Hanegraaff’s chapter “Entheognic Esotericism”, my 2002 critique of the Old Paradigm, the Secret Entheogen Paradigm being incorpog Entheogen Diminishment fallacies, self-defeating. Critiques of Pop Sike from Letcher/ Hatsis/ Irvin/ Kent/ Ball.
are there written critiques of field of entheogen scholarship? meta level.
Field of Western Esotericism , field of the egodeath theory, field of entheogen scholarship.
Martin Luther’s 99 Thesis that demolished the church door to smithereens w/ gigantic nail (Hollywood Epic version).
Brown’s book subtitle has the evil word “Secret”, a sign of the Old Paradigm (Secret Entheogen), bring him to the New Paradigm. tie-in my page: “Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism” to “Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism”
fav idea of this recording:
egoic vs. transcendent mental worldmodel :: Old vs. New paradigm of entheogen scholarship
egoic-thinking : transcendent thinking :: the Old, “Secret Entheogen” Paradigm : the New, “Explicit Psychedelic” Paradigm.
Determinism, what Plato called “the moving image of eternity,” is the illusion of time and space.
As Max Freakout described it: as a holographic illusion that’s created within the block universe.
Determinism refers to the illusion of movement in matter.
Kafei
Determinism within eternalism:
I see determinism within the model of eternalism.
Kafei
Experiencing the block universe:
The mystic state is a direct experience of the block universe.
The mind fuses with the block universe; the mind becomes “the All”, becomes the block universe.
There is no time to unfold, because everything is occurring at once, simultaneously.
That’s the vision inside the experience.
When you return to the baseline of consciousness, you return to space and time, the egoic illusion.
You still have in your memory banks, the vision of where that ego death happened, where there was no longer an ego but there was still awareness there.
It’s that awareness that you could recall from your memory banks.
Kafei
Max Freakout
Moderate entheogen theory as peak self-contradiction:
But the more that Ruck pushes in that direction of broadening the scope of where you can identify entheogens, the more that his overall picture starts to look like a blatant self-contradiction, because what he’s saying is:
Absolutely everybody everywhere knew about entheogens and was tripping, but it was all kept secret – it was all a secret, and nobody really knew about it.
But you know, which one of those is true?
Max Freakout, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, episode 3, 57:00
Totally not mystics: 👽
The three of us are not mystics.
People who are not mystics, are the people to whom the Egodeath theory is relevant.
We are not mystics here.
We are not mystics; we are not in that special class of people.
We are not mystics; why would we be so interested in a theory about people who we are never going to be like, who we can never know what it’s like to be those people?
I’m not going to comment on whether I’m a mystic, or an aspiring mystic, or a non-mystic.
Max Freakout, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, episode 26
Cyberdisciple
Control vortex:
Martin Ball’s going to inevitably run into the Egodeath theory. And in a way, he probably already has; Ball talks about ‘the shadow’, or something like that, this kind of New-Agey term: but, that is the problem; the threat of ego death looming, in the altered state.
We can help show – in addition to the critique of Pop Sike, make it constructive and show them how they can move closer to the Egodeath theory, why the Egodeath theory is a more attractive option than their current paradigms, intellectually speaking: just for coherence; and, for providing the fullest model of what goes on in the altered state.
Because that’s really what draws us, what has drawn us to it; there’s nothing that really compares to the depth of explanation; that actually, pushing through towards the ego death, and not trying to skate around the outside and use the sacrament for some other purpose.
My followers are taking something that is the epitome of simple and clear, and then they’re applying their big-brain analysis to it; and quickly, by the time they touch it, they leave it a smoking complicated ruin and wreck, that’s all complicated and broken, and the opposite of what it is.
Cybermonk, the very beginning of episode 1 of the Egodeath Mystery Show (“2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3″)
You have to fact-check everything I say:
Everything I say in my recordings is tentative and needs a fact-check.
The book “The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time” is claiming that William James made a death-bed retraction, and that he approved the block universe on his death bed – something along those lines.
Like all of my bogus voice recordings, you’ll have to fact-check everything I say. The feeling I have is correct, even if my statements are completely false.
Cybermonk, “Two Models of Control.mp3”, 56:30, 59:50
Facts:
I don’t know this for a fact.
But who cares? We don’t expect me to say facts.
I have transcended mere facts.
Cybermonk, Egodeath Mystery Show 2021-02-04b, 2:14:33
Remedial Pre-School Prep Version of the Egodeath Theory – Simplified 1st-Grade Reading Level
For slow learners or insane people who layer tons of their confusion on top of my couldn’t-be-simpler words stating dirt-simple points.
This page is particularly needed and is required, for over-educated, post-doc students.
Screening Exam
Question 1: Which domain does the Egodeath theory apply to?
A. Refrigerators
B. Mysticism
Question 2: Which state is the Egodeath theory based in?
A. the ordinary state (tight cognitive association binding)
B. the altered state (loose cognitive association binding)
Question 3: Which model of causality does the Egodeath theory assert?
A. free will quantum ineffability
B. domino-chain determinism (unfolding-in-time determinism; temporal causal-chain determinism)
C. block-universe determinism (eternalism)
Question 3 ½: Which model of time, possibility, and control agency does the Egodeath theory assert?
A. branching-universe possibilism; possibility-branching; open future with yet-to-be-created future control-thoughts
B. block-universe eternalism; monopossibility; pre-existence of control-thoughts
Question 4: Do the writings of mystics explicitly advocate high dose?
