Above: The Maximal (top), Moderate (middle), and Minimal (bottom left) entheogen theories of religion.
Horizontal axis: time.
Vertical axis: Amount of normal public mainstream use and knowledge of psilocybin mushrooms and understanding of mythology as analogy that vividly describes and communicates experiencing and the resulting ultimate mental model transformation.
What a ripoff the Moderate entheogen theory of religion is!
The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion
The top plot above is my highly successful explanatory framework, the one that produced the Canterbury Miracle including 75 proven psychoactive mushroom trees (just for starters), what I give to you, what I bring, what the Maximal entheogen theory of religion brings.
Look how generous the Maximal theory is, and how maximally successful at revealing the heavy, normal presence – not absence or suppressed – Psilocybin Eucharistic Mixed Wine is throughout history, elegantly & explicitly communicated and described through branching-message mushroom trees.
Through the Maximal theory, there is extreme heavy-duty intensive presence of Psilocybin mushrooms, heavy-duty hard-core maximum extreme, tons and tons of it.
– along with 100% complete comprehension of Transcendent Knowledge, esotericism, Mystery Religion revelation and mental model transformation, redemption, full mystical realization of the Absolute; salvation, Gnosis, metaphysical enlightenment, Perennial Philosophy, satori, and full comprehension of the analogy-based language of religious mythology and mythological religious art.
The Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion
Then below that, the middle plot is what Carl Rut (& the evil M. Hoffman) school brings to you – look at what a stingy bastard he is!
Stingy, stingy Dr. Rut’s got us stuck in a rut, going nowhere.
Look at how much he withholds from us.
This is terrible of him.
The Minimal Entheogen Theory of Religion
But if you think that’s bad, look at how it gets even worse with John Allegro, the hard-core Minimalist, together with the extremist super extreme minimalist, the worst person on earth, Terence McKenna.
What a stingy, stingy bastard Terence McKenna is!
He takes them all away from us.
His book The Food Only of the Gods serves to take away all of our psilocybin mushrooms.
That stingy, stingy turns McKenna takes all of it away.
He says that the big bad church prevented anybody at all from ever using Psilocybin ever.
The church completely got rid of any and all use of it.
Why isn’t Hatsis attacking, and Andy Letcher should, but especially Hatsis should be attacking Terence McKenna, enemy number one, taking away all of the psilocybin mushrooms, removing them all from history.
According to Terence McKenna, on day one, God created Psilocybin Mushrooms.
And then at noon on day one, God completely removed 100% of Psilocybin mushrooms, totally deleted from history entirely.
This is Terence McKenna’s awful story that was shockingly bad.
I bought his books and I read his books and I was incensed because McKenna says history does not contain any Psilocybin mushrooms at all.
and it’s his fault that the stupid Supreme Court falsely says the Indians are allowed to use mescaline because they have a history, a long tradition going all the way back to the year 1920.
But Europeans are forbidden from using psilocybin mushrooms, because everybody knows that there was no psilocybin in England until it was brought there from Central and South America in 1975, as the top historian Letcher Hatsis reminds us.
The judge read Terence McKenna’s books and the judge said who is the number one authority on psilocybin mushrooms, and everyone said it’s Terence McKenna.
and so the supreme court judges read Terence McKenna’s books.
The US Supreme Court learned from Terence McKenna that our own Christian European religion, and Old Testament and Bible, and our pre-history as far back as we can possibly trace it into the beginning of their archaic era never, ever had any Psilocybin mushrooms at all, according to the expert Terence McKenna.
What an idiot, idiot!
Could you possibly have any more of a disastrous strategy?!
This is like a weaponized bad theory.
Terence McKenna went to the ends of the earth to try to construct the most harmful, counterproductive, deadly self-defeating, totally self-defeating strategy of absolute negativity!
Terence McKenna is so bad, stingy, and defeatist, that compared to him, John Allegro is almost downright generous, in permitting 20 years of secret tiny cult of Christians to be permitted with the fourth-rate, dirty, Amanita barely functioning entheogen (which he then turns around and casually declares that Plaincourault shows was a old tradition that was still remembered 1,200 years later).
Then contrast Terence McKenna, who says that all throughout recorded history, never, ever did any European ever use Psilocybin or know about it, and no religion ever involved it at all.
Thanks a fcking lot, dumbass Terence McKenna! 😡
Thanks for completely telling the most negative, defeatist story you could possibly scrape together.
Terence McKenna asserts that never, except in pre-archaic pre-history was the only time that our own history ever had any psilocybin mushrooms
What an idiot!
What a harmful, harmful story to foist on us!
With friends like these, who needs Prohibitionists enemies?
The Minute When I Asked “What Foot Is Eve Standing on in Plaincourault Fresco?”
Found it!: The minute I said “waitaminnute what foot?”: exact quote:
“7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing on”
Jeez I’m slow — that’s 5 weeks after Brown showed the Marcia Kupfer passage (for the 3rd time) to me, upon which I replied writing for the first time, “branching-message mushroom trees”.
What was I doing, slacking…. actually, I had been pounding out art-decoding breakthroughs as fast as possible via voice dictation, during about March 15-May 15, 2022 (it’s looking like it was a 2-month-long nonstop jackpot) it seems.
— and then an hour later, at 8:50 pm, I finally realized the meaning of Ariadne’s branch! after more or less consciously, helplessly wondering abou that for 16 years, ever since 2006 main article that I published that image in (Dionysus Victory Procession mosaic).
copy/pasted to below:
… there is nothing hidden about it except our own stupidity
7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing on
7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing on
[voice dict on mobile:] confirmed at 7:29 PM April 28, 2022 – in the Plaincourault Fresco, I have determined that Eve is depicted standing with all her weight on her right foot/leg, with her left foot standing on top of her right foot, which further confirms my theory and further contributes to my major contributions to interpretation of the planecrawl fresco, further proving that plane crawl is mushroom psychoactives , given that mushrooms produce the experience of non-Branching, which is consistently associated with the right limb and especially right leg, across art including Tauroctony, and dancing man salamander Roasting, and Canterbury Psalter page mushroom tree with two men and a sword, and now add to that list the Plaincourault fresco. – Cybermonk –
/ end of copied from Salamander Tree page
Updating the Present April 29, 2022 Page on Feb. 16, 2023
[February 16, 2023] I am doing an update/ polishing pass of the present page, mostly to enable copy/paste from all the Plainc images in it. Maybe preserve the rough writeup in an Archive “do not mess w/ this!” section of this page.
OR, I could create and new fresh Plainc Fresco page and that way, not mess with this important historical archive page. There is much merit to that idea — but, extra time, so, no-go.
That’s it, all my WordPress Gallery crops/images of Plainc.
When I copy/paste a below image from this page and then you click that copy of the image, what URL should load? note you can also r-clk > open image in new page, no need repeat that func’y. It should load present page.
done: So, add a here-circular link to present page, on each image above.
Additional discovery 6:16 AM April 30, 2022: Lucas Cranach in painted “Eve tempted by the serpent” in the book The Power of Myth:
Eve is holding onto {branching} with her left hand.
left ramification equals branching thinking
Eve’s right hand holds the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the right limb equals knowledge of non-branching. experiencing of eternalism.
I was thinking about this for the past couple of days but in a weak, defeatist, not seriously way
I was not seriously engaging the problem
I was failing to force the data to fit my theory
I failed to hammer on his picture and force his picture to obey my dictate
but I finally got some vigor (just after double strength coffee TBH) and abandoned the weakling mentality and put some vigor into it and
after two days of half-assed non-serious dabbling half heartedly not really hardly putting any effort, failing to be aggressive about this painting, and finally I saw it,
because I was thinking about making a crop of the top of the image
and I was my final though was “this will not gain me any horizontal width”
(which is not exactly true ; if I turn the device then it will maybe I don’t know but anyway)
my final last thought was what if I were to make a crop of this top part of the picture
it would only show her left hand
what should be in the crop
my final last thought was:
THE CROP WOULD JUST SHOW EVE’S LEFT HAND HOLDING ONTO TO THE BRANCH-😵😵😖😵😵⚰️💀I AM AN IDIOT AND BLIND😞
so now I am obliged to make a crop of her damned left hand which I have only now figured out after I’ve been Decoding or I could say failing to decode ever since 7:42 PM
November 29 2013 neglecting and lax resting on my laurels giving up on doing anything productive with her left hand and I was disappointed that her feet or not doing anything interesting to prefer the right foot and with this Fievel fee
bowl and a half feeble and a half hearted dabbling in barely poking at this image
thing go back to every image
go back to re-read my planecorralled Article aloud this morning
I will be the first person to ever read this exhausting mega overkill article about allegro versus Wasson
go back
try harder
try harder dammit
try harder
interpret harder
😠 💪 *FORCE* THE DATA TO FIT THE THEORY!
I need a spotter to scream at me PUSH!! 😠 🏋️♀️
mithras as king steering in a tree of egoic possibility branching
branch, branching legs, & branching antlers, holding onto a branch with non-branching serpent – comprehended by Cybermonk 7:42 pm November 29, 2013. {tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism, including autonomous vs. dependent control experiential mental models in the tight vs. loose cognitive binding state, as ideally induced by Psilocybin mushrooms.
Dionysus holding a non-branching spear (eternalism) married with/ next to Ariadne holding a branching branch (possibilism)
non-branching spear vs. branching branch
Franz Cumont Mithrasism book
Transcript of Wasson Telling Bory to “Fix” the Original Painting, in Her Fake Copy
[6:38 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026]
Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson to M. Bory:
YEAH, I’M GONNA NEED YOU TO FIX THE TRIDENT, GET RID OF THE OFFSET
AND SIMPLIFY HER ONEFOOT, ‘COS MUSHROOM = 1-FOOT PER RUCK 15 YRS HENCE,
AND ALSO WHILE UR AT IT MOVE ADAM AWAY [6:38 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026] SO the LOWER Left MUSHROOM — UH, I MEAN, PINE TREE BRANCH OR RATHER , A.N.E. SPECIES OF TREE (yeah, that’s the ticket!) — DOESN’T TOUCH HIS LEFT LEG
THANKS HONEY
Michel Bourey copyverdict: Bourey’s copy FAILURE to distinctly depict right foot lower, have to purely deduce
Eve is standing on her right foot, with her left foot being based on her right foot. She holds her legs together rather than branching them apart, so they are non-branching.
That is evidence that the planecorral fresco is intended to describe the loose cognitive state of experiencing that is known to be ergonomically, directly produced by Psilocybin mushrooms.
8:22 AM April 29, 2022
also note the proximity of the lower right limb of the mushroom tree next to her legs the ramification lower right is near her held together branching legs-
this is to be read as “the right leg of the mushroom tree is near Eve’s legs which carry the message of non-branching”.
The proximity of the right leg of the mushroom tree to Eve’s legs is telling the message “right leg is significant”.
The right leg of the mushroom tree is near Eve’s right leg, indicating that the message focuses on the theme of {right leg} being significant.
also in this genre per Canterbury Psalter, it Hass to be inventoried and pointed out that Eve’s left hand is higher than her right hand, and
her left foot is higher – or right foot is closer to the ground than left foot, and that
the left arm of the mushroom tree is higher than the right arm.
Original top of this webpage
orig timestamp orig top of page: Branching-message mushroom trees affirm non-branching and the right foot.
{relying on the right foot} means relying on the non-branching mental model of time and possibility and control, to produce stable control in the altered state.
see my previous web page post in which I discovered this a few minutes ago,
, titled something about four limbs or four legs of salamander and four mushrooms in both dancing man and in plaincoral fresco.
there are four ramifications
I am working on a speculation that it is four because the human has four limbs
left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg
the salamander has four legs
the bull has four legs
and this just now strikes me at 7:46 PM April 28, 2022 – a bit of a correction and modification of something I said the other day during the great Tauroctony breakthrough, I incorrectly said that the human has two legs and the bull has-
I said that the human has one pair of legs and that the bull has two pair of legs.
that’s not exactly true that the bull has more pairs of legs than a human, because the front legs of a bull are equivalent, similar, comparable to the pair of arms of a human.
the reason that this idea struck me just now as I was about to stay a few seconds ago I was about to say that:
I’m working on a argument that:
The reason why there are four ramifications, left and right trunk caps, two amanita to the left & two Amanita to the right in the plaincruel fresco, and the reason why there are four paws on the salamander tree, with a mushroom above each paw, is because we have four limbs.
this is true for birds and animals.
deer, cow, bull
the salamander is a snake with four legs.
some dragons have four limbs.
I am right now we’re in real time, I’ve got the microphone CAD E-100 supercardioid with bass cut, I’m doing double entry here, because this treacherous backstabbing technology wants to garbage-can my profundities 😠
I am working out right now an argument of why these two trees Mushroom Trees have 2 msh on L & 2 R.
OK I thought of something
I keep thinking of, it keeps flashing in my mind:
the Dionysus mosaic victory procession has four mushrooms in the hem of the maenad, one mushroom above each tiger.
the salamander tree has a mushroom above each paw.
One msh-tiger for each limb of the animal.
the animal has four limbs.
there are four mushroom tigers drawing the chariot of Dionysus.
