The so-called ‘Moderate’ and ‘Minimal’ entheogen theories of religion both agree, what they have in common, they both agree on suppression.

In my analysis below, an important realization is that the word ‘Moderate’, in its vagueness, is much too generous it implies 50% – but in fact, the Moderate position is far more stingy and defeatist: it only asserts half of 1% of knowledge and usage of entheogens among Christians.

Lately I’ve been on a big push to be sure to word yourself in a way that cannot be misunderstood.

Don’t allow people to project something like a too positive or too negative, or project the wrong plant onto your vague words.

I say “mushroom”.

But everyone hears me say “Amanita🍄🍄”

“I’m sure I heard you say ‘Amanita’.”

😞

🤬

You have to be vigorous and forceful in shutting out misreading of your meaning.

The term ‘Moderate’ was confusing to me because I have a Maximal mentality, so naturally I tend to be very generous and far overly generous:

When I read ‘moderate’, I think “50%”, but that’s inaccurate!

The Carl Ruck “Moderate” paradigm is extremely stingy, and he only asserts half of 1% of Christians had the knowledge; only half of 1% of Christians were esoteric, he says in the Ruck school paradigm, which is intensely negative.

To make matters worse, to make the problem worse, I make it even more confusing, by “differentiating” between minimal” “versus” moderate – AS IF there was any significant difference!

They are both extremely stingy! They only differ in the degree and timing of suppression, but they both emphasize Suppression and are based on that premise.

The Maximal entheogen theory of religion is not based on the shared Suppression assumption, which the Moderate & Minimal positions share in common.

As Cyberdisciple’s article is worded/titled:

“Against the Assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in pre-modernity”

While recording today’s Egodeath Mystery show, my reading-aloud/commentary deviated from reading my 2006 article about allegro Wasson and Plaincourault Amanita Fresco:

I am reading aloud my six-page October 2002 announcement of the Maximal entheogen theory of religion.

I write a lot against the suppression hypothesis, in that posting.

it gives me some ideas for some better, more direct, less vague, names of the two opposed positions, now that I’ve analyzed the Moderate, Maximal, and Minimal positions more over the past months.

I have recently focused more on what the moderate and minimal positions have in common.

there is not actually a compelling need to differentiate those two positions, Moderate (Ruck) “versus” Minimal (McKenna).

Those two “different” positions both amount to the same thing, & they slip and slide between each other, and they were both just variations of the Suppression paradigm.

they both act the same way.

in this voice recording discussion today,

I am seeing strong agreements between me and Thomas Hatsis.

we disagree about which chemical: Hatsis says Scopolamine, I say Psilocybin.

The Monks and the Witches teams agree that Christianity is clearly characterized by the presence, not the suppression and absence, of visionary plants.

My announcement in October 2002 sounds so much like literally a prediction and an announcement of the 2020 Canterbury Miracle receiving of the message transmitted by Eadwine to me 18 years later, Nov 2020.

– not 20 years later; I made a math mistake in the voice recording – how completely unusual! inconceivable!

Hyper-specifically for clarity, I assert re-dosing powdered Cubensis, not Amanita – it’s pretty evident that what ancient & medieval Christians were using was Johns Hopkins branded synthetic Psilocybin gel caps.

When I look at pre-modern Christian texts and Christian art, what I see is descriptions of the experiences from re-dosing powdered Cubensis synthetic Psilocybin gel caps obtained from Johns Hopkins licensed clinics.

When Thomas Hatsis looks at Christian texts & art, what he sees is description & depiction of experiences from Scopolamine.

Neither of us see indications of Suppression of visionary plants; we see the opposite of that –

the dominant, Suppression theory doesn’t match the evidence.

The dominant theory is the Suppression theory – but the evidence instead loudly tells a story of Normalcy of visionary plants usage.

both of us have observed what I observed

in October 2002 I am saying the same words that Thomas Hatsis is saying in 2011 through 2022

we are contrasting

Thomas Hatsis and I have both spotted, soon after entering the field, we both quickly spotted a big disparity & a contrast:

on the one hand, we look at the dominant Theory in the Field of entheogen History

the dominant Theory is the Suppression Theory

but then it’s plain to see that Christian mythology is densely packed with intensive depictions of visionary experiencing everywhere, and the same in the texts;

the art & text evidence simply do not support the claim/paradigm of “suppression” which the McKenna/Allegro/Ruck/Muraresku school pushes!

Thomas Hatsis and I are both vigorously taking down the T McKenna defeatist Theory of Suppression of Visionary Plants in Christianity.

I want to destroy this terrible, awful Suppression hypothesis, which is an awful, terrible, harmful idea, and it’s wrecking and ruining the field & harming the repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.

Thomas Hatsis and I agree that it is imperative, we’ve got to stop this noxious harmful, wrong, and false Suppression paradigm.

Thomas Hatsis and I can get on the same page more easily if I use more direct labels for the two opposed positions: the Normalcy vs. Suppression theories. rather than the confusing & vague to me labels, abstract, “Maximal vs Moderate” –

Plus the term ‘Moderate’ is much too generous, because the Carl Ruck school in fact is stingy

it’s very stingy

Dan Merkur is Stingy

they’re all stingy

When I say ‘Moderate’, you’re gonna read that in a generous way and think “oh they’re asserting 50%”

that’s wrong; in fact they assert only half of 1%! use & knowledge of visionary plants in ancient & medieval Christianity.

it is so misrepresentative and misleading to use the word ‘Moderate’ when they assert that only half of 1%! of Christians knew/ used visionary plants in pre- modernity.

i’m reading aloud my October 2002 proposition, and it says “25%”.

I just don’t resonate with that percentage.

I feel like it’s telling the confusing wrong story.

I’m inclined to say “33%” of Christians knew/understood visionary plants.

it helps me understand the mentality better to say 33% than 25%.

