Update March 19, 2023: YI is implemented on left as tree 1+2, on right as tree 4 which he is positively gesturing at truth despite tree 4 being bad when considered in scope of tree 3+4
Mâle, p. 3, The sky, water and trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres.
Update March 19, 2023
Fractal YI Analysis
FORMALIZED PRINCIPLE OF FRACTAL SCOPE EQUIVALENCE: YI is implemented on left as tree 1+2, on right as self-contained/ self-sufficient tree 4 which he is positively gesturing at truth despite tree 4 being “bad” when considered in scope of tree 3+4
I should have figured this out before, but I just figured out like yesterday in context of Canterbury image f177 Row 1 to analyze the trees distinctly in lower trunk level vs. upper layer and then after that, built-out my comprehension of FRACTAL SCOPES OF ANALYSIS and then I had a bunch of breakthroughs to resolve long-standing mysteries of pink key tree in f134:
Why dead branch on left, and The audacity of the “bad, branching” key tree touching his “good” right heel — b/c in local scope, the rightmost branch is “good”, not “bad”!
That was like yesterday, then today I thought about this tree on right which last night EOD I had been noticing that the tree 4 is a YI type, which I … last time i looked at this image a few weeks(?) ago, I had not yet formally articulated or fully grasped the principle of equivalence of a YI pair, and a YI single-tree morphology. — 8:32 a.m. March 19, 2023 Cybermonk
Cybermonk the Great (for promotional marketing literature)
St. Eustace Crossing the River (Chartres Cathedral)
Features:
Branching cubensis tree on left, non-branching on right (Y/I contrast).
Branching tree on Eustace’ left, non-branching on right.
Eustace’ child carried away while crossing a river.
Lion’s left heels up, right heels down.
[7:47 a.m. March 19, 2023]: tree 4 is a YI tree, so this diagram demonstrates on the left (tree 1 + 2), that you can express a YI pair implemented with 2 trees, and tree 4 shows YI implemented, equivalently, by a single tree. So, [8:11 a.m. March 19, 2023] his left (bad) hand is positively gesturing at the I (good) of tree 4, to be read in local scope as good from our POV; THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE PROPERLY COMPREHENDED THE YI THEORY IN THIS IMAGE.
YI analysis stacks vertically or horizontally and applies at local scope; this means that the rightmost tree [12:42 am p.m. March 19, 2023]’s upper level reads as branching (bad) on left, and non-branching (good) on right. At tree-pair level, the rightmost tree is “bad” (attached to his left hand; it’s his left tree = branching). But within local scope of isolated rightmost tree, the lower cap veering to our right is “good” and the other two, higher crowns form a Y, which is “bad” b/c branching. But again, in the scope of the upper part of that tree, the left crown with 2 black lines is left and therefore “bad” and branching, and the right crown is “good” and “non-branching”. [wow I’m surprised, I applied now my recent jump in sophistion of YI morphology theory, i thought there was nothing to say about the right tree except “it has a bunch of branching, in contrast to tree 3.” Internal YI morphology…. ie, variable scope of analysis, FRACTAL QUALITY repeated-scale pattern of assigning relatively branching (bad) and non-branching (good). DRAW DIAGRAM? FRACTAL YI ANALYSIS.
Most of Eustace’ weight is on right leg.
Y/I clover formations on the mountain.
On the micro scale, the trees have traces of branching (black line under cap or crown) and cut right trunk.
Now I see limitation of this model (drawing below) and how I could elaborate it in fractal, horizontal & vertical YI build-out:
quiz: which of the two upper branches is good? Ans: right. imagine drwa…. remember how I wrote not long ago re: the “macro” vs “micro” sacle of scale of Eustace River in response to panofsky’s claim “all msh trees have at least a trace of ramification” and I retorted: VAGUE! define “trace”, do the micro details count within my Eustace window?
Now 12:53 am p.m. March 19, 2023] it is looking even more likely that the artist is consciously employing here, the concept of macro vs micro SCALE. Do Zoom Crops of Eustace to internally analyse the clover -pair scale. FRACTAL YI morphology ANALYSIS.
Original Content of This Page Below
25 years of my infantile, Ruck-level “spot the mushroom” failure to perceive the adult-level message expressed in this amazingly elegant image that heads my 2006 main article.
extremely embarrassing, but it’s awesome that my article, by highlighting mushroom-highlighting art accidentally brought in profound elegant expression of handedness and contrast of branching vs. non-branching, even though i was clueless & failed to incorp consciously in my theory until oct 2010 at earliest, May 2022 for real.