Canterbury Psalter’s most important image, the grand masterpiece central image of the great Canterbury Psalter emphasized our two hands and two feet.
the Plaincourault Fresco has two mushrooms to the left and two mushrooms to the right – the same branching morphology as the human or animal.
So the idea that strikes me a minute ago in trying to interpret the salamander dancing man tree:
above each paw / ramification of the salamander tree is a mushroom.
MUSHROOM = LIMB = RAMIFICATION = BRANCH
= ultimately, the altered state loose cognitive assocn message of experience of non-branching
I took the helm so eagerly, and sailed for distant lands
Why must my crew desert me, when I need, I need a guiding hand
Why is Hatsis’ left foot touching Cyberdisciple’s right foot?? 🤔
Why is the super enlightened guy’s both feet off the ground, standing on neither?? 😟
Why does the guy attached to him have no limbs, like the hierophant and the father at the banquet table?? 🙂
so many questions
I just remembered
I can maybe do a Hi-Rez capture on the mobile device
and I think I finally manage to upload the reversed Tauroctony
next day update 6:41 AM April 29, 2022
Feb. 18, 2026 – the below was voice transcription, needs cleanup
This might not be this might not be self evident so I spell it out that congratulations are due to me.
This might not be self evident so I spell it out that congratulations are due to me.
I can get this damn voice dictation in gear and get it to work.
tried turning off the music player 123 test is this damn thing working
Congratulations are due to me first of all when I was in the middle of working on another the previous webpage adding more pictures
and then I for some reason add the added Plaincourault fresco whatever that context was
and then it occurred to me the question and I noted the date timestamp at which the question occurred to me
and I said hey minor little question for you
what leg is she standing on
you see because it’s not it’s not clear it’s not obvious what like she standing on
it’s blurry and there’s kind of a lot riding on this question
to some extent every time the question occurs to me it’s putting my theory at jeopardy at risk
it’s putting it to the test again
what if my theory fails
what if the artist shows lackadaisical apathy
what is [if?] the artist of this mushroom
this important
this most important Mushroom tree image shows complete apathy about left versus right
this puts my theory at risk
so congratulations to me for thinking of the question
and congratulations to me for
again I emphasize that it wasn’t clear
it’s not obvious
you have to go looking for it in this picture
[Feb. 18, 2026: TO MAKE IT WORSE, WASSON PUTS A FAKE COPY OF Plaincourault fresco BY BORY IN SOMA BOOK, THAT OMITS THE BEST FEATURES]
you’re not going to see a
nobody mentions
nobody ever mentions that she’s standing on 1 foot
so I am the first one to even perceive the question
and so congratulations are due there
are due to me there for having that acuity to even think to ask the question
[Bory’s POS pic doesn’t even show Eve’s feet detail. You can barely deduce, indirectly, her L foot must be on top of R foot]
because it’s not clear in this picture
in
the question will not occur to you unless you really go looking for that question
so then it was
the answer did not come immediately
it might seem like it it might seem like it since I’ve pointed it out now
it might seem like the answer is instantly forthcoming as soon as I ask “What leg is she standing on?”
but the
A little more complex than that:
not only which leg is she standing on, but does the artist indicate that?
did they care
does the artist indicate that it is significant which leg she’s standing on?
and only after a few minutes
and I have entered all of the timestamps to show how many minutes
it took me some minutes of looking
this is not nearly as trivial as it sounds
there is a confirmation process involved
it takes several minutes to put my theory to the test and to have the jury consider and examine
Adickes[?]
jury consider at extended duration whether she’s standing on her right leg and whether the artist considers that to be significant
I did
it was a reasoning process
I’m reporting to you that this was not
you can’t simply look
the picture is blurry but not too blurry but it’s borderline blurry
do you want to talk blurry, look at Adam’s feet
I can make a case that Adam stands on his right foot
but really truly it is just so worn
the image is too worn
you can’t conclusively prove
but in contrast, Eve’s blurry feet are clear enough so that you can prove
and I had to go to the effort to spend several minutes to prove
it was not a matter of glancing
like for example the dancing man in the salamander image, there is zero analysis process required to determine that he’s standing on his right leg
although even the word dancing will tell you
this subtlety of interpretation that’s required
is he balancing is he standing or is it dancing
which one is it
you have to prove that Chris Bennett is incorrect in using the word dancing
and again that aspect would take several minutes of debate and interpretation analysis
It is not self evident
it is not instantly evident whether the man is dancing versus Standing Versus Balancing versus keeling over dead as a Thomas Hatsis States
keeling to keel over dead
Similarly look at the kind of loaded words that I use when I ask
is Eve standing on her right leg
well what does that phrase mean
what exactly precisely constitutes “standing on right leg” when you could describe and characterize her as standing on both legs
because a naïve look which we take by default says that she standing on both legs
one leg is in front of the other leg
but she’s standing on both legs isn’t she
can’t you make it
this is the thought process that I had to go through for several minutes while my theory was being put to the test again
and congratulations to the Egodeath Theory of mytheme [interp’n] Turpin Tatian for passing this test that took several minutes of analysis
to
that’s similar to my describing
how do we justify a description of a mythology scene image
for example how do we justify saying that the salamander tree right trunk is cut when was showing
if we fail to interpret it’s just a blob
all data is theory-bound
and when I say and when I ask what leg is she standing on
The term “standing on” is problematic
it is not obvious like the dancing man
and I just explained how even the word dancing is a heavily loaded problematic word
is he
for example if I ask “is he dancing on his right leg?”, the “dancing” part is unclear
but the “right leg” part is clear
it is easy to describe while it is less difficult to describe the configuration of Eve’s legs but what is more difficult is to argue and prove that the career That the configuration of her legs and feet constitutes what we are looking for which is the mytheme of standing on right leg
what we do know and what we are the data
the raw data that we are given
first of all it takes some time to zoom in and get clear and get a clear look
first of all we have to assess and agree on what the raw data is , regarding where her right foot is and where her left foot is
at 7:09 AM April 29, 2022 I noted hear the recording file 3237 near 10 o’clock near 10 minutes her legs are squeezed together I asked a good question and which confirms nonbranching or can be interpreted thus.
first of all ask does this image depict the contrast between branching versus nonbranching and then secondly ask does this image depict the theme of favoring the right limb especially the right foot leg and then thirdly does this image express favoring nonbranching so I just associate nonbranching with Right foot and
favoring the right
does this image favor the right leg for the purpose of affirming nonbranching that is the ultimate question to ask of an image in the case of plane crawl we see no cut branching but we do see her legs tight together rather than her legs Branching a part
that is how that theme manifests, the theme how is the theme
a good way to ask the question is
this is the diamond hammer of interpretation
how to force your overlay and interrogate the mythology
come to the image with the preconceived
interrogating the image through the lens of where is the non-Branching in this image
where is the branching depictions in this image
where is the right limb favored in this image
it’s got to be in there somewhere or else the theory is a failure
we have got to see mushrooms everywhere
and we have got to see the contrast between branching versus nonbranching everywhere in these branching Message Mushroom Trees which favor right leg and favor non-Branching
where is the favoring of them
where is the favoring of the right leg in this image
we have to do a heavy-handed overlay of interrogating the image for this list of five questions
before you even show me the image I have already formed my interrogation lenses
five lenses
I am going to be in inventory and inventorying this image that you haven’t showed me yet
where are all the branching themes represented in whatever image
and where are all the non-Branching themes in whatever image and
where are all the right leg favored themes
in this image what you haven’t even shown me yet
where are all the Mushroom shapes in this image you haven’t even shown me yet and
where in this image does it indicate favoring the right leg and favoring nonbranching and
where in this image does it associate nonbranching with the right leg
and you could say that
when I remembered to look at the plane crawl fresco in the middle of yesterday in the middle of working on images in the previous webpage post, I remembered that I had forgotten to bring this list of interrogation questions to the plane crawl fresco
because
eaves legs would discourage you from even posing the question or seeing her very configuration of her slightly blurry legs but not too blurry feet discourage you from even looking at the image to interpret her leg configuration as expressing nonbranching with her legs together instead of apart
it is only when that
I found a couple minutes ago
it is only when you aggressively go out of your way to bring in and import to the question into the image that you can then confirm: yes indeed her legs do indeed carry the messagem
legs indeed are suitable to project onto it and read into the image that her legs do fulfill arguably and defensively, they do fulfill the theme of non-Branching
and yesterday I also discovered to make sense out of something that I had never made sense out of before:
why is Ariadne holding a stupid Branch?? what does a boring, super boring branch have to do with peak Mystic State Revelation?
now upon reflection –
do a side-by-side crop of Lucas Cranitch “Eve tempted by the serpent”
Eve has a branch in front of her branching legs, and stag with branching antlers behind her – in fact in fact it just occurs to me , the tightness of the connections specifically between the Lucas Cranitch painting Eve tempted by the serpent here is Eve standing on the right side of the tree of knowledge
the Question comes to me at 8:12 AM April 29, 2022: is Eve usually shown on the right side of the tree?
not that Adam is it is unimportant but rather the focus is all on Eve and
Eve has branching legs
given that Lucas Cranitch it is definitely significant that her legs eaves legs are to be seen as Branching or for that matter nonbranching but anyway
her body branches at her legs
and that is definitely significant in Lucas Cranitch painting
and therefore that corroborates reading Plaincourault Fresco as Eve’s legs are to be read as Branching or a message about Branching, rather.
these messages all tell us that “my message has/ is something to do with Branching.”
The peak mystic state revelation experience is regarding Branching but what about it
when you put a crop of Lucas Cranatch’s Eve branch next to Ariadne [Nike] holding a branch next to Eve holding her legs together left foot based on right foot the case is increased and more compelling connections are revealed.
next to a crop of ariadne [Nike] holding a branch
none of this is self evident at all and emphasize none of this is self evident you have to go out of your way to import and heavy-handed forced reading we are all Lynn and fully
approve of a forced reading because that’s the only way you can possibly perceive
we have to come to the pattern recognition with our patterns preset and then test them and maybe they will fail or maybe we will find the image has only very very weak support for favoring nonbranching or favoring standing on right foot
[floating guy: idea 6:29 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: as i been thinking/writing the past couple-few days:
The mushroom-tree artists knew that stand L vs R foot is too crude and binary;
only a psychedelic newbie thinks you simply change from L to R foot forever.
for example the guy with both feet floating off the ground in Canterbury maybe one leg maybe his right leg is ever so slightly lower than his left what are the parameters tolerance is what are the tolerances is it sufficient for item A to be touching item be the answer is yes
Accurate modelling of mental model transformation from possibilism “to eternalism” (I don’t like that dangerously misleading, binary wording) requires the YI hand-shape language, more detailed than feet can do.]
in fact touching is extremely significant in this genre
and also right leg is extremely significant
and also mushroom shapes are extremely
Mushroom imagery extremely important
and also branching is extremely important
and also the contrast between branching versus nonbranching is extremely important, which I failed until yesterday
To put my discoveries of genius brilliant breakthrough in a negative light:
I was stupid and blind until yesterday when finally the obvious Interpretation struck me after 1 billion years of looking at Dionyse is mosaic obviously Ariadne [Nike] is expressing Branching
and the artist is screaming at me could I make it any more obvious and explicitly self evident
do I have to put big bat signs on everything Batcave sign saying she is holding a Branching Branch, do you get my point, my god what do I have to do to get through to you
Clearly what Dionysus is holding is a non-Branching spear
it’s made kind of useless because of the things objects on the near the blade end it expresses linear non-branching right in short parallel against the highly Branching Branch which Ariadne/Nike carries which is also long
once you know the language it’s obvious that you can read my words and understand as long as I don’t write like Hatsis and Wasson and Panofsky in a garbled way – and maybe some of my writing is garbled, like that where I put sentences within sentences to clarify everything until it is completely unclear
once you know that these are the five important questions, it seems deceptively obvious, now that I have done all the hard work for you you unappreciative people
why is it hard to appreciate the risk and the jeopardy that my theory endured yesterday
it was put to the test and I made a big discovery
a big significant discovery that’s highly significant, that Eve is standing on the right leg –
and also that her legs carry and express affirming non-branching
and that even when we rely on the possibility-thinking left foot, even then, underneath, whether we are conscious of it or not we are ultimately resting on (the underlying layer of code) is resting on right foot.
this doesn’t sound like something that could be a discovery you have any difficulty or of any import
you would think it would be obvious that she’s standing on her right leg, but it’s not at all
and it’s not at all clear that it is significant that she standing on her right leg
and it is not at all clear that her legs affirm nonbranching by being squeezed together
None of this is obvious.
/ end of voice transcription
YI Branching, {stand on right foot} Motif, Four Amanita Branches Point to Four Pairs of Arms & Legs
Section added Feb. 18, 2026, copied from page created that day (today).
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
Professional Propagandist Wasson Substitutes a Degraded, Copied Painting that Deletes the YI Branching Form and the {stand on right foot} Motif, Withholding the Actual Fresco Image
Section added Feb. 18, 2026, copied from page created that day (today).