I have found my labels to be so confusing, my March 2003 labels & October 2002 that develop the terminology of maximal and maximum.

I found those labels to be too abstract too indirect.

I have to keep on checking and rechecking:

how did I define those abstract labels?

what exactly is the difference between the three positions?

what do you do when two of the positions keep on waffling between the two of them until functionally there are the same position – Minimal and Moderate?

the real question has become:

what’s the difference between the maximal position on the one hand, and the minimal/moderate position, on the other hand?

so clearly, this is a cumbersome, indirect, abstract labeling, that prevents Thomas Hatsis and me from understanding the commonality of our mission.

I need more direct labels that really put the finger on the exact spirit of difference between two opposed mindsets/ lenses.

what exactly is the difference, in a more direct identified way?

and I find I discover that

I wrote a lot about the word ‘Suppression’.

In October 2002, I announced the Maximal entheogen theory of religion by denouncing the suppression assumption –

so why not simply use the word ‘Suppression’ right in the label for the position that I am against?

and I’m pushing in that posting, I use the word ‘normalcy’ – why not just use the word ‘Normalcy’ for the position label, instead of creating a higher abstraction layer that obscures the main point of contention?

lately I keep on criticizing what the Carl Ruck school does to all positive evidence for Visionary Plants: he tries to frame it as abnormal; deviant; doesn’t count; an alien intruder approaching the Eucharist from outside of it.

and Cyberdisciple wrote a good webpage article in terms of the title “against the assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in pre-modernity”.

Voice dictation, so have fun translating,

usually I clean these up to some extent, over time.

And the WordPress app just prompted me to give it a rating and I gave it a five star rating – but really well it’s not working very entirely well ie it has issues with voice transcription, not sure which software is to blame.

The combination of voice transcription with the wordpress app has a duplication bug, so deal with it , too damn bad. I will give you the benefit of telling you, describing the bug:

when I say “too many” words, there’s a bug and it chokes and it duplicates the whole block 💥💥

🙃🤖

We have a great episode of the voice recording Egodeath Mystery show for you today May 7, 2022 as I read through my article 2006 Wasson Allegro Plaincourault Amanita and

I just got a clear realization that, I didn’t really mean it seriously when I said “warning never trust an entheogen scholar, they are particularly especially the most untrustworthy worthy the most untrustworthy writers of them all” I warned and I joked.

but then I realized, that’s exactly what happened when Wasson warned us in the book soma, using Eliad regarding Shamanism:

Wasson warned us don’t believe a word that I write, because we write under coercion; we are forced to write a load of rubbish that we don’t believe – signed Wasson

he warned us in print

similarly Carl rock reiterated wassons warning

curl rock warned us in print, in the book the road to Eleusis

he warned us don’t believe a word that I write – signed, ruck

they are particularly especially the most untrustworthy worthy the most untrustworthy writers of them all I warned and I joked

but then I realized that’s exactly what happened when Wasson warned us in the book soma using Eliad

regarding Shamanism, Wasson warned us don’t believe a word that I write because we right under coercion; we are forced to write a load of rubbish that we don’t believe signed Wasson

he warned us in print

similarly Carl rock reiterated wassons warning curl rock warned us in print in the book the road to Eleusis he warned us don’t believe a word that I write – signed Carl Ruck

don’t believe a word that I write because look at exhibit A Eliade regarding Shamanism clearly didn’t believe his ridiculous patent nonsense on stilts that shamans no longer able to will themselves into the mushroom state of consciousness

then I forgot to go off about Carlos Ginsberg’s today, I was starting to get into that, but my exhibit A, my own exhibit a to seal the deal and make the point:

Ramsbottom publicly published Gordon wassons admission of being a lying deceiver be a bullsht artist and cover-up story

and I believe it was Jan Irvin who caught this

this was caught by him when we discussed 2006 Jan Irvin caught what happened, that:

Ramsbottom exposed Wasson as warning twice; we have two warnings from Wassen, that we should not believe his lying deceiving cover-up bullsht story.

in the book soma, Gorgon Wasson says:

never believe an “ethnomycologist”, because we write under coercion. like Eliade’s manifest nonsense on stilts.

secondly, as if to drive the point home, Gordon Wasson warned the mycologist Ramsbottom in a intended-private letter, “wrongly, we are going to publicly deny the obvious truth, that of course the Amanita Artist realized he was depicting Amanita Imagery , obviously”

but then the lead mycologist Ramsbottom took revenge on this lying deceiver “ethnomycologist” Aasson by publicly publishing wassons admission of being a deceiving liar cover-up bullsht operator and Wason didn’t discover that until Allegros books footnote – ha ha on Wasson, u deserved it!!

Young irvin discovered that Wason discovered through Allegro’s book in 1970 belatedly discovered that Ramsbottom had exposed Wasson as admitting privately to being a lying deceiver, writing assertions that he did not believe in

, and this corroborates what Wason publicly wrote in his warning in his book Soma, Wasson warned us:

never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because they’re always coerced into writing assertions which they disbelieve, insultingly stupid assertions such as “Amanita artists don’t recognize Amanita”

So I am renaming the Moderate Entheogen Theory: a second name:

“the Moderate (including Minimal) theory”

for one thing, I am deliberately coupling the Moderate with the Minimal position, because slip and slide, fluctuation, ever-changing:

the people who assert the moderate position also half the time change and assert the minimal position.

and half the time they shift back to assert the moderate position.

we see this with John Allegro. In one printing of his book, he says there was an “old tradition” of amanita lasting 1200 years.

then in the next edition, he removes the fresco and says no, there was only amanita use in the primitive original generation for 20 years only.

