Uncategorized – Page 64 – The Egodeath theory

Book review: The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy (Hatsis)

Contents:

quick links, might only work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

Book review: The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy (Hatsis)
Update: Found Table of Contents of Hatsis’ Forthcoming Book
Book Link
My Book Review (December 16, 2020)
Cyberdisciple’s Critique Showing Allegro’s Book Is Irrelevant to Entheogen Scholarship
Andy Letcher’s Book, Shroom
My Review of Hatsis’ Recent 2022 Book, Continued
Hatsis Cancelled His Book “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy”
See Also

Update: Found Table of Contents of Hatsis’ Forthcoming Book

“My attack article at Graham Hancock’s site went so well, I decided to just use the same outline for my book. – Thomas Hatsis”

Chapter 1: My Exemplary Historiographical Methodology
Chapter 2: Plaincourault
Chapter 3: Plaincourault
Chapter 4: Plaincourault
Chapter 5: Plaincourault
Chapter 6: Plaincourault
Chapter 7: Plaincourault
Chapter 8: Plaincourault
Chapter 9: Plaincourault
Chapter 10: Plaincourault
Chapter 11: Plaincourault
Chapter 11: Reading Allegro Again: Why Allegro’s Book Is One of My Top-10 Favorites
Chapter 12: Conclusion: My Exemplary Historiographical Methodology

Book Link

The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy
Thomas Hatsis, 2022
http://amzn.com/B08KQMY3J9
Park Street Press

Evidence that Hatsis had that book ID & title:

Search “Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” Hatsis book
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sacred+Mushroom+Conspiracy%22+Hatsis+book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LVmXZXdU5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7yiTwLr6o –

“Hatsis is the author of “The Witches Ointment,” “Psychedelic Mystery … 2021) and “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” (spring, 2022).“

“Microdosing Magic,” and the forthcoming books “LSD The Wonderchild” (summer, 2021) and “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” (spring, 2022).

Search Hatsis’ publisher for “Hatsis”: https://www.innertraditions.com/search/hatsis

My Book Review (December 16, 2020)

Right out the gate, it is immediately evident from the title alone, and from this author’s past work, following in the vein of Andy Letcher, that this book — in the name of debunking Allegro — just reifies and further entrenches the misguided idea that John Allegro is of central, definitive relevance to the field of Western mushroom scholarship; that is, the mushroom theory of Greek & Christian religion & art.

The audience for this book is not professional-level scholars in the field of mushrooms in Greek & Christian religion, but rather, is purely a popular audience.

This book does not engage with the actual field of leading-edge scholarship, but limits itself to a negative, debunking an ill-founded popular idea that somehow John Allegro created the idea of “mushrooms throughout Christian history”. Allegro neither held that idea, nor asserted that idea, of “mushrooms throughout Christian history”.

Who was the first person to assert mushrooms at the start of Christianity?

Who was the first person to assert mushrooms prominently throughout Christianity?

[Critique of McKenna’s curiosity-killing presupposition “the Big Bad Catholic Church totally stomped out entheogens”, Hatsis largely agrees with me here]

The popular misconception, which this book exclusively focuses on debunking, is that Sacred Mushroom & The Cross is an entheogen scholarship book (it’s not), that Allegro is an entheogen scholar (he’s isn’t), and that Allegro knows about entheogens (he doesn’t).

Allegro is self-contradictory about whether mushrooms were forgotten at the start of Christianity after the first generation of primitive Christians. [link to my “allegro partly self-contradictory” article]

Cyberdisciple’s Critique Showing Allegro’s Book Is Irrelevant to Entheogen Scholarship

Influence of early anthropological theorizing on ‘entheogen’ scholarship: John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom
Cyberdisciple, December 14, 2020
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/influence-of-early-anthropological-theorizing-on-entheogen-scholarship-john-allegro-the-sacred-mushroom/

Hatsis expended his research skills and time on the easy target, the less-important target — merely debunking the flimsy, ill-conceived pop misunderstanding of Allegro — the unread masses’ wishful projection onto Allegro — when he ought to at least acknowledge the need for someone to do the HARD WORK of actual positive, leading-edge research on processing the various types of evidence for mushrooms in Greek & Christian art.

The negative scholarship around Allegro is necessary (it could be a small % of a good book) but is not sufficient.

Hatsis has a long way to go, though, starting as he is, from no awareness of Greek mythemes. A good start would be reading Ruck’s books and the issues of Entheos journal. And the main article at Egodeath.com. And the Proof article, and the Criteria article at present site.

Debunking the popular view of Allegro is needed, is mandatory, is important. But it is not the whole of what’s needed.

A correct replacement theory is even more important.

Hatsis’ recent 2022 book wrongly acts as if the only thing needed in the field of Western mushroom scholarship, is to debunk pop misconceptions involving Allegro, and then the whole topic of Western mushroom scholarship supposedly would vanish.

The Great Conflation built into his mind is, mistakenly thinking that the entire broad field of Western mushroom scholarship has the same scope and focus as the particular narrow theory of spread of secret Amanita cult.

I add the words “spread of”, because Letcher seemed to particularly take issue with the alleged mechanism of spreading of the secretAmanita cult. I read Letcher’s book one time, when it came out — and I critiqued it (links below).

Andy Letcher’s Book, Shroom

Competing Views about Entheogens in Religious History
April 12, 2007, Michael Hoffman
Subsection:
Minimal Entheogen Theory per Psychedelics Advocates
http://www.egodeath.com/ViewsOnEntheogensInReligiousHistory.htm#_Toc164518584 — excerpt from top of section:

Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
by Andy Letcher
http://amazon.co.uk/o/asin/0571227708 — June 15, 2006
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0060828285 — February 27, 2007

Author’s websites: [2006]
http://andyletcher.co.uk
http://myspace.com/shroomthebook

Shroom is essentially a reaction against the extreme mushroom theory of religion as extracted from Wasson/Allegro/McKenna (the “Mushroom Origin of Religion” Theory [MORT]). Shroom cannot perceive or address the entheogen theory of religion because Shroom is fully busy reacting against the isolated narrow mushroom theory of religion.

_____

Letcher’s view doesn’t engage with some clearly relevant alternative views; for example, per the maximal entheogen theory, entheogenic mushroom use was common (agrees with “the MORT”, disagrees with Letcher), and entheogenic mushroom use was not in the form of a single secret official cult (agrees with Letcher, disagrees with his particular chosen monolithic variant of “MORT”).

_____

The book amounts to
a limited refutation of
one subtype of
the maximal theory,
while
among religion scholars, and faux-“hip” esotericism scholars (Gnosis mag) and even among many entheogen scholars, today’s predominant scholarly view is the minimal entheogen theory.

Among a pop audience (not widely read in entheogen scholarship), a kind of “maximal mushroom theory of religion” may indeed be predominant.

_____

The minimal entheogen theory uses the “divide, isolate, and diminish” strategy: it

separates into isolation
each instance of
possible
historical or literary
evidence

for psychoactive use, then

states that
for each isolated instance, there’s not compelling evidence to support
this instance being evidence of religious psychoactive use.

_____

A key, differentiating set of questions to ask Letcher (as representative of a certain anti-MORT paradigm):

· Did mystic-state religious experiences happen, in the history of religion?

· Were many of them induced by mushrooms (in terms of numbers and percentage)?

· If they weren’t induced by mushrooms, then how did they come about?

· Are religious myths metaphorical descriptions of the mystic altered state?

/ end of excerpt from my 2007 critique of Shroom

My Review of Hatsis’ Recent 2022 Book, Continued

What this book provides is merely negative; showing that the popular mind wrongly fantasizes what Allegro thought and wrote. This book is in error, in that it accomplishes that goal (showing that the pop conception of Allegro poorly describes his actual position & book), but then this book halts there and congratulates itself, “Job finished; job done; job well done.”

The field — on the lower, pop tier, — got headed down the wrong onramp. This book puts it in reverse, to back out from that wrong onramp.

But then, the car needs to get headed forward again, on the right onramp (the higher tier, the scholarly sound tier of theorizing plus historical evidence).

This book informs people that their use of Allegro is wrong, and that Allegro is not what the pop mind thinks he is. That is all merely prerequisites, to undo the wrong path that the Wasson-Allegro non-debate led us down.

This book ought to continue on forward in the right direction, to show:

Show how Allegro is dead weight interfering with constructive productive scholarship.
Show how to throw off this dead weight. eg replace one’s John Allegro framed portrait, by a Robert Graves framed portrait.
Show how to rightly conceptualize the role of mushrooms in Christianity, building on the sound direction which Graves figured out.
The only way to be able to proceed, is to co-decode Greek and Christian religion together. This has been proved repeatedly. Armed with the pair, Greek and Christian religion, you can solve any problem in decoding World Mythology. If armed only with mushrooms in Christianity — or if armed only with mushrooms in Greek religion, you can figure out neither Christianity, nor Greek, nor World religious mythology.

Hatsis Cancelled His Book “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy”

Early in this website (2016?) I wrote something naively expectantly hopeful and wrong, that Hatsis retracted his insane denial of mushrooms in Christianity.