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism. 1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
The ramifications are obvious and left as an exercise for the reader
The Chris Bennett Dancing men Roasting Salamander tree has four hands or paws and four mushrooms , one above each
have to place a grid overlay to force ourselves to account for everything and list the number of ramifications sticking out
you can count 4 or 8 ramifications
each hand of the tree consistently has a mushroom ramification above each hand ramification
this is an official timestamp for this observation about the four hands combined with the four mushrooms and the fact that it the number, four caps there are four caps I only realize that now, at 5:55 PM April 28, 2022.
why have I been examining this picture since Christmas 2015 and earlier, and only now at this late date does it occur to me only now to envision mentally the fact that there are four paws, and above each of the four paws is a mushroom, and that that count of the number of mushroom caps ramifications is four, which is the same as the number of side ramifications on the planecorral Frisco, we didn’t notice either except it now that I have pointed out to you, you must admit it is blatantly extremely obvious
I know that you didn’t notice that, because I have ESP, which is a technique that I learned as a sound, tried-and-true historical method from the great & exemplary psychedelic historian, Thomas Hatsis, who knows that the fact that we disagree with him is immediate proof that we have not read his articles – he knows what we have read and have not read, because he uses historians’ methodology that we historians use to know what you have and have not read, which is a method called ESP😑
samorini y u no mention this
of course as usual, damn Carl Ruck if he’s going to try to describe & frame this as being “hidden “
there is nothing hidden about it except our own stupidity
hatsis’ left paw affirming a non-branching portion of the branching-message mushroom tree7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing on
confirmed at 7:29 PM April 28, 2022 – in the Plaincourault Fresco, I have determined that Eve is depicted standing with all her weight on her right foot/leg, with her left foot standing on top of her right foot, which further confirms my theory and further contributes to my major contributions to interpretation of the planecrawl fresco, further proving that plane crawl is mushroom psychoactives , given that mushrooms produce the experience of non-Branching, which is consistently associated with the right limb and especially right leg, across art including Tauroctony, and dancing man salamander Roasting, and Canterbury Psalter page mushroom tree with two men and a sword, and now add to that list the Plaincourault fresco. – Cybermonk
Which one is the tight cognitive association binding state and which one is the loose cognitive association binding state? 🤔
8:50 PM April 28, 2022 – I just noticed: Ariadne is holding a branching branch; in contrast, Dionysus is holding a non-branching spear. The person is like a single chariot that contains two contrasting mental models of possibility, time, and control: possibilism vs. eternalism. – Cybermonk
Alas I have to point out – I am obliged, burdened with having to point out more connections, or to bolster the previous realization at 9:00 PM – the chariot shows side-by-side contrasted:
Dionysus equals the altered state and there is a mushroom in his hem, and he holds a non-branching spear; the non-branching experiential state and mental model.
Ariadne has bound hair, meaning the ordinary state; tight cognitive binding, holds branching thinking; the branching experiential state and mental model.
Found a clueless morphology error in the diagrammatic msh tree on Allegro’s book
The cut branch is supposed to have an right angle cut, not a pointed spike.
they’ve lost the meaning,
this artist is illiterate,
The outsider doesn’t know what he’s doing, he doesn’t understand the message of Branching Message Mushroom Trees.
This artist is “an especially ignorant craftsman”, to use Erwin Panofsky’s words.
i’ve already posted the excuse and justification for the apparent round mound when I announced the salamander cut right branch trunk discovery
the other day I think it was April 3 no 13 maybe April 13 I don’t know but anyway I said that:
if you take the Canterbury tree and remove the white smile on the near part of the cut trunk, it would have the same rounded far part of the cut that looks like a mound.
if you were to draw a smile on the Cut trunk of the salamander tree, then it would appear, properly, as a cross-section cut.
this lack of a clearly drawn indicator of being cut is why I failed to notice the huge, important, cut right trunk of the salamander mushroom tree until the other day.
this spike error is comparable to the mythology-illiterate ambulances with the baseball bat with the serpent wrapped around it, which makes no sense, given that it’s supposed to be a tree trunk with cut branches: wide at bottom, narrow at top.
ok, who added the cut branch ramification?? 😠 [mis-drawn as a meaningless arbitrary spike 😖 ]
Follow the damn templates, don’t you know that all of the thousands of different varying variations of branching message mushroom trees, each one of them is based on a non-sentient craftsman mechanistically serving as a human copy machine, as the most influential (alas) art historian Erwin Panofsky explains to us in his two letters to Wasson that deliver the official cover-up bullsht story that expert PR propagandist Wasson is being instructed to parrot.
Gordon Wasson, father of ethnomycology cover-up operation of psiliocybin eucharist
Just like every first semester art student, the first thing they’re taught in the first day of class is:
here is the lie that we require you to tell to cover up the problem that we have – that there are too damn many mushroom trees 🍄🌳
The official party line is “fortuitously distorted templates” and all of these thousands of different artists all copied directly and mechanically, making exact photocopies of these distorted templates without any sentient, deliberate intention on the part of the artists” says the most influential art historian, and “every mushroom tree that you see is just further proof of our story tale” about, the opinion that you are required to have, as an employed art historian professional.
Panofsky demonstrates how well-trained his obedient docile art students are, how well they have been trained, like dogs:
Wasson, go ahead and ask any trained-dog art Student and ask them what our cover story is, and they will immediately, without hesitation, tell you that their opinion is:
distorted accidental templates, that coincidentally were embraced by every mushroom tree artist.
but not one of those mushroom tree artists ever fathomed or imagined in their wildest dreams that anybody would ever interpret their Branching Mushroom tree as intending a mushroom.
every one of the thousands of mushroom tree artists would be absolutely shocked, SHOCKED! at such interpretation!
Writing this webpage article is left as an exercise for the reader
I’m just trying to push the edge here at this theory website to see the URL blow up from too many punctuation and emojis and words in the title of the webpage , with luck maybe I’ll take the whole site down, in my experimentation
Brown and Brown in 2019 article in journal of psychedelic studies define a section heading called Wasson’s Paradox
paradox and they mention it as 1/4 of the purpose of the article, wassons paradox
Indefatigable he spared no expense to be ( give me a break!) the father of ethno Mycology – a.k.a. the father of self-contradiction; the father of self-defeating self-censorship, and self-limiting, and constraining himself
do not color outside the border
more like:
THE FATHER OF ELLIPSES BLOCKING US FROM SEEING THE CITATION THAT’S NEEDED
Brown defines whilst paradox wassons paradox as he claims to try to bring us knowledge of visionary plants and religious history but ironically indirectly self-contradictory form he works hard to prevent us from learning and investigating he tries hard to prevent and block and impede investigation into visionary plans in our own religious history this is the Wason’s paradox according to Brown and Brown similarly we can build out ramifications branching out the same idea copy paste just like
Thomas Hatsis is nothing but a copy paste of Andy Letcher when it comes to the subject of mushrooms in Christian history
The coral rock paradox is that his functional role that he serves that the system uses him to serve and fulfill the functional rule roll ROLE the role of coral rock he is to perpetuate ignorance and served to convert to do deflection through inversion of evidence that’s my phrase the pattern I noticed the pattern of in
the pattern of “deflection through inversion”
The salvation Salesmen have a problem too damn many mushroom Trees and Mushroom Imagery all throughout our own Christian artwork which are not veiled behind the word Eucharist which is the exact synonym just like in Hatsis is low IQ thinking the word Amanita and Amanita is an exact synonym for the word Mushroom similarly the word Eucharist is an exact synonym for Psilocybe and mushrooms
everywhere you see the word Eucharist, the writer intended to discuss Psilocybin Mushrooms and their mentally transformative effects described through analogy and metaphor because everybody – and this exactly contradicts Thomas Hatsis is completely unthinking, totally unimaginative Presupposition, his biased, Prohibition-Based error of presentism fallacy that he commits on an extreme scale, completely unthinkingly
he simply assumes, without giving it any thought at all , he assumes that all people in antiquity disparaged and insulted Mushrooms
when in fact, everyone so highly revered Psilocybin Mushrooms, all throughout every instance of banqueting, and every instance of mixed wine , and every instance of the Eucharist;
everybody in every mystery religion so extremely highly revered Mushrooms* as the food of the gods
*and I mean not his childish infantile reductionist 🍄 Mushrooms as a dumb object, concretistic , primitive thinking that the moderate paradigm uses, but rather, *Psilocybin* Mushrooms; the real deal, not the big giant jumbo infant sized oversized Lego blocks.
not the oversized infant sized red and white kiddie 🍄 Mushrooms;
no, I’m talking about the adult-sized Lego blocks, that the small Potent pointed and targeted the pointed liberty Pointy hat targeted adult type of mushrooms.
not the infantile Mushroom object found in children’s books which are jumbo size
noodle i said new line
Test wordTest word enter
so we have the paradox of the coral rock Moderate and entheogen paradigm where are you hand him as input a piece of positive evidence for the presence of visionary plants but then his bad paradigm takes that positive evidence and converts it to negative and deflect the evidence to neutralize a neuter your evidence and the more evidence you give him the more he changes it into proof of the absence of visionary Plants in the kind of religion that counts for him for his paradigm every piece of positive evidence is further proof of the absence of visionary plants the abnormality the suppression the forgetting
Always his emphasis on that in contrast to Jerry Brown and Brown book 2016 article 2019 which is simply positive framing -no if’s and’s or but’s
except for that awful word secret in the subtitle and the awful word Hallucinogens almost like he’s teaching in 1975 using prejudiced and biased words you can call this the brown paradox
Brown’s Paradox
“this book calls for an unbiased, non-prejudiced committee of interpreters, to interpret Hallucinogens – a secret team of secret Interpretation to secretly interpret Hallucinogens, in an unbiased way.”
“beware of ardent Advocates and dogmatists”, Jerry Brown carefully warns us , “don’t hang out with those egodeath.com & Young Irvin and John Rush types; they need to be corrected by our well-balanced and moderate (so moderate) entheogen paradigm. you should be like us : moderate, mild mannered, Middle of the road, compromising, self belittling, self-defeating, we’ll hit us ourselves for you, and self-defeating, and self limiting
and we’ll point out that there’s no way that that saint Walburga is holding Amanita, and this is proved because the tapestry depicts the base of the held object with serrations, but every child & beginner entheogen scholar knows that there’s no serrations on the base of an Amanita. so you should be reasonable and self-defeating like us brown and brown”
this paradox is that the Browns write a book which is in fact purely positive, in sharp contrast against the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, a school of self-contradiction and self-defeatism., self-neutralizing Order to sustain and prop up Psilocybin Prohibition and keep it going forever
“don’t worry, we are no challenge being offered from this little obedient docile school of servile servants of the psilocybin Prohibition Establishment paradigm”
The browns book does not participate in self defeatism – except that their book is self-defeating by subtitling it with the loaded intensely loaded term and problematic word the intensely problematic word ‘secret’, which the bad school of poor Scholars will leap on that word to heavily vigorously apply their heavy-handed Presupposition Matrix, in order to take these explicit Mushrooms and turn them into , through a distortion template conversion deflection process
heavy handed Presupposition Matrix in order to take these explicit Mushrooms and turn them into through distortion template conversion deflection process
They try to convert explicit Mushroom imagery for communication into its opposite: implicit, secret, hidden, in order to block and prevent communication, the conversion process erected by Carl Rut for the purpose of converting positive evidence of mushrooms into evidence for the absence of mushrooms – the Carl Ruck’s paradox.
Brown and brown write a book that straightahead asserts because they are ardent advocates and they are dogmatists they simply straightahead assert the presence and not the stupid secret suppressed usage no
not that
they do not do the Carl rut school, the moderate position’s misstep, which serves to suppress Mushrooms while pretending to be asserting the presence of mushrooms
the functional effect that the Ruck’s camp has is to emphasize with full vigor the abnormality of visionary plants in Greek and Christian religion – unlike Brown, because Brown instead , in sharp contrast, is an Ardent Advocate and a Dogmatist, by virtue of asserting simply the simple positive presence of mushrooms, without clamping onto them a protective barrier like the Carl Rut coral rock school, of the Moderate Entheogen Theory, who hastens to reframe evidence for presence of visionary plants as neutralized evidence for the absence of visionary plants from real religion.