A. Yes; mystics write about their intensity level, such as: “The previous time, I was really in the Holy Spirit, but this time, I was really, really, really in the Holy Spirit” (that is, intensity level = 3 Really’s, on the Really scale).
B. No; mystics write that either they were in the Holy Spirit, or not in the Holy Spirit.
Question 5: Which people does the word “everyone” mean?
A. The conjectured set of people who merge ASC & OSC, who are beyond explanation, who are ultra-special and have alien minds 👽, who ordinary people cannot ever be like, for whom the Egodeath theory is irrelevant.
B. People who experience ASC multiple times, and who understand things like the Egodeath theory.
Question 7: Match the Pictures
(Advanced level; most leading art authorities and amateur history bloggers fail this one.)
Which of the following pictures matches the items in the above pictures: Picture A, Picture B, or Picture C?
Picture A:
Picture B:
Picture C:
Question 8 (essay question): What’s the difference between block-universe determinism vs. block-universe eternalism?
Write your explanation here: __________.
Question 9: Which model of time does David Bohm’s “non-local hidden variables” interpretation of Quantum Mechanics fit?
A. branching-universe possibilism
B. block-universe eternalism
Question 10: How many levels or positions are typically contrasted in the Egodeath theory? (Such as models of Myth; State of consciousness; Time; & Control)
A. Two.
B. Three.
Question 11: Which level of religion are most books about entheogen scholarship focused on?
A. High esotericism. (Analogy-based religion based in the altered state, explaining myth elements in terms of cognitive phenomenology observed and experienced in the altered state.)
B. Low esotericism. (Physical, literalist religion, focused on things that are observed and experienced in the ordinary state.)
C. Exotericism. (Literalist religion based in the ordinary state.)
this mp3 file hosting approach requires me to re-upload after a week
There are 2 download links near there, to get 3 voice-recording files:
A link to get 2 .mp3’s for Jan 20:
“2-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
“3-Level Egodeath Model.mp3”
A link to get 1 .mp3 for Jan 21, 2021:
“The Great Mystics of Egodeath.mp3”
This Page Advocates a Simplified, 2-Level Model; Beware of Subtly Mixing-in Some Type of 3-Level Model
This page implicitly advocates a simplified 2-level model.
Be careful covertly mixing-in possibly malformed 3-level models, into the primary, 2-level model of the Egodeath theory.
The problem of where to fit domino-chain determinism in a simplified 2-level binary model
Domino-chain determinism implies a type of 3-level model:
free will
domino-chain determinism
block-universe determinism
Domino-chain determinism doesn’t obviously, clearly fit into one of the two, contrasted, reference positions that are defined in the primary, elementary, first-order, simplified, 2-level model of the Egodeath theory:
possibility-branching free will
block-universe eternalism no-free-will
domino-chain determinism usually is close to egoic possibilism-thinking, although it implies non-branching. domino-chain determinism implies non-branching by a very different mechanism than block-universe eternalism.
domino-chain determinism doesn’t match “branching universe”; it matches “block universe” — yet, domino-chain determinism tends to be closer to possibilism-thinking than to eternalism-thinking:
branching universe vs. block universe [domino-chain determinism fits here]
possibilism-thinking [domino-chain determinism largely remains here] vs. eternalism-thinking
In the field of mushrooms in Western religion, moving the Center of Focus from “Amanita, Christianity, Surface-Form, Low Esotericism”, to “Psilocybe, Greek+Christianity, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism
Amanita, Christianity, Surface form, Low Esotericism to
Psilocybe, Greek+Christianity, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism
Copying Many Sections from idea development page 9:
Moving the Central Focus of the Field “Mushrooms in Western Religion” away from “Amanita in Christian History” to instead, “Psilocybin Mushrooms in Greek and Christian History”
Finally, at 37:40, in Transcendent Knowledge Podcast episode 22, Max stops his reportage that involves talking about “Amanita, Amanita, Amanita“, and FINALLY says “psilocybin mushrooms”. Max officially lists an outline item at YouTube, as: Over-emphasis on amanita, under-emphasis on psilocybe in psychedelic scholarship
At time goes on in the episode, toward 45:00, Max and Cyb are increasingly against Amanita and for psilocybin mushrooms, not just a wimpy & ineffectual call for “all entheogens“, as time goes on, Max and Cyb and I (in my commentary) are more and more OUTRIGHT ANTI-AMANITA AND SPECIFICALLY PRO-PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS.
I also wish to read Max and Cyb as moving away from Christianity, toward a focus specifically on “Greek+Christian” religion, but can’t say that about them yet.
Cyb has heavily criticized the similar mis-centering of focus, on Eleusis, removing entheogens from all other Greek religion.
INSTEAD, PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS INSTEAD, GREEK+CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS HISTORY true, broad “hellenistic”; true, broad “christendom” — but, locking the specific center, is far more important than greedy but hazy boundary. INSTEAD, ALL MYSTERY RELIGION AND MIXED-WINE BANQUETING INSTEAD, ESOTERIC
Down with Amanita in Christian History; Up with Psilocybin Mushrooms in Greek and Christian History
STOP centering focus on Amanita! Don’t merely broaden focus; MOVE the focus. STOP centering focus on Christian history! Don’t merely broaden focus; MOVE the focus.