Then Jan Irvin , who is closer to maximal Position re-published Allegro’s book and ads plain mcruel fresco back in again,;

hats as claims that later printings omitted the planecrawl Fresco, which is very interesting, if you can trust Hatsis on anything. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. he’s only mostly dead wrong on absolutely everything.

then I am treating T McKenna as a special case, where he usually asserts the extreme archaic Psilocybin position, but then look his inconsistent, he puts a gigantic Amanita on the cover of his reading of his book, his audiobook Food of Only the Gods.

The hallmark characteristic –

Hatsis does not have a monopoly; Andy Letcher does not have a monopoly on being shifting fluctuation moving the goalposts slip and slide, can’t decide what his position is, changes every two seconds, he contradicts himself constantly nonstop.

The very defining character of the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion is that it constantly flips between the minimal and moderate position, and its inconstancy and constant self-contradiction.

were there mushrooms?

yes but no.

Both Wasson and Carl Rut warn us “never believe published entheogen scholars’ public profession of faith commitment official positions is a bunch of lies”

they tell us “beware, look at Eliad manifest nonsense he wrote about shamans”:

that they used to be able to will themselves into a mushroom state of consciousness, but no longer.

you’d have to be an idiot to believe that.

obviously Eliade cannot possibly believe his own position faith-statement profession. prohibition/ prejudice compliant, toe the line, self-contradict.

and this is typical of the field of entheogen scholarship under the garbled self-contradictory moderate/minimal/ever-fluctuating, compromised, coerced, lying, deceptive, Weasley, prevaricating, self-defeating position called the moderate/minimal/never trust an Entheogen Scholar’s writing, according to Gordon Wasson

Wasson both publicly and privately asserted and admitted to John Ramsbottom the mycologist and according to Carl rock in the equally important foundational book the road to Eleusis said, he wrote “never trust the written public position/faith statements professions of faith commitment assertions of us academic entheogen scholars”.

The “revenge of the mycologists” is:

Gordon Wasson the “ethnomycologist” insulted mycologists, who simply assert that planecurl means Amanita.

and Wassen is forever smearing and disrespecting and insulting the mycologists and pretending that Wassen as an “ethnicmycologist” is somehow superior to the mycologists, who simply truthfully assert that obviously plaincorralled means amanita.

and so in retaliation, the lead mycologist Ramsbottom published in his book Wasson’s admission of being a deceptive liar con artist BS bullsht artist giving a load of malarkey cover-up story with an insultingly preposterous assertion that “Amanita artists have no idea that they represented Amanita.” 😑

Jan irvin determined that Ramsbottom retaliated against the insults levied by Gordon Wasson against the mycologists by publicly publishing Gordon Wasson’s admission of “Wrongly, we are committed to, going to pretend and assert something we know to be a falsehood: we are going to assert the Amanita imagery does not mean Amanita, and the Christian artists are that stupid that they don’t recognize their own mushroom imagery as delivering the impression of mushroom imagery.”

The Moderate and Minimal entheogen theory (same diff) are insulting to artists, and insulting to the mycologists, who were 100% correct in obviously identifying the planecrawl fresco as Amanita and then suffering Gordon Wasson inventing his fabricated field of deceit and deception and lying called “ethnomycology” and proceeded to smear an insult and lie – and then privately admit to Ramsbottom, the head mycologist, that Gordon Wasson is putting on a pretext, “rightly or wrongly we are going to assert manifest self-contradictory nonsense, that Amanita imagery in art does not mean amanita”

and remember Wasson himself warned us in his public book soma,

he warned us never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because look what nonsense Eliade was forced to write, which clearly he could not possibly have believed him in himself, any more than Dan Merkur could possibly believe that “gnostics did not eat mushrooms, because they never eat anything physical.” 😑

this is manifestly a preposterous assertion that the author could not possibly believe and Gordon Wasson as a BS artist explains to us that Eliad is bullshtting us obviously serving as a warning Gorgon Wasson wrote us the warning:

never trust published position statements of faith, which are lies written by entheogen scholars under coercion.

The Moderate/ phony, posturing, self-contradiction, prevaricating Moderate entheogen theory of religion serves the purpose of reducing & restricting mushrooms from our religious history, in servile, compliant service to the Salvation Salesmen & Meditation Hucksters.

The takeaway is that whenever you read the alleged position statements put forth for public consumption by Wasson and the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, including the Carl Ruck school, realize that they have already given you given you the warning:

they have warned you never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because we write bullsht that we don’t believe in, in order to serve our Prohibition overlords.

we are professional liars who serve to minimize and deny and remove and constrain mushrooms in our religious history.

when you read their position statements you have to remember they already

and us never believe the written public Position statements written by any entheogen scholar because we write under coercion

witness exhibit A, Eliad , who wrote rubbish that he could not possibly have believed in himself, that shamans used to be able to will themselves into mushroom consciousness, but now in the modern era, they lost that ability – manifest horsesht!!

you might as well believe Carlos Ginsberg the psychedelic witch historian the psychedelic which the psychedelic history and Carlos Ginsberg, who falsely writes that he has “proved” that witches fertility cult practices can induce the same experience as Psilocybin Mushrooms or Amanita – and if you believe that, then we entheogen scholars have several bridges to sell you & valuable marshland real estate, if you’re that fcking gullible

“I warned you”; Wasson warned you in the book soma, he said watch out, look at what Eliad had to write, was forced & coerced into writing obvious self-contradictory nonsense on stilts.

and Carl rock warned you in the book the road to Eleusis exhibit A Eliade regarding nonsense about shamans

and also Wassen privately admitted to the lead mycologist Ramsbottom that wrongly we are going to falsely assert something that we know to be false: we are going to tell the cover-up story that “amanita artists had no idea that they were depicting Amanita Imagery”

And then Ramsbottom publicly published Wassons private admission of deceit and cover-up story practices on the part of the fraudulent Phony pretenders posers, ethno mycollegests.

So much for the credibility of “ethnomycologists”, prancing posers & put-on artists.

Such is the defining character of the Moderate entheogen theory of religion.