Here is an equally venturesome conjecture. Hatsis lists his sites in the Description of these YouTube videos.

https://www.innertraditions.com/search/hatsis

The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy
Thomas Hatsis, 2022
http://amzn.com/B08KQMY3J9
Park Street Press

Evidence that Hatsis had that book ID & title:

“Hatsis is the author of “The Witches Ointment,” “Psychedelic Mystery … 2021) and “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” (spring, 2022).“

“Microdosing Magic,” and the forthcoming books “LSD The Wonderchild” (summer, 2021) and “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” (spring, 2022).

Search Hatsis’ publisher for “Hatsis”: https://www.innertraditions.com/search/hatsis

https://psanctum.org –

“Psanctum Psychedelia is a non-profit psychedelics research, educational, and harm reduction organization located in Portland, Oregon.

Since forming in 2018, Psanctum Psychedelia has hosted a variety of speakers knowledgeable in the latest, cutting-edge advances in psychedelic science, history, anthropology, and spirituality. We threw the Gaian Mind Psychedelic Conference in 2019, and host the Psanctum Open Mic every Monday.

Our mission is to respect the deep traditions of various peoples all over the world, while coupling those insights with the latest breakthroughs in psychedelic science and technologies.”

One of Hatsis’ articles argues: “If you assert that Christians used mushrooms, then you are DEFINITELY doing culturecide. If you assert that Christians did not use mushrooms, then you are definitely NOT doing culturecide.” This prejudice is what the (failed, esotericism-illiterate) Psychedelic Witch calls “respecting the traditions of peoples all over the world.”

“We value the wild, the weird, and the wonderful—and see viable connections between the scientific and the spiritual, the traditional and the innovative, and the magical and the measurable aspects of the psychedelic experience.

Please enjoy our videos and blog, and don’t forget to visit the Psanctum Psychedelic library!”

The YouTube vid lists: https://www.facebook.com/groups/psanctum.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7yiTwLr6o –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LVmXZXdU5Q – 5Q has more contacts/sites than other vid:

Thomas Hatsis is the author of “The Witches Ointment,” “Psychedelic Mystery Traditions,” “Microdosing Magic,” and the forthcoming books “LSD The Wonderchild” (summer, 2021) and “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy” (spring, 2022).

Go ahead Hatsis make it official, publish your official folly book, carved in stone.

The anti-mushroom “psychedelic witch”, self-contradiction incarnate, #1 follower of Allegro, “Allegro’s book is really great”.

Closer to the truth is: Allegro’s book is irrelevant for entheogen scholarship, except in some negative sense.

Definition of New Field: Loose Cognitive Science

_{Site Map}

Contents:

Cognitive Science of Religion, Loose Cognitive Science

Cognitive Science of Religion, Loose Cognitive Science

The main, paradigmatic instance of paradigm conversion is not in hard science, but in Cognitive Science of Religion.

Paradigm conversion is inspired by Religion, rather than Science, where Science is taken to mean hard sciences.

Cognitive Science is not exactly one of the hard sciences.

CogSci can cover loose cognitive phenomenology.

Loose Cognitive Science is the foundation and kind of science that the Egodeath theory is.

The Egodeath theory is multi-state Science per Charles Tart.

Is Egodeath theory advocating Religion, or Science?

Loose Cognitive Science and 2-state Cybernetics straddles Religion and Science, informs both, is informed by both.

Definition of New Field: the Maximal Mushroom Theory of Western Religion

_{Site Map}

Contents:

Differentiate Between the Field of Study, Personalities, and Theories
Define the Field in Terms of the Topic, Not in Terms of Personalities and Their Particular Narrow Theories
What’s Not Acceptable
Prerequisites to contribute in this field
Who Speaks for this Field, and Who Doesn’t
Principles Guiding this Field
Relevance of World Religious Mythology
Relevance of Non-Mushroom Psychoactives

Differentiate Between the Field of Study, Personalities, and Theories

There’s a terrible conflation effort going on, to try to conflate and over-identify:

The field of “mushrooms in Christian history“.
Particular personalities (such as referring to the whole field and its questions as “the Allegro theory”).
Particular theories in the field (such as “the Holy Mushroom”).

The field, personalities, and particular theories, are conflated together, reductionistically, as if debunking Allegro, or debunking Irvin’s Holy Mushroom theory, is the same thing as “debunking the field of scholarship on mushrooms in Christian history”.

I always expect Hatsis to say “mushrooms”, and instead, he reaches for the bizarrely specific term “Amanita”.

I always expect Hatsis to discuss research in the field, and instead, he reaches for the bizarrely specific word “Allegro” or “the Holy Mushroom”.

Hatsis might be doing good work within a strange other alien field, the field of “Allegro-Amanita Studies“, but what is harmful, is that he then conflates that strange, less-important speciality field, Allegro-Amanita Studies, with the other field, that’s most important: the field of Western mushroom scholarship — identifying and interpreting Psilocybe references in Hellenistic & Christendom art & texts.

I would rather say “mushroom references”, but with all these people around who are HELL-BENT on conflating the whole field with their fantasized narrow “Allegro-Amanita Studies” field that they confabulated, I have to defensively pro-actively Shut Down that misreading, explicitly countersignalling by broadcasting “Psilocybe”, where they are intent on strawmanning as “Amanita”.

I’m not very anti-Amanita, but I have to sound like I am anti-Amanita, by aggressively pushing “Psilocybe”, exactly where the Allegro-orbiters would try to strawman-misrepresent the entire field reduced down to their little miniaturized thought-world of some imagined “Allegro-Amanita studies”.

Define the Field in Terms of the Topic, Not in Terms of Personalities and Their Particular Narrow Theories

http://csp.org
Council for Spiritual Practices

The Entheogen Chrestomathy (passage excerpts) has excerpts from 4 Robert Graves’ books.

Graves is weak, understated; not forceful, punchy, outspoken, and explicit, re: mushrooms in Christianity.

Graves tiptoes around the outer periphery of the field of “Western mushroom scholarship”, under the watchful guidance of Pope Wasson.

Allegro’s 1st Edition dust jacket fold text is punchy, is largely spot-on, and that front cover has the diagrammatic (thus powerful) symbol of the Plaincourault mushroom tree.

Irvin’s reissue preserves that original powerful cover diagram art.

These Allegro-centered Irvin/ Letcher/ Hastsis books sell quite well and get high ratings from reviews. There is significant interest in the topic or scholarly research-field of mushrooms in Christian history.

Don’t allow Hatsis & the other followers of Allegro to name the field “The Holy Mushroom theory” – cringe! what is one signing-up for, employing that overly charged Irvinism? That makes the mistake of labelling an entire field, as one particular theory in the field.

I’d like more information about Wasson dissuading Graves from writing more, about Western mushroom scholarship.

“Western mushroom scholarship” is a subfield within the field of “entheogen scholarship”. Notice it’s not “the Allegro theory”, “The Holy Mushroom theory”, or other such personality-centric labels.

The field name “Western mushroom scholarship” integrates Greek & Christian; Hellenism & Christendom.

Heading

The field of Western mushroom scholarship should be topic-centered, not personality-centric.

Wasson, Allegro, Irvin, Letcher, & Hatsis all try to make the field of Western mushroom scholarship personality-centric; positively or negatively orbiting around Allegro.

Irvin, Letcher, & Hatsis all place Wasson & Allegro at the center of “the field” (as they conceptualize it) and thus they make Allegro (or “the Wasson/Allegro debate”[sic]) also set the outer boundaries that delimit and circumscribe the field, and everyone’s thought.

Regarding the field and questions of Western mushroom scholarship, everyone who orbits their thinking around Wasson, Allegro, or Irvin (whether positively or negatively) is pushing and re-entrenching The Allegro Paradigm, as if rejecting that paradigm they’ve defined and selected, is the same as rejecting the field of Western mushroom scholarship.

Heading

There is no one good to represent the field of Western mushroom scholarship.
Brinckmann, Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, Hatsis;
Rolfe, Ramsbottom, Brightman, Graves, Allegro, Heinrich, Irvin, Ruck

— not one of them represents what the field is, and needs to be:

Psilocybe in Greek & Christian art & texts; Hellenism & Christendom.

What’s Not Acceptable

Equating pop articles about “Allegro’s theory shows that Amanita magic mushrooms are the real origin of Christianity”, with professional-level scholarship within the field.

Required Evidence Exhibits You Must Be Aware Of, to Earn a Voice/ the Podium/ a Platform/ the Mic

Like in the form of a Course Syllabus, this rulebook define the kind of field this needs to be.
Professional credentials required; a bozo filter.

Gallery: What pictorial evidence you must be aware of, to have the right to be listened to.A standard body of images to discuss, like the “curated collection” idea. You must be aware of these 200 images, before there’s any reason why anyone in this field should pay any attention to you.

What the commitments are, who the point-of-reference authors are (and are not).

To counter this awful pattern of books like Letcher’s and then Hatsis’ recent book and his planned “Conspiracy” book which sounds like an awful book concept, an exercise in debunking Allegro and thereby reaffirming that Allegro is the be-all and end-off who is definitive of the entire subject.

CANCEL YOUR GOD-FORSAKEN BOOK, IT’S GOING TO BE HORRIBLE AND HARMFUL, AN EXERCISE IN REIFYING FOLLY. I AM ALREADY WRITING A SCATHING, PANNING, CONDEMNATORY BOOK REVIEW FOR THIS BOOK THAT WON’T EXIST FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, BASED PURELY ON ITS TITLE.