Center the focus INSTEAD on Psilocybin mushrooms. Move the focus from Amanita to Psilocybe instead. Center the focus INSTEAD on Greek & Christian history. Move the focus from Christian history, to Greek & Christian history instead.
I can’t believe how accepting and mild Max seems, initially, and how slow my comments were to object, around episode 22 of Transcendent Knowledge podcast. Around 25:00.
We Should Be Quicker to Spot and Call-Out the “Go Immediately to Amanita” Habit in the Field; the “Mushroom = Amanita” Conflation
Max’s reportage and commentary says “Amanita” many times, before he finally complains – and my commentary finally complains – that that is a conflation of ‘mushrooms’ and ‘Amanita’, shutting out Psilocybe.
The field can’t see how narrow its thinking has been, how very Amanita-centric/obsessed. Letcher-Hatsis got that aspect right.
The problem is much worse than like 28:00 just “broadening” entheogens; I strongly assert degree of focus of plant, with best plant (set of species) is psilocybin mushrooms.
Don’t merely broaden from Amanita to entheogens/ psychedelics; REPLACE Amita. Amanita has been a blinding obsession that – despite Brown’s reassurance of me – really has totally dominated and wrecked the field, of mushrooms in Western religion.
I agree with Letcher-Hatsis on that point, that the field of mushrooms in Christian history has been wrecked by… “the Allegro-Amanita theory” (probably a horrible label that’s part of the problem).
We need to “throw away” current scholarship so far, that’s obsessed with Amanita & Christianity (as we can sort of credit Letcher-Hatsis for pointing out), and REPLACE that mono-focus NOT merely by a BROADER focus, but rather, MOVE focus AWAY FROM Amanita – stop writing about Amanita — and INSTEAD, write about psilocybin mushrooms.
STOP writing about “Christian history”; and instead, write about Greek+Christian history at the same time.
My original critique was insanely mild-mannered, merely saying it’s wrong to LIMIT entheogen scholarship to Amanita.
Now, I’m like, to HELL with Amanita.
Allegro and Amanita (much better, say “Allegro-Amanita”) have done nothing but harm and impede historical understanding.
Amanita-Allegro-Wasson needs to “GET THE HELL OUT OF THE DAMN WAY, you’re a false center” — not merely my original wimpy “pls don’t forget psilocybe“.
I do not merely want to broaden the approach, I want to SHIFT THE CENTRAL AXIS OF THE UNIVERSE OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP.
FORGET CHRISTIAN HISTORY. GREEK+CHRISTIAN HISTORY IS WHERE ITS AT; THE TRUE CENTER. ie hellenistic+christendom.
FORGET AMANITA (AND TRASHCAN WASSON & ALLEGRO –>🗑 WHILE YOU’RE AT IT; SAME THING) — PSIL🍄CYBIN MUSHR🍄🍄MS, *NOT* Amanita, is where its at; the TRUE CENTER.
I’ve Swung from Ineffectually Mild Critique of the Amanita Over-focus, to Outright Rejection of Amanita, as False Center, and Rejection of Christianity, as False Center of Field of Western entheogen scholarship, “Mushrooms in Western Religion”.
Replace “Amanita in Christian History” as the center of the field, by “Psilocybe in Greek & Christian Relgion” as the True Center of the Well-Formed Field
Podcast 22 – I Can’t Believe How Gentle I Was on Amanita, Merely Pleading “Don’t Forget Psil Too”; Now I’ve Swung Hardcore Anti-Amanita; Kick Out Amanita and Replace It by Psil Entheogen Scholarship
In my WordPress page on Transcendent Knowledge Podcast ep22, I added comments noting how softball / gentle / mild my critique was.
I merely originally complained “Amanita is too narrow”.
Now, I’m very different: Amanita is a False Center of Entheogen scholarship, and also, along with that, Christianity is a False Center of Entheogen scholarship, Christianity *must be replaced* by the True Center, of Greek+Christian.
The problem isn’t that people say Christianity = Amanita and that’s false.
The problem is, Amanita is a false center of the field of mushrooms in Wester religion. Psil is the true center of the field of mushrooms in Greek & Christian history. Isoating Christianity is also a kind of false centering. The center is Greek+Christian, not just Christian or just Greek.
Announcing a Moratorium on Amanita Scholarship; Replace by Psilocybe-centric Entheogen Scholarship
Amanita, the low esotericism mushroom associated with low esotericism
New Concept Lable: “Low Esotericism”, = exoteric esotericism
No longer treat Amanita and Psilocybe as “same thing, mushrooms”.
Treat Amanita and Psilocybe as competing single-plant fallacies, or competing cneters of focusing the field of mushrooms in Greek & Christian religion.
Push Psilocybe as the solution to every mystery.
See Psilocybe everywhere.
Amanita means Psilocybe, not Amanita.
Put away your nursery-school kiddie pictures of red & white mushrooms, and do some grown-up, high entheogen scholarship: cognitive phenomenology of control-system vulnerability, and mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms
Announcing a Moratorium on Specifically Christian (or Greek) Entheogen Scholarship; Entheogen Scholarship Must Cover Hellenistic and Bible Religion Simultaneously
The useful analytical idea of 3 positions (Amanita camp, Anti-Amanita camp, Psilocybe camp), within the field of mushrooms in Western religious history.
Amanita = Low Entheogen Scholarship, (includes the pop anti-Amanita camp).
Psilocybe = High Entheogen Scholarship.