8:02 am may 5 2022 branching thinking = left hand = clothing veneer appearance outer illusion, contrast Eve’s ribs made visible under outer flesh layer along lines Brown pointed in his bona fide attempted interp direction lead. when look right, able to see branching thinking vs. non-branching thinking
8:02 am May 5 2022 – branching thinking = left hand = clothing veneer appearance outer illusion.
compare (or contrast) Eve’s ribs made visible under outer flesh layer along lines Brown pointed in his bona fide attempted interp direction lead.
when look right, able to see branching thinking vs. non-branching thinking
realized naked; mushrooms making perceptible the non-branching reality underneath, unveiled. flesh is like clothes. bones vs flesh vs clothing, i’ve been comparing for some time, the layer idea: outer layer hides inner reality until 🍄 loosecog state making mind model functioning perceptible incl transient/state-conditional surface appearance vs underlying perm reality
then they realized they were naked; mushrooms making perceptible the non-branching reality underneath, unveiled. flesh is like clothes. bones vs flesh vs clothing, i’ve been comparing for some time, the layer idea: outer layer hides inner reality until 🍄 loosecog state making mind model functioning perceptible incl transient/state-conditional surface appearance vs underlying perm reality
I can’t believe that I haven’t made a WordPress page to announce the massive profound revealing of the major import of what’s conveyed and how, in this elegant key image, collecting the timestamps of “decoding” (interpretation) breakthroughs.
See recent pages.
left vs right
pairs of branching left and non branching right.
like Panofsky falsely claimed, these pilzbaum have “traces” of ramification but this is not what he meant, on the main zoom level there are not branches; only when you 10x zoom are the branching tiny black lines below caps visible.
literal cubensis pilzbaum pairvine-leaf tree pilzbaum pair to contrast branching vs. non-branching experiencing. no “trace of ramification” on the primary zoom level, against Panofsky. He’s clueless about the branching theme.
2006 through April 2022 i failed to recognize these themes, left vs right = branching vs. non-branching
Interjection: Update March 19, 2023
Important historical update 9:50 a.m. March 19, 2023: Only last night EOD, I comprehended that the Y tree on right is to ALSO be considered IN ISOLATION from the left tree,
and then this morning very first thought was, I remembered that form of how many crowns on Right tree,
and then I struck me that I had failed even in March-April 2022, to consider and analyze the right-hand tree INDEPENDENTLY of the left tree,
and so, right now I finally grasp that he is specifically gesturing at the “good”, I, right branch of the tree considered in isolation from the Left tree, despite using his “bad” Left hand.
ie: these assignments of “bad” & “good” are DEPENDENT ON SCOPE, relative to scope of consideration a la fractal zoom.
/ end of March 19 2023 interjection
older content con’t:
= tree vs snake
= beardless youth vs. bearded man
This {sacrifice of the child} confirms and corroborates my important reading of the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham; the child being sacrificed is definitely oneself; it is not a separate person. but also there, we have the themes of the one’s personal future viability, of the future self being prosperous and viable or not viable and having no future if you go all out of control unstable Chaos control chaos is death cybernetic death
lion mane = beard & hair
This image’s {sacrifice of the child} confirms and corroborates my important reading of {the (so-called) “sacrifice of Isaac” by Abraham};
the child being sacrificed is definitely oneself; it is not a separate person.
In mythology, every figure is yourself in the mystic loose cognitive altered state from psilocybin mushrooms. child is your initial thinking pre 🍄
but also there, we have the themes of the one’s personal future viability, of the future self being prosperous and viable or not viable and having no future if you go all out of control unstable Chaos control chaos is death cybernetic death
= possibilism vs eternalism
= literalist ordinary-state possibilism vs. analogical psychedelic eternalism
= mountain vs. valley
valley has no branching-message clover pairs, phrase 7:36 a.m. May 5, 2022,
the Y I morphology contrast
the Panofsky “template” amounts to the rule don’t show branching within the cap/ crown/canopy
6:01 pm May 5, 2022 – Feet in Water = Foot in Flames
This water is the same as the salamander’s fire: immersion of the mind in the loose cognitive association binding state from Psilocybin mushrooms.
Legs = which mental model (possibility branching vs. pre-existing control-thoughts) is relied on as the basis of control.
The non-branching Cubensis is touching the water, the branching Cubensis is not touching the water.
6:21 pm May 5, 2022: only the left leg is touching the flamesleft leg touches flame
His account is strikingly pro-psilocybin, but unfortunately, as always, when it comes to Europe, Carl Ruck is overly dominant and extreme overemphasis of amanita, at the direct expense of Psilocybin, and all of Winkelman’s efforts can’t overcome that extreme intensive bias against psilocybin in favor of kiddie mushrooms that’s baked into the Dr. Rut Secret Amanita paradigm inextricably.