The scholars who assert the Moderate entheogen theory of religion don’t even believe their own cover-up bullsht stories.

so remember that, when you read the writings of the Moderate Carl Ruck’s school , remember that they have giving you the warning already, “don’t take our preposterous & prevaricating assertions seriously, because we write under coercion.“

So I am pretty much done with the category of the “Minimal” Entheogens Theory – it is as unimportant as the category of the Hylics compared to the Psychics and Pneumatics in the gnostic system of the three kinds of thinkers.

I see the way clear now to have a nice clean elegant Max Freakout compatible simple clarifying to position to positions system instead of three positions we really only need the Maximal Position and then the moderate Position in the Moderate Position can completely flip-flop and slip and slide to cover the minimal position as well on every other Tuesday

because the inconsistency of it and the self-contradiction of it are the distinguishing hallmarks

there is no steady distinction between moderate versus Minimal

it’s all The same prevaricating shifting fluctuating in constant self-contradictory across time

one day you assert X; the next day you assert Y; it’s all the same shiite.

The only stable, steady, constant, determinate, specified, non-self-contradictory position is my Maximal entheogen theory of religion.

And practically there’s only one other position and that is the we can simply call at the moderate position (and enfold the minimal position which it shifts back-and-forth between).

No choice but to create webpage announcing art theme of lifted left heel

all the content is already posted and written up in the past couple of webpages

left heel slightly lifted? hard to tell.

he may be keeling over dead, as per Thomas Hatsis’ masterful interpretation, as the most influential art historian, displacing even the great Erwin Panofsky, who Gordon Wasson so praises as “competent at Romanesque art” – competent except at all the standard mystical motifs, like {lifted left heel}.

Recording Egodeath Mystery show right now May 7, 2022 and I must never sell myself short on these art theme breakthroughs you have seen me in the past couple days ask why are the foot positions so consistent in this art genre are the left foot lifted and then I discovered the lien in the important amazin Eustace Window and the lion instructed me yes Monte Cassino past years Adam and eve and both versions

of the scene have their left foot heel lifted just like the two left paw heels of the lions are floating in space

this is a definite significant widespread theme and the more I look for it the more I’m getting confirmation this is a significant theme

and what I’ve learned in the past few weeks couple weeks I need to just go ahead and make a webpage because this order of importance magnitude pans out consistently

I can recognize pretty readily pretty straight away

& another webpage that I would have to create is yesterdays Decoding of diomysus Victory procession mosaic procession mosaic ariadne Holds garment in left arm in her left arm where is in contrast Dionysus is closed clothed with sacred “new mental model” clothing.

wears his sacred garment of new mental model

and I have recently very recently developed ideas about contrasting clothed veiled unveiled and flesh fburned away to reveal underlying skeleton structure per Brown analysis of plane corral fresco

yesterdays Decoding of diomysus Victory procession mosaic procession mosaic ariadne Holds garment in left arm in her left arm where is in contrast

wears his sacred garment of new mental model and

I have recently very recently developed ideas about contrasting closed veiled unveiled and flash burned away to reveal underlying skeleton structure per Brown analysis of planecorral fresco eve ribs

May 9, 2022

quick check indicates hokeypokey Christ feet corroborate per John Rush http://www.clinicalanthropology.com/jesus-mushrooms-origin-christianity/

a quick check of Rush online pics CONFIRMED my theory: left heel lifted = relying on right leg instead of left 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

Amanita as a Weed in the Field of Entheogen Scholarship: An Invasive, Undesirable Plant: High Propagation, Low Value, Chokes Out the Good, Highly Desirable, Valuable Plants, and Prevents Comprehension of Religious Mythology Too

see previous post for a couple more paragraphs

it is possible to dis-identify the right hand tree in two versions of the scene in the Monte Cassino Manuscript as Mandrake and only emphasize palm tree instead, with its distinctive non-branching versus branching morphology, in which case this would be a “branching-message palm tree” with added cut branches.

Since Hatsis is removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist, in retaliation, I’m removing Mandrake from the Montecassino Manuscript, both versions of the scene.

Remember the lesson learned from cannabis fanatic Ardent Advocate Chris Bennett(?) falsely said, and other people have falsely misidentified the four mushroom plants that God created in Canterbury Psalter page 1

Amanita as a Weed in the Field of Entheogen Scholarship: An Invasive, Undesirable Plant: High Propagation, Low Value, Chokes Out the Good, Highly Desirable, Valuable Plants, and Prevents Comprehension of Religious Mythology Too

I agree with Eadwine per my inventory page of the 75 mushroom plants in Canterbury Psalter: Amanita is the least important of the four mushroom types; it is only really interesting visually, and as a curiosity, not as a practical cognitive loosener.

And Eadwine didn’t even use Amanita much even for merely its visual effect; he pretty much nearly omitted Amanita imagery from the Canterbury Psalter.

I applaud him for that; he’s really helping rescue our hapless situation, with the Secret Amanita presupposition spreading like a noxious weed: high propagation, low value, shuts out the superior, desirable plants.

I think Eadwine was really sick of the extreme overuse of Amanita imagery in art by the Carl Ruck school of Secret Mystics.

We’ve had long-shot and way-off guesses, such as the four plants mean opium and cannabis and four different groups of types of psychoactive families, and that’s wrong; I agree with brown and brown that all four sacred plants that God created are –

all your mushrooms are belong to us

and none of the mushrooms belong to the ardent advocates of cannabis and the ardent advocates of random, anything-goes, junk bucket of all visionary plants thrown in a witches brew together in a meaningless, useless way that’s no good for building a theory of specific cognitive effects, such as Cubensis re-dosing to control the frequency, duration, and intensity (rectangular “curve”), as the ancients did routinely in the banqueting mixed wine tradition, and as we see reflected in the mushroom trees tradition of the high, most high period of the middle of Christian history.