That idea describes the sterling mediocrity of pop mushroom scholarship books.
I sure like these ideas, of dividing the field of mushroom Western entheogen scholarship, into 3 positions, roughly and generally called:
the Amanita-history camp (low; exoteric esotericism)
the anti-Amanita-history camp (low; exoteric esotericism)
the Psilocybe-history camp (high; esoteric esotericism)
Allegro’s book is popular – anti-Amanita (in Christian hist); he asserts Aman in orig Christianity (not during Christian hist). Motivation: discredit Christianity. Letcher’s book is popular – anti-Aman (in Christian hist) Hatsis’ PMT book is popular – anti-Amanita (claiming to be anti-msh, in Christian hist)
the pop, anti-amanita camp is to the pop amanita camp as atheists are to literalist Christians Switching from pop Amanita to against that, is merely a flip or inversion of attitude, within the same old framework or level of consciousness. There’s no actual gain in insight.
The Amanita Camp (in Christian History); Low Entheogen Scholarship
the Amanita guys = low entheogen theory, the low mushroom-religion theory
These sterling writers are great at what they do: shallow, physical, superficial, Amanita, planets, the mushroom is what’s revealed, the mushroom is the secret.
It’s all-Allegro, all the time, and Allegro = Amanita.
ALLEGRO != PSILOCYBE.
Sterling Mediocrity
Ruck; exoteric esotericism. Great job! (so far as it goes…)
Brilliant treatment! – except for the little detail, of lacking non-control transformation cognitive phenomenology, which is the center of esotericism, and the main thing that is revealed by the visionary plants. Oops, left that bit out.
Learned, learned!
Not wrong,
The Anti-Amanita Camp (in Christian History); Still Low Entheogen Scholarship
Hatsis’ title-word “Conspiracy” is regarding Amanita.
When the anti-mushroom camp pictures mushrooms, they picture mushr🍄🍄ms.
In their denials, Psilocybe is, if remembered at all, tacked on as an afterthought to also deny, like we see in Hatsis’ video “no msh in Christianity”.
the anti-Amanita guys = Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, Hatsis. Hatsis is more truly anti-Amanita, than anti-Mushroom.
Evidence: Hatsis’ vid that claims to prove no “mushrooms” in Christian history, but which in fact revolves strangely pointedly, around Amanita, instead.
Every time I expect him to say “mushrooms”, he instead reaches for the bizarrely specific word ‘Amanita’.
Hatsis’ position negatively orbits around Allegro-Amanita-Irvin.
Hatsis may think he defines himself as anti-mushroom (in Christian history), but Hatsis actually defines himself as anti-Amanita (in Christian history).
The anti-Amanita crowd focuses on Christianity, and ignores the question of mushrooms in Mystery-Religion initiation & mixed-wine banqueting; Hellenistic.
Especially, they ignore psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms, in Greek & Christian together.
The anti-Amanita crowd hermetically isolates Hellenistic & Christendom religion.
This group of writers may *claim* to be “anti-mushrooms” (in Christian history), but in practice, they are more anti-Amanita; eg the Grand Proxy for All Mushrooms in Christian Art, is Plaincourault, which is Amanita.
The Psilocybe Camp (in Greek & Christian History); High Entheogen Scholarship
Check Ruck’s position on:
Psilocybe in Greek & hellenistic religion.
Psilocybe in Christendom.
M. Hoffman = non-pop/ high entheogen scholarship/ Psilocybe/ esoteric.
Brown = non-pop/ high entheogen scholarship/ Psilocybe/ esoteric*.
*Or at least, the upper end of “exoteric esotericism”, based on his aptitude/ mentality for mytheme decoding without falling into the usual non-cognitive pit of mapping physical plant to physical star, as if entheogens are all about things that are observed and experienced in the ordinary state.
The Psilocybin guys re: psilocybin mushrooms in Greek and Christian History, slice the field better, they (should) group (as I do, producing great success) Hellenistic with broadly Christian religion.
Brown, the Egodeath theory.
I justify placing Brown in this my category “the Psil msh camp”:
He shows aptitude for mytheme decoding in terms of exp’l cog pheny.
He replied to my email, explaining how the actual 20th C history of mushroom entheogen scholarship was *NOT* Amanita-centered, but was balanced.
Brown does note, corroborating my frust’d obsv’n, that scholars place Psil in the Americas, and place Aman in Europe (along w/ other 3rd-rate, objectively non-ideal, quasi-entheogens).
He doesn’t obsess on Plaincourault (the universal Amanita proxy), but casts a properly wide net to include Psil.
Relatively to the Amanita-obsessed pop crowd (re: msh in Christian history) and the pop detractors of it (Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, Hatsis), Brown and I have a balanced view covering Psil & Aman, against the overly Amanita-focused pop crowd. So, RELATIVELY, we are focused on Psil instead of Aman.
Amanita = Low Entheogen Theory; Psilocybe = High Entheogen Theory
Low Entheogen Theory covers Visionary Plants from an OSC-based Perspective; the referent of religious myth is things that are observed and experienced in the ordinary state. The physical plant is connected to the physical star. A Reductionist Elevationism. Everything he touches turns to Ordinary State. Typically associated with Amanita, due to its childlike colorful physical form.
High Entheogen Theory covers the Altered State from an ASC-based Perspective; the referent of religious myth is things that are observed and experienced in the altered state. Typically associated with Psilocybe, due to its visually relatively boring form.