See cyberdisciple’s article page cyberdisciple.wordpress.com page titled against suppression hypothesis
just like panofsky falls over himself to reframe Mushroom trees as “yet another instance of the development of the pine tree “, so that the more mushroom trees you hand over to Panofsky ( the manufacturer of fraudulent art history pseudo-History; the history of nonexistent “distorted templates “), the more that he outputs, in his deflective transformation process, he transforms Mushroom trees as the input, into pine trees as the output
here is how to neutralize Mushroom Trees, by intensive rhetoric garbled rhetoric framing and reframing aggressively deflection of the mushroom tree evidence, by converting it into pine trees while pretending as if ordinary state pine trees were the real original meaning that by fortuitous coincidence accidentally ended up being embraced by every single mushroom tree artist who gladly embrace these mushroom shapes with ramifications retained and added the real true story of the templates the true template against the liar Panofsky or maybe an idiot who knows who can know for sure the true story of templates is that the true bona fide template is the comprehension of added ramifications
Branching out from as a Panofsky points out every single mushroom tree has ramifications to some extent and if the artist had only wanted to correct the alleged distorted templates then the artist would have only drawn mushrooms but what every artist chose to draw instead of simply Mushrooms was mushrooms crossed with trees by added ramifications and I add cut ramifications to with the knife
The knives which brown and brown point out on the last supper table with the youth holding a knife cutting the ramifications off of the mushroom tree which is not a mushroom because it has added ramifications which the youth is busy removing with a knife trying to convert the tree into a non-Branching Mushroom to correct the distorted templates to restore the mushroom to its intended shape of non-Branching
the reverse of what panofsky claims to report
he claims that he is reporting a “development process” from pine tree to mushroom tree, but what he is in fact doing is that he himself has manufactured a distortion development transformation, “the process”, in order to do the *reverse* of what he falsely claims to have happened in history : Panofsky has designed a process of distortion, to convert (or appear to convert) Mushroom trees into neutered, neutralized pine trees.
Thus resolving the grave problem that the “art historians” (the people who manufacture false history) battle against, in order to neutralize art and get rid of the problem (Too Many Pilzbaum 🍄🌳) that Christian Art presents them.
dup para? The more that he outputs in his deflective transformation process he transforms Mushroom trees as the input into pine trees as the output here is how to neutralize Mushroom Trees by intensive rhetoric garbled rhetoric framing and reframing aggressively deflection of the mushroom tree evidence by converting it into the reverse of what he claims to report he claims that he is reporting a development process from pine tree to mushroom tree but what he is in fact doing
purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording day before yesterday
The title of the episode means Panofsky’s argument ( or cover story – who knows which it is?):
The reason why we are not permitted to conjecture or interpret Amanita as the Plaincourault fresco Interpretation is because there are too many mushroom trees all throughout Christian art –
not only the subset representing the tree of knowledge, but far beyond that subset
and it is most remarkable his proxy-driven thinking he takes as given.
Panofsky totally absolutely takes it as , unstated, as a given, that our interpretation of this one mushroom tree is physically locked together – it is the same exact interpretation that we are forced to apply to every single mushroom tree
he never even mentions the possibility of interpreting this one mushroom tree, only, as Mushrooms
well like Giorgio Samorini , imagining that we might hold a different interpretation for the remainder
Samorini uses ESP to speculate that one mushroom tree artist did not realize that he was drawing a mushroom, while a different mushroom artist did realize that he was drawing a mushroom
so this way SamRenee instantly robbed us right out of the gate of 50% of the evidence, by supposing that stupid “particularly ignorant craftsman” who have no sentience and no intention behind there mechanical, unthinking copying from templates, Drew Mushroom Trees without realizing what they were drawing
this is the tone of SanMarinois conjecture about intention on the part of the artists
Samorini plays right into this notion that it’s very likely that the mushroom tree artists had no idea, and they would be shocked, shocked! if someone interpreted their mushroom Trees as if intending Mushrooms
but in fact , they would be mad at us for failing to realize and perceive the ramifications of their mushroom trees – Or should I say, the lack of ramifications implied thereby, esoterically speaking – and damn Carl Rut damn you if you try to frame ‘esoteric’ as meaning hidden, and trying to block communication
because against you, is now added a big giant middle finger in my title, my revised, improved title of Brown’s Article, I emphasize pointedly the explicit, not implicit, depictions, specifically in order to communicate – against Carl Rut , not to hide, not to obscure, but rather, to *explicitly communicate* the payload message, which is *not* the stupid mushroom 🍄 object, like Carl Rut says, but rather, the *ramifications* are the *whole point*, ultimately, which is non-branching, experienced in the mushroom-induced state.
that is what the artist means
the artist does not mean “mushrooms”, the mushroom 🍄 object. childish, primitive, concretistic thinking from the Rut camp! a dead end.
the artist means the ramifications, the non-ramifications of the ramifications which are included to turn the mushroom into a mushroom tree
(to answer panofskys question why the tree of knowledge Not Mushroom of knowledge of good and evil)
Anyone with the slightest imagination obviously knows that it is both, it is both a tree with ramifications of mushrooms with ramifications of tree branching ramifications of non-branching experience in the Psilocybin mushroom-induced altered state, which brings the knowledge of branching-based moral agency as conduit of good and evil.
The mental world model of possibility branching-based agency & world is contradicted by the mode of experiencing & perception & thinking/cognition (cognitive mode) that’s revealed in the mushroom induced loose cog state.
Panofsky disagrees with Giorgio Samorini and Panofsky takes it silently as a strong absolute given that we definitely have to treat Plaincourault as a proxy Panofsky implicitly asserts with a 100% strong assertion implicit asserts that however we aim our thumb regarding this one tree it is automatically silently a given absolutely locked together that we are at the same
The same time aiming our thumb in that same direction for every single mushroom Trees and Panofsky absolutely takes it for granted, never mentions it explicitly, that planecrawled absolutely is a proxy
for example, mycollegests had been aware of the hundreds of mushroom trees it what is the impossible absolutely impossible for them to imagine or assert that this one particular instance of mushroom tree is a Amanita
this is one reason why I suspect maybe Panofsky is not an idiot but rather is a liar a conscious intentional cover up artist who is trying to deliver garbled specious party line to the public relations inventor are Gordon Wasson does Panofsky believe his own bullshit I can’t tell but why on earth would Panofsky hold the implicit cell
self-defeating implied premise that we have no option except to treat the plane corralled fresco as a proxy why doesn’t he ever mention the possibility of asserting that this one instance of mushroom tree means mushrooms while simultaneously asserting no position regarding the hundreds of other instances why else would he adopt the implicit proxy role ROLE ROLE for Plaincourault unless he
are motivated by fear the fear of the ramifications of angle in your thumb in an upward direction regarding this one instance
why else would he take it as granted that this will force us to , in that very same act of thumb angling, be voting by proxy on behalf of all of the hundreds (which means thousands) of mushroom imagery which is “so universal ” or “so universally ” present, and not only in the subset of mushroom trees which are used to represent the tree of knowledge, but even far more than that, more numerous orders of magnitude – by an order of magnitude, more numerous
and therefore he evidently, quite evidently believes and takes as granted, takes it as granted that we have no option, no alternative to taking this one instance as a proxy for the entire set of all of them
why does he act like this is an all-or-nothing decision regarding thumb angling?
That seems like a completely self-defeating assumption
why doesn’t he let go of that PROXY assumption?
I think it’s because he knows inside that how we vote on this tree, in fact, is a proxy for our entire paradigm
the entire lying, false paradigm stands or falls with our thumb angle direction regarding the single lone instance of PILZBAUM
regarding angling of his thumb of our thumb
direction that we angle our thumb
is he an idiot, or a liar?? it’s anybody’s guess, – a combination of the two? 🤔
he is, unfortunately, the “most influential” art history fabricator and cover-up artist, in servile service to his overlord, the Salvation Salesmen, frauds who are directly in conflict of interest against identifying ramifications of mushroom trees intended by Ardent intended by artists to explicitly – not implicitly – communicate , and not hide…
I am wagging my finger at Carl Rut
and these mushroom imagery artists use the gigantic humongous enormous Amanita to serve as the advertisement billboard to indicate – just as , exactly the same as head shops – the effective, clean, cognitive loosening agent, physically small and much less visually striking Psilocybin Mushrooms, the ramifications of mushroom trees, by which the artists intended to explicitly communicate the ramifications of mushroom trees, which is to communicate the message of non-branching – the narrow way, the narrow path of Jesus, with pre-existing control thoughts annihilating king ego’s false claim to steer among branching possibilities
both the king’s steering and the possibility branching vanish from experiencing, upon ingesting, being given the psilocybin fruit of the tree of Knowledge, by Christ and by the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; altered-state loose cog insight perspective about moral controller egoic agency.
The purpose of this webpage is to accompany voice recording yesterday or day before rather, as I have about the second or third chance of listening to that recording
the immediate purpose right now is to note in recording 128B, about 2/3 through about 70% through, because the timestamp on my mobile mobile player is not reliable at all
you can hear me in realtime making out what the handwriting from Panofsky is at the bottom of the second letter to Wasson, “my god”
Please keep my poor little pictures (meaning the two photostats adding to the Brinckmann book citation) as long as you wish.
and then the final sentence, handwritten, the final word from Panofsky to Wasson:
And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.
You deliberately impeded and deliberately censored and deliberately withheld Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brincmann’s 1906 Book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings which is the single only treatment of art historian’s on the subject of mushrooms
actually I believe there are more; we need to find the list of CITATIONS NEEDED!!
scour the bibliography of Sam Marini’s plane crawled Article 1997
and SamArrhenius Mushroom Trees Article 1998 which is incomplete-; he fails he makes mistakes and he fails to include some items that he sites in the body but forgets to add in the bibliography list like Clark Heinrich 1994 for example book strange fruit
and also scour the bibliography of brown and brown 2017 the psychedelic Gospels book
and scour the bibliography Brown and Brown 2019 article in journal of psychedelic studies Special and Issue on entheogens and Psychedelics in world history
right where I was yelling at Wasson or Panofsky in 2006 “where in the hell is the citations, we would of course obviously love to see these alleged numerous verbose and detailed exhaustive thorough treatments of debates of all possible positions by the art historians; where in the hell are they?!”
you , Wasson , intentionally, deliberately and multiple times, censored out Panofsky strong 2x recommendation that the world needs to look at Brinkman’s book.
but Wasson , you chose – multiple, multiple times , deliberately – this was no accident; you republished selective censored excerpts of Panofsky’s letter multiple times, and every time, you chose – you consciously, deliberately, knowingly chose to omit Brincmanns book citation that Panofsky strongly and repeatedly recommended that people read.
You are proven guilty, in your own handwriting , or equivalently your secretary / your wife, whatever – doesn’t matter
you are guilty of knowingly, deliberately deceiving everybody by censoring and deliberately withholding Panofsky’s two times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book
right where with Jan Irvin’s later added research in 2006, I researched in my copy of Wassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copy, photos at egodeath.com ,
and in 2006, in fact ever since 2006-2022 (when finally Brown and Brown revealed wassons a hittin cover-up Secret the photograph of the Panofsky letter in full published in 2019 which revealed the truth that Wason was hiding deliberately from us all that where their worst… Was in fact the much demanded citation needed
When I wrote my Plaincourault article for Robert M price’s journal of higher criticism, I was especially above all frustrated: where in the hell is the citation; CITATION WANTED / CITATION NEEDED!! in Panofsky’s letter to Wasson all there is is…… ellipses, Right where I demand (of course like everybody) demand a citation
citation needed citation needed please please please give us a damn citation for the alleged supposed claim that art historians have covered this matter of the problem the problematic problem that’s a problem for the lying fabricating art historian’s of how are we going to cover up all of our hundreds and thousands of mushroom trees where did they discuss which lie they are going to agree to tell are they going to agree to tell the lie of Italian Pines like Panofsky says and recommends or are they going to agree to tell the lie that Wassen later fabricates of so-called vague and hazy mythical so-called “Palestine tree type”?
this is what I am looking for where exactly did the art historians discuss among themselves in print to reach agreement on what fabricated false deceiving lie they are going to fabricate and agree to so that all employed art historians all agree as a Panofsky points out that if Wason asks all art historian who are employed all of them will give their opinion that there are no mushroom trees represented by the thousands of mushroom trees and furthermore the ramifications which are always present on every mushroom tree prove that mushroom trees are not mushroom trees
because they are trees with added ramifications beyond Mushrooms and Mushroom Trees have ramifications beyond just mushrooms say the art historian and therefore they do not mean mushrooms because there are more ramifications than merely an indicator of mushrooms and this is why it is important that we art historians thoroughly in detail publish copious numerous many many books and many many articles thoroughly discussing an exhaustive detail just like Panofsky wrote Tsawwassen in 1952 twice as brown exposes in the full light of truth in 2019 in the journal of psychedelics
Brown revealed that this exhaustive writings and many many books and many many articles where are historians have thoroughly analyzed and completely debated all possible debate positions regarding every aspect of mushroom trees and every ramification of every last tree and this long list of citations hidden behind Wisen ‘s… Cover-up… Cover up the abominable wassons abominable cover-up operation and what’s behind it all the list of citations consists of one book only and Wassen make sure to censor out that loan single book in which art historians have thoroughly exhaustively
debated every Single ramification of every single mushroom tree among the hundreds (which means thousands and countless thousands) of instances of mushroom trees, which Panofsky describes as “so universal” that its not just the tree of knowledge subset, but Pulaski in a second letter says that there are just far too many mushroom trees to allow the public to know that planecrawled fresco Means Mushrooms, with added ramifications
if they have covered the matter than dammit where in the hell can I see the coverage of this matter
and how does walls and help?