All of this completely contradicting Carl Ruck and his super-limited, self-defeating Minimal, mushroom-removing, mushroom-minimizing paradigm that he’s got us trapped in, so trapped in that we have to resort to the likes of Hatsis to bust us out of the mind-stunting preschool prison that Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman have us trapped in, the Carl Ruck school of removal of mushrooms from history, rendering them- the assumption of suppression, rendering them suppressed.

In my opinion, the tree could very well be Mandrake, intended and indicate use of Mandrake when as a fallback, as an inferior second rate; third-rate, fourth-rate fallback when the ideal, desired powdered Cubensis is not in season, or in between the manufactured, cultivated batches of cow pie mushrooms,

or my main theory, that the ancients sometimes ran out of synthetic Psilocybin gel caps, because Kafei ate them all at once at the same time, not even using the re-dosing technique, per the traditional methods of the mystics.

And as a desperate measure, they purchased from Hatsis Industries Witching Supplies, Scopalamine instead, as a fourth-rate fallback ersatz low-grade substitute for the bona fide real deal gold standard reference, Psilocybin from cows.

🐮 🍄

Just like Erwin Panofsky, I too have an opinion, and my opinion is actually informed by relevant information & coherent reasoning, unlike his, and that of all the compliant, coerced art historians, the art students and the art professors, who are all forced and coerced to have their public stated official faith declaration profession of faith:

that in their (sincere, of course) opinion, mushroom imagery does not in the slightest connote mushrooms, and the artists would be shocked, shocked! to have “some especially ignorant craftsman” “misunderstood” the mushroom imagery as mushrooms “under the delusion” the accidentally distorted through sheer number of recopying, distorted templates by sloppy, non-sentient artists who have no ability to steer impressions toward or away from mushroom impressions.

And besides, argues Panofsky after putting on the kettle, if medieval artists had intended to depict & give the impression of mushrooms, they would have simply wadded up Panofsky’s precious impressionistically accidentally distorted templates into the garbage can and have gone out and consulted nature, suddenly becoming literalistic modern natural science artists, and would have depicted mushrooms without ramification added.

Art impression is unintentional, accidental, inadvertent, meaningless, and without any significance, and out of the artist’s control, and the artists in England understood themselves to be churning out southern Italian umbrella pine trees [contra Wasson’s subsequent, specifically vague “conventionalized Palestine tree type”; yeah, that’s the ticket!], slavishly following their meaninglessly, accidentally distorted templates, distorted by accidental, inadvertent sloppiness.

Says the most influential historian.

Gordon Wasson (the Father of compliant, self-limiting, pretextually constrained Ethnomycology) is invited by Erwin Panofsky (alas the most influential, most-to-blame art historian) to ask any certified art historian their opinion on “do mushroom trees mean mushrooms?”, their official stated profession of faith statement publicly.

Professionally certified art historians have all been trained to publish publicly the same profession faith statement of their profession, which is required and mandatory for them, or else, must we remind you yet again, that “To reveal the mysteries is punishable by death”; academic death.

And so by Hoffman’s Uncertainty Principle, when we throw a taboo question at the art historian to probe their position publicly observation observing them observing their reaction displacement, we cannot know their actual position, unless they state a position which goes against the coerced dogma position.

But going against the obligatory public profession of faith statement is not possible, if we are only including employed professors and passing students, because no student is allowed to pass if they express a dissenting opinion and assert that obviously, mushroom artists knew perfectly well that their image impresses, gives the viewer the impression of mushroom in their impressionistic impressively mushroid imagery.

Revealing the mysteries is punishable by death

you must have the opinion that we require your obligatory holding of this public profession of faith statement

go ahead Gordon Wasson test our trained professionals: publicly ask any passing student what their opinion is on this matter; publicly ask any employed professor what their opinion is on this matter, and you will discover that all of them assert and profess the same faith public profession of faith, official declaration of position, that no, these distinctively mushroom-looking trees, the artists had no intention whatsoever, despite the fact that the artists knew that their imagery would compel an impressive impression of mushroom impression.

But in our opinion, as passing art students and employed professional art professors, it is our sincere, coerced, mandatory, obligatory opinion that mushroom images do not intend at all whatsoever to connote mushrooms, even though all the artists must have realized that their impressionistic mushroom-styled imagery would force upon the viewer a mushroom impression.

Yet Erwin Panofsky – the most influential art historian – denies that.

Panofsky says artists are idiots, and are misleading people, and that the artists had no intention whatsoever to convey what their images absolutely convey, according to the art historians who actually call them “mushroom trees”: an impressively strong, quite recognizable (so recognizable, that even with ramification added, they still read as mushrooms), impressionistic impression of mushroom trees.

🥺 🍄🌳 🐍

9:15 pm May 6, 2022 – I have a proposal for the two spots under canterbury psalter liberty cap caps in caps – two mushroom arms representing the two mental models, possibilism vs eternalism.

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/16/liberty-caps-and-panaeolus-caps-in-the-canterbury-psalter/#Liberty-Caps

At about 10:40 PM May 6, 2022, I realized the viable case for {left heel up, right heel down} mystical art imagery theme motif, which I started writing about I think yesterday – and then a few minutes later, that led directly to the next discovery (that lion’s paws are same) and realization and observation, which sealed the deal; QED; I just proved via the lion that the man’s left heel is indeed to be read as {left heel up}.

There is now enough instances that I could possibly create a WordPress page inventorying {left heel up right heel down}, but it is a pretty subtle feature.

10:45 pm May 6, 2022 left heels up, right heels down

2:22 AM May 7, 2022 a change of garment: remove the old garment of egoic thinking possibility Branching Thinking, and put on the new garment of Dionysus, the new mental model, eternity thinking.