A shallow entheogen theory is a theory which claims that the primary referent of mythemes is things that are observed and experienced in the ordinary state.
James Arthur (Mushrooms & Mankind) told me on the phone that he agrees with all my whole entire systemic set of assertions. Even if his book is Low Entheogen Theory, his views upon hearing the Egodeath theory were High Entheogen Theory.
The systemic set of positions, the Egodeath theory as of ~2001, is corroborated by Valentinus per Pagels by 1974 reviewed and analyzed for this systematicity, ED the Egodeath theory 2001 LINED RIGHT UP WITH VALENTINUS PER PAGELS FIRST 3 , 1970S BOOKS, around 2001, as a coherent set of positions.
Page number citations are available on all these points that line up, and many such citations are provided in my reviews around 2001.
Actually one with page numbers maybe was the very recent (2013) book review I wrote of Pagels’ other …. but … I should finish todo Write a Book Review of Pagel’s 3rd book, The Gnostic Gospels (her terms “Gnostics vs. Orthodox” = normal “Eso Exo”.
Write a Critical Book Review of Pagels’ Book The Gnostic Gospels A Review That’s Tuned for the Great Mystics of Egodeath
In Praise of Amanita – But Psilocybe Is the Reference, for Good Reason
the field of mushrooms in Greek and Christian History
I don’t care that Amanita is exaggerated; all the myths can be true, I don’t care much. Rah rah Amanita, but, you ain’t the Reference.
In an absolute sense, more study of Amanita in Western entheogen scholarship would be good. Not at the expense of Psilocybin though.
Psil is ideal and is a perfect fit: raw dried alone wine bread, ideal, the gold standard in targeted effectiveness.
with psilocybin as the reference, EVERYTHING ELSE IS LESS PSYCHEDELIC BY DEGREES.
Maybe Amanita is frikkin awesome, but Amanita is not the Reference standard, Psilo is the ideal Reference standard.
Amanita is a bit of a sideshow, not the Standard Ideal Reference, which is universal.
I resent the way everyone is trying so hard to spot psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms in the Americas, while associating lesser plants in Europe.
All the attention to Amanita is too much ignoring psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms. The world is in denial of psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms in western esoteric religion.
Psil is the 1st Choice Standard Universal Reference.
Psil is *the* entheogen. Psil is the universal standard ideal reference, ever-relevant.
Amanita whatever, Amanita is a sideshow, a curiosity, not the Reference.
People entheogen scholarship ought to see Amanita everywhere but keep it in perspective and pay more attention to psil🍄cybin mushr🍄🍄ms
3 Competing Positions in the Field: Amanita; No Mushrooms; Psilocybe
The more I reflect on the Letcher-Hatsis pop book writing formula, it seems that in effect, there are 3 competing positions.
Practically, Letcher-Hatsis implies there are two positions:
The Allegro-Amanita theory (an ill-advised theory-name, that’s part of the problem)
No mushrooms in Western religious history
Actually, there are, in effect, 3 positions:
Amanita
No mushrooms
Psilocybe
Amanita — Letcher-Hatsis centers the focus here
No mushrooms – Letcher-Hatsis asserts this position, along with McKenna
Psilocybe — I center the focus here
The maximal entheogen theory of religion, in Western/ Greek/ Hellenistic/ Christian/ Christendom religion, places psilocybin mushrooms as the Reference plant (many species).
The maximal entheogen theory of religion explicitly rejects Amanita as the central reference plant.
This emphasis on Psilocybe rather than Amanita as the Reference Entheogen, is consistent with my writings about the maximal entheogen theory of religion, which have always placed Psilocybe, not Amanita, as the central reference point.
Amanita is less of an entheogen than Psilocybin. Psilocybe is effective raw, dried, alone, in wine, or in bread.
Most Writers About Mushrooms in Greek & Christian History Chronically Commit the Fallacy of Placing Amanita, not Psilocybe, as the Center of the Field
Most Writers About Mushrooms in Greek & Christian History Chronically Commit the Fallacy of Placing Amanita, not Psilocybe, as the Center of the Field: Brinkmann, Ramsbottom, Rolfe, Panofsky, Brightman, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, Irvin, Letcher, Hatsis
Need Psilocybe Emoji Dammit! The Mis-centering of the Field on Amanita Is Everywhere! 😱 🍄
empty section
In Defense of the Single-Plant Fallacy, Strategically, in the Case of Psilocybin Mushrooms; KISS Theorizing by Assuming the Known-Ideal Entheogen
The #1 problem in the field right now, the field of Mushrooms in Greek & Christian History, is that the field is mis-centered on Amanita instead of Psilocybe.
At this time, strategically, hyperbole (that is, the strategic employment of the single-plant fallacy) is required, to vigorously break the thinking and force the corrective re-centering of the field; currently, the word ‘mushroom’ is severely conflated with ‘Amanita’.
We see the current pop field’s conflation of ‘mushroom’ with ‘Amanita’ (shutting out Psilocybe), to an extreme degree in the video by an amateur history blogger, which is titled like “proof there’s no mushrooms in Christian history”, but which bizarrely leaps to reaching for the over-specific word ‘Amanita’.