Wassen helps
and how does Wassen help advance the field of entheogens Scholarship?
answer: he helps by deliberately, multiple times censoring out the citation, right where we are yelling “please give us a citation for the alleged art historians’ discussions of mushroom trees” because Panofsky says every single art historian is entirely, thoroughly aware of all of these hundreds and hundreds (which means thousands and thousands) of mushroom trees, & Mushroom imagery of all kinds, that entirely is found all throughout Christian art and I retorted in 2006 in my article, if the art historians have allegedly thoroughly become familiar and have completely discussed in great exhaustive detail these hundreds and hundreds of mushroom trees, then for Christ’s sake, give us a goddamn citation!!
and what does Wason do to help out here? he replaces Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book by INFAMOUS “…” DOT DOT DOT deliberately
and that is after he has his secretary or his scholar wife or himself (same diff) goes to the trouble to write out Brinkman’s name in full, full middle name, and completely, accurately write out the actual title of Brinkman’s book in his own hand (for all practical purposes; his secretaries hand, his wife’s hand, whatever ; doesn’t make any difference at all) Wasson is guilty – in his own hand!
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
“why is there no citation here?! ” I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco – and the answer is that Wasson got rid of the citation, deliberately withholding it, which Panofsky two-times recommended, both via typewriter in the first letter, AND via hand writing on the second letter, Added, urging Wasson at the very end at the bottom of the second letter, his final word to Wasson was see Brinkman’s book, I strongly, strongly, highly recommend Brinckmann’s book
because it’s the only thing literally the only thing that we have that art historians have treated ,
The one and only single loan place (book or article) where we art historians have explicitly taken up the matter and admitted that the problem 🍄 exists, this problem this great problem for us that we have to struggle to cover while actually covering it up and covering it over, that we have to cover it so as to prevent anybody from seeing
here is the book in which we announce how we will conduct our cover-up operation to fabricate our lie about art history.
psychedelic historian = professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flash of Christ through which we are saved the only means by which we are saved the Eucharist the Psilocybin Mushroom let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are
deeply committed against the so-called those whom we dub dogmatist in the Article dogmatist debacle like Dr. Brown we shall disparage them disparage the people who are committed to asserting and perceiving and publishing Mushrooms all throughout Christian history and art and the word Eucharist everywhere is mushrooms mushrooms and more mushrooms and the people who are guilty of seeing mushrooms everywhere which Dr. Brown disparages and distanced himself from, as ARDENT ADVOCATES & DOGMATISTS (= Jan Irvin a John Rush and Egodeath.com; same paragraph; see Browns 2019 )
[dup para? I ended up dammit deleting the paragraph above, which was a mistake so I’m keeping this following; dammit I think I lost one or two sentences]:
professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flesh of Christ through which we are saved, the only means by which we are saved , the Eucharist; the Psilocybin Mushroom
let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are deeply Committed against those who are committed to asserting Mushrooms in the Eucharist and therefore everywhere ubiquitously throughout Christian history in contrast we are at historians are deeply committed and we psychedelic deliriant pushing Witches and “psychedelic historians” ( which means fabricator and cover up operator of inventing fake history, for which we get rewarded by being flunkies and complicit servile obedient puppy dog proponents of prohibition good fucking job leveraging your fake history studies to assist in Psilocybe in Prohibition a Prohibition compliant servile flunky and henchmen the witches are in cahoots with the pope the salvation Salesmen pope those who sell fraudulent substitute for the bona fide Psilocybin
Eucharistic sacrament through which we are saved
because we sure are not in lightened by mandrake and scopolamine and false art history lies and fabrications thanks to our Panofsky leveraging the one and only book in which art historians have ever admitted the problem of mushrooms and explicitly discussed their lying cover-up operation, cover story, bedtime just so tale, just so story.
Panofsky assures Wasson that if he asks any (employed) art historian (who toes the line and agrees to the fake cover-up story), they all agree that, in their “opinion” , Mushroom Trees- with added ramifications – do not mean mushroom 🍄 trees, and please stop asking questions
and you will find that all (*employed*) art historians agree with me (and all *employed* Christianity scholars agree that Jesus existed)
in other words, the conclusions of all Christianity scholars and the conclusions of all art historian scholars on this matter are completely worthless, totally worthless, because their opinions are coerced, COERCED, and they have no option except that they have to toe the damned party line and lie.
all of them are liars ; they are all coerced into lying and denying that obviously mushroom trees, with added ramifications obviously mean mushroom trees with added ramifications and cut branching possibility, which is mystic-state metaphorical analogy describing the mushroom altered state, obviously, as the ego death theory explains in full detail and clarity.
the Egodeath theory = experiential mental model of {Analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control}, instead of {literalist ordinary State possibilism with autonomous control}, transformed mental model in the loose cognitive association binding state from re-dosing Psilocybin mushrooms as represented in the countless thousands of mushroom imagery all throughout Christian Art as slightly barely studied by art historians in one loan isolated book by Brinkman written Way back in 1906 covering only something like four Paintings of Mushroom trees, out of the many hundreds – which means countless thousands of instances
the easiest thing in the world is for people to find more images Of mushroom imagery in Christian Art and upload them to the World Wide Web; do it now.
ignore the accursed lying art historians, professional inventors and fabricators of history is their job as “extremely ignorant craftsmen” , to
throw back Panofsky’s words at him , defaming the Plaincourault Mushroom tree painter who deliberately retained the added ramifications Branching that are shown in Pulaski’s false, phony, made up lying invention of the alleged “distorted templates”, which did not exist.
this whole “distorted templates” bedtime just so story cover-up lying fabrication by the (unfortunately) most influential art Scholar Erwin Panofsky, professional liar about history – unfortunately, the most influential art historian, which means: the most influential fabricator of false, lying history
“distorted templates” my ass! you liar, there’s no distorted templates
you’re making sht up , you liar
distorted templates my ass
there’s no such thing ; you fabricated it as a cover story to protect the Salvation Salesmen, who fraudulently replace the genuine bona fide Eucharist, which has always been understood as Psilocybin Mushrooms, represented by announcement new point early morning about 6 AM this morning April 28, 2022 note I note this morning the idea vividly occurs to me and strikes me this morning I received this message observe this observation the size and physical mass and size of amanita I have seen it I have photographed it I have uploaded to the World Wide Web my own personal specimen photograph of the double holy grail 10:10 AM on 1010 2010 October 10, 2010 photograph and I’m not making that up I literally photographed these whole set of 12 group of 12 and they were clusters all over the place and I photographed the double holy grail fountains in the rain with ripples very large my point that I am announcing is it they are very large and very massive much bigger than psilocybin 100 times bigger jumbo huge gigantic Mushrooms Amanita is far far 100 times bigger incise and mass then tiny little psilocybin mushrooms and this is why I am Anita is the face of psilocybin ingesting and amanita will always be the billboard advertising Psilocybin Mushrooms use and knowledge and this is why eat wine in the Canterbury Psalter page 1 shows God is creator of sacred plants which are not opium brown correctly objects and I think maybe Brown helped me to get my thinking clear on this matter of identifying the four plants because probably James Arthur and probably people like Chris Bennett wrongly asserted miss identified the four plants which God creates according to Eid wine who is the best top mushroom tree artist and what Eid wine intended to depict is not opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of miss identification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
Version one of identifying the four plants people like James Arthur maybe or people like Chris Bennett incorrectly said that the plants are different families of psychoactive such as opium and cannabis in this panel or the next panel which both show for mushroom plants the correct identification is closer to version to which Dr. Jerry Brown gives he is closer to correct identification because he identifies it as for groups of mushrooms for types or classes or categories but my explanation is better and or uniform I agree with Jerry Brown that the for mushrooms plants or mushrooms and not cannabis or opium but Brown gives a garbled and vague and overlapping messy classification scheme and my classification scheme is actually orderly and coherent and uniform level of specificity I identify in this version three identification I finally get it right unlike the scholars before me according to eat wine the correct set of four sacred plants which God created R, from memory, left to right yes my memory I remember vividly it goes number one in Panaeolus number two liberty cap number three Cubensis number for amanita this is not the faded pastel image but the more vivid image which probably James Arthur used on his book cover and which I’m looking at right now the cover of the psychedelic Gospels book 2016 by brown and brown
Brown incorrectly identifies the IV Mushrooms Plainc Sacred Plants which he shows on the front cover of his book I correctly identify it more specifically and in a more coherent orderly way than Jerry Brown and Brown Julie
they take a step in the correct direction
just like the Saint holding the vial, where I showed exactly how Jan Irvin is correct that the Saint holds Amanita
in addition to , I explain exactly how Brown and Brown are correct, that the saint holds a vial
I solve the problem and reconcile that the saint holds a vial which is deliberately designed to look like amanita features, although the proportions are those of a vial, and not of an amanita specimen. la
The amanita-shaped vessel which the saint holds in the tapestry identified positively as Amanita by the serrated bass
The base is larger, and the cap is smaller, so that the vial can function as an effective vial container, with a relatively large body and relatively small cap, compared to the natural proportions of an actual Amanita specimen in its early-stage developmental form.
similarly, brown and brown are on the right track to make steps towards improvements of identification & interpretation of msh in Christian art, after I add my corrections of their direction, and
I am the one who correctly identified around November 2020 at this website Egodeaththeory.wordpress.com :
I correctly and specifically, art-appropriately identify, unlike brown and brown, the four mushroom plants which God creates on the cover of their book, left to right, based on my 75 mushroom trees plants inventory of the Canterbury Psalter. I remind you that inventory in the character there are so very many mushrooms in the Canterbury Psalter that it took me a year long project from maybe February 2021 to February 2022 to resume and get back to the exhausting major project of writing to webpages one of them about every relevant seen every relevant picture and then the second derivative webpage catalog database of art specimens art instances and I even made a third version not published of every single Of every mushroom zoomed and cropped that I am withholding for some reason because it is too scientific and mood and character but my second webpage which I did publish is derivative from the year long exhausting cataloging process because there are just too many mushroom trees the system can’t handle it the website is simply not designed This platform can’t handle the overload of too many mushrooms throughout Christian Art it’s run out of space there’s just not enough space to contain the thousands and thousands of instances the easiest thing in the world is to find and upload additional instances of mushroom imagery in Christian Art to the World Wide Web its child’s play as a Panofsky says mushroom trees are “so universally” present that it is impossible for him to believe that the one single instance of plain corralled fresco cannot possibly be a mushroom because there are so universally ubiquitous Mushroom trees everywhere in Christian Art that therefore we cannot permit this one instance to be interpreted as Mushrooms because he says that we would be forced he implicitly says and he does not explicitly explain his emotion driven argument it’s all implicit it’s all kept on the down low and implicit but evidently what he’s thinking is that it is impossible for us to admit that plane crawl fresco is a mushroom because there exists hundreds of this type which means countless thousands of this type of mushroom tree everywhere so universally he says he writes Mushroom Trees are so universal and not only limited just to the subset of the tree of knowledge but are used for general purpose ubiquitously universally everywhere all throughout Christian art and therefore it is impermissible to admit that the plane crawl fresco is amanita because therefore he implicitly argues, we would be forced to admit that all of the countless thousands of mushroom imagery ubiquitous universally everywhere all throughout Christian Mark Art is all Means too many ramifications of too many branching mushroom trees everywhere and therefore we must concoct any lying fabricated history cover-up story we can dream of dredge up to cover the fact the Mushroom Trees with added ramifications me and Mushrooms because of the ramifications are too many and besides,
he argues in his second letter which fortunately Brown and Brown published in the light of day against the scheming deceiver or Gordon Wasson who worked hard to deceive and stunt and retard and impede the field of visionary Plainc Scholarship visionary Plants Panofsky second letter March 12, 1952 shortly after March 2 1952 first letter in both letters Panofsky urged our Gordon Wasson
be sure to read Albert E Brinckmann’s book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings 1906 the one and only place where we public relations propagandist Liars cover up artist and fabricators of fake and phony History have a greed on what our cover story is so it is important that you read Brinkmann’s book because this is where we are at historians art historians have established are funny cover-up story iPhone our phony fake cover-up story is laid out
Brinckmann book and therefore as one cover-up public relations artist to another we have to coordinate our lying cover-up story and this is why in both of my letters I am strongly urging you that you must obtain Albert Brinckmann is 1906 book so that we get on the same page of our painting a false picture cover up story of our lying fabricated so-called distorted templates malarkey fabrication
so that you can tell the same story as the popes hired henchmen Brinckmann about the supposed distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket templates so be sure to have your secretary right in her need to cursive knit cursive writing the accurate name of the book and the full spelled out authors name so that U can get on board with R ex