Prerequisites to contribute in this field

Read 3 of 4 issues of Mark Hoffman’s Entheos Journal.

Read some Ruck – ideally w/ my caveats in my review of his overview book mistitled as “Consciousness”.

Be aware of the long list of books about ahistoricity of religious founder figures. Don’t make statements about whether Jesus existed, if you aren’t even aware of these book titles — you’d just demonstrate your ignorance and lack of credibility. Any ignorant, unread fool can proclaim on the matter, while oblivious to the existence of these books. You have to earn your right to be listened to on this topic. Otherwise “you won’t be taken seriously” [define that phrase].

Who Speaks for this Field, and Who Doesn’t

Anyone who uses phrases such as “the Allegro theory” (equating & grossly mis-crediting Allegro with the topic of Western mushroom scholarship) has no credibility and is an outsider and cannot, does not, represent this field.

Anyone whose thinking places Amanita & Allegro in the center of this field is an imposter and should be treated as a rank member of the public, regardless of how much research they’ve done on other psychoactives history.

Wasson might be an authority on something — I don’t know what — but he has nothing to contribute, except confusion and ambiguous, evasive doubletalk, regarding mushrooms in Christianity.

Principles Guiding this Field

Relevance of World Religious Mythology

Relevance of Non-Mushroom Psychoactives

policy for % emphasis:

Samorini re: Strains of Ergot at Eleusis in Kykeon
Peripheral; out of scope; can be brought in but with uinderstanding they are outside the domain of explanation — like fantastical non-psychedelic mushrooms may figure into the art.
We hold that they did use cannabis products like Chris Bennett asserts; but, that’s not our focus. We are dedicated to Psilocybe and its specific effects and how those classic psychedelic effects are described by mythemes.
Assume that users (through the Early Modern era) had full control of dosage and redosing.
The great benefits of these simplifying, enabling, foundational assumptions outweigh the minor, incidental costs/inaccuracy.

Heading

John Allegro is irrelevant. The only articles this field needs about Allegro, are about how Allegro is irrelevant. Take down his portrait.

Take down the framed portrait of Pope Wasson.

For mushrooms in Greek & Christian religion, Wasson is irrelevant; is extremely compromised by his close relationship with the Pope; is purely harmful; and stole credit and limelight from Graves.

Robert Graves is the real brains behind the operation, when it comes to mushrooms in religion, including mushrooms in Greek religion.

The best starting point — put up his framed portrait — is Robert Graves.

Religion and Psychoactive Sacraments : An Entheogen Chrestomathy
Tom Roberts & Paula Jo Hruby
https://csp.org/docs/index
~~http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/~~
~~https://archive.org/search.php?query=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csp.org%2Fchrestomathy%2F~~
Search the Chrestomathy for Robert Graves to read some of Graves’ 83 pages on the topic.

Religion and psychoactive sacraments: A bibliographic guide
January 1, 1995
http://amzn.com/1889725005

search Robert Graves entheogen kykeon

Psychoactive Sacramentals: Essays on Entheogens and Religion
Thomas Roberts (Editor), 2001
The CSP Entheogen Project Series, 3
by Stanislav Grof (Author), Huston Smith (Author), Albert Hofmann (Author), Charles T. Tart (Author), Alexander T. Shulgin (Author), Mike Young (Author), & 4 more
http://amzn.com/1889725021

The Pharsalus Bas-Relief and the Eleusinian Mysteries
Samorini
https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/pharsal.htm
https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam-1998-ter-pharsalus.pdf

https://www.amazon.com.au/Entheogens-Myth-Human-Consciousness-Carl-ebook/dp/B00BSEQOPW “This book reviews the 20th Century history of the reception of the Entheogen theory of religion. Ruck shows how Wasson told Robert Graves to self-censor Graves’ 1950s discovery of mushrooms as the foundation of Greek myth and initiation religion. Ruck’s work, if extrapolated to the maximum, shows that religion comes strictly through visionary …” <– who wrote???

Book:
Entheogens, Myth, and Human Consciousness
Carl Ruck, Mark Hoffman
http://amzn.com/1579511414
January 8, 2013
My review:
Entheogens, Myth, and Human Consciousness (Ruck & Hoffman)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/22/entheogens-myth-and-human-consciousness/

Images from the Egodeath Yahoo Group

_{Site Map}

Contents:

The Egodeath theory & Gnosis on a Post-It Note
Coffeehouse Guestbook Entry Summarizing the 2013 Breakthrough: {tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism
- Religious Myth Deciphered
- The Two Mental Worldmodels: {king steering in tree} -> {wine} -> {snake frozen in rock}
Post-It Note: {rod of Aesclepius} Decoded
1988 Article Drafts and 1989 Artist’s Blank Book
August 12, 1988 Handwritten First Draft of the Theory of Ego Transcendence
Article Drafts and Per-Semester Writing Binders 1986-1989
Final Draft of Main Article, September 24, 2006
Pre-Mytheme-Decoding, Snake Frozen in Block Universe, ~1994
Dried Amanita
Ink Brush Michael the Archangel
etc.

The Egodeath theory & Gnosis on a Post-It Note

Coffeehouse Guestbook Entry Summarizing the 2013 Breakthrough: {tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism

IMG_6667.JPG — my mature-theory entry in a coffeehouse guest book, after my Nov 29 2013 {tree vs. snake} breakthrough.

Religious Myth Deciphered

The Two Mental Worldmodels: {king steering in tree} -> {wine} -> {snake frozen in rock}

Post-It Note: {rod of Aesclepius} Decoded

IMG_6586_2014_01_21.JPG – post-it about Aesclepius Staff of, for gym barista girl in Med school after Nov 2013 breakthrough.

1988 Article Drafts and 1989 Artist’s Blank Book

August 12, 1988 Handwritten First Draft of the Theory of Ego Transcendence

Minnosota 1st draft! Handwritten manuscript, August 12, 1988, Pentel P205 mechanical pencil on ruled binder sheets.

Discussed in the Egodeath Yahoo Group post of September 24, 2011, 2 months before my preliminary November 23, 2011 proto-breakthrough work toward “{tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism”:
Subject:
1988 first drafts of Egodeath article
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-101/#message5144

“The first draft of what would become my main article was written August 12, 1988. It begins:

“Here are compiled and resolved the principles of Special Knowledge, inspired by all the major fields which have studied it, but rigorously thought through and resolved logically. With sufficient study, the reader will find that Transcendent Knowledge resolves Egoic thinking in much the same way that Relativity resolved Newtonian physics.”

Title: “The Theory of Ego Transcendence”, on the typed-up article.

Article Drafts and Per-Semester Writing Binders 1986-1989

Lower left: handwritten first draft, August 12, 1988. That date & the first paragraph are in the Egodeath Yahoo Group post:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-101/#message5144

Final Draft of Main Article, September 24, 2006

Pre-Mytheme-Decoding, Snake Frozen in Block Universe, ~1994

This was around 1994-1995 — amazingly, this was way long before I properly Decoded {snake} as worldline in block universe. You’d think I “decoded” that in 1995, but I was figuring it out more like 2002 (1995 seems decades away from 2002, because 1995, I still was purely working on spec’ing out the Core theory; the Cybernetic theory. Instead of the Mytheme theory, what I had in 1995 was Rock Lyrics decoding. I *was* reading Gnosis magazine issues, in 1995. Rock Lyrics & Gnosis mag in 1995 was laying a foundation for a later project, the Mytheme theory, which started 1998 in a different land/life-phase; got real traction on the Mytheme theory around 2002, mostly mature in 2006, fully mature in 2013. In 2020, I’m hard-pressed to do mytheme decoding better than in late 2013 to mid-2014.

Dried Amanita

Ink Brush Michael the Archangel

April 1987 – January 1988 Idea Development with P205 Pencil on Binder Filler Paper

geez i’m sure my new phone can take crisper photos

Blank Book Like Used During the Initial Phase of Idea Development, October 1985-March 1987

Accurate 2010 reproduction of the form-factor of my Nov 1985-April 1987 blank books, but those would’ve been hastier, messier, no acronyms.

Idea Development Notes During Engineering Class, ~August 1986-March 1987

Spiritual self-help, no acronyms, dates it to apparently before mid-April 1987.

Engr/physics math w/ Transcendent Knowledge development notes

I didn’t note date on photo; presumably these binder paper sheets are from 1987.

d/k what the hell’s with the murkiness. Need to re-photograph.

1 month before the January 11, 1988 breakthrough. At this point, Nov/Dec 1987, I was figuring out that the book The Way of Zen was missing a solution to explain Satori: no-free-will.

TitlingTheArticle.jpg; formulating the title of my article as
“The Theory of Ego Transcendence — Introduction to a New Conceptual System of Ego Transcendence”, October 17, 1988

WritingsPerSemester.jpg. Thick binder sheets would be 1987. Computer printouts later.

