it is extremely useful for me to speak on behalf of us the monks roller derby team “our interpretation, us , our , we” have a message for you for your team for your interpretation for
you, coral rock , the Carl rock gang, the doctor secret roller derby team and
we speak to that interpretation and so
I got the impression that Dr. Brown asked how do we interpret how do we assess one isolated interpretation in the isolated field of the sub topic the isolated sub topic of interpreting Mushroom shapes in
The isolated art subject of Christian art an extremely narrow question
it would seem or at least ,
it has a very specific central focus, a centerpoint of focus
but then look at the broad outline scope widely around that center focus point
we are not talking about an isolated single interpretation of a single body of art in a single isolated field
The actual situation is 4 different interpretations across multiple fields and that we are out
we are weighing and assessing how compelling each of the four huge sets of interpretations are
what we have from Tom Hatsis
what we have from Carl Ruck
what we have from Erwin Panofsky
is not merely an isolated interpretation of a single fresco in the isolated art genre of Christian art in the isolated field of intelligence Scholarship entheogens Scholarship but
we do have that at the center it’s true
therefore a interesting Takeaway point:
when we talk about interpreting Mushroom imagery in Christian art, that is the center of the interpretation focus
that’s true but also extremely relevant:
we are also comparing four different interpretations that each span for fields not three but for fields 1234 one field to field three field for field come on piece of shit voice dictation four not three but four retarded
ha ha when I called the voice dictation retarded, it finally spelled FOUR instead of FOR.
it’s true that we are comparing for interpretations of a single fresco but also we are comparing for interpretations of all art and all mythology and all theology of how are we saved
by what means are we saved?
the salvation Salesmen say we are saved by giving them money on an installment plan; Mr. Historical Jesus and wine placebo sacrament ersatz pseudo-Eucharist.
that’s their theology
so when we interpret this fresco, we are also interpreting / proposing a compelling or not compelling theory of theology and also a theory of art, and also a theory of visual communication capability of images: Hatsis’ online article iirc argues (Letcher? i think hatsis, But they’re the same guy anyway, so what does it matter):
can a piece of Christian art 1) depict an identifiable Mushroom , and 2) depict ingesting that mushroom, and 3) depict ingesting that mushroom for the purpose of religious experiencing
so each of the four roller derby teams puts forth in their essay turned in their assignment assigned by Dr. Brown
they have to specify not only their interpretation of the one plain carrot fresco Plaincourault Fresco
their assignment is also to specify their interpretation of theology, and their interpretation of mythology, and their interpretation of the 75 mushroom trees of the Canterbury Psalter
Hatsis refuses to do his homework assignment; he refuses to answer the question and interpret,
Dr. Brown grabs him by the scruff of the neck and forces him to look at the data
witch hatsis says “but I don’t wanna look at the data; I want to talk about my great historian methodology instead of looking at the data and discussing the data, because the data is anachronistic, because I say so”
And then the Dr. Secret team, we’re having a big problem trying to assess whether their interpretation is compelling, because they refuse to tell us their interpretation; they say “it’s a secret”.
it is highly helpful for me to speak in terms of what we the monks put forth as our interpretation and then
I’m talking directly to you Dr. Carl Ruck
I’m talking directly to you Thomas Hatsis
I’m talking directly to you Erwin Panofsky and the popes banker historian for the pope Irwin Panofsky, the great historian of art working for the pope – no conflict of interest there
one most interesting point I made it in last nights recording Egodeath Mystery show:
the Salvation Salesmen actually secretly agree with the monks Interpretation
they pretend to not agree but they actually they know that we speak the truth
but their business plan involves three Interlocked lies in three fields
are these compelling “interpretations” across the 3 fields?
are their lies compelling?
what are our criteria of proof to prove that they are lying across three fields?
they know that the Monks Interpretation in / across these three fields is correct.
when we talk about interpreting the fresco, we are actually talking about interpreting all mushroom Imagery in christian art, which interlocks with our interpretation of all mythology.
what is the nature of mythology, according to Dr. secret and according to Tom Hatsis?
so I speak directly to Thomas Hatsis which is very helpful which is very helpful and
I speak directly to Carl rock that I say :
here’s what our interpretation is , and here is what your teams interpretation is
and as the spokesman for the roller derby team called the Monks, I am throwdown taunting in Tom Hatsis’ characteristic fashion which he is infamous for.