Actually many, multiple species of mushrooms contain psilocybin, so “single-plant” technically doesn’t apply; “single-plant” does apply well for amanita, pretty well for cannabis, well for opium, … not very well for scopalamine plants;
Is Hatsis “selling” (as his pet explanatory theory) the 4-5 scopalamine plants, or specifically Mandrake?
Go ahead, make me cry: accuse me of committing the “single-plant fallacy” – that plant being psilocybin mushrooms.
I’ll just take-away all the psilocybin mushrooms over into my explanatory-theory-ghetto, all by my lonesome, leaving YOU guys holding the Amanita, scopolamine, cannabis, & opium.
YOUR CHOICE! MAY YOU GET YOUR WISH.
A “Shut-Out-the-Bullsh*t” Theorizing-Strategy, Well-Suited for this Letcher-Hatsis era of Peak Bullsh*t – Settle for Only Having the Best, Completely Ideal, Candidate
You Guys Can Have the 3rd-rate, Undesirable, Unproven Candidate Plants.
Mandrake & Cannabis – good luck w that speculation of fx.
Amanita? PASS!
CANNABIS? HIGH SCHOOL.
OPIUM? YEAH, I AGREE, TOBACCO AND ASPIRIN *CAN BE* USED AS AN ENTHEOGEN … GO AHEAD SIGN ONBOARD W/ HANEGRAAFF’S GREAT IDEA (HIS MONSTROSITY SAME-OL SAME-OL THEFT-ATTEMPT, SAME-OL SUBSTITUTE-GRATIFICATION ATTEMPT; OF SUBSTITUTION FOR TRANSCENDENCE).
“entheogen” = the greed approach; driven by hazy outer boundary “psilocybin mushrooms” = the centerpoint approach; driven by the focused ideal case
Strategy: do not be driven by the outer boundary (entheogens); instead, target the bullseye center.
Check that I defined ‘mushrooms’ as primarily meaning psilocybin mushrooms, at the bottom of the Core Concepts page:
My Usage of the Word ‘Mushroom’ — “‘mushroom’ means psychoactive, probably non-Amanita, mushroom species, ingested deliberately for the purpose of inducing mystical religious altered state.”
Change “probably” to “primarily and mainly and centrally”; state Amanita = secondary, minor, not central.
No; fully rewrite the section, to put a VERY POWERFUL EMPHASIS ON psilocybin mushrooms, with CONDEMNATION OF Amanita. Done, below:
My Usage of the Word ‘Mushroom’
My use of the word ‘mushroom’ means psilocybin mushrooms, not Amanita.
This is a time of peak bullsh*t, centering around Amanita, with people using the weakest Amanita theories they can dredge-up and fixate on, to participate in the scholarly cover-up of mushrooms in Greek & Christian history.
The #1 problem right now in the field of mushrooms in Greek & Christian history, is the mis-centering of the field around Amanita instead of Psilocybe.
My use of the word ‘mushroom’ mean primarily, mainly, normally, and centrally psilocybin mushrooms, not Amanita.
Amanita in art and texts mainly represents the use of Psilocybe, not Amanita.
‘Mushrooms’ means psychoactive mushrooms ingested deliberately to induce the mystical religious altered state. Read “psychoactive mushrooms” there as Psilocybin mushrooms, as opposed to Amanita.
Given that the current #1 problem in the field is mis-centering the field on Amanita, I cannot use the unqualified word ‘mushroom’ in many places I normally would.
I am forced to counter-conflate the word ‘mushroom’ to be a synonym of ‘psilocybin mushrooms’ and shut-out Amanita.
I will rarely write just ‘mushroom’, and I am forced to use every opportunity to narrowly specify “psilocybin mushrooms”.
That is required, to force the re-centering of the field of mushrooms in Greek & Christian history from Amanita to psilocybin mushrooms, where the focus belongs.
/ end of rewritten definition of how I use the word ‘mushroom’
An End-Run Around Stupid Unproductive Debate in Terms of Amanita
If I’m willing to push that definition connotations, can use simple ‘mushrooms’ not a word hard to pronounce what’s the harm if public thinks Amanita pictures in head? Clarify later?
The flexibility of the bucket “entheogens” allows you to cram into it even Amanita. Amanita’s a lower-grade psychedelic.
Psilocybe is locking focus onto the ideal case. Vaguer word “mushroom” allows-in too much bullsh*t.
Jettison all that by exclusively theorizing assuming Psilocybin mushrooms. Agree — THERE IS MAXIMUM BULLSH*T RIGHT NOW SURROUDNGIN FKKING AMANITA.
CUT OFF ALL THAT BS BY CLAIM STAKING THE CLAIM: IDGAF ABOUT WHO GETS TO HAVE AMANITA.
I FOREGO AMANITA, IN ORDER TO LOCK CLAIM , OWN THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS.
QUIBBLE ALL YOU WANT, ALL YOU GUYS, OVER “WAS TOO AMANITA” “WAS NOT AMANITA” “WAS TOO!” “WAS NOT! THERE WERE NO MUSHROMS IN Christian HISTORY”.
F ALL THAT. F THE LOT OF YOU.
I DK WHAT THE F YOU’RE ON ABOUT FISTICUFFS OVER AMANITA, IDGAF.
ALLS I KNOW IS: I GOT THE PSIL MUSHROOMS, AS EXPLANATORY TOOL. EDIBLE RAW OR DRIED, ALONE OR IN WINE OR IN BREAD.
THE MOST WELL-KNOWN FACT IN THE WORLD, IS THAT PSIL MSH PRODUCE THE CLASSIC EXPEIRENCES.