Winkelman also succumbs to the tale of exaggerated suppression in mid-history, which I extremely disagree with and battle against.
this is a brand new issue
it just came out
it’s less than three years ago
it came out June 1, 2019
so we’re still within the second year
and so it’s brand new still and
Brown and Brown have just released hot off the press shortly before 2022 they just released both of Panofsky’s Letters to Wasson, side-by-side in adjacent pages!
which I have now printed out and enhanced and marked with highlighters so that I can analyze these brand new documents that just became available June 1, 2019.
I read the Browns’ paper when it first came out, but a deep reading can take years.
like 15 years.
Wasson corresponded with Panofsky in 1952. Robert Graves around 1954.
Wassen wrote a book in 1957, and 1968.
John allegro wrote a book 1970.
John King wrote a reply or a reflection book in 1970. A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth
Jan irvin published Astrotheology & Shamanism 2009 second edition black and white
and The Holy Mushroom 2008 and
John allegro’s book with the planecorralled Fresco re-added 2009
and I wrote the article about planecrawled & Wasson and Allegro amanita in 2006 which was three years before the second edition of Astrotheology book came out
and we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later, I wrote the article about allegro and plaincoral
Perspective on Time: Panofsky’s TWO Letters to Wasson Have Just Now Become Available for Assessment & Critique, for the First Time!
we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later I wrote the article about allegro and the stupid Road block obstruction that is plaincoral stunting the whole field and blocking all progress.
and only now 5 ms ago I stopped squeezing my eyes shut and actually took a critical look at the fresco to assess the morphology:
the V shape of Eve’s arms and Adams arms and the arms holding up the cap
And their arms holding up the yellow side of the cap
and Eve standing with left foot on top of the right foot with the right foot on the ground
and her legs squeezed together rather than branching apart
and the four limbs of the mushroom tree: the two arms and two legs of the mushroom tree.
and the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree
my Breakthrough groundbreaking work on interpreting and recognizing the basic elementary fundamental themes in mushroom art:
left hand
left limb vs right limb
branching vs. nonbranching
youth vs. bearded
turning to look to the right vs. left
balancing on right leg
tree contrasted against snake
branching contrasted against non-branching
left limb contrasted against right limb
“mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches” is precisely the scheme of these “transformed pine tree templates”, “schematized, schematization, impressionistic the rendered”, yada yada that Panofsky goes on and on about, as of desperate to tell a story, do storytelling hard enough to make it avoid leading to the destination which it produces,
but by putting all focus on the starting point of pine trees, he cannot undo magically the conclusion product result that’s the outcome of his process, which is: mushroom trees that look like mushrooms plus branching – recognizably, unmistakably so.
he thinks that just because there are templates development process did i mention -> 🎄FROM 🎄 PINE 🎄TREES <- (look here!!), he thinks he can get rid of the mushrooms that are thereby produced –
as if mushrooms and a templates development process that starts from pine trees are mutually incompatible!
Please explain why a mushroom intentional outcome is somehow incompatible with a pine tree template developmental process.
there is no contradiction there, in fact.
and he has zero explanation for exactly why did everyone come to accept the templates coming to represent pine trees which looks so extremely like mushrooms that despite having branches (and cut branches, by the way, which he fails to mention) that “we art historians” nevertheless “actually refer to them as mushroom trees”, because they look so very unmistakably like mushrooms that even though they have added branches (and cut branches I might add), we art historians call them “mushroom trees”, which destroys Panofsky’s arguments.
and he is constantly contradicting himself.
he lectures us about how “medieval artists hardly ever work directly from nature, but they work from templates” – and then he directly contradicts himself and says that the same artists, if they wanted to depict mushrooms, would throw their templates in the garbage can and suddenly go look up nature and draw a scientific illustration literal mushrooms.
and he never considers why do the templates show mushroom imagery combined with branches and combined with cut branches and sometimes these very same mushroom trees have zero ramifications added 10 out of 75 in Canterbury Mushroom plants have no branching – which directly contradicts the data, directly contradicts Panofsky’s assertions.
and he’s contradicting himself constantly.
and he’s even resorting to name-calling and insults, because he knows his argument is so weak, that he’s desperate and resorts to name-calling and using charged, smear language, loaded language, because he knows that honest argumentation he’s sinking
and he also reveals that he knows the truth that planecrawl is a proxy, and that is exactly how he treats it
he is all in 100% to treat planecrawled as proxy
and he acts guilty
he’s acting guilty and
his argumentation is incoherent, self-contradictory, and specious
and he resorts to name calling: “some especially ignorant craftsman”; “under the delusion”
and he fails to say why
tell me why why why Mr. brilliant most influential art historian, who goes around insulting anyone who reads mushroom trees as mushrooms, tell me why in the hell did the direction of distortion of pine tree templates settle at the final form after the process of transformation produced in its final form precisely Mushrooms plus branches plus Cut branches
why did that happen Y, Y, Y, of all the potential directions for distortion of pine trees, why did the artists agree to settle on that final form, which is precisely mushroom imagery, plus branches (plus cut branches)?