With our explanation of why on earth, why in gods name, mushroom tree artists in England would have desired to depict a southern Italy Mushroom looking Italian umbrella pine. The story that we have decided among ourselves the cover-up story we have a greed on agreed on is distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket distorted templates and accidental it is the fake lying story that you are to tell is that it is “purely fortuitous “in other words completely a coincidence the mushroom trees look like mushrooms and also you can use this argument Wasson which the psychedelic which psychedelic historian Hatsis tells – or failed to tell, rather,
are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
why didn’t Thomas Hatsis make this specious dumb ass argument that Bryniarski makes as his final argument the ultimate reason why we know that mushroom tree artist did not intend to draw mushroom trees because if they had intended to draw Mushroom they would have omitted the added ramifications which are shown in the distorted alleged distorted templates the added Branching which is present on every single branching message mushroom trees is proof that our category that we call mushroom trees has nothing whatsoever
none
whatever to do with mushrooms and this is our cover-up story which we have published in the one and only place where we have admitted this big problem that we have of the bona fide genuine Eucharist being revealed together with metaphorical Revelation of nonbranching which is the one and only publication we have allowed to be published of art historians treating the matter of mushroom trees which is 1906 Albert Brinckmann book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings so you need to get with the program and learn to tell our cover-up story of the
“distorted templates “of Italian “umbrella pine “here’s the cover-up story in my two letters together with a citation of 1906 Brinckmann book which lays out our lying fabricated cover story from one public relations fraud to another propagandist in-service of Salvation Salesmen in alliance with the psychedelic Witch Carlos Ginsberg psychedelic historian Thomas Hatsis who has absolutely proved wink wink confidence artist that witches witchcraft Witches which is used non-drug fertility cult methods which Hatsis totally fails to specify what the fuck he’s talking about of what exactly did Carlos Ginsberg excuse of how allegedly the fertility cult practices whatever the fuck that means against a Jan Irvin and I agree with you on Irving
John Irving who firmly asserts as a ardent advocate and a dogmatist and rightly so and necessarily so a counter dogmatist here we have Thomas Hatsis the dogmatist the anti-Mushroom demonize her he says that the pagans should have demonized Christians as ingesting Mushrooms because half this reveals that he believes Mushrooms are the kind of thing that you should smear and attack people for you
using how to takes it as if granted that all pagans held Mushrooms in very low esteem and this proves that Christians didn’t ingest Mushrooms because if Christians did and just mushrooms we know for sure that pagans would have condemned them and smeared and insulted them for being so low as to use despicable and a cursed Mushrooms and hear how this reveals his true feelings as a witch against Mushrooms he projects his own anti-Mushroom
values falsely and incorrectly he totally and absolutely miss reads the value system so much for being a historian he completely gets the value system entirely wrong because in fact as a Jan Irvin and Egodeath.com and John Rush who are all listed in brown section called ardent Advocates and who has his calls dogmatists as if he is not the biggest anti-Mushroom dogmatist of all let us talk about the dogmatists debacle and look in the mirror Mr. dogmatist Mr. anti-Mushroom dogmatist you dogmatic pusher of the Eucharist as deliriant scopolamine and you vigorous committed dogmatic Ardent advocate of removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist so as to disempower it and replace it by a mind scrambling Mandrake instead you dogmatist this is your debacle back in your face just like Panofsky his argument massively blows up in his face when he says we know that plane crawl fresco is not mushrooms because otherwise we would have to be forced to assert and
admit that all of the hundreds of mushroom trees which is to say all of the countless thousands of mushroom Trees and Mushroom Imagery the characterizes Christian Art as widespread as mixed wine in antiquity banqueting banqueting that all of them are mushrooms because we know and we don’t even need to spell it out explicitly in the two letters Tsawwassen to our Gordon Wasson that if we were to admit that plane crawl Frisco the single case this specific instance proxy
clearly the rules would be revealed the rules are you SERUSE RUSE would be revealed the jig would be up and we would of course be forced to admit the ramifications branching out from there from that one instance we would be forced to admit the truth about history God for bid art historian should be forced to admit the truth about history Thomas Hatsis is doing everything possible to help out cover-up history and fabricate a false history because we receive our orders from the Salvation Salesmen
and they have ordered you are Gordon Wasson banker for the pope you are to stop investigating Mushroom trees and you are to follow Brinkman’s lead in the one and only art historian publication where we know thoroughly well we are completely intimate with mushroom trees and here is our fabricated funny cover-up story funny cover-up story you need to read Brinkman’s book and get on board with our propaganda cover up lie which is published in only one publication the name of the citation is 1906, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
be sure to have your secretary hand write in neat cursive the accurate title of the book and the full name of the author, Albert Eichart Brinckmann.
that book has just enough coverage examples of mushroom trees to specify our lying, fabricated cover-up story.
be sure to omit this citation every time you repeat selected excerpts from this letter for public consumption.
Panaeolus, liberty cap, Cubensis, amanita.
Eadwine used my above categories; Eadwine did not use brown & brown’s categories, which are expressed inconsistently & too vaguely, in terms of “Psilocybin” & “Psilocybe”, as Brown & Brown incoherently and vaguely write in their book and article, 2016 & 2019.
dup para? be very careful bc deleting = data loss!!! … opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of misidentification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
You lying professional liar fabricating falls history inventing and fabricating your tall tale bedtime story of distorted templates there were no templates there were no templates there were no distorted templates you made shit up you fake fabricator of history professional unfortunately most influential art historian Erwin Panofsky professional fabricator of lying false history cover up operation distorted templates my ass liar fraud, phony, actor, Fessional fabricator of false pseudo-History propagandist head of public relations
so we have the head of public relations of false establishment cover up operation “art history ” , Department of Fake History, writing on the letterhead of the institution of lying about art Princeton Department of fabricated falsified history, Institute for advanced lying & fabrication of study
and he is advising another head of lying propaganda public relations bullsh*t , Wasson , and telling Wasson “here’s how you are to pretend to try to cover up the truth about mushrooms in our own Christian history”
and which his wife wrote a neat handwriting diligently looked up the title and we don’t know at present weather Wasson ever looked at the book what we know he deliberately refrained and withheld when everybody would demand a citation in 2006 I complained about this I said of course we are all very interested when we saw Panofsky’s letter in the book soma of course we all wanted more information about these art historians discussions there are many many detail discussions because art historians know about these mushroom trees so very intimately well and that every first semester flunking out art student is perfectly aware of hundreds of these mushroom trees
THEN WHERE IS THE GODDAM CITATIONS?!
Answer: Wasson deliberately, multiple times, not just once but multiple times, deliberately censored out Panofsky’s two- times, type written and hand written, urging of Wasson please be sure to see this book by 1906 Albert Brinckmann
and then where does Wason help us out by pointing us all to Brinkman’s book so that we can follow up on the very interesting claims that art historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees?
but right where we need Wasson to help us research the matter Dr. Brown calls this Wisen’s paradox Wasson suddenly turns into the obstructionist deliberately maliciously
Wasson was malicious
Wasson was deceptive
Wasson was evil and a jerk for deliberately intentionally censoring out Pulaski’s two times recommendation that we all must see Brinckmann’s book
Wasson is definitely – verdict: proven guilty guilty guilty
wasson you jerk , you enemy of entheogen scholarship
Wasson shame shame evil awful terrible person Wason
dup voice transc.: andWassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copieregodeath.com and I was especially above all frustrated where in the hell is the citation needed in Panofsky’s letter Tsawwassen all there is is…… Right where I demand of course like everybody demand a citation why is there no citation here I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco and the answer is that Walton got rid of the citation Witch Panofsky two times recommended and
Panofsky , Unfortunately the most influential parts it was most guilty for everybody being stupid, did not song Albert E Brinckmann name nor did he get the title accurate as he noted, In Panofsky’s first of two mentions of Brinkman name Panofsky mentioned Brinckmann in both letters even going to the trouble of hand writing at the termination of the second letter the final thing that Pulaski rights to Wasson is an emFattic strong recommendation again to look up brakeman’s book
and Wasson then went to the trouble to hand write Brinckmann’s full name or here’s a good gas here is a good guess employing my ESP Wasson secretary wrote please identify whether the handwriting belongs to Wason or Wasson secretary at the bank or wife or his wife Wasson handed Panofsky’s letter to wassons wife and in her neat handwriting she wrote the full name of Albert a Brinckmann and she wrote the full correct German title of Brinkman’s book what we need to know is Diaz Wasson on Brinckmann’s book did Wassen check out the book from the library did Wason have the library order the book or did Wason purchase the book for his personal library did Wason go any further than having his wife or secretary write in her neat cursive writing on Pulaski’s first letter did Panofsky finally read Brinkman’s book as Panofsky I meant to say did Wason finally read Brinkman’s book which Panofsky in Fattic Lee recommended to him twice and I am still mad at myself in 2006 why didn’t Jan Irving and I catch the three dots the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation a Brinckmann’s book because I’m emphasizing here I emphasize that my main
my main feeling about a Panofsky’s letter in 2006 was where in the hell is the citation every single person obviously would yell at Panofsky where is the damn citation citation needed dammit where the hell is the citation that was my main feeling reading Panofsky’s book because he claims that are historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees and I said wow I am extremely we are all extremely highly interested in art historians discussions please please please provide a citation where in the hell this is a damn citation that was my number one main feeling and frustration with Panofsky’s letter so why was I so stupid
that I failed to notice in my copy of Wason’s book soma where he put dots literally physically in the exact spot in the exact place physically right where I was yelling where oh where please somebody show me where the citation is and obviously right there is where the three dots are it is extremely obvious that the dots are hiding a citation because that is precisely where you would expect and everybody would demand of course a citation we are very interested Brown does a good job and Brown does a good job he even has a Section heading labelled wassons paradox
and Wason’s paradox defined by Jerry Brown and Brown is that he is reputed to be indefatigable in going to the ends of the earth to study Mushrooms and yet when panofsky two times strongly recommends Brinckmann’s book, Wassen then plays the part of the obstructionist! Wasson took measures and actively took steps to prevent progress in the field of Wasson absolutely is guilty pronounced verdict guilty definitely guilty Wasson is definitely definitely guilty of deliberately withholding Brinckmann citation right there in Wisen’s on hand (or exactly equivalent same I don’t care I don’t give a damn it’s the same thing it might as well be for all practical purposes it is Wisen’s own hand writing) on Pulaski’s first letter and he deliberately did not tell us !
he deliberately did not mention brinckmann!
wasson you jerk you -sshole
fcking Wassen fcking Wasson, you obstructionist fcker !
why in the hell is Wasson striving to prevent us from knowing about Brinkman’s book
what is your excuse you evil demonic liar Wason demon from hell you fraud you
phony you fake you liar you deception are R Gordon “deception” Wasson
Wasson equals deception
why is Wason trying to act deceptive
this is why Jan Irvin angrily exited the field
he said you guys are all deceivers your phonies actors
this is all a fraud
And Irving took his 100 interviews of 103 entheogen scholars and watered wadded them up into the trashcan and said you guys are lying fraudsters fraud phony deceivers this is a sham and a pretext and I a put on
you guys are fake and a fraud and phony deceivers
you’re not what you’re pretending publicly to be
your all actors liars and deceivers trying to deceive everybody
entheogens Scholars equals people who are out to deceive everybody
And Jan Irvin angrily stormed out of the field and exited and changed from gnostic media to logos media and said fck all of you evil phony fraudulent deceivers
dup voice trans.:
dup block? careful of data loss – are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
this is text announcement of some discoveries I made while recording Egodeath Mystery show
Brown and brown article 2019 figure 5 genesis the creation of the stars:
Brown says there are two distinct type of plants: umbrella shaped down swept cap by which means each of the three are that shape
I disagree about the tree on the right.
Brown says the tree on the right is an Italian pine with upswept branches.
but it doesnt look even remotely like an Italian pine; it looks like a leaf of an ivy vine; it is a nonbranching Brinkmann vine leaf tree.
the time stamp in the voice recording is 10:10 PM April 26, 2022
Egodeath Mystery Show “Ep128b Too many Pilzbaum” ~~1:43:00 but that player time is usu very wrong
Thus we have a trident branching mushroom tree on the left, and then we have a nonbranching ivy leaf tree on the right, the pairing expressing the major theme of left [leg] equals Possibility Branching Thinking and right leg equals nonbranching Thinking in the Mushroom altered state.
I have decoded and pointed out and explained the parallel in the Canterbury Psalter between the mushroom trees and the vine leaf trees, which express nonbranching.
no thanks to the censorious pope-buddy Wasson who has blocked and harmed the field of entheogen scholarship; against his efforts, I have gotten through – Panofsky has communicated through to me, to put me in touch with Brinckmann.
thanks to Cyberdisciple for locating the book.
thanks to brown and company for translating 1/4 of the book into English which helped to find Brinckmann’s construct of the {vine leaf tree}.
figure 14 God creates plants Great Canterbury Psalter Folio one: here is how Brown identifies the four mushroom types from left to right
1) Psilocybe
2) Panaeolus
3) Psilocybin
4) Amanita
Browns id’n /class’n is garbled. inconsistent, vague, imbalanced, anti-systematic.
I have catalogued and analyzed in great detail and high resolution all 75 mushroom plants of the great Canterbury Psalter
my morphology analysis identifies the four mushroom types as follows:
1) Panaeolus
2) Liberty Cap
3) Cubensis
4) Amanita
My scheme is more useful, coherent and meaningful, and specific in a suitable way, with balanced, meaningful categories.
most interesting, the above, semi-conflicting 1-4 lists demonstrates how the New Theory (Cybermonk/Egodeath) is more articulate than the Old, quasi-“theory” (Brown).