I will crush you! 💪🛼!! I have exemplary sound, tried and true historical criteria, which I wrote somewhere(?) in my amateur online blog posts, but you are simply unaware of my professional-level arguments, because I have E.S.P. and I know what you have and have not read.
Psychedelic Witc– Psychedelic Historian
I am taunting the other roller derby team saying you are lying you’re lying to the professor of what your interpretation is
you are putting forth an interpretation that you do not believe in and
you know it’s a lie a criminal cover up operation
you know that you agree with the Monks a Interpretation
you agree with our interpretation but you’re pretending not to because that’s your business plan
your business plan requires that you lie about the historical Jesus, that you lie about the nature of all mythology
and you put forth Interpretations in these multiple Interlocked fields that you know are all false and
you don’t believe your own interpretations that you put forth for evaluation because you’re trying to block evaluation
you want Dr. Brown’s project to fail
you are againroller derby team
your team Dr. rock
your team Thomas Hatsis
your team Erwin Panofsky and Salvation Salesmen saying you are lying; you’re lying to the professor of what your interpretation is
you are putting forth an interpretation that you do not believe in and you know it’s a lie a criminal cover up operation
you know that you agree with the Monks a Interpretation you agree with our interpretation , but you’re pretending not to , because that’s your business plan
your business plan requires that you lie about the historical Jesus you lie about the nature of all mythology and you put forth Interpretations in these multiple Interlocked fields that you know are all false and
you don’t believe your own interpretations that you put forth for evaluation because you’re trying to block evaluation
you want Dr. Brown’s project to fail
you are against Clear rational ability to assess the four competing interpret interpretations across the four different fields
it is very helpful for me to speak in terms of “our” theory versus “your ” team’s theory
and I am the spokesman for the team the Monks
I speak personally against coral rock and persuade him
he is the team leader roller derby team leader of his teams interpretation system across for fields
and I speak to him personally and directly dear Carl rock we the monks have a message for your team
dear Tom Hatsis we have a message this is a Cybermonk and my team we us our we us our team has a message for you guys
erwin Pulaski I am telling you that your team is lying, across multiple fields telling lies about what your system of interpretations is
what is your answer to me as the team leader of team monks: what is your answer Panofsky
you are the team leader of your teams system of lying Interpretations or pseudo interpretations
what say you tell me the answer Panofsky I speak to you personally directly as one roller derby team leader to another
Team Matchup: The Idiots vs. The Liars vs. The Blind vs. The Speakers of Truth
I discussed last night in recording Egodeath Mystery Show episode 103a 1:15:00
The Salvation Salesmen = Liars
the Salvation Salssemen are liars: they agree w the Monks interp; msh = msh;
they’re lying to Dr. Brown: they don’t believe the interpretation that they are putting forth to try to deceive people in their racket, their business plan, direct conflict of interest.
The Witches = Idiots
in contrast, the technical term for the position held by the Tom Hatsis team called the Witches: they are classified as idiots, rather than liars.
this is the speculative interpretation of meta-interpretation of the other teams’ stated positions.
our team, the Monks, as a meta- layer of our interpretation, we provide compelling evidence for the technical classification that the Salvation Salesmen are liars, but the Witches team are idiots,
because the Witches actually believe their terrible bunk Interpretation which they have submitted for competitive evaluation to see which interpretation is the most compelling and constitutes the greatest proof,
for correct interpretation of mushroom imagery in Christian art, in conjunction with some 4 other interlocked fields and their teams interpretations thereof / therein.