I have a 100% coherent and perfectly fitting explanation: because mushrooms induce the experience of avnon-branching world, in contrast to the ordinary-state experience of branching
and this is what religious experiencing peak ecstasy is all about
so it is nonsense, sheer nonsense to say, to argue, as he does, he falsely says “Medieval artists would have no reason to depict mushrooms” – but he just contradicted himself! he just said, two seconds ago, that French witches may have ingested “toadstools” in order to induce ecstasy. he just answered his own question, two seconds ago!
so why does he say middle-age medieval Christian artist would have no reason to depict mushrooms in the Religious mystical art, given that mystical equals ecstasy?
his argument doesn’t make any sense, and he’s contradicting himself left and right, and he has no explanation except “no reason”.
🤷♂️ art style = no reason
he says “no reason”; it’s he says “random meaningless impressionistically rendered Pine trees, that it is purely coincidence, and there’s no reason whatsoever why this impression mystically impression ended up “quite unrecognizable” as pine tree impression.
yet the art historians say the theme is, the final end result of “the Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process” at its final conclusion, to use his own words against him, the conclusion of the process, the grand conclusion of “the grand Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process”, which he goes on and on and on about “the process of the Pinetree process Pinetree Pinetree process process”
Keep saying “pine tree process”, maybe that will desperately change the fact that we have a big giant arrow pointing from pine tree to what? to what, and why?
pointing to mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches (plus no branches!) – that’s what your Panofsky Pine Tree 🎄 Transformation Process points to
and the proof is that we art historians describe them as “Mushroom Trees” despite the branching, because despite the branching, they are extremely recognizable – as exactly mushrooms plus branches.
so why tell me why, oh why, Mr. “most influential art historian”, “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”, Erwin Panofsky, tell me, answer me this, Mr. influential:
why why why did the artists agree to halt and stop and terminate your “Panofsky pine tree development process(TM) , transformation process, process, Pine tree process, transformation development process, pine tree 🎄🎄🎄 yada yada (chant harder!) “Yet another instance” and more instances and instances beyond instances “exemplifying” the Panofsky great pine tree transformation process instances exemplification (never call them “Mushroom Trees”; call them “pine tree transformation instances”; “process process” – he wear his himself out in his vigorous repeated strenuous storytelling.
As if chanting the word “process” & “pine tree” 🎄🎄🎄 enough times can change the fact that the outcome of this very process is none other than mushroom images with added branching (and cut branches, and no branches).
I don’t care how “process” your process is, and how very processy your processed process is – that doesn’t change the fact that the outcome of the process is mushrooms with branches! WHY THAT OUTCOME?
Answer the question, and your answer is “no reason no reason at all impressionistically rendered sheer random accidental meaningless insignificant pointless pure empty style”, says “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”.
not impressed by the overwhelming power of this compelling argument of yours, your argument from pointless meaninglessness and insignificance
you say that art is insignificant pointless and meaningless, Mr. influential art historian
I know only one other historian that makes as much sense and is so trustworthy and reliable and solidly-based as this argumentation from senseless pointlessness
no reason at all , he says, just whim; arbitrary meaningless insignificance, “purely fortuitous”.
🎄->🍄=no reason, purely fortuitous, and every last one of those artists who are not “delusional” and “exceptionally ignorant” would be shocked, shocked! that anyone would interpret their mushroom trees (despite branches) as if they intended mushrooms, which wouldn’t make any sense, for a mystic religious artist to depict that plant which Panofsky just said induces ecstasy
NO REASON , is Panofsky’s “explanation” of artistic choice, of his Panofsky Pinetree Process(TM) that concludes in & settles on quite recognizable mushrooms with branching, fully recognizable even despite the added branching (& cut branches, & no traces of ramification, i 13% of instances of the Panofsky Pine 🎄 Tree Development Transformation Process).