ReleaseEgo1986.jpg — 1986, conventional self-help style. Not yet April 1987 acronyms + mental construct processing [MCP] style.

photo — Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death, 10/10/2010

photo — Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death , ~ Oct 10 2010

photo — Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010

King Steering in a Tree — vindicated my theory, of King Pentheus “caught up in a tree” spying on Dionysus. compared to King Jesus “lifted up and hung from the tree”.
Copied to:
**Alchemy Woodcuts, Western Esotericism Mytheme Images**
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/alchemy-woodcuts-western-esotericism-mytheme-images/

IMG_3122.JPG
*Copied to:*
***Alchemy Woodcuts, Western Esotericism Mytheme Images***
*https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/alchemy-woodcuts-western-esotericism-mytheme-images/*

IMG_6520_CanterburyCath1180.PNG. Lot’s wife turned to pillar of salt, or equiv.
Copied to:
**Images of Mushrooms in Christian Art**
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/13/images-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

xti_9518c-elijah.jpg
*Copied to:*
**Images of Mushrooms in Christian Art**
*https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/13/images-of-mushrooms-in-christian-art/*

What Letcher-Hatsis, Ruck, Irvin, and Pop Onlookers Must Change, for Constructive/ Productive Western Mushroom Scholarship

_{Site Map}

Contents:

Who Needs to Change What
The Distinct Questions to Differentiate and Specifically Address
See Also

Who Needs to Change What

What the individuals must to do rectify the situation for the field:

Ruck must stop employing his malformed concept “secret”. Stop using the word ‘secret’, FFS! PLEASE STOP, for the love of God, and to save the field of mushroom scholarship!

Irvin must stop uncritically affirming Allegro monolithically. Do like I do: list the pros and cons of any writer; what aspects they get right, and what they get wrong.

Outside the field, everyone must stop treating “Allegro” as synonymous with mushroom scholarship, or the theory that Christianity involves mushrooms.

Letcher-Hatsis must stop thinking that the Pop-spreading of “Allegro says”; and Irvin’s uncritical wholesale affirmation of Allegro; and Ruck’s obsession/fixation on “secret”, define the productive potential field of mushroom scholarship.

Letcher-Hatsis must stop conflating a particular hypothesis with the entire field; stop covertly flipping back and forth between the extremely narrow, particular premise/hypothesis of “spreading via secret Amanita cult” vs. the completely broad, general question, “the extent of use of various psychoactive mushrooms in Western culture”.

Letcher-Hatsis must dis-entangle their discussion of what are actually distinct questions; some 5-7 distinct debate-issues. List extracted from
Article title:
Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art
Subsection title:
Conflating the Distinct Questions: Sloppy Scholars’ Game of Slip-and-Slide
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/#Conflating-the-Distinct-Questions-Sloppy-Scholars-Game-of-Slip-and-Slide

The Distinct Questions to Differentiate and Specifically Address

Section copied from “Criteria” article:

Careless entheogen scholars slip and slide among vague, shifting position on exactly what they are denying and affirming; constantly, silently changing their mind about what subject they are centrally debating about:

The Secret Amanita Christian Cult theory?
- How knowledge & tradition spread?
Which mushrooms?
- Just Amanita?
- All mushrooms (including Cubensis, Liberty Caps, & Amanita)?
Mushrooms in which aspect of Christianity:
- Mushrooms in Christian art?
- Mushrooms in Christian practice?
- Mushrooms in Christian culture?
- Mushrooms in Western culture, including Ancient Near East & Mediterranean Antiquity; Hellenistic Mystery Religions & Greek mythology?
Which genre?
- Strictly explicitly religious art?
- Broad esotericism art within Christendom?
- Strictly Biblical, or equivalent Hellenistic content as well?

The Minimalist school (“there’s never mushrooms, there’s never evidence”) is vague about:

On what basis each of those questions is to be explained away.
Why their sometimes-chosen scope of question is the key issue to deal with and center all discussion around (silently, as it suits them from moment to moment).
Why some types of evidence and readings of that evidence count, but others are to be ignored and discounted: texts & art; literal depictions, stylized depictions, and depictions of effects.
Which form-family of mushrooms to discuss: Amanita? Cubensis? Liberty Caps? This most-basic, elementary level of differentiation and discussion is completely missing from the Minimalist explainers-away; these fervent, shallow, and inarticulate wavers-of-arms.

/ end of section copied from “Criteria” article

Letcher-Hatsis must stop writing unthinking phrases like “I find the idea totally ridiculous” – that’s the problem with Letcher-Hatsis’ approach to writing about the field’s questions, right there: *WHAT* idea; *WHICH* IDEA? You HAVE to be specific and articulate! Or else you are failing as a scholar, and even failing as a thinker.

It is *not* “the”, single, one, idea, which Letcher-Hatsis flips between identifying as “spread of secret Amanita cult”, and “use of mushrooms in Western culture”.

Like good scholars in the field of mushroom scholarship, I reject the hypothesis “spread of secret Amanita cult”, and I assert “significant use of mushrooms in Western culture.”

According to Letcher-Hatsis, no such compound position is possible, because they are one and the same question; in their Pop-shaped, overly Pop-guided thinking, “spread secret Amanita cult” is the same identical position as “mushrooms in Western culture”.

That’s why Letcher-Hatsis consistently — and PROVABLY — demonstrates ZERO SELF-AWARENESS about his continual flipping back-and-forth, silently conflating the (incorrect) “spread secret Amanita cult” position with the (correct) “mushrooms in Western culture” position.

In his sloppy, undifferentiated, Pop-guided, Pop-level thinking, — Letcher-Hatsis argues this way consistently — he assumes and takes it as granted, that if you reject the “spread secret Amanita cult” hypothesis, that’s the same thing as rejecting “mushrooms in Western culture”.

They think and reason that, because the idea of “spread secret Amanita cult” is totally ridiculous, that’s the same thing as the idea of “mushrooms in Western culture” being totally ridiculous.

According to the malformed assumption that’s latched onto (and promoted) by Letcher-Hatsis, if you assert mushrooms in Western culture, that necessarily means that you assert “spread of secret Amanita cult” — in his inchoate thinking, these two positions are the same identical position — that’s why Letcher-Hatsis never discusses or acknowledges the distinction between the two question-scopes (“spread secret Amanita cult”, vs. “mushrooms in Western Culture”).

Thus (as proof and evidence supporting my seemingly unbelievable assertions about his total lack of self-awareness of conflating the two extreme opposite-scoped questions) you have Hatsis within his video disproving Amanita, and then titling the video “I disproved mushrooms.”

Video title:
Mushroom Trees Debunked
YouTube channel:
Psychedelic Historian
Nov. 12, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfeNp1FSUY

The clear implication in this video is that he is unaware of Liberty Cap mushrooms, and he is only aware of Amanita!

Throughout the video, I was repeatedly startled because I expected him to say ‘mushrooms’ — but instead, out of the blue, for no clear reason, he instead reached all the way, going out of his way, for the specific word ‘Amanita’ — which is, of course, a different issue!

Issue 1: Does the image generally represent mushrooms (of any type)?
Issue 2: If so, which specific mushrooms: eg Liberty Caps; Cubensis; or Amanita?

Who the f*ck ever asserted, that the question of “Amanita” is the same question as “mushrooms” — other than bad, sloppy, Pop thinkers? — including Letcher-Hatsis.

Letcher-Hatisis is letting sloppy Pop-thinking guide, steer, shape, and constrain his would-be scholarly analysis.

Those are two opposite extreme scopes of “the” idea, but Letcher-Hatsis conflates the two totally differently scoped questions into this single monstrous construct of his own creation, “the” idea.

This way, Letcher-Hatisis can strawman-misrepresent the entire field of “Western mushroom scholarship”, and struttingly self-promote as if he has proved something significant and contributed something significant, when in fact, the only thing Letcher-Hatsis has contributed to the field of Western mushroom scholarship, is his own confused conflation of the narrow, incorrect hypothesis “spread secret Amanita cult”, and the broad, correct hypothesis, “significant mushrooms in Western culture”.

Photos of Fantastical Mushrooms

_{Site Map}

Contents:

todo

Photos of Fantastical Mushrooms, to Identify Fantastical Mushrooms in Christian Art

When mystics are looking for Cubensis and Liberty Caps, and the prized-for-looks Amanita, here is also what they find, and what they draw in illuminated manuscripts.

My productive period decoding {non-branching} mythemes around 2010-2011 was while walking paths in a seasonal mushroom patch 1-square-block natural preserve, looking at the branching paths, branching trees, and annually changing collection of mushrooms, and photographing them.

I photographed groups of hundreds of manna-balls; shaggies, orange plastic curls, hundreds of little spears — maybe 20 different types of fungi, in a 1-block forest patch.

A common art pattern is to start by drawing a Cubensis cluster mushroom tree, with branching added and some non-branching added, and then for each cap, for every cap, vary the filling-in of the cap, to represent a particular, fantastical looking mushroom type, or a fictitious fanatical mushroom type.

Search Links

strange mushrooms affect art
https://www.pinterest.com/psupress/edible-wild-mushrooms-of-pennsylvania-and-the-mid-/

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=strange+mushrooms

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mushrooms+poster

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mushroom+poster

Photos

Mycena haematopus by Stefano Vianello
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/82261130676832978/?d=t&mt=login

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/194217802656344640/?d=t&mt=login
Peggy Schumann

Greek Egodeath Mythology Images

_{Site Map}

Contents:

Book:
Greek Mythology: An Introduction
Fritz Graf
1987; 1993 English hardcover; 1996 English paperback
http://amzn.com/0801853958

My photo of my book at the time of my Nov 29 2013 breakthrough. This image, combined with the Cranach cropped image in Campbell’s hardcover illustrated The Power of Myth, while studying Western mushroom history, led to the full realization of {tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism.