9:45 pm May 6 2022 – I just noticed something in caps accounting: arguably for the most part, each guy owns two mushrooms.

balancing guy owns a pair of mushroom stem-and-caps;

hanging guy w left foot farthest from ground owns a single cap & two stems. each guy own two mushrooms

cap = non-branching, a cap touches God’s cloud. In mushroom tree morphology analysis, a cap = 1; contains no branching

1,2,4,1 morphology compared to salamander.

tree and post-roast salamander touch each other (indicating likeness; agreement; affirmation; isomorphism) at the 1 & 1 points (trunk & cap) of the left, extant mushroom tree but not at the 2,4 (branching) zones of the tree.

serpent’s right paw = non-branching = cap.

serpent’s tail = non-branching = trunk.

the tree’s branching zone’s hand is repelled by the post-roast (non-branching) serpent.

made a good voice recording saying how pointing out how

Panofsky’s insistence on looking at Pinetrees as the origin scientific image illustration and his refusal to do interpretation of the finished developed end result being so mushroom-looking that the artists deliberately forced us to have the impression of mushrooms with branches added.

Panofsky refuses to do his job of interpreting the resulting what he calls “finished product” of the “development” of the Pine tree into what we art historians call “Mushroom Trees” with branches.

that is the data that is given that you must interpret.

But what Panofsky does instead it amounts to refusing to interpret the impression but delete and negate and ignore the artist impression which the artist impress upon us deliberately and knowingly

they knew that everybody in the world including Panofsky’s art historians would call these mushroom trees and would describe them as mushrooms with branches (and cut branches and no branches, by the way)

and he ends his second letter (brought to us by Brown and Brown)

he ends his second letter by asserting that artist should not follow the templates – after he just lectured us about how the artists of the middle ages follow templates and now he says falsely that if they want to convey the impression of a mushroom they would have to omit branches

and yet his own art historians call the impression that they are forced to receive, the impression of mushrooms with branches (and cut branches and no branches) – that is the data which we art interpreters are given to interpret

it will not do, to refuse to interpret the given impression, which is the given data, and say we have to look at the raw scientific illustration of pine trees instead! Saying that the “mushroom-like trees with branches originate as pine trees” is not an interpretation of “the finished product of the development transformation process” (his words).

Doing art interpretation does not amount to stating the origin species (discarding & ignoring the final form’s styled impression); doing art interpretation means answering the question:

Why did the template development process finish and halt at an impression that the artists must have consciously and thus intentionally known would force on viewers the particular distinctively and characteristically mushroid impression, that art historians actually describe as “mushroom trees”?

clearly what the artist sought to impress us with, they wanted to form an impression of mushroom trees, which is to say, mushrooms with branching (and cut branches and no branches): why?

As long as you refuse to answer that, you are failing to do art interpretation, but are merely doing an exercise of evading your job and evading the impression and refusing to engage with the impression, which is definitely a deliberate impression upon the viewer of the concept of mushroom trees.

You have to explain and interpret the given data & styled impression, which is mushroom trees, NOT pine trees.

Why did the artists develop their pine tree impression templates into a final form that makes pine trees look like mushrooms with branching? (& cut branches & no branches, & left branching vs. right non-branching?)

don’t evade the question by pointing backwards to literal non-template, non-schematized form of pine trees; thats begging the question, that’s not what the artist impress upon us in their chosen impressionistic rendering of pine trees.

The whole entire question that confronts you as an alleged, (you claim to be an) interpreter of art, of artists’ impressions that they create & convey.

then do your job and interpret, and explain to us:

why did the artists deliberately choose to impress upon us, to give us deliberately the impression of mushroom trees, which you admit that, you describe them as mushroom trees with branching.

and that is what impression the artists intended & deliver in their final form of development.

so that is what you need to interpret, and saying that they come from pine trees is not an interpretation of the impression that the artists give us.

if the artists had wanted to give us an impression of pine trees, then the artists – as you argue yourself – would have dropped the mushroom elements.

The whole entire question that confronts you as an alleged – you claim to be an interpreter of art, artists impressions.

then do your job and interpret, and explain to us:

why did the artists deliberately choose to impress upon us, to give us deliberately the impression of mushroom trees, which you admit that, you describe them as “mushroom trees; mushrooms that have branching ramification”.

and that is what the artists intended

so that is what you need to interpret and no, saying that they come from pine trees is not an interpretation of the impression that the artists give us.

if the artist had wanted to give us an impression of pine trees, then the artists – as you argue yourself – would have dropped the distinctive mushroom elements.

if the artists had wanted to impress upon us the impression of pine trees, then the artist would have omitted the mushroom factors elements – to throw your stupid inconsistent self-contradictory argument right back in your face.

then all of a sudden now, after you just finished lecturing us about how artists did not work from nature but from templates, you directly contradict yourself and say if artists wanted to depict mushrooms then they would have omitted branches.

but tell me, if artists had wanted to depict pine trees, why didn’t they throw away their templates as quickly as you tell them to throw away their templates in the case of mushrooms but not in the case of pine trees?

why did the artists fail to depict pine trees, but they succeeded at depicting what you yourself call and describe the impression of that’s forced upon you, the impression of “mushroom trees”?

impressionistically rendered pine trees impression finished at mushrooms with ramification, interpret that, not the literal form that artists deviated from, pine trees.

The impressionistically rendered stylized impression is not of pine trees, but of mushroom trees, as your field’s own term admits & asserts.

Why do artists deviate from your umbrella pine trees in such a way as to produce the impression of mushroom trees?

☂️🌲 -> 🍄🌳 🐍

if we agree to your reasoning, that if artists wanted to depict mushrooms, they would have omitted the branches and (without any hesitation) discarded their templates, by your same reasoning, I argue:

if artists had wanted to depict & give the viewer the impression of pine trees, they would’ve discarded their templates (with no hesitation) and omitted the mushroom elements.

why are you inconsistent

you are evading your job of interpreting the given impression, which is not of pine trees, but rather of mushrooms with branches, that you admit by calling them “mushroom trees”; the artists successfully gave you the quite recognizable impression, despite the branches (& cut branches & omitted branches), of what you admit gives the strong & clear, distinctive & characteristic undeniable impression of mushroom trees.