The reason why we know for a fact that these don’t mean mushrooms is because process process process process pine tree development process therefore the end result cannot possibly mean mushrooms because process
Process; therefore, cannot mean mushroom, because process.
do you follow my argumentation good I knew you would
why did it end up looking so extremely Mushroom-like that we art historians refer to these as “mushroom trees” despite the branching – and might I add, the cut branches
and your answer is “for no reason at all”
that’s your answer
you propose that it was no reason whatsoever that your Pinetree process outcome equals Mushrooms, so very mushroom-like that even adding branches cannot hide the fact that these are obvious blatant Mushrooms , which is why we art historians call them “mushroom trees” despite the Branching
and all you have to say for yourself for your sorry Cover-up operation is that there is no reason
this is the Panofsky explanation, equals no reason; pure coincidence, no reason, purely fortuitous, no reason at all they randomly impressionistically produced, that the production outcome process result final termination final form equals Mushrooms with branches and cut branches
and what is your explanation Mr. most influential art historian?
answer: “no reason “; “purely fortuitous”; “”impressionistically rendered Pine tree”, “Pine tree” , say at 18 times: “Pine tree, “Pine tree” 🎄 🎄
Panofsky, maybe if you say the word “pine tree” and “process” enough times, you can implement a reverse transformation process, to convert your mushroom trees with branches and cut branches back into pine trees, in order to neutralize them.
this is what a Panofsky “pine tree development process” is really all about:
it is to “develop” the mushrooms with branches (& cut branches, & no ramifs) into pine trees – which is the opposite of what your artists are trying to do.
we have a war of the art historians at war against the artists.
the artists make a process that converts pine trees to mushroom trees plus branches plus cut branches (& no branches), and then here comes Panofsky, “the most influential art of story and of the 20th century” (century of stupidity and cluelessness, and whose fault is that? 🤨😠), and his job is to set up a counter-process to counter-develop, to turn the Mushroom Trees with Branching and cut branches – and some of the trees with no branching at all (against his assertion that “even the most mushroom-lookin mushroom trees have at least traces of ramification”, which is a false claim, because 13% of Canterbury have no traces of ramification, and plus I found in the Eustis window of Chartres cathedral, I have discovered what I get to name “Pilzbaum Pairs”(tm Cybermonk), which means stylistically matched pairs that have one mushroom tree that has no branching, combined with and contrasted against another mushroom tree that has branching – which I think that was this morning, about five seconds ago I invented/discovered that recognition reading, or maybe yesterday, May 4, 2022).
and Panofsky thinks that he can put the spotlight on “the development, the Pine tree development process” will somehow change the fact that the outcome of the process is so very mushroom-like, that we art historians call the mushrooms (plus branching plus cut branches plus some mushroom trees with no branching) “pilzbaum”, showing that although you call them “quite unrecognizable” ( as pine trees), we are at historians declare that they are in fact quite recognizable, as mushrooms with branching features.
and I demand to know, Panofsky, what is your explanation for exactly why did the “impressionistically rendered pine tree process” produce the outcome that is unmistakably, highly recognizable as mushrooms – why, tell me why, explain to me why THAT outcome?!
and your explanation is what?
no reason, randomness, and sheer denial that these mushroom shapes don’t mean mushrooms (delivered with girlish insults, in place of arguments) and
you say that that is proved by the fact that “they all have ramifications added” but for one thing, I proved the 10 out of 75 in Canterbury do not have ramifications at all ,
and I proved that there’s a deliberate contrasting of a mushroom tree with no branching, contrasted against a mushroom tree that has branching and so
I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast branching versus non-branching is the whole message & intent!
and what’s your excuse Panofsky?
sheer denial, sheer name-calling, insults and sure insistence that…
“some especially ignorant craftsman”
“under the delusion”
“misapprehend”
on WHAT BASIS all this girlish & weak resorting to name-calling insults? these are sheer foot stomping declarations & Proclamations
these are not arguments; these are position statements, not argumentation statements.
“I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that the “pine tree process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form that artists come to accept, happens to be exactly:
mushroom shaped plus branches plus cut branches plus no branches.
of a mushroom tree with no branching contrast against a Mushroom tree that has branching and so
I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast Branching Versus nonbranching is the whole message
sheer denial, sheer name-calling & insults, and sure insistence that “I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that “the pine tree transformation process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form, happens to be exactly, quite recognizably mushroom shaped, plus branches, plus cut branches, plus no branches
and what’s your excuse for that highly recognizable as mushroid outcome of your Grand Pine Tree Transformation Process, Panofsky?
and you say that they have no intention of looking like mushrooms and that it’s purely a coincidence and that the reason that they end up looking exactly like mushrooms with branches is no reason at all and pure accident pure coincidence for no reason at all . purely FORTUITOUS.
🌳->🍄process outcome = no reason
that’s your “explanation”.
not very compelling.
and you argue “why would a religious person want to depict ecstasy from mushrooms?”
are you stupid?
the “most influential art historian” is a DOLT.