Above is essentially a photograph of a Maximum Breakthrough in intellectual history, the Late-Modern era re-decoding of the most archaic formula:

{tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism

Some of my November 2011 postings cover the same material, but this was a fuller decoding of Mystery Religion peak content. Dec. 2, 2013; 3 days after my Friday, November 29, 2013 breakthrough.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/259519997263382481/

From Egodeath Yahoo Group, my post some time later recounting/recording, history. Contains book cite re: cover art.
Art on a mixed-wine mushroom-wine kylix “cup” (saucer).
Shows:

Jason spewed dead from the giant Heimarmene-snake.
Athena (with snake-fringes and death-face) and owl looks on.
The rock-sacrificed Ram’s golden fleece of ram of zeus sent by cloud goddess married to king A. The fleece hung in nonbranching ivy-strand quasi-tree. Evil king sent hero Jason to retrieve the dragon-guarded treasure, the ram that saved Prixis but when ram rose, of necessity, sister Helle looked down below the flying ram, she lost her balance and she fell and she drowned in the sea. Prixis sacrificed the ram to Zeus for saving him from [soap opera] being sacrificed to the cloud goddess.. to get rain.
Jealous cloud goddess wanted her children w/ king A sacrificed by the reluctant king A, then cloud goddess sent Zeus’ ram to rescue the children she wanted sacrificed to provide rain? Fishy story. Research the facts of the matter.

Campbell’s Book with Eve Multi-branching Eden Tree

Book:
The Power of Myth
Joseph Campbell / Bill Moyers
http://amzn.com/0385247737
The Eve image on left half of left page
Image caption:
Eve tempted by the Serpent, Lucas Cranach, ca. 1530.

Hardcover, illustrated. Stock photo. I have hardcover.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/nuUAAOSwDkleXKw2/s-l300.jpg

Friday, November 29, 2013, 7:42 pm (the day after Thanksgiving): I discovered that tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism, upon seeing the right half of this painting in black & white, together with the cover of Fritz Graf’s book Greek Mythology: An Introduction, which shows the kylix/mushroom-wine saucer showing Jason spewed dead from the giant Heimarmene-snake, while Athena (with snake-fringes and death-face) and owl looks on, with ram golden fleece hung in nonbranching ivy-strand quasi-tree. This was one of my top 3 all-time breakthroughs.
img_6414.jpg photo of page of a large Joseph Campbell / Bill Moyers book “A. Eve tempted by the Serpent, Lucas Cranach, ca. 1530.”

The Cover Image of Fritz Graf’s book Greek Mythology: An Introduction

Shows the kylix/mushroom-wine saucer showing Jason spewed dead from the giant Heimarmene-snake, while Athena (with snake-fringes and death-face) and owl looks on, with ram golden fleece hung in nonbranching ivy-strand quasi-tree.

This was one of my top 3 all-time breakthroughs.

The Eve image on left half of left page, combined with Jason image, for completing/ recognizing/ decoding {tree vs. snake}, as a way to further condense my book cover image design around 2012 with
quadrants:

egoic left, transcendent right;
upper left quadrant image: king in tree?
upper = world model?
lower = control-agent model?
2011: quadrants: from king steering in tree to snake frozen in rock.
2013: simple contrast of 2: {tree vs. snake}. eliminate {king} and {rock}, it is sufficient to abbr instead of
{king steering} in {tree} to
{snake} frozen in {rock}
or whatever my quadrants were, you can make-do with abbr into 2 items insetad of 4:
{tree} to
{snake}

math’ly you could do:

{tree} to
{rock}
ie change mental worldmodel from {tree} to {rock}. the contrast {tree vs. rock}. <– symm world-vs-world model compar’n.
gnosis = change your model of world from A to B

{king steering} to
{snake}
ie gnosis = change mental worldmodel from {king steering} to {snake}. <– symm agent-vs-agent compar’n
gnosis = change your model of ctrl-agent from A to B

{king steering}
{rock}
ie gnosis = change mental worldmodel from {king steering} to {rock}.

{tree vs. snake} Decoding – Lecture Video (2013-12-02)

_{Site Map}

Contents:

todo

This proves that my recent caduceus decoding and explanation of the tauroctony in Nov/Dec 2020 was repeat of discoveries Nov 2013.

My Nov 2011 Egodeath Yahoo Group posts show these same types of solutions, earlier work on the same decoding.

I’m re-describing, re-discovering, re-announcing, re-decoding, re-explaining. I’m not just re-writing; I’m re-discovering and re-decoding.

This is a 55-minute lecture packed into 17 minutes. No time for fluff.

This is 100% gold; solid substance, of Mystery-Religion takeaway summary.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8qHZAfuY9KxclRzMzJPUjRwRVk/edit

I probably explained to a friend my decoding-breakthrough of {female}/{rap’d by the god}/{married to the true ruler partner}/{bridal chamber} ~2012 – wished I captured that great clear explanation. I’ll have to mockup that talk in an article.

Egodeath Yahoo Group – Digest 111: 2011-11-23

_{Site Map}

Group: egodeath	Message: 5627	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: misc.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5628	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Ancients understood modern Physics block-universe worldlines

Group: egodeath	Message: 5629	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Must adopt Heimarmene b/c coherence & power

Group: egodeath	Message: 5630	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

Group: egodeath	Message: 5631	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Correct vs. confused versions of ‘change’

Group: egodeath	Message: 5632	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

Group: egodeath	Message: 5633	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

Group: egodeath	Message: 5634	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

Group: egodeath	Message: 5635	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: Must adopt Heimarmene b/c coherence & power

Group: egodeath	Message: 5636	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Make the female as the male, be two in one

Group: egodeath	Message: 5637	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: Make the female as the male, be two in one

Group: egodeath	Message: 5638	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: You are a couple: thought-source–>thought-receiver

Group: egodeath	Message: 5643	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Triumph of Dionysus scene decoded

Group: egodeath	Message: 5644	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Sun; metaphor for cybernetics, comm., ctrl, perception

Group: egodeath	Message: 5645	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Fields Restarted by the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

Group: egodeath	Message: 5646	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

Group: egodeath	Message: 5647	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Social-political use & abuse of mystic revelation

Group: egodeath	Message: 5648	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Ahistoricity is important because it’s Non-literalism

Group: egodeath	Message: 5649	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: The Hammer of Interpretation

Group: egodeath	Message: 5650	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Wheat vs. Chaff: m-model of thot-src vs junk part of ego

Group: egodeath	Message: 5651	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

Group: egodeath	Message: 5652	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Wheat vs. Chaff: m-model of thot-src vs junk part of ego

Group: egodeath	Message: 5653	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

Group: egodeath	Message: 5654	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: The name of my Theory and of the system of religion I created

Group: egodeath	Message: 5655	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: How to think coherently: Engineering, not Science

Group: egodeath	Message: 5656	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Killed ego = girl (Persephone), revised ego = woman (Demeter)

Group: egodeath	Message: 5657	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

Group: egodeath	Message: 5658	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: When I independently figured out & learned Entheogen theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 5659	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: When I independently figured out & learned Entheogen theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 5660	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: If prove ancients believed my Core theory, are we proved true?

Group: egodeath	Message: 5661	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: If prove ancients believed my Core theory, are we proved true?

Group: egodeath	Message: 5662	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Applying the Theory to myth improves the Theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 5663	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

Group: egodeath	Message: 5664	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: +Core, -Metaphor(Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, Politics)

Group: egodeath	Message: 5665	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Understanding is a matter of degree, adeptness, fluency, skill

Group: egodeath	Message: 5666	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Important but periph. topics: Ahistoricity, Politics, Enth History

Group: egodeath	Message: 5667	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: As above, so below; interp’d as torch held up & down

Group: egodeath	Message: 5668	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

Group: egodeath	Message: 5669	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

Group: egodeath	Message: 5670	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

Group: egodeath	Message: 5671	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Caduceus: mycopercep shows sep ctrl-lev relations/harmony

Group: egodeath	Message: 5672	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Main religious myth systems I explain

Group: egodeath	Message: 5673	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Self-control seizure in Mithraism via Cyb/Heim/LCog/Metaph

Group: egodeath	Message: 5674	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

Group: egodeath	Message: 5675	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

Group: egodeath	Message: 5676	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

Group: egodeath	Message: 5678	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Social-political use & abuse of mystic revelation

Group: egodeath	Message: 5679	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Rebis diagram: horiz & vert pairs, 2 meanings of ‘lower/higher’

Group: egodeath	Message: 5680	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Rebis diagram: horiz & vert pairs, 2 meanings of ‘lower/higher’

Group: egodeath	Message: 5681	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Self-control seizure in Mithraism via Cyb/Heim/LCog/Metaph

Group: egodeath	Message: 5627	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: misc.

todo: revise the main artic, the core summary, the max-condensed 300-word non-metaph summary. Get rid of “easy to visualize”? Cut down to “is” per 1st order max-simple approx’n.

mistake i made long time since 86: contrasted e’c vs. t’t but didn’t model the window of revel’n, the “what is percieved and realized during initiation” that *causes* the final state of t’t mental model.
___________________________

todo: diagram the before/during/after, accounting for mental model of executor and programmer and program laid out along the worldline, with pseudo-branches of “possibility” envisioned all along the way.
e’c should mean what?
t’t should mean what?
very old concepts, from my 1st year of TKD (1986), now seeing some issues, possibs, ambiguities in these terms and how used.