Explain the impression; do not explain the original form 🎄 but rather, explain the final resulting impression, that is your job.

If the artists fail to depict mushrooms because they have branches, as you claim, then why do you yourself call them “mushroom trees”?

you prove that you’re full of baloney

and cut branches and no branches (despite your false claim that “even the most mushroom-like specimens have traces of ramification”)

Why is the artists’ evident template rule “Don’t show branching within the cap/crown”?

the crown is non-branching, why?

You call yourself an “interpreter”; now interpret!

May 6, 2020 the point is not what type of leaf so much as non-branching.

by presenting you with a grid of leaves of whatever type, we are conveying the idea of lack of branching; omission of branching.

it doesn’t matter what kind of leaf , whether it’s a grape leaf, or a shelf fungus leaf, or an ivy leaf, or a cannabis leaf.

Similarly, we can read Ariadne’s nonexistent species of tree branch a palm branch with branching, unlike a real-world palm branch.

The palm was of interest for its rule-breaking branching.

I’d have to look up technical morphology of branching tree structures.

And in fact our inability to identify the tree species Ariadne holds in her left hand drives home the point that you do not need some particular backstory insider knowledge to read the morphology, the interplanetary universal basic elementary morphology conveyed by the unnatural nonexistent species of branching palm tree, branch held by Ariadne.

There is no such backstory, that’s kind of the point: it is a mythological branching palm branch, useful for its branching morphology, as opposed to some complicated technical particular species.

What type of mushroom has a fountain shape and gills on the outside, for feline with spots, but has a round base? that does not match Amanita – but this is a mythical scene, with mythical attributes of plants morphology expressing balancing, like expressing branching.

What type of tree has a crown consisting of leaves where each leaf has a stem coming from the trunk and no branching except at the top of the trunk we’re all the leaves come at once?

Palm morphology.

so Brinkman is wrong, Panofsky is wrong; the correct species that I have literally scientifically identified is , what the artist – and also, Wasson is wrong: he says it’s a “Palestine tree type” , in contradiction of the other expert, Panofsky, who says it’s an Italian Umbrella Pine

but I tell you the scientific fact of the matter literally: the inept artists were struggling and striving to present the palm tree. 😑

🌴

Unfortunately, their templates got accidentally distorted in a way that all the artist agreed to accept for some reason, the reason being, no reason.

there is no purpose in art

there is no meaning in art

there is no significance in art

impressionistic stylization is for no reason

I learned this theory of art interpretation from the most influential art historian of the 20th century, Erwin Panofsky:

The templates got distorted over the course of repeated copying, for no reason whatsoever except inept, sloppy artists’ “purely fortuitous” accident, and all artists came to accept “the final completed resulting product” of this random, entirely accidental “development transformation process”, even though it looks, undeniably forcing the impression on every viewer, including late-modern art historians, the impression of a mushroom tree, combining, they say, they observe, features of mushrooms quite recognizably, despite also having features of branching (and cut branches, and non-branching).

Did the artists realize that their mushrooms trees gave the clear and distinct impression of being mushroom trees?

If not, why not? Are artists stupid and ignorant of the impression that their art gives the viewer?

Why did artists come to accept these highly misleadingly shaped templates, that art historians say look like mushroom trees, even though knowing these impressionistically rendered images give the viewer the distinct impression of mushroom trees?

Were artists trying to mislead viewers?

What’s your position on these questions, Panofsky?

We can be assured by Erwin Panofsky that these artists would be shocked, shocked! if anybody came away with the “delusion, of some especially ignorant craftsman, under the delusion” that these images – which force the impression on us of mushrooms – were intended to give the impression of mushrooms, despite having branches (and cut branches, and no branching).

Pointing to pine trees is not “interpreting”; it is a refusal to interpret the given impression which the artists give us, the given data.

Avoiding that data, that impression of mushroom trees and replacing it by instead a pine tree 🎄, is a refusal to interpret, while pretending to be interpretation; but it is anti-interpretation, pseudo-interpretation, a pretense of interpretation.

The field of entheogen scholarship has been harmed by Carl Ruck – I agree with Hatsis – retarded and stunted and developmentally blocked by Carl Rucks fixational dysfunctional fixation developmentally stunted limited exclusively to Amanita only and cover-up refusal to engage with the Psilocybin art Evidence in Hellenistic and Christian art.

Hatsis is correct on that point, that entheogen scholarship has come to a halt and is being blocked and impeded by this dysfunctional way of defining every classification system forced to revolve around planecorralled Fresco and Amanita and Secrecy and Allegro, and an exclusive focus on isolated Christian Christian art in isolation from Hellenistic art.

I agree with him on that. we have GOT to escape from the jail cell that Dr. Rut has placed us in.

we’ve got to bust out of the prison the Carl Ruck school has locked us into.

we’ve got to grow out of that preschool play yard that they have restricted us to.

I agree with Thomas Hatsis on that point.

I also agree with Thomas Hatsis that an extreme reaction and breakout, a vigorous almost a “violent” sort of sort of speak a “violent” breakout operation as needed that we need to throw off we need to finally sacrifice this childish thinking.

we’ve got to retain the vision, the bigger broader adult level vision of psilocybin instead, and I agree that we have to vigorously forcefully and almost “violently” throw off the shackles which Dr. Rut’s got us in.