Dr. Secret = Blind
Dr. Secret team Ruck gang is blind,
they dont agree/ their interpretation does not match the Monks’ submitted interpretation, even though it should match the Monks interpretation, since Ruck professes Mythology.
But my model of mythology is incomparably superior to his.
I have managed to translate mytheme language to English or regular language, direct language to explain the details of how myth themes describe the advanced experiencing of the intense mystic altered state from multiple rounds of mixed wine psilocybin wine in the ancient banqueting tradition.
the secret blind entheogen Scholarship
the field of secret entheogen scholarship which makes sure to have absolutely no impact or effect on the world.
they make sure that nobody reads their books, their secret books.
they do secret scholarship, which nobody knows about.
they make sure to keep it that way, by remaining irrelevant and covering stupid amanita, and then pushing to death the idiotic Secrecy Premise.
they publish pictures and tell how they depict Amanita – and then they fail to perceive in those same pictures and they leave it for me to point out obviously.
The tree on the right is mandrake tree with cut branches, indicating communicating nonbranching enlightenment.
Carl Ruck obsesses on red and white specs of paint in Mithras cape
he fails to see the obvious Cubensis, I believe
I believe that he did not mention it.
I believe that Entheos magazine did not mention or say anything about the tree on the right, which is the mandrake tree, which they left it to me to identify and announce it around 2005.
as far as I know.
if Ruck had mentioned the obvious psilocybe in Mithras’ leg in the tauroctony mithraeum, I certainly would’ve noticed.
I have every reason to believe that Ruck was blind to the obvious Cubensis and the obvious Mandrake tree.
so, it’s the Blind Secret Entheogens Theory, is their Interpretation that’s put forth by the team called Dr. Secret.
The Solid Merit of the 2002 Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion’s 3-fold Classification
I’ve been going back-and-forth on this learning some new things like in 2021 I had to I was forced to go back to read my original definitions at Egodeath.com
how did I define especially the middle level the Moderate Theory
how did i think about that
how did I define it
As I discussed in voice recordings February 2021 and as I wrote in my announcement posting of 2003
at the present website EgodeathTheory.wordpress.com, see the announcement webpage about the maximal entheogen theory, for resource links to the announcement postings of 2003 2002.
Here is the best answer:
The entire way that you differentiate between maximal/ moderate versus / minimal entirely consist only of this one specific point of dispute!
answer this one specific question:
in the middle ages or in the middle period Of a given religion, before the modern era but well after the primitive origin period, did practitioners of the given religion still remember the visionary plants?
Max
if you answer “definitely yes very much they vividly fully had the memory or they had the full present maximum understanding in the middle ages that their religion is about analogies that describe the experiencing from the visionary plants”, if you answer “yes definitely”, then you hold my maximal entheogen theory.
Mod
if you say like Carl rock , the coral rock paradigm , the Carl rock gang that “in the middle ages in the middle historical period of a given religion in the middle ages Christianity people did not vividly remember the visionary plant origins of their religion, but they half mostly predominantly forgot, it was half forgotten then, and there was partial remembering and partial forgetting , and it was secret and hidden and underground, it was slightly present,
some Christians- a significant but very small number of Christians in the middle ages remembered and understood and recognized analogy – The fact that religious mythology is analogies that describe the experiencing of the visionary plants altered state” ,
if generally we can say that a small minority – Carl Rock holds that a small minority of Christians during the specifically during the middle ages – because that’s the era that which is in dispute, which defines the differences of the three positions: Maximal Moderate versus Minimal.
Min
If you answer in the simple negative, and you say “no, we can safely make a general statement that Christians did not perceive Christianity specifically during the middle ages as analogy describing vision plant exper’c,
if u hold that as a rule Christians in Mid Ages did not perceive visionary plants, and they did not recognize or think of religious mythology as analogies that serve to describe the experiences of the altered state resulting from visionary plants, then you are a minimalist.
that is what specifically and precisely, that is exactly what defines the minimal entheogen theory Interpretation.