Create diagrams of control. Direct & specific wording, non-metaphorical, quasi-technical, computer-metaphor-seeming, using my latest bonanza of metaphor-cracked.

How does a robot interpret/read the Tauroctony?

Wall poster diagram(s):
Diagram of personal control, mapped to diagram of Tauroctony and mapped to computer architecture.
egoic/t’t layers (ie local vs hidden ctrl centers, and the mental models of them) during the 3 phases: before the mshr initn-seq, during, & after.

It’s time for Core theory refactoring and function renaming; polish/expand my summary of that I posted this morning:
Define the mental model of the thoughtsource and thotreceiver before, during, and after initiation

Group: egodeath	Message: 5628	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Ancients understood modern Physics block-universe worldlines

A week ago I was still thinking: but the primitive thinkers of antiquity couldn’t possibly have understood the 1900 advanced math & physics graphing concept of worldlines in a block universe. I could not have been more wrong, more biased, just like saying “civilized religion couldn’t have used mshr/dr’s”. The extreme opposite is closer to the truth: antiqy was the masters of ideas about blk univ worldlines!

Antiquity was the masters of ideas about blk univ worldlines.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5629	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Must adopt Heimarmene b/c coherence & power

Mithraism some tauroctonys show:
one torch flame held up above cave ceiling, lighting-up (making us perceive) Sol, the uncontrollable injector of command-thoughts into the mind, as a control-thought-stream ray; and
the other torch held down below the bull, lighting-up (making us perceive) the hiemarmene-snake underneath us — the hidden, vine-shaped rail that we are steered and forced along like in a haunted house carnival ride, or the branch-path a squirrel follows from the trunck to the branch the squirrel ends up at, or like a snake winding up a tree.

Thus:
The higher, Pri1 referent that metaphors represent and mushrooms make us perceive, is personal noncontrol (commands are forced into the mind by Sol through rays of control), and
The lesser, Pri2 referent that metaphors represent and mushrooms make us perceive, is frozen worldvine-heimarmene (the control-commands we receive, and all our thoughts, are pre-programmed in the sense of pre laid out along our path through life.
Mushrooms are incidental, preliminary, once they have put us in the loosecog state and are lighting-up portions of the mind’s cave we couldn’t perceive in the OSC.

Apologetics for heimarmene

THE CRYSTALLINE [ie coherent] MODEL OF CTET

THE CRYSTALLINE PERFECT COHERENCE OF THE CRYSTALLINE BLOCK-UNIVERSE MODEL

The Theory and the initiate adopts heim b/c heim is perfect coherence, simplicity, comprehensibility, perfectly organized, 100% organized and specific. Perfect 100% explanatory coherence and power with no disadvantages (that it kills fw is to be counted as a tremendous advantage, not a disadv)

If your goal is complete conceptual coherence and a specific mmodel (100% tangibly comprehensibly specifiable, visualizable), then, heim co-entails nonctrl.

main central idea: cyb, receiver-and-executor of thoughts, vs. source of thoughts
secondary idea: heim, worldline, worldvine-path, snake-shaped worldvine, circuit board trace, insulated electrically conductive wire

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5630	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

This is the slam-dunk solution to one of the newest puzzles I encountered — actually two or three puzzles.

o A book on Christian Art of the Middle Ages asserted that the serpent is, as a rule, shown winding up the tree, of the knowledge of good and evil [the illusory aspect of moral agency]. It is? Why?

o Why is King Pentheus caught up in a tree (in a mythic situation comparable to the Cross)? Why is a tree so important in myth?

A snake winds up the tree because the shape of the path from the ground up to any one branch-tip forms a worldline snake shape: the one of the virtually possible forking paths that you are predestined to actually take; it’s the only real path. Not “a snake is like a branching tree” but “a snake is shaped like a single one of the branching paths of a tree”.

Thus proving the ancients understood computer science: tree data structures. Don’t overestimate the brilliance of late-Modern sci-tech-engr knowledge & our cog sci, and don’t underest antiq’y. Our tech uses elementary fundmental basic universal concepts and structures, in a certain configuration. Patt & Henn didn’t invent the robot; Vulcan and Daedalus invented Talos, and many esotericists designed automatons; auto-puppets; auto-marionettes.

Analyze the mytheme ‘tree’ in terms of cybernetics, fatedness, and mshr as target meanings.

Analyze the mytheme ‘tree’, using the magic Diamond Hammer of Interpretation, which asserts that: every mytheme is primarily isomorphic with cybernetics, fatedness, and mshr.

bonanza, master theme-system breakthrough. using the magic Diamond Hammer of Interpretation (every mytheme is primarily isomorphic with cyb, heim, & msh). Analyze: ‘tree’.

In what way is a tree like kubernetes, heimarmene, and mukes?

Using greek terms is a defamiliarization technique but also, shifts thinking from modern-style paradigm to foreign, self-consistent greek style you can lock-on to.

How is a tree like kubernetes? (cybernetics)
How is a tree like heimarmene? (fatedness)
How is a tree like mukes? (msh)

How does ‘tree’ express ideas about cybernetics?
How does ‘tree’ express ideas about fatedness?
How does ‘tree’ express ideas about mshr?

tree versus snake:

tree = egoic
snake = t’t
tree, snake, msh

heim is not primary meaning b/c ez to visualize.
heim is prelimary meaning b/c it is fully coherent and specific and contrary / complement/ opposite of egoic thinking.
reasons to affirm it: or at least fully *und* it. It isn’t nece to affirm it, but it’s nece to thoroughly und it. it’s a matter of und’g, not of “assenting” or “believing”. there’s no comprehensible alternative.
reasons to withhold assent to heim: none. “it’s offensive to fw”

tree, serpent wrapped around tree
breakthrough/insight: why the serpent wraps up the tree: the tree is “virtual decision branching” — to eat from the tree of life. King Pentheus is caught up at a particular branch-tip; hung from the branching tree.
willow tree — worldline-shaped, monocoursal.
regular tree (oak, birch): branching. Any one branch-tip to ground forms a worldline snake shape.

Tree of the knowledge of good and evil — know. g/e = awaken to illusory nature of moral culpability/power, but some ironic inversion is used, as if you move from baby to youthful orig-sin state by a quasi-mshr at start of journey, then from youthful orig-sin state to purified state by 2nd mshr initiation at end of youth. As if you (as Adam) start youth by an anti-entheogen that makes you deluded and believing in freewill moral agency-power.

also, feel ivy-wrapped in asc, and see “water” waves distortion, Jewish Hekalot water temple illusion.

Caught trapped in hypoth decision tree/possibility tree, tree of destiny:
tree caught up in tangled/trapped: the frozen hypothetical possibility-change branching. Only one branch is destined to actually happen. The other branches are destined to not happen. The king, steering the ship of state, looks forward into branching possibilities, as a decision-tree in a sense, but only one

A cybernetics game I invented in late 87: flip between putting pencil tip in circle a and b; every time settle, like lots, change to other circle. pretend stop, then resume. eventually, really stop. can’t know which will end up at.

At each point in worldline, surrounded by forward-aimed branches. Have to steer through the branching labyr (Matrix movies ship-channels/tunnels) but the choices are not actually open; they are closed doors that only appear open.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5631	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Correct vs. confused versions of ‘change’

The worldline-path suspended and embedded in changeless spacetime contains change when comparing t[n] to t[m] but not change at t[n]. The incoming instruction at t[n] doesn’t change at t[n]. The stored program is stored in or along the worldline-path embedded in changeless spacetime.

Spacetime contains change but doesn’t itself change, similar to a bucket that contains two balls that are different shades of red contains a comparative change between the two balls (the color changes from one shade to the other, in a comparison of the two balls) but the system — the bucket and two balls — doesn’t itself change. The block universe and the worldline of your life contains a kind of change, but doesn’t itself vary or change as a whole. The worldline at t never changes with respect to t. worldline[t] is constant with respect to itself.

The worldline contains changes when comparing t to t’, but not when comparing t to t itself.

Does the worldline change with respect to t? E’c thinking is characteristically confused about what this means. The value changes with respect to t. But the graph at any t doesn’t change the value that is at t. The change at t is the change in comparing t to t’. The change at t is not a change of the value at t; the value at t doesn’t change. The change is the value at t with respect to (or, in comparing against) the value at t’, not a change at t. It’s a difference between value at t and some other value that t hypothetically, counterfactually could have instead been.

Could construct other theories of change, manyworlds, an impenetrable alternatives. Those are not the point. The point is to understand the most elementary possible worldmodel — to assume it in order to comprehend the ramifs, and to admit that it is the only truly clear and distinct model; that any other model is much less clear and distinct. That it’s relatively easy to organize data neatly into the block univ explan fwk, but not into the other, relatly hazy and indistinct would-be expl fwks.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5632	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

The original post in this thread is where I had the insight; it’s a record of having an insight. I was writing about how to think to decode metaphor, interrogating a mytheme (eg ‘tree’) against priority sequence 1) cyb, 2) heim, 3) mushrooms. Then I wrote:
______________________
tree versus snake:

tree = egoic
snake = t’t
tree, snake, msh

…
tree, serpent wrapped around tree
______________________

That’s where exactly I had the breakthrough of: first, the new puzzle about why the snake in Eden-tree icons is always winding up the tree; and, moments later, the breakthrough for the question I’ve had for years about what’s so profound with the odd mytheme of “King Pentheus was caught and tangled in a tree, and died”. I’ve been working on the ‘tree’ mytheme lately, solved now, fundamental and elementary idea of decision fork tree considered with heimarmene-vine or snake in mind, matching any branch, but only one actual branch. Thus snake = branch.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5633	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

A mushroom tree *has no branches*, even the veil stub arms emphasize hilite that life’s path has no real branches, no real open choices, the savior’s is a branchless decision tree.