Panofsky says “why would a mystic artist want to depict mushrooms that I just said produce ecstasy?”
what the hell do you think ecstasy is , if not religious experiencing?!
can you be any stupider
and self-contradictory?!
can you put forth an “argument” that makes any less sense?
The Name of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
and why the hell can’t anyone get the name of the tree correct
the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
the name of the tree is not the tree of knowledge
the name of the tree is not the tree of good and evil
everyone gets it wrong all the time
the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
This is why I had to declare a revolution in October 2002 – the Maximal entheogen theory of religion – aka 20 years of tremendous maximal breakthrough sussess; i’ve been running absolute circles around this tiny clown car filled with clowns, called the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, a.k.a. the Deny & Remove Mushrooms Theory of Religion.
🚫🍄 👎🍄 ⛔️🍄 🛑🍄 ❌🍄 ✋🍄 – per Ruck, McKenna, Brown & Hatsis, et al: the Main Message of the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion
You’ve got this assembly line, mass production, popular, ever present temptation for the people who pretend to be contributing to the field, who are actually striving to work against entheogen scholarship.
🚫🍄 – Carl Rut
You have Carl Rut trapping us in orbit forever around the assumption of suppression of mushrooms, ever since day one, he says, mushrooms were never main stream, they were never in real religion, never ever did normal, main stream, regular, ordinary, Religion contain mushrooms and understanding of them
but mushrooms in our religion was always secret, hidden, underground, forgotten, suppressed, SECRET SECRET SECRET TRIPLE SECRET; PUNISHABLE BY DEATH to reveal; missing, absent, gone, null, nil, nada. 🚫👎⛔️🛑❌✋
🚫🍄 – Terence McKenna
McKenna says that our Christian religion was never tainted by the touch of mushrooms ever, and so then the supreme court says OK have It Your Way, Christianity according to McKenna has nothing to do ever with mushrooms, says the expert
🚫🍄 – Timothy Leary
then we have Tim Leary going to Congress asking for ergot to be made illegal and then pretending, a phony fake actor pretending to be trying to get it to be made legal, when in fact he’s actually striving and working hard to ask Congress to make it illegal – what a fraud!!
citation: Jan Irvin – The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms
🚫🍄 – Andy Letcher
then we have Letcher and his copy/paste secretary Hatsis with the book Shroom asserting that there were no mushrooms Psilocybin in England before 1975 , or whatever the fcking hell his garbled, scrambled brain, biased, DOGMATIST, incoherent, waffling, ever in flux, non-position position is, depending on exactly what time of day it is.
🚫🍄 – Brown & Brown
then you’ve got Brown & Brown, who strive to set up three positions and counter-signal against those Ardent Advocates:
never see any mushrooms;
see only a fraction of the mushrooms; or
see the mushroom imagery that are everywhere.
God forbid you should be an Ardent Advocate, like Egodeath.com, which he mentions first in the section of the 2019 article section titled Ardent Advocates, with his message being:
We must be serious critical scholars; we must not be Ardent Advocates of mushrooms.
With friends like these, the field doesn’t even need enemies; it has the guys who are in the field.
It’s all controlled opposition.
The guys in the field are working as hard as they can to try to not see mushrooms.
Brown said be sure to not see too many mushrooms, because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms, Professor Brown cautions.
And then if I am an artist and I want to depict a vial in the medium of tapestry that looks as much like amanita as I can represent while I’m trying to depict the traditional vial, and I want to depict the traditional vial in the form of an amanita, what will it look like?
it will look precisely what this tapestry looks like.
but then brown cautions:
be sure to not see too many mushrooms!
God forbid that this field should have too many mushrooms!
we need to take a moderate, mild, Self defeating, mushroom-removing, anti-mushroom position,
because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms Professor Brown cautions
or else you’ll be at an Ardent Advocate of mushrooms in religion – wouldn’t want that!
🚫🍄 – Mirceau Eliade
then you have Mirceau Eliad, who Wasson even mocks and pokes fun at his ridiculous position in wassons book Soma, before five seconds later Wasson turns around and does the exact same ridiculous dance moves, the mushroom minimizing dance moves.
Wasson makes fun of Eliade for an obvious fabrication.
and Carl Rut in the book the road to Eleusis complains about how he’s being coerced into telling a bunch of lies in his published books, the way the Eliade was coerced into a certain asserting sht that he didn’t fcking believe.
everyone knows Mirceau Eliade doesn’t believe his own transparently obvious prejudice-compliant bullsht about “The shamans of the day are morally week and no longer have the traditional methods of the shaman mystics” – manifest made-up, fabricated, prejudiced baloney!