Buy the above measure from 2003 I really presently at the moment I do not see a way to add a fourth level to that because no matter how much far better I am in 2022 I am far far better at fluent speaking the language of methane is Mythemes; In particular I know I am able to read and recognize Mushroom Trees Branching Message Mushroom Trees to perceive the evidence for widespread Psilocybin b
ut this is not in anyway contradicting the extreme maximum things that I wrote in 2003. The only fault or weakness of what I asserted in 2003 was that I didn’t provide detail and that I could not have provided detail about snake rock Branching my 2021 K mythemes webpage catalog and it’s very clear the 2003 announcement was strangely limited to Allegro type Timothy freak and Peter Gandy type the Jesus mysteries but it was not restrict
restricted to that I am I made an abstract and vague but firm and articulate statement without details but it was a very clear-cut statement that the visionary plants religious mythology is description of the visionary plants and there is that’s not the kind of statement that you can surpass by adding 20 years of theory development
The only way that I could improve, if I rewrite an update that posting announcement today in 2022 I will not be putting better ideas forward I will only be putting more detail that’s the only difference the only thing wrong with the 2003 announcement of the maximal Entheogens theory is it lacks specific details about the language of what exactly the specific analogies are in religious Mythology
i’m not really seeing any elbow room to add a fourth layer on top of the 2003 classification scheme
I was neroli and specifically asserting a position about the middle ages
and I made equivalent points about other religions
but it comes down to
I could insert more levels in the middle
but I don’t see room to insert a higher level above my 2003 maximal position
I made general statements specifically about the nature of religious mythology and
I did not accompany that by great detail except I provided massive detail regarding ahistoricity
but even on that topic, I did not give any detail like Max instructed Kafei Max Freakout instructed the podcast guest Kafei Arguing that the story of the crucifixion is the analogies describing our experience and therefore that doesn’t leave room for a Mr. historical Jesus
I did not go into that type of discussion in 2003 announcement
I am sure it is possible to further develop my 2003 threefold classification scheme or insert another level in the middle but what I do not see in contradiction to my claim the other day I do not see any room to put a fundamentally different level above that level of that scheme of 2003 given the way that scheme was defined
I do see the room above the 2003 theory the general Theory but now that I understand exactly what my 2003 maximal classification was and exactly specifically how I defined it defined it I don’t see a fundamental fundamentally do not see any possibility for defining a higher level within that scheme as it is defined and given how that scheme was defined in 2003 I agree that it was a very smart to do
three levels to specify three levels because it is very difficult to quantify Carl rocks position where he says people did and did not know about the visionary plants in the middle ages Christianity his position is so wishy-washy that I have to just put him somewhere in the middle and I am not foolish enough to go for to aim for a false precision if we want to enter into a specific debate that I defined in my 2003 posting
I don’t see an opportunity for any more precision then of what you state that your position is then I think that the Christians knew about visionary plants plain and simple then the minimalist guy says I think that Christians did not know about visionary plants and then Dr. Secret Carl Ruck says I think that Christians in the middle ages kind of understood but kind of didn’t understand
now given that that was the whole driving definition and concept of how exactly and specifically I defined the three positions Maximal Moderate and Minimal it is a very simple division on a very narrow specific point especially if we restrict ourselves to the Christian Christianity in the middle ages we can only aim for more precision but there is no way to improve my 2003 class of us classification scheme given that it’s a debate about the forgot plot
there’s just no way to have a superior model of this sort where we have all three camps agree at the start of religion everybody knew about visionary plants all three camps agree that at the end of Christianity now nobody knows about visionary plants and the only thing that we disagree on is specifically the percentage of you
Usage and understanding of visionary plants specifically in Christianity specifically in the middle ages and what I wrote in 2003 was 100% and I defined the minimalist view as 0% they said nobody understood or used visionary plants in Christianity in the middle ages and
that really does
those 2 extremes only leave a single position, in the middle: the wishy-washy Carl Ruck self-contradictory position, = Moderate; Essentially maybe you could say it’s a linear forgot plot that at the midpoint of history, we had halfway decreased in knowledge/use of visionary plants.