It seems unnecessary but I just had to write this

Group: egodeath	Message: 5634	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: tree, snake, mshr; tree-wrapped/-climbing serpent

Jonah’s gourd should b tree

God gave Jonah a tree for shade but a worm ate it and Jonah was mad but God said whats it matter to u?

Snake trumps tree.

Fatedness is real, alternatives are illusory.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5635	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: Must adopt Heimarmene b/c coherence & power

It is mandatory that initiates thoroughly understand all the major ramifications and perspectives, aspects, of Heimarmene. You cannot be ignorant of these. In this sense, at least, Heimarmene is a necessary, inherent part of Transcendent Knowledge, my Core theory. You must embrace Heimarmene at least in the sense that you must experience and understand it thoroughly.

Afterwards, you can quibble and escape into brain-melting Copenhagenism and manyworlds and string theory. But you cannot call yourself intelligent and say you understand the ASC unless you master Heimarmene.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5636	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Make the female as the male, be two in one

Transcending belief and disbelief is a fairly popular idea.

John Lilly wasn’t merely into generally transcending reality-tunnel belief; he was *specifically* interested in belief, in the ASC, in “other entities” encountered: are they real? That is more profound and relevant than Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson’s general reality tunnel idea.

Is there another entity in your mind you encounter in the ASC? Yes: (per Mithraism) you encounter Sol, the hidden injector of commands, through controlling rays, into your command-input receptacle, making you do things, making you will things, and you cannot control that hidden, source of thoughts, on whom you have to consciously depend once you are led and forced to ingest the mushroom that Sol gives you to reveal himself to you. God is male, because he inserts always himself in you, as a plug into you the socket; he gives commands, as the transpersonal you, and you receive and are made to execute commands, as the personal you.

You control the world and make people thing and do and will things.
You are helplessly forced to receive command-thoughts and execute them.

The Paradoxes of Delusion: Wittgenstein, Schreber, and the Schizophrenic Mind
Louis Sass
1994
http://amazon.com/dp/0801498996

‘egoic’ can mean the personal you (receiver and executor of instructions).

‘transcendent’ can mean the transpersonal you, who is not controllable by the personal you.

‘egoic’ can mean your mental model of self and control before initiation.

‘transcendent’ can mean your mental model of self and control after initiation.

Thus I need to disambiguate these overloaded term-pairs.

The Core theory needs cogently-scoped non-metaphorical terms for the male and female, commander and commanded: general and specific terms. General such terms are ‘the transpersonal you’ and ‘the personal you’. Specific such terms are ‘the thought source part of you’ and ‘the thought receiver’ part of you. Source and sink. Commander You and Commanded You. Lingham and Yoni. Sol and Luna. Wand and cup. Plug and socket. Thought-inserter and thought-receptacle. Male deities and female consorts. The conclusion of the New Testament: Make the two as one and the male as the female.

I am the source of my thoughts. I forcibly dictate the arising of my control-thoughts.
I am the receptacle of my thoughts. I cannot control the arising of my control-thoughts.

I am He and I am she. We are one, Sol and Luna. I am one person with two heads and I am awareness. We are three, Sol and Luna and the perception-eye of Mithras. I am, isomorphically, God, Christ, and Dove of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5637	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: Re: Make the female as the male, be two in one

*** MASTER REFERENT OF MYTH: ***
THOUGHT-SOURCE–>THOUGHT-RECEIVER

thought-source = transpersonal = male = lingham = wand
thought-receiver = personal = female = yoni = cup

Master referent: (the primary meaning; key to all mysteries; cracked the code)
thought-source–>thought-receiver

Metaphors:
transpersonal self–>personal self
male–>female
male deity–>female consort
lingham–>yoni
heimarmene-snake approaching krater or wound, forms a male->female image.
snake below Mithras’ bull–>krater
snake below Mithras’ bull–>bull’s wound
doubting Thomas’ finger–>Jesus’ wound in side
Roman soldier’s spear–>Jesus’ side wound.
Mithras’ knife–>bull wound.
Zeus’ eagle–>Prometheus’ wound/liver.
stem–>cap

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5638	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 23/11/2011
Subject: You are a couple: thought-source–>thought-receiver

Group: egodeath	Message: 5643	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Triumph of Dionysus scene decoded

http://egodeath.com/images/egodeatharticle/HighRes/DionysusVictoryChariot_HiRes.jpg

All the human figures are turning to look behind them: this represents awareness being placed in a vantage point where the mind and awareness is made to perceive the uncontrollable thought-source and the helpless thought-receiver, which dynamic is conceptualized as “controller above you”, along with heimarmene, which is conceptualized as “controller below you” like an underlying rail, track, or filmstrip.

Ariadne at end of initiation is n*ked, helplessly passively dependently riding while Dionysus steers the chariot via reins to the mushroom-tigers.

Ariadne upon initiation completion is not attached to thus identified with the mushroom; however, she is winged, representing that awareness is made to perceive, during mushroom initiation, the dynamic of the uncontrollable thought-source and the helpless thought-receiver. Her hair is neatly bound, organized, controlled, now civilized.

Dionysus is attached to a mushroom and identified with the mushroom; he is the one who forces the initiate to take the mushrooms; he puts the mushroom on your preset path, the rail of life you are forcibly made to follow like Odysseus — represented by the snake-positioned heimarmene-panther underneath your chariot you seem to steer.

In the Tauroctony, and equivalent images, the heimarmene-snake (the rail of Fatedness of your worldline) is positioned underneath the god-steered chariot. Triptolemus’ chariot (in the story of Demeter & Persephone & Hades).

The girl in front of Dionysus is also Ariadne, as the the ecstatic psyche Maenad during the midst of initiation on 4 mushrooms or cups of mushroom wine: she has been made by Dionysus, through his heimarmene-path panther, to reach the krater of water-mixed mushroom-wine.

Ariadne as Maenad has no legs, her mind is carried along by the mushroom-tigers that are steered not by her but by Dionysus. She floats on mushrooms with disheveled, loosened, unbound hair, indicating loose cognitive binding.

Dionysus carries a spear: his spear of Destiny represents his power to puts thoughts into the lower mind — control-related thoughts, that kill your egoic self-concept. He pierces your liver so that:
o You, as ego-shaped self-concept, are destined to ego-die, from death by Destiny.
o You, as ego-shaped self-concept, are predetermined to ego-die, from death by Predeterminism.
o You, as ego-shaped self-concept, are fated to ego-die, from death by Fatedness.
o You, as ego-shaped self-concept, will inevitably ego-die, from death by Inevitability.

Ariadne holds a palm branch, symbol of triumph and victory.

The child riding on Dionysus’ lion likely means Ariadne prior to initiation, when the pre-initiate held the youthful self-concept (the ego-shaped self-concept as autonomous, independent controller of their mind), riding as king, with shepherd’s staff as a commander.

There is a heimarmene-vine of ivy or grapes running above the chariot, bracketing the scene with the heimarmene-panther underneath the chariot.

The beardless youthful wine-bearers have dead-panther skins and carry wine kegs, indicating men at initiation banquet personally experiencing and recalling experiencing the psychodrama that is depicted. The scene is designed to be appreciated during mushroom-wine banqueting.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5644	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Sun; metaphor for cybernetics, comm., ctrl, perception

Acharya S asserts that Christianity and suchlike religion is sun worship.

Actually, the sun is not the master referent (it’s not the target domain); it’s a metaphor (it’s merely in one of the “source domains”; ie. a source of metaphor that is used to point to a target final meaning). The idea from the target domain is encapsulated or packaged in superficial figurations from a source domain. The message content (in the target domain) is packaged in a delivery envelope constituted by a source domain.

A $100 bill (or a piece of gold) is the payload placed into a capsule which is then vacuum/pressure sucked to convey and transport and move and transmit the capsule/container, which contains its payload of valued meaning, to the destination location. The receiver of the package, container, or envelope, opens up the container and removes the payload, which is the target meaning.

Mythic metaphor describing mushroom-revealed mystic-state knowledge, is the most-valued instance of using metaphor. Transcendent Knowledge, metaphorically described and conveyed, is the master instance and historically most important instance of using metaphor as a delivery transportation container to contain and move a valued meaning.

After the world learns the Egodeath theory, a better, more relevant crop of books will sprout and be harvested: books about metaphor and analogy in cognition will need to be written that recognize that the primary, grand instance, the uber-instance of using metaphor, the king of metaphors, the original primary high use of metaphor, is the use of metaphor to express, visualize, grasp, and convey the Transcendent Knowledge that is revealed by mushrooms.

“I ate the mushrooms growing on cowpies, then my kingship was revealed to be merely that of a puppet constrained to walk along a path, and was sacrificed.”