I have quite a few micro Announcements of Breakthrough theory connections of of art interpretation during my voice recordings of the ego death mystery show
for example :
Brown talks about the knives on the table with the mushrooms in the hem of the table cloth connected together at the base, in the same chapel where the youths are cutting Mushroom branches, and so therefore:
the {knives} on the table are directly connected to cutting Possibility Branching at the last supper; ingesting psilocybin mushrooms and then cutting ramification branches with Christ the redeemer.
ep128b One form Kino one Porten king [???] – separate wireless earbuds give even worse voice dict. = Hatsis filter output – though he has no monopoly on incoherent, incomprehensible writing in the entheogen scholarship field.
typing out the above: voice recording announcing the above {knife} mytheme connection.
I need someone to interpret; my voice dictation is speaking in tongues.
[pers. corr.: Jan. 22, 2023 Prof. Jerry Brown:] copied from Idea Dev page 16:
“As a result of that visit, the Wasson Archives sent us the image of Wasson and Richardson with Maria Sabina, which we published as color plate 4 in the book.
“We also read a good deal of Wasson’s voluminous correspondence, including with Robert Graves, and in the process came upon the two 1952 letters from Panofsky.
“We requested [in 2012 or in 2019 when writing the article] and received the images of the two letters along with permission from the Wasson Archives to reprint them with proper citation.
“For this reason, the Panofsky letters are cited as follows in this [2019] article:
Figure 2.
Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass
Figure 3.
Letter of Erwin Panofsky to R. Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass
“To honor our responsibility to the Wasson Archives, this [the above] is the way to cite the Panofsky letters when you reprint them, along with the fact that they were published in our article …”
Ruck, M. Hoffman, and Brian Muraresku set up Wasson West:
The Wasson-Ruck Entheogenic Research Institute and Archives (WRERI) http://wassonwest.com
6:49 AM May 1, 2022 – applying more reflection and weighing the indicators, I must conclude/ we must conclude that Panofsky in letter number two is not in fact just considering the lone question of the planecurled Fresco
it is evident because his reasoning doesn’t make sense if he’s only talking about a single tree
he rigidly conflates this one tree question with the question of interpreting all mushroom trees.
His letter overall doesn’t make sense if what he has in mind is only exclusively the single tree.
This whole reasoning is very much emphatically proxy-assumed, proxy shaped
clearly he believes, it is plainly clear that he believes that planecrawled is a proxy.
his letter and his reasoning cohere if you assume that what he has in mind is the question of how to interpret all mushroom trees all together all at once
Errata
Ep128b Too Many Pilzbaum – MORAL: yet again I see the downside of when I’m trying to analyze a passage while reading it aloud for the first time
I instead I am supposed to shut up and stop my dang commentary and first read the whole passage, entirely and accurately.
This is really bad – I’m listening to when I then finally did a straight reading and I swear I misread during a straight reading I wrongly said the word “project” but I’m rubbing my eyes now and it says the word “product” not “project”
this is a pretty embarrassing inexcusable misreading.
read the entire passage smoothly and accurately word for word before I comment on it
do not dive into analysis before I have ever finished reading the first the whole paragraph – But my problem here is worse than that: I am just plain misreading it.
even when I simply read the passage aloud, I’m misreading the word.
I need to focus on accurately reading the paragraph as is , to comprehend which word choice he is using, before I spout off and go off under my own delusion that the author wrote the word “project”, when in fact if I would shut up and read, and stop going off prematurely, I would accurately comprehend and firmly consistently grasp that the author wrote the word “product”, not the word “project”
in fact the only “project” going on here is I projected my confused misreading onto his writing word choice
I need to read the whole paragraph first before I spout off and dive into analyzing it.
I keep failing at this
I keep misreading, a terrible mistake and teetering of mine – and I keep flip-flopping between Panofsky’s phrase “the finished product” and my misreading as “the finished project” because the font of the typewriter font maybe blurry and because it was my first time reading through his often unclear leaps of reasoning and presuppositions but he writes “the finished product” he describes the alledged gradually distorted templates
therefore the fact that he wrote “the finished product” in the context it must mean that he’s talking about the templates were misread as mushrooms, not that – as I incorrectly interpreted during my initial run, I incorrectly interpreted and decided that Panofsky was saying that the artist(s) misinterpreted their own “finished project” but rather Panofsky was talking about the artist(s) misinterpreted the finished product of the alleged (FABRICATED) pine tree “gradual transformation process” which he keeps on emphasizing and going way out of his way to emphasize and which I describe as
what’s going on here as in fact it is Panofsky who has manufactured a conversion process, a transformation process of his own invention
Panofsky developed and fabricated his Pinetree conversion process actually in fact for the purpose expressly of converting mushroom trees to pine trees
the only templates that were involved and the only alleged transformation process and conversion process gradual conversion process is that gradually Panofsky made sht up and fabricated this whole conversion process for the purpose of the reverse of his lying invented fabricated story
or maybe Brinckmann fabricated and invented it , but the purpose of this story about the transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible
distortion The transformation process which he keeps on harping on and harping on every time as often as possible
Panofsky refuses to say the templates or the mushroom trees, he always expresses and forces himself on us , shoving down our throats his “the transformation process” “the conversion process” of pine trees
but in fact what we have here is his own fabricated lying invention of a transformation process to transform mushroom trees – which is the given data – per his phrase “the finished product”( which I keep mispronouncing as the finished “project”) and I am good at reading, so this proves how bad we are at reading) into imagined as if original pine trees
he fabricated and invented the conversion process – which actually in fact is it a conversion process of converting mushroom trees to pine trees, but pretending and putting on the pretense and pretext that the conversion process goes in the other direction, from pine trees to mushroom trees conversion
orig timestamp of page here
I just noticed, I just discovered that neatly handwritten on the first letter from Panofsky to Wasson is the correct German title of Brinkman’s little book.
also in my exhausting/ exhaustive word by word analysis of Panofsky’s bizarre reasoning and thinking style with the incredible lack of imagination and rigid unimaginative thinking 99% of it unstated and implicit only.
all kinds of arbitrary assumptions making it difficult to follow what his train of argumentation even is , with gigantic leaps premised on unbelievable unimaginative assumptions and arbitrary assumptions that are as
they’re both pre-judged prejudiced presuppositions and considered not explicitly spelled out there arbitrary
everything is wrong with this
what passes for thinking
this seems more like sleepwalking
The first letter
we must see the photographs that Brown and Brown have provided of Pulaski’s letters
everything is left out of them all the time
people never even mention these things these important things
I’m finding all kinds of key observations and these two letters from Panofsky to Wassen
there’s a ton of relevant stuff here that nobody talks about, nobody pointed out, and I’m pointing out a whole pile of points that people haven’t made .
Panofsky makes an argument “they can’t be mushrooms, because they have branches.
“the artist didn’t mean mushrooms, because if the artist meant mushrooms, the artist would have ignored the distorted templates and would have drawn the mushroom trees with no branches”
first Pulaski recommends Brinckmann’s book which wasson sensors out
then I discovered that Wassen or someone hand wrote the correct title of Brooklyn’s book on the first letter
and then I discovered that Pulaski hand wrote on his second letter to Wasson that “you may keep my poor little pictures” ; the photo stats, the two of them, of mushroom trees.
and then he adds the interesting sentence “but I do recommend to look into the little book by a e Brinckmann”
so two times Panofsky recommended Brinckmann’s little book which he twice Calls it a “little” book
Panofsky two times recommends Brinckmann’s book to Wasson, and additionally, handwritten on the first letter, is the correct German title of Brinkman’s book(!)
but tell me this, Carl Rut:
did Wasson ever write the word Brinckmann, for “the public” “consumption”??
and if not, why not?-banker for the pope
no direct, financial conflict of interest there
💰
The ramifications branch out from there
the Purpose of entheogen scholarship is to block and prevent entheogens Scholarship entheogen scholarship and protect the Salvation Salesmen’s racket.
and The Witches play right into it
their actions show which side theyre on, complicit compromise
Time for Jonathan Ott to lead a new entheogenic reformation
I haven’t analyzed all the ramifications, the branching ramifications yet:
My main question here to analyze is in Jerry Brown’s article where he disparages and distances himself from the Ardent Advocates.
How does Brown describe Carl Rut’s position?
Brown identifies several derby teams; I mean, interpretation groups of people, including conservative Christians.
Model and summarize interpreting the Browns’ article as defining several derby teams, or interpretation positions, or schools regarding interpreting mushrooms in art and then easily explaining them away using sound, tried-and-true historical methods.
And then from that schematization or classification of interpretations, figure out where does Carl Rut sit.
Is Dr. Rut considered an Ardent Advocate?
Also today’s voice recording, Egodeath Mystery show… Here I didn’t get straight to the point, so I forgot what my point is
Who cares about the show, just make my point.
Be assured, it was a very good point.
Anyway, it’s captured in the voice recording today.
unless my backstabbing equipment trashcans my work
So here is the proposal purchase of the player from the other team, Dr. Secret Amanita.
Implicitly, Jerry Brown was trying to join the Moderates; aka the self-constrainers.
Brown was joined with Dr. Rut, and Brown speaks favorably about him.
I have tried to persuade Professor Brown to leave the Moderate paradigm and convert to the Ardent Advocates; the extremist, dogmatic, Maximal, hard-core winning side, not the losers, those losers, the Moderate, self-defeating position, who says that even at the beginning, even back in 500 BC Greece – against Cyberdisciple – Carl Rut’s Moderate position says that mushroom use was suppressed, deviant, rare; abnormal; doesn’t count.
Also I talked today a lot, in Egodeath Mystery Show, about how Brown’s committee is a failure.
I think this was my point I was going to say:
Brown’s committee was a failure.
Nobody wants to join his losing team, because his committee is fair and unbiased.
But the problem is that the way that they approach trying to define an unbiased methodology, they are going to, by default, present their neutral, fair, toothless, wimpy, non-prejudiced, no fervent mission or commitment – an unbiased approach will suffer instant defeat.
That prophecy is obvious, and every time that I read my article title where Jerry Brown asked me to write to define neutral, unbiased, unprejudiced and fair criteria for judgment, and every time I read my article title, the prophecy loomed:
This will suffer instant defeat.
This is a losing proposition, guaranteed to fail.
The mathematical reality is, given the infinite negative prejudice against mushrooms in Christian art, the only team worth joining, the only team that will win is a dogmatic, vicious, mean, hard-core prejudiced, intensively weponized team, with a mission: to win; to ardently advocate and forcefully push and compel.
So nobody wanted to join Jerry Brown’s loser neutral team of wusses.
That everyone can see has failure written all over it.
Just like I read aloud the title of my article for him, and every time I read it aloud, every time I tried to read aloud my article for him, I couldn’t get past the loser title, guaranteed to fail precisely because it is framed as neutral and reasonable and unbiased and fair, which all translates to:
You are guaranteed to suffer instant death, defeat, out there on the roller derby rink.
We have to do the very opposite of this, and be weaponized and vicious and armored with artillery and spikes.
we are here to destroy you
we are here to intensively advocate a particular, specific interpretation: EXPLICIT PSILOCYBIN; the Maximal, non-suppression premise is our COMMITMENT.
you could argue against me, that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for.
Brown says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity.
but Brown doesn’t drive & push that point, like an ardent advocate needs to drive that point to, if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining which it is not, the committee would say:
To be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an Ardent Advocate; hang out at Egodeath.com and be a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the ardent advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article.
which you could argue against me that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for;
he says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity
but he doesn’t drive that point like an Ardent Advocate needs to drive that point to ,
if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining, which it is not, the committee would say: to be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an ardent advocate; a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the Ardent Advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article which has an Ardent Advocates section distancing himself, and where he declares his opposition to the Ardent and Advocates
Brown’s Ardent Advocates Section of his article fortunately lists egodeath.com as an Ardent Advocate.
I am in agreement with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media, Jan Irvin of Logos Media, and John Rush.
The Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of moderate compromisers
so I am proposing to purchase player Jan Irvin to join the Monks derby team, but kind of rename/ alt name the team as the ardent advocates, and then get Jerry Brown to abandon the Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of Moderate compromisers, self-defeaters, obedient secret suppression pushers, those losers.
in his article he is essentially declaring Carl rock to be the correct approach, of moderate reasonable and fair
but then how come the Carl rock gang refused to join Jerry Brown’s loser committee of failure?
Dr. Secret Amanita refused to join Jerry Brown’s team, because Carl Rut realizes that Jerry Brown is not one of the moderates
Jerry Brown is actually in fact a closeted Ardent Advocate.
Jerry Brown’s committee actually goes against Carl Ruck.
the reason people don’t want to join Jerry Brown’s committee is because the committee is defined and designed to be intensely prejudiced in favor of mushrooms in Christian Art and the pussies on Carl Rut’s team want to tell the exact opposite story.