So it is true that I could design a better maximal entheogen theory it’s more detail than that includes four levels here in 2022 then I could in 2003
it is true that I am much better positioned to perceive the evidence to prove my 2003 assertion
but it is not possible to correct the simple essential extremely basic classification scheme that I defined in 2003 in which I said I believe that in general Christians in the middle ages used intelligence they were all over the place and everybody understood them now in 2021 I gathered proof of that the only improvement I made was that I found proof which proved that the 2003 assertion was correct
all of my latest discoveries don’t show the weakness of my 2003 assertion and my classification scheme rather they prove that I was right in everything that I said so far as I said
I do think it’s odd that I made a blanket statement which was very true extremely true statement that religious mythology describes the visionary plant experiences you can never outdo that statement except to add precision such as reducing Psilocybin re-dosing and you can add a lot of wisdom to prove and to perceive the evidence to support that 2003 assertion it does look all that in 2003 I almost seem to conflate
Jesus a historicity with the whole topic of religious Mythology it is odd that I didn’t mention those things that I hadn’t figured out yet like snake rock Decoding mythemes
but I made abstract general principle statements in 2003 that are impossible to outdo
So I was very successful in 2003 of shutting out the evil future me (2022 me), and not letting/allowing any room for a evil future me to slip in and out-radical the 2003 me. after all it’s not like I said in 2003 most religious experiencing is description of visionary plants affects and when I did say anything like that I explained that the reason I do that is to put on a show of reasonableness for example I believe Joseph Smith existed as an identifiable historical founder figure
so the evil past me has not really Allowed me a win here but has merely allowed me to contribute in such a way that everything I contribute will merely prove correct the 2003 me
just piling on more detail and more proof that everything I said then was true and correct
including my proposal of a classification scheme of 100% extreme at the top, 0% presence of visionary plants at the bottom, and then Carl rocks slip and slide somewhere in the middle and definitely not taking my hundred percent maximal Position.
So is the bottom line is that :
yes I am free to add a second, additional system;
I can do an enhanced, some kind of an enhanced Maximal theory, but in no way can I “replace” my 2003 Maximal enth theory of religion.
it’s not replaceable
it can be enhanced, but it is not possible to replace it because
everything that I discovered is Just proof of how very right I was about the nature of religion and
I held to my firm conviction that even if we seem to appear to not have evidence, I said too bad for the “evidence “
I am confident that the mushroom use/ entheogen use was there
maybe possibly we don’t have concrete evidence, but I am sure that the usage was there.
And I am firmly committing to it ; damn the “evidence”; full speed ahead! – 2003 me
I psyched it out, I took a confidence-based approach; I did not take a stupid “evidence-based ” approach , which is always a phony and fake, where you’re not given the real evidence in your given pre-interpreted ruined evidence, that’s ersatz evidence that’s masking the real evidence
and one take on that is :
if we don’t see the evidence, there’s something wrong with our eyes
I know that the evidence is there
and I am committed to acting on the assumption that the evidence is there, but we just can’t see it
and this kind of fervent commitment – which is not demonstrated by the Carl rock camp – is what enabled me but not other people to learn to perceive the evidence which indeed was there:
75 mushroom trees in the Canterbury Psalter for example
and Erwin Panofsky’s hundreds of mushroom trees; “there a standard type, they’re everywhere” they’re ubiquitous
“my God, it’s full of mushrooms!” –
Christianity in the middle ages, in the middle, in the center, in the heart of Christianity.
the 2003 theory is very well (smartly) defined; it is defined in a very strong, sound way
It can be added to ; we can add a different, additional version, but we can’t replace 2003 Max entheogen theory
tearing that down is nonsensical
the proposal of tearing down my 2003 model is nonsensical
The Egodeath theory 