🚫🍄 – Dan Merkur
and remember Dan Merkur arguing – so convincing! – that of course gnostics wouldn’t eat mushrooms, because: the reason they wouldn’t eat mushrooms is because mushrooms are physical.
this is on the last page of his book Gnosis
Mushrooms are physical, and therefore of course gnostics would not eat mushrooms, because gnostics never eat anything physical.
This is Dan Merkur’s argument of why there were no mushrooms in Gnosticism.
🚫🍄 – Gordon Wasson
Even Wasson accuses Eliade of not believing his own Prohibition-compliant bullsht.
Gordon Wasson – two times, Erwin Panofsky commends Brinckmann’s book to him, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
and Wasson writes-out and follows up on this lead, to discover the discussion and treatment of the subject of mushrooms in Christian art.
Wasson hand-writes Brinckmann’s full name Albert Erich Brinckmann, and the full German title of his 1906 book, the so-called “little” book, twice called “little” by Panofsky.
and then Wasson deliberately withholds this lead from us and fails to provide any citation to back up Panofsky’s enormous claim that art historians have thoroughly, very thoroughly written lots and lots of papers, and lots of articles, and had many discussions, many intensive, thorough, adequate, appropriate discussions, in many articles, and many books –
for example, one book: 1906
and Wasson deliberately omits mention of this book, which Panofsky twice recommended to him for more information.
but Wasson is against “for more information”; Wasson wanted us to have less information about mushrooms in Christian art, pilzbaum.
Wasson did not want us to have more information, or else he definitely would have recommended, passed on the citation of Brinkman’s book to us, to “the public”, for “public consumption”, citation fckng needed!!, jerk!, Wasson: evil, anti-mushroom Wasson, bankster for the pope; maximum conflict of financial interest for the Salvation Salesmen; phony, censor, pretender, fraud!
Wasson, lying, fraud, censor; anti-mushroom “father of ethnomycology”
“father of ethnomycology”, my azz!
anti-mushroom, prejudiced, biased, doing the exact same thing he accused Eliade of : caving to pressure, convention, prejudice, bias, and censorship
So much for the “father of ethnomycology” – what a fraud!!
This is deliberate, multiply repeated obstructionism.
it is scholarly obstructionism.
Gordon Wasson is an obstructionist trying to block progress in the field of mycology and art and cultural mycology – Gordon Wasson, the father of anti-ethnomycology.
with friends like these driving the field (into a ditch), who needs enemies of the field, with the very guys who are driving ilthe field are the enemies trying to hold back the field and remove the mushrooms from history and from scholarly research and investigation
Wasson is striving to prevent and impede and obstruct investigation – in his own handwriting – guilty, guilty, guilty! 🏛️
even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.
Erwin Panofsky, the most influential art historian
which one is it? is it a mushroom, or, a schematized tree, instead? which one of these two meanings did the mushroom tree artists intend? the one that “some especially ignorant craftsman” “misapprehended”, under “delusion” (mushroom)? or the correct, right answer (anything but mushrooms)?
Assignment: Draw an image that expresses the effects of psilocybin mushrooms inducing an altered-state experience of the world as non-branching, as contrasted against the experience of a branching-possibility world in the ordinary state of consciousness. Would you depict a tree; or, instead, a mushroom? Would it be helpful to have templates showing options?
10 of 75 mushroom plants of Canterbury Psalter (13.3%) have no traces of ramification, and the middle 2 of 4 mushroom trees in this cathedral stained glass window have a trace of ramification:
artist: “define ‘trace'” 🤨 😏 kinda like Eve’s branching legs:different implementation from a “template”? a copy? mini cut right trunk basebase cut lower right
left-hand tree branching, matching right-hand tree non- branching. left side: left tree branching, right tree non-branching – against Panofsky “even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.”
left-hand tree branching, matching right-hand tree non- branching. Cybermonk May 2, 2022
1 minute later…
left side of window: left tree branching, matching right tree non-branching. Cybermonk May 2, 2022
even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.
Erwin Panofsky, 2nd letter to Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952
Decoded / successfully interpreted by Cybermonk: Holding branch with left hand (asserting possibilism-thinking) & cutting branch with right hand (asserting eternalism-thinking) 10:04 a.m. May 2, 2022
Spear interp idea: the handle of the spear physically depicts nonbranching , in its morphology, and then the blade of the spear tip(s) serves as knife to indicate Cutting Branching. it is a spear with blades which cuts branching. A blade kills king ego by cutting branching.left hand at non-cut branch, holding nothing; right hand holding cut branch, = Retaining balance without falling on God’s sword of control death instability May 2 2022
left hand at non-cut branch, holding nothing; right hand holding cut branch = retaining balance without falling on God’s sword of control death instability May 2 2022. Further note 5 hours later: left foot is … forget it , gotta have a crop:
holding the missing cut right branch in the left hand
left foot is floating in front of branch without purchase & stable balance, just like left hand is floating in front of branch without purchase.