The only place where Thomas Hatsis goes wrong is on the exact nature of the violent overthrow of the dominant reign of Dr. Secret Amanita, the Carl Ruck school paradigm, which has Samorini forming his malformed classification system is precisely because he begins with Plaincourault obsession and childish stunted developmentally stunted fixational fixational inappropriately try to rubberstamp the same bad formula that produced the planemcorral fresco bad limited paradigm, which has blocked the field from growing up and into its adult form mature form.

we have stuck the field in an immature form by forcing every classification scheme to begin with and be limited to only the Plaincourault / allegro/ irvin/ secrecy suppression-assumption model, and develop no further than that.

Where Thomas hatis goes wrong is in his particular so to speak “violent” overthrow of the reign of Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman.

it is only Thomas Hatsis’ particular solution that’s wrong.

he’s correct about the problem, and he’s correct that a extreme overthrow is the only possible solution; but his extreme overthrow proposal is the total denial and total removal of mushrooms from the Eucharist.

that’s wrong; he’s wrong on that one point.

the correct, adult way forward, to shake ourselves out of this child level fixation – and I have in mind Ken Wilber’s early books about a destructive regression & failure to integrate lower devmtl structures into higher structure to graduate to adult higher level form.

Hatsis is an example, Hatsis is like a destructive regression, a failure of transcendence, a failure to move to the next level, adult developmental form.

Thomas hatsis’ particular solution constitutes a regression that’s dysfunctional dissolution of egoic structures, rather than moving on to graduate to the adult mature form.

Thomas Hatsis ‘s particular solution is regression and destruction of the lower developmental level

we need to retain, in Ken Wilber form or sense of his theory, retain the lower developmental structures, the earlier childish transitional development structures of all of our Amanita research and discovery findings.

retain those, but stop being limited to those, and don’t destroy them.

Do not destroy the previous generations work , that generation called Wason Allegro, Jan Irvin, and Dr. Secret Amanita: Carl Ruck and the evil M. Hoffman.

do not destroy the childish structures; retain them, but dis- identify from them

stop identifying with the child limited level. employ them and retain them, but stop being constrained and limited and imprisoned in the stunted child level immature developmental level of this field for all of eternity, which is what the regressive solution from Thomas Hatsis would do.

he would go backwards

not only is his solution a failure to move forward; his solution is actually a regressive dissolution of the structures which we have developed to date

he presents us with what Ken Wilber would call destructive regression, a dissolution of ego structures, of earlier developmental structures: a failure and destruction dissolution of those structures, rather than a proper integrating of those structures into a higher level, more developed, adult developmental level, which the Egodeath theory brings:

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, and my analysis of mystical art images, and Mytheme theory.

CORRECT and articulate and sensible useful classification scheme from Cybermonk per Eadwine: starting left to right of course:

Panaeolus (brown-band rounded cap);

Liberty Cap (aka spear-shaped/ triangle cap);

Cubensis (“bald” rounded cap);

Amanita.

Egodeath Mystery Show episode 131c 2/3 through, hilarious roasting of Brown and his stupid malformed classification system which idiotically starts from Amanita, & Samorini starts from Plaincourault 🤦‍♂️ 😵

like Hatsis classifies all theories of mushrooms in Christianity in terms exclusively of Allegro.

God this field is so stunted and restricted & limited & developmentally retarded and going nowhere; my god, what a rut!

Browns’ poorly articulated classification scheme begins with Amanita – that’s his error right there, that’s the screwup right there, is that he begins with Amanita – by starting from right to left!

why the heck does Brown begin discussing and categorizing the four mushroom types from right to left on page 1 of Canterbury ??

the answer is because, just like all idiots in this field, including Hatsis, he’s obsessed/ crazed/ mad, and obsessed with Amanita, Amanita, Amanita

He goes out of his way to begin analysis from right to left. why?

because amanita is on the right, so he automatically starts his terrible malformed classification scheme by artificially reading right to left.

Dude! Stop beginning with Amanita!!

Stop starting from Plaincourault!!

Stop beginning with Allegro!!

Stop referencing everything in terms of Amanita and Allegro and Plaincourault!! Stop, stop, stop!

“Always start with Amanita,”

“always start every classification system with Plaincourault and Allegro and Amanita.”

and Dr. Brown falls right into that pit and falls on his face.

and then Samorini makes the exact same mistake, of beginning with Plaincourault.

Always make Amanita the number one beginning point, starting point

All time starts from Amanita.

All classification systems are to begin with Plaincourault.

What are the four types of sacred Mushroom plants that God created?

Let’s make a classification scheme:

OK, first of all, of course, start with Amanita, on the right. 🤦‍♂️

All distance of every mushroom instance is to be referenced in relation to planecorralled as the (0, 0) coordinate point by which all space and time is measured, within this stupid idiotic field, malformed and misguided, disproportionate mal-proportioned.

Be sure to name every class and genus of mushroom in terms of variations of planecorral: Amanita cubensis, Amanita semilanceata, & Amanita panaeolus.

What are the four types of sacred Mushroom plants that God created?

Let’s make a classification scheme:

OK, first of all, of course, start with Amanita, on the right, and then move left starting from there.

🤦‍♂️ 😵 ⚰️

We’re going to have to rename all the genus of mushrooms to make them all variants of Amanita.

Just like all all theories of mushrooms are a variation of Allegro Theory, according to the worst theory of all, Thomas Hatsis, (who is somehow exempt)

— never mind John Lash who arbitrarily chooses Wason as the bad guy instead, that all ratings writings about mushrooms in Christianity are always start with Amanita

make amanita the number one beginning point starting point

all time starts from Amanita

all classification systems should begin with Plaincourault.

be sure to name every class and genus of mushroom in terms of variations of planecorral amanita.

we’re going to have to rename all the genus of mushrooms to make them all variance of an Amanita

just like all all theories of mushrooms are a variation of Allegro Theory according to the worst theory of all, Thomas Hatsis , who is somehow exempt, (never mind John Lasch who arbitrarily chooses Wason as the bad guy instead , that all ratings about mushrooms are

variants of Wasson theory (except somehow a John Lash himself is magically excepted))