The Carl Ruck gang looked at Jerry Brown’s definition of the committee, and said “you’re not a member of our team; you’re on the opposite team – you’re on the Ardent Advocates team , unlike the moderate position that’s held by Dr. Secret Amanita”
See cyberdisciple.wordpress.com webpage article about against suppression hypothesis against the hypothesis of suppression:
Previously I had put Jan Irvin on the Secret Amanita Team, but it is striking how many agreements that I have with Irvin
I don’t really think that Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media or I have the same view as Allegro, because Allegro was a actually a full on minimal position; Allegro said that even at the beginning of Christianity, barely anybody used or knew about mushrooms in Christianity; almost nobody at the start –
that makes Allegro like Terence McKenna; a Minimal position advocate.
Jan Irvin does not agree with the Minimal entheogen theory of religion.
Jan Irvin agrees with the Plaincourault fresco version of John Allegro, which is not a minimal, but rather a moderate position, at least – and this raises the question: can Jan Irvin of gnostic media era be considered as Maximal entheogen theorist?
I think so; eg:
Thomas Hatsis quoted Jan Irvin saying that “anybody who claims to achieve Mushroom altered state without mushrooms needs to be investigated”, and Hatsis retorted by quoting the authority Carlo Ginsberg, historian of witches, who belongs on the witches roller derby team, who I say is full of sht and liars.
I agree with Jan irvin of gnostic media: Carlo Ginsberg’s fertility cult practices do not in fact induce the psilocybin loose cognitive association state; that doesn’t happen.
That’s not how the mind works.
that’s a firm position, because I am a an extreme dogmatist, and I am extremely-
I am far more prejudiced and I am far more biased than even Panofsky and Wasson and Hatsis.
if you think Thomas Hatsis is biased and prejudiced against Mushrooms, I am extremely much more biased and prejudice in favor of them
This is the Ardent Advocates derby team; we are out for blood on the rink: don spikes & hit first.
Welcome to the mud wrestling club, Dr. Brown.
No one wants to join your losing, neutral Committee, which sits on the fence and doesn’t have the guts to take a firm, vigorous, committed stance.
Theory adoption is about commitment, and this is not expressed clearly enough in the book and article by Brown which calls for the committee that nobody is willing to join, because they know the prophecy of instant total defeat, given the intensely negative prejudice & bias that’s the given context of reality that we live in.
The only viable committee is precisely the committee which is run and driven by the Ardent Advocates, which Dr. Brown used to counter-signal.
Is the crucifixion nail in the picture the mushroom 🍄 object?? 🤔
Yes.
The only question is, in what specific way is the crucifixion nail = the mushroom object?
Only the Egodeath theory, including the Maximal entheogen theory of religion, explains the intelligent, precise way in which the crucifixion nail equals the mushroom object 🍄.
I am not an ardent advocate of mushrooms in Christian history.
Professor Jerry Brown, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Special Issue on Psychedelics in Religious History
Planning today off topic utility version of an Egodeath Mystery show Episode
although what I was really hoping to record this morning what is it review of the Thomas Hatsis articles and discussing the question of , on the one hand, it has been profitable to critique Tom Hatsis , but on the other hand, he is very poor at thinking , and he is very poor at reading, and he is extremely poor at writing.
and so he serves in a very limited clown roll the role of a clown – but that’s very Appropriate for this field of entheogen scholarship , which is , as Letcher Hatsis has pointed out – as a clown, he very well recognizes that this is a clown field, that’s so compromised, due to Prohibition, that turns us all into idiots, or tries to, and most people comply and become idiots, just like the prohibitionist Presupposition Matrix coerces people into acting/ reasoning like fools.
Thomas Hatsis is a product of the foolishness of coerced scholarly positions; they reward him for being dense and garbled and his thinking – if you can call it thinking.
I guess the bottom line is that Letcher Hatsis is limited, just like everyone makes limited contributions to the field.
you are crazy if you think that he can be treated straight, reasoned with a straightforward, above the board manner.
but on the other hand, neither can you deal with Wasson in a straightforward way, and this is why I had to write the stupid 70-page article on planecorral and Wasson versus Allegro: the whole field is a clown show.
so Hatsis is par for the course:
we have dimwit Carl Ruck versus dimwit Wasson versus dimwit art historian Panofsky & Brinckmann – the whole thing, the whole field is filled with dimwits – the damned Moderate entheogen theory of religion, which they all push.
and even Dr. Brown was trying to strike a pose , “look how reasonable and Moderate I am.”
F that!!!
Stop acting- stop putting on a show of being moderate and mild and reasonable, dammit, everybody you’re just being self-defeating!
The Curse of the Field of Entheogen scholarship: The Damned “Moderate” Bias, of Countersignalling Your Own Assertions
that’s the curse of the field of entheogen scholarship, is that everybody is coerced into being compliant and mild and countersignaling themselves and holding back and using the brake pedal; all the time the brake pedal, always the brake pedal, so that even when you affirm 🍄, you deny 🍄.
The accusation of the confused Jerry Brown and confused everybody who pretends to take the stance of “look how mild I am, look how mild I am, look how much I countersignal myself , look how much I hold back and deny the presence – even while I assert the presence of the visionary plants.”
“what a great show of being reasonable and mild and moderate and slight and small, look how small I am, look how small my claim is. I’m not one of those crazy John Allegro people, followers, disciples, Ardent Advocates like John Rush and Jan Irvin”, advertises Professor Brown.
professor Brown said “please don’t mistake me for an ardent advocate”
he published this in the journal of psychedelic studies, he advertised his stance, his posture, his pose; he said don’t mistake me for an ardent advocate of psychedelics in our own religious history.
good job, Brown countersignaling yourself, distancing yourself from ardent advocates asserting mushrooms in Christian history.
His published message in Journal of Psychedelic Studies was: please don’t mistake Jerry Brown as an ardent advocate of entheogens in Christian history.
I am not an ardent advocate of mushrooms in Christian history.
Professor Jerry Brown, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Special Issue on Psychedelics in Religious History
He has since retracted that posturing position statement to me (personal correspondence).
And that is the problem, this is the problem right there, this compromising self-defeating, telling the story of “look how small I am, look how small mushrooms are in our own religion, look how secret, look how deviant” – that’s the damned evil story that they are all intent on telling.
i’m putting on a great show of how mild, how moderate my assertion is, look how middle of the road I am, not like that John Irvin who errs in seeing mushrooms everywhere.
But actually I am saying that Jan Irvin fails to see 3/4 of the mushrooms.
you know how the accusation is when Jerry Brown accuses people the so-called ardent advocates?
he actually puts down, he actually insults John Rush and he actually insults Jan Irvin as a so-called “ardent advocates”.
but I am saying that Jan Irvin & Rush is not nearly ardent enough!
WE NEED TO SEE 🍄 EVERYWHERE, 4 TIMES AS MUCH AS THESE SUPPOSED “ARDENT ADVOCATES”!!
God did not create one type of plant, Amanita
Eadwine in the canterbury Psalter Clearly depicts that God created 4 plants s
So we need to see four times as many of these mushrooms.
we need to stop only seeing amanita everywhere.
we need to have & see & recognize the presennce of four times as much mushroom imagery in Christian art.
we need to add additionally three times as much:
we need to also see Panaeolus Mushrooms everywhere.
and also we need to also see Cubensis Mushrooms everywhere.
and also we also need to see liberty cap Mushrooms everywhere.
Successful voice practice review recording today
This was a warm-up to discuss the great limitations of Tom hatsis
a main point that I plan to say is that the problem is not only him; he is typical, he is a symptom
the badness of Tom Hatsis is a great example of a symptom of what’s fcked up about this retarded, self-defeating field of entheogen scholarship, the damned accursed plague of the mere Moderate entheogen theory of religion
if you argue that we should ignore Tom Hatsis because he’s so lame and can’t think his way out of a paper bag and can’t even express his own ideas he completely fails basic writing ability including in his published book not just his casual emails to me
the guy can’t write, he’s like the worst writer in the whole field
and he may be the worst thinker in the field too
his arguments don’t cohere, and I demonstrated that reading aloud his email on yesterday’s recording the second Segment in Egodeath Mystery show of April 25, 2022 episode I think 126, called titled ” Liberty Cap shape anachronistic”
But if you argue that his argumentation is incoherent and he should be ignored and that he is irrelevant to the field, as cyberdisciple has argued, then by that same reasoning, you would say that Wasson is irrelevant to the field, and allegro is irrelevant to the field, and Carl Rut is irrelevant to the field, too, by the same token. which is like what I asserted in October 2002 I said all of these guys are going nowhere and I reject their whole paradigm and I am going to go against everyone of them
and I’m saying that they are all irrelevant all these authors all these self contradicting Moderate compromiser’s
we need to stop compromising
we need to stop countersignaling ourselves
we need to make a firm, bold, strong assertion – put some muscle into it, dammit!
stop waffling and prevaricating and putting forth a reasonable, mild, small, moderate, PUNY proposal, and theory of the role of entheogens in our religious history!
every one of the adherents to the the accursed Moderate entheogen theory of religion puts forth garbled, self-contradictory reasoning.
if you accuse Tom Hatsis of being self-contradictory or inconsistent, well, the whole king of being inconsistent and self-contradictory is none other than Carl Rut himself, Dr. Secret Amanita.
Voice Skills – casual standard voice
Voice dictation here I just did a full reading and warm up and review recording
looking forward to listening to it
might upload it as a independent Recording or maybe some sort of like alternative like off topic portion or aspect of ego death mystery show maybe a separate numbering scheme or OT in the
it is beneficial for me in multiple ways to publish my coverage of off topic things
OT in the Episode name meaning off topic
something like that but
I think
the recording of reviewing my voice and Mike techniques
I’m looking forward to listening to it
I think
this morning’s recording was big progress but
the challenging thing for me is how to not sound angry when I am emphasizing force when I’m making a point when I’m making a scathing negative critical point how do I not sound angry
on
another voice that I hate is the lecturing chiding
I can list the voice character that I hate:
I hate the lecturing chiding voice character
I hate the soft flowery overly gentle voice in character
and it is pretty tricky to target truly the casual standard voice which DJs are the master of
it is so hard to just sound normal and friendly and welcoming and clear
it is really a refined cultivated skill and
I tend to sound angry hyper pronunciation
or soft and flowery
or formal and serious too much sounding serious
or too clownish
you see so it’s not a single character that I dislike of tone of voice and character of voice
the challenge is more complicated:
how to make the character disappear.
that’s the challenge :
how do you make the character of the voice disappear and vanish so that you have transparent communication.
To have transparent communication.
improving
but I do feel with my sheer approving[?]
proving the ability to do the great reading of the webpage that I did this morning
I feel like I’m really moving into the territory of putting the fine polish on it Control of voicing in conjunction with Mike in technique
which requires always keeping up the guard
don’t let down the guard
keep trying and keep critiquing
always be critical and improving
always be improving or trying to push toward the ideal casual standard voice with flexibility and dynamic balancing out all these different factors
it’s pretty complicated
and then eventually want all of that to be natural and to come feel like it comes naturally
when in fact – perhaps this does come naturally to some DJ types but I would say definitely,
for most people, they are very very far from 1) number one mastering all of these aspects and 2) number two having that field feel natural aspect one is being able to balance out all these factors
an aspect to is to do so while experiencing that as natural , when for most people, accomplishing that voicing – that transcendence of the voice character and transcending the cultivated voice apparatus is the very opposite of natural and easy and can require a lot of diligent debugging and troubleshooting and identifying flaws and correcting them and coming up with strategies: how am I going to correct this flaw
for example of closing the nasal passage when emphasizing things and then sounding like nasal Terence McKenna
it is just mind blowing how often I sound like Terence McKenna clamping down the nasal passage at top back of throat
That is something most recently I have been learning to hear when listening to my voice every 10th word I do a turns McKenna Kermit the frog, due to closing of the nasal passage resonance cavity – it’s a habit of a way of emphasizing.
Transcendent voiceover
cultivated casual standard voice
Make it sound natural, when in fact it takes for me at least years of diligent troubleshooting and critique and analysis and practice critical listening, judging and identifying what is the goal , how / what is it to sound good
what do we mean when that person has a good voice like
Martin ball has a very good voice
; Martin Ball has a very very good voice
except maybe you could say errs on the sound of he sounds too gentle
he doesn’t sound neutral, he sounds gentle; he errs on the side of gentle.
I err on the side of sounding sharp and critical and serious. and lecturing and trading alternating with sounding too soft and flowery alternating with sounding too soft and flour
and also cramped into a midrange, locked into a midrange RESONANCE
to resonate a midrange resonate
too much clamping into a clamping into a distinctive narrow voice spectrum instead of staying open and flexible and dynamic
the hard thing I’m working on now is to sound smooth and neutral and friendly without sounding clownish and without sounding stern and lecturing and over pronunciation but casual instead of stern or goofy or flowery and soft or Kermit the frog Terence McKenna closed resonance chamber
Long list of improvements made since January 2021
But I could list now a long list of improved my technique and a long list of improved voice technique compared to January 20, 2021 when I essentially started voice recording series, the Egodeath Mystery Show
Crossfader, or at least two faders
and I remembered a great hook up idea though I really want a cross feeder does anyone make a little guitar pedal size Crossfade or to Crossfade between Mike and music that’s what I really need
I could hook it up with my synth synthesizer as at least for a temporary measure until I get a more simple dedicated hardware
The Egodeath theory 