So I have solved the mystery of the floating left hand floating in front of the branch, by comparing to left foot, right hand, right foot, expressing that there’s nothing there are to hold onto; that branching is illusory.
A phantom branch won’t give you balance.
The left hand is in a “holding” position, but this is futile, because the hand is not around an actual branch.
same for the left foot:
that branch which appears behind the left hand offers no purchase, and the branch which appears behind the foot offers no purchase.
only a cut branch is real and offers stability, for the right hand and for the right foot.
most entheogen scholarship is conducted under the miss apprehension of defeatist suppression of entheogens that takes it as a granted takes for granted the absence, the abnormality of using visionary plants
you end up with reasoning based on false assumptions, like “pagans would have leapt at the opportunity to smear and defame Christians as users of the vile abnormal despicable Mushroom”
and we learn a lot about your thinking, and we don’t really learn anything about the ancients that you presume to be a historian of
The Moderate entheogen theory of religion is essentially a way of suppression
suppressing visionary plants now
for the purpose of suppressing visionary plants today
the more that you do such theory, the more you help suppress visionary Plants
good job, dumbasses
assume everybody always hated mushrooms
what a great start you’ve got us off to
Terence McKenna: Number one promoter of mushrooms, by declaring that everybody throughout history must hate and despised mushrooms.
“hate mushrooms”
hate mushrooms – the message from Terence McKenna
“religion is the enemy of mushrooms” declares Terence McKenna
good job, losers
Amanita a Low Value, High-Propagation Weed Among Entheogens
Amanita is a weed in the theory of entheogen history.
Parasite Phony Entheogen Scholars
There were no Psilocybin mushrooms in England before 1975. The shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic in Christian history.
Letcher Hatsis
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown, processed by Cybermonk – Holding branch with left hand (asserting possibilism) & cutting branch with right hand (asserting eternalism) 10:04 AM May 2, 2022
Letcher Hatsis is a parasite trying to leverage Prohibition for his own self-promotion.
“Give me a reward pellet please, I have helped bolster Prohibition; see, I am a friend of Psilocybe Prohibition.”
What the hell has Hatsis done to help get rid of, to help repeal Psilocybin Prohibition??
What is Letcher Hatsis doing to help out here ?
Letcher Hatsis is a parasite invader of the field of entheogen scholarship, he is harming the cause, an enemy of drug policy reform.
Hatsis is striving and struggling to work as hard as he can to harm the cause of repealing Psilocybin Prohibition.
Hatsis lyingly claims that he wishes there were mushrooms in Christianity – but observe his actions, observe that he is trying as hard as he can, he is struggling and striving to support the prohibition of psilocybin.
Letcher Hatsis is harming the cause and he doesn’t care, as long as he can appear to self promote his anti-mushroom, Prohibition-compliant brand of idiot “psychedelic historian”, fabricating an anti-mushroom history story, right hand-in-hand with the Prohibitionists, working for the enemy, a Useful Idiot, he is an enemy of psychoactive mushrooms.
he has declared his enmity to mushrooms in Christianity.
he is fighting against the field of entheogen history and scholarship.
Show me where Letcher Hatsis has ever written a single positive word in support of repealing Psilocybin Prohibition. He has not.
The only thing Letcher Hatsis has written is that there is no mushrooms in Christianity, that Christianity is mushroom-free.
Hatsis falsely says – which no authentic witch would ever say – that pagans would be eager to smear Christians as vile users of the despicable mushroom – thus revealing his own, anti-witch values.
Hatsis is actually an enemy of real, authentic witches.
Hatsis is a POSER WITCH and a parasite invader of the field of entheogen scholarship, working for the Prohibitionists, a servile stooge dressed in witches’ costume.
Hatsis’ assumption that pagans are anti-mushroom reveals that he’s a false, fraudulent poser, a phony witch.
This is Hatsis’ twisted concept of what it means to be a “psychedelic witch”.
SINCE WHEN are witches against psychoactive mushrooms?
Hatsis is trying to spread a perverted imitation & inversion of authentic witches’ values.
Hatsis thinks that to be a witch means to help support Prohibition of Psilocybin.
Letcher Hatsis is actually a terrible failure of a witch, a sorry excuse of a witch, a disgrace!
👶🧙♂️
A real, genuine, authentic witch, instead of a fake, fraud, beginner and pretender and poser, would be strategically doing everything possible to help repeal Psilocybin Prohibition, and would work to study Transcendent Knowledge and western esotericism.
The Egodeath theory 