AMANITA IS SURROUNDED BY QUESTION MARKS.
THERE ARE NO QUESTION MARKS AROUND PSILSOCYBIN MUSSHROOMS. MANDR SCOPOLAMINE = ????
CANNABIS = ?????? OPIUM = ??????????????? LONG SHOT!!
WHAT ARE THE UNCERTAINTIES AROUND THE WHETHER PSIL MSH INDUCE THE CLASSIC ENTHEOGENS EXP’C? *NONE*.
I LOCK CLAIM TO THAT PLANT SPECIES-SET WHICH HAS *NO* QUESITONS, *NO* UNCERTAINTIES, *ZERO SPECULATION* REQUIRED, WITH PSIL MSH.
THIS IS NOT EXACTLY A “SINGLE PLANT” FALLACY; MANY SPECIES OF MSH HAVE PSILCYBIN.
“ACKSHUALLY, PSILOCIN” <– NOPE, THAT ARG IS CRAP; I AM WILLING TO ABANDON AMATIA, OPIUM, CANN, PSILOCIN, & SCOPALOAMINE, AND ERGOT – and along with abandoning Amanita, psilocin, scopolamine, and ergot, abandon all the weakness and debate and uncertainty and unreliablility of all those explanations. My chosen strategy of arg’n is *narrow*, almost brushing with the single-plant fallacy, in order to gain 100% focus and gain 100% certainty that MY single-plant fallacy, that I wed, is “the perfect single-plant fallacy”.
Hoffman = the psilocybin mushrooms single-plant fallacy – call me a loser, i cry all the way to the [explanatory-theory-success] bank. Can you believe that idiot Hoffman, he commits the single-plant fallacy, w/ his mono-focus on psilocybin mushrooms. 😭 What a terrible idea, becuase it’s not even certain their effects… oh wait. well WE HAVE TO GRANT HIM THAT; at least the Hoffman single-plant fallacy is the 100% *perfect* definer of the proven classic effects and 100% ergonomic (fresh or dried; alone or wine or bread).
LIST OF PLANTS THAT CAUSE THE CLASSIC PSYCHEDELIC LOOSECOG: Ranking scheme: 10 = known to reliably induce classic loose cognition effects; 1 = unclear whether can ever produce classic loose cognition effects.
If we assume that all Mystery-Religion initiation & mixed-wine banqueting = Amanita, that proposal has inherently weak uncertainty built-in.
An explanation that is EXCLUSIVELY couched as “psilocybin mushrooms” has 100% explanatory power.
10 psilocybin mushrooms <– I own this explanation.
9 psilocin mushrooms
7 amanita
7 scopalamine
6 cannabis
2 opium
Do psilocybin mushrooms reliably produce mythic effects? Yes, paradigmatically; certainly.
Do psilocin mushrooms reliably produce mythic effects? Debatable, less than certain of a characterization.
Does amanita reliably produce mythic effects? Debatable, less than certain of a characterization.
Does scopolamine reliably produce mythic effects? Debatable, less than certain of a characterization.
Does cannabis reliably produce mythic effects? Debatable, less than certain of a characterization.
Does opium reliably produce mythic effects? Highly debatable, less than certain of a characterization.
The word ‘psilocybin mushrooms’ is crystal clear and specific and covers the primary, core case, and doesn’t permit avoidance of the core, normal, best case.
Mystery-Religion initiation including mixed-wine banqueting is the engine running throughout, venue of myth-telling
Psilocybe in mixed-wine banqueting & mystery-religion initiation <– feels bkwds, like a sound in reverse, odd, unnatural.
Remember What the Amateur History Blogger Said: “There Are No Mushrooms in Christian History”
Parasol of Victory or Italian Pine? Experts feud over which.
HELP THEM DECIDE: IS THE RIGHT-HAND ONE A PARASOL OF VICTORY, OR AN ITALIAN PINE? WHICH IS IT?
BE SURE TO PICK THE CORRECT IDENTIFICATION: EITHER PARASOL OF VICTORY, OR ITALIAN PINE. Which is it? Which one of these is the correct identification?
SELECT THE CORRECT ANSWER:
A. ITALIAN PINE (TEAM PANOFSKY)
B. PARASOL OF VICTORY (TEAM HATSIS)
Be sure to pick the correct universal identification for all mushroom shapes that haunt us professional art studiers who are promoting literalist ordinary-state possibilism; against analogical psychedelic eternalism.
C. WE JUST CAN’T KNOW – PROBABLY ALIEN CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, THEY TRIPPED BECAUSE SOCIAL DINING BLEW THEIR MINDS WITH ITS RITUAL (i couldn’t make this sht up, i don’t write fiction, a book made this argument. i heard cyb mention author) who tries to write about xn the altered state (loose cognitive binding) in Christianity without touching …. while adhering to the ABD theory. anything but drgs, is to be considered “acceptable” as a solution, even tho its sht. Full of holes. Obvious hot air and rubbish, a smoke screen, like saying
a placebo can simulate the effects of psilocybin
up can be down
an entheogen could be a non-drug entheogen
What’s in the Banquet Bowls? We Have No Way to Know, and There Are No Candidate Suggestions Offered in the Image
Also, on an unrelated note, any candidates for what’s in their bowl before angel pulls them to God? I got nothin’.
Maybe, mandrake? cannabis? bread? I’m drawing a blank.
🤔
I got nothin’ to go by. We just can’t know what could be in their bowl.
Best guess: either parasols of victory, or italian pines, fills their bowl. Which is to say, possibly mandrake or cannabis, but those are purely a guess (and those plants aren’t ideal for inducing the experience of self-threatening or mental instailbity leading to sword-of-god type disaster.
Mandrake & cannabis are not evidenced whatsoever (they aren’t depicted, and they don’t reliably cause self-threatening and self-cancellation and losing balance and falling onto God’s sword).
There’s no mandrake or cannabis in the entire image.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE IN THEIR BOWLS?
THATS A HARD ONE, CAN’T THINK OF ANY GOOD CANDIDATE EDIBLE THINGS TO FILL THEIR BOWLS, IN THIS RELIGIOUS IMAGE.
THE AMATEUR, HATSIS, SAYS THEIR BOWLS ARE FILLED WITH PARASOLS OF VICTORY. THE EXPERT, PANOFSKY, SAYS THEIR BOWLS ARE FILLED WITH ITALIAN PINES. WHICH EXPERT IS CORRECT: HATSIS, OR PANOFSKY???
The terrible idea that there’s such a thing as “the Allegro theory”; the terrible field-definition of entheogen scholarship conceptualized as centered exactly on Allegro-Amanita.
How to badly mis-define a field: the mushroom aspect of entheogen scholarship, let’s define that with Allegro-Amamita, or “Amanita per Allegro”, at the exact center.
All topics within entheogen scholarship (specifically, mushroom scholarship), shall be defined in relation to “Amanita per Allegro”.
That is the exact WORST way to define and scope and center the field.
PRINCIPLE: “SCOPING” A FIELD IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN RIGHTLY *CENTERING* A FIELD.
Rightly picking the center of a field (making the single-plant “fallacy” as a strategic move), is more important than circumscribing the scope-boundary edge of a field.
We could do a great job of “entheogen scholarship”, if we greedily throw the net as wide as possible “how to use aspirin as an entheogen”, AS LONG AS we get the center spot-on correct. The center being, psilocybin mushrooms.
I wouldn’t be terribly bothered by such poppycock as “aspirin as entheogen” or Hannegraaffesque lying-through-bafflegab such as “non-drug entheogens”, as long as we commit to defining the dead center of the vaguely named “entheogen scholarship” field as specifically the no-bullsh*t-permitted, “psilocybin mushrooms”. Not centering the field on “Amanita per Allegro“!
The False Dichotomy of Two Options (Amanita-Cult Christianity, vs. No Mushrooms), and the Correct, Third Option (Psilocybe Greek & Christian)
Option 1) The Orthodox theory (reductionist scientism + literalist religionism)
Option 2) “Amanita per Allegro“
Option 3) the 3rd alternative: the Egodeath theory: subtopic/field/position: psilocybin mushrooms in greek & christian religious history. The field of Western “entheogen” scholarship, as specifically centered on psilocybin mushrooms.
the “loose-cognitive pre-existence” theory of no-free-will
the “atemporal block-universe determinism” theory of no-free-will
the “psychedelic eternalism” theory of no-free-will
the “analogical psychedelic eternalism” theory of no-free-will
The No-Free-Will Theory of Puppethood Revealed by Psychedelics
Background and Justification of Emphasis
In figuring out and making sense of the book The Way of Zen by Alan Watts, in late 1987, I found that the important key missing concept was no-free-will, or “determinism” of the block-universe eternalism type; block-time.
Transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism centers largely on no-free-will – together with (per my January 11, 1988 confluence), the block universe (“the crystalline ground of being”), and loose cognition (loose cognitive association binding).
transformation of the mental worldmodel from eternalism-thinking to transcendent thinking (from possibilism to eternalism).
no-free-will; atemporal determinism.
block-universe eternalism; block-time; the block universe; the crystalline ground of being.
loose cognition; loose cognitive association binding.
Sections in the 1997 Announcement Covering this No-Free-Will Theory
Sections in the 1997 Announcement Covering this Non-Control Theory
Article title: Self-Control Cybernetics, Dissociative Cognition, & Mystic Ego Death: The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence 1997 core theory spec Subsections about non-control:
I coined the term and concept “loose cognitive association binding” probably mid-April 1987 (I could find the date).
By the time I started the Egodeath Yahoo Group in June 10, 2001, I had been writing and announcing loosecog for 2001-1987 = 14 years.
Are there the Egodeath Yahoo Group postsings that are like announcement of my theory of loose cog? My 1997 and 2006 articles served that purpose.
What did I post about the theory of loosecog, 2001-2020 in that group? Some of the Egodeath.com website content is the Egodeath Yahoo Group postings, all of them from June 10, 2001-Feb 14, 2004.
Pages at the EgodeathTheory Site Covering this Loose Cognition Theory
The “analogical psychedelic eternalism” theory of religious founder figures & ahistoricity
Announcement: The Theory of Ahistoricity of Religious Founders, as Analogies for Psychedelic Experience of Non-Control and Pre-Existence of Control Thoughts
Sections in the 1997 Announcement Covering this Theory of Ahistoricity
Not applicable; Ahistoricity is part of the periphery theory, not part of the core theory – the Cybernetic theory – which is that article.
Sections in the 2006 Main Article Covering this Theory of Ahistoricity
The Egodeath theory 