‘sun’ is a metaphor referring finally to ‘uncontrollable thought-source’ as each person’s, or each mind’s, higher, transpersonal self, revealed and made perceived, in the mushroom state.

Acharya S asserts that religion (religious worship) refers to (or means) the sun; that the ultimate referent of religion (religious worship) is the sun.

But I assert that the ‘sun’ in religious myth and worship refers to (or means) the uncontrollable thought-source of the mind, as opposed to the helpless thought-receiver of the mind; and ultimately, it’s not that the helpless thought-receiver part of the mind worships the uncontrollable thought-source part of the mind, but rather, one finally “worships” the uniting of the two parts of the mind’s personal control system into a bi partite self-concept: I am a compound person; I am a couple, a coupling of two natures, of two persons: I am the uncontrollable thought-source of my mind, and I am the helpless thought-receiver of my mind.

I am my thought-source and I am my thought-receiver, two complementary distinct centers of personhood — and I am the awareness that perceives how my mind includes an uncontrollable thought-source coupled with a helpless thought-receiver.

Metaphor used for cybernetics, communication, control, perception

The personal control-system and the perceiving of it, is the target payload, the valued piece of gold, the target meaning, that is encapsulated in metaphor or in analogy, and is then grasped vividly by the mind and is conveyed, communicated, to other minds, wherein, upon mushroom initiation, the container is opened, the metaphor is interpreted, and the valued piece of gold is unwrapped and received.

The uber, master, preeminent instance of the use of metaphor, is for communication about control and about perception of control, a communication that uses metaphor to transmit and convey and amplify the observed dynamics of control.

The sun gives the moon the light that appears to come from the moon but really comes from the sun. The moon merely passively reflects the light that originates from the sun.

Just so, my control-power that appears to emanate from my sense of self as control-agent, my apparent ability to control my thoughts and control my will, actually is not effectively under that control; I am unable to control in such practical way, my own thoughts and control-thoughts and movements of my will.

The control power that appears to come from that kind of “me” is merely passively conducted through me; control-power and the source of thoughts is given to that kind of “me” from outside its realm of power. The lower self is helplessly given its thoughts by the relatively uncontrollable, hidden, higher self.

The lower self cannot, in an ultimate practical sense, control the higher self, which is the source of thoughts; thus I say “I cannot control my thought-source”, even if my thought-source is technically defined as “a part of me”. The thought-source is not the local, practically controlling part of “me”. Me, as local, lower-level controller, wielding control in some practical sense, is incapable of controlling the source of thoughts, even if the latter is defined as “some part of me”.

Thus I am, in effect, two persons in one: an uncontrollable thought-source, and a helpless thought-receiver, as is seen or perceived by my other self, my third locus of identification, which is my awareness, particularly my awareness or perception-ability when it is separated-out from mental construct processing.

During loose cognition, and somewhat ever after:

I experience myself as being pure awareness: the Dove, the Holy Spirit of ecstasy, the vantage point from which I am able to see the insertion of thoughts into the thought-receiver.

I experience myself as being the lower-level, local control-agent, but now purified of delusion: I experience myself as Christ, having sacrificed my youthful, deluded self-concept; I formerly identified only with a self-concept that had the form like Jesus.

I experience myself as being God, the uncontrollable source of my thoughts.

I was, in self-concept, of the form of Jesus. Now I am, in self-concept, of the form of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit.

My self-concept used to be in the uni partite form of Jesus. Now my self-concept is in the tri partite form of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit; or Sol, Luna, and eye of Mithras.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5645	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Fields Restarted by the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

With this payload of meaning having been delivered and unsealed from the envelope of metaphor, by the data-feedback-realigned Core Egodeath theory:

o Theology can begin

o Philosophy can begin

o Psychology can begin

o Cognitive Science can begin, with new relevance;

o Quantum Physics can revisit the Copenhagen Hegemony without the non-Science concern of freewill-defending bias this time

o Analytic Philosophy can do something worthwhile for once

o Entheogenists can get a clue from what all the mushroom-wine banqueters knew circa 200.

o Metaphor and analogy

o Myth: salvage bits of value from the wreckage of previous theories I caused, and move in a forward direction

o Dead religions can now be appreciated, harvested for value: this Theory will help tune-in the weak signal buried in noise, to reconstruct dead religions and bring old gods and the spirit of ancient initiates back to life

o Ayahuasca religion

o Schizophrenia (there *is* a hidden entity transmitting command-thoughts into my head, forcing me to will and do things as a helpless puppet. Also: I control everyone’s thoughts — I am the one who makes everything happen.)

o Historical investigation of Christian origins

o Academic study of Western Esotericism, just started, can get off to an extremely accelerated start

o Bring secret societies out into the light

o Classics; Philology will let at last alive white European males truly read and understand the cultural fruits of their dead white European male ancestors

o For Christ’s sake, send Prohibition to Hell and set the prisoners free

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5646	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

The Data-to-Theory feedback path, in conjunction with further theory-bound observation, forms a theory-reconfiguring feedback loop that adjusts the Theory to lock-on to data and be better organized for the purpose of efficiently explaining and perceiving the data.

Observation of data is theory-bound. The scientific method is usually expressed in too-crude form: you make a predictive hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and observe whether the predicted outcome occurs or not. If not, make a different prediction. When the prediction is confirmed by the outcome matching it, the theory has been confirmed.

Then you communicate that theory to other observers (scientists) who repeat the experiment and collectively tally their results, producing scientific consensus. That’s the popular, crass “Scientific Method as Predictionism” model, or way of putting it, that I so disparage.

“Prediction” is far too crude a model of science, yet all the poor books still push the crude vague ideology of Predictionism: the scientific method is Prediction then Confirmation or Refutation, then Collective re-Testing, achieving Scientific Consensus after Collective Confirmation.

My better, more flexible model than the crude model of the scientific method as “prediction and confirmation”, with dynamics added, instead producing “theory-bound data-observation reconfiguring the theory to enable more coherent and distinct data-observation”:

1. You create a partly right theory, and test it against the data, but are unable to perceive the data clearly. The data pushes back in a complex vector, shaping the theory.

2. The adjusted theory is better able to perceive the data, and the adjusted theory pushes against the data, and the data pushes back in another complex vector, shaping the theory further.

3. Finally the fully adjusted theory is able to perceive the data perfectly, the data doesn’t push back with any vector, the theory is not altered, and the theory is now shaped in perfect accordance with the data.

There’s a difference between the quality of your Theory or Mental Model in step 2 and 3:

In step 2, your model [eg my main article of 2005-2006] has barely enough match, is green, has minimal sweep/scope of confirmation, with the minimum possible indexings: a robust sapling, a glorious young tree.

Step 3 is a cornucopia, with increasing rate of lock-on feedback to quickly reshape the theory, perceive and gather data more effectively, and based on what’s now perceiveed more clearly, further adjust the Theory-lens.

Step 2’s mental model was solid, great, commendable. But step 3’s resulting theory is masterful, luxuriant, copious, overflowing, plethora, is more concise, more organized, more dense, more capable. The more mature, well-formed, refactored, fine-tuned Theory after step 3 has greater explanatory power, greater conceptual coherence, fuller mapping to previous theories.

In 2005, I was busy writing the Theory-specification including metaphor, for the first time. 2011 with only a few more months of work compared to the end of 2007, … I evaluated what happened that enabled my recent feedback-buildup to yesterday, and the answer amounts to “all the ideas in the postings I wrote, Sep-Nov 2011”.

The idea of Priority Sequence, being first Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Entheogens, then Metaphor.

Quitting paying any attention or giving away and legitimation to “what people think”. Giving the finger full-on, to Establishment thinking; becoming radicalized and “militant”, becoming a rabid, frenzied, berserking theorist; I went berserk on the received view, even taking down my fellow would-be cohorts for their being complicit with the Establishment. You have to violently rip and tear the received views and biases out of your thinking!

Tear out the hypnotizing worm! (The Matrix)
Rip off the tranquilizing control-puck from your android torso! (Star Wars)
Pluck the implanted controller-pill out! (The Candidate)
Stick the plucker-stick up through your nose into your brain and pull out the tracker! (Total Recall)

Leverage the force of hard-core doctrinal purity. Be ready to dictate to the data what it must say and be. Be extremist, simplistic, minimalist, doctrinaire, put all attention and commitment on defining the simplest possible 1st-order approximation — screw the fickle, mentally enfeebling politically correct efforts to please everyone. Anyone who doesn’t like some aspect of the Theory, go jump off a high place.

If the data doesn’t agree with the Theory, then too bad for the data — the Theory is correct.

I am in the headspace to shove those ideas to fullness and purity, to take the metaphor-extended Theory from the 2005 first effort first version, green, babe, hatchling, to sophisticated/masterful.

Theory develops by adjustment in light of data partially perceived. A phase-locked loop feedback. In loosecog, you perceive aspects of the target understanding, which enables you to perceive the object dynamics in question, which shapes your mental model (theory), through which you perceive in a theory-bound way (not a static theory though — a theory-under-adjustment). The result is dynamic theory adjustment based on observation feedback, with increasingly capable observation.

Doing the early 20th Century Modern Physics experiments in the laboratory helped me have the confidence, not alienation, to be an independent philosopher of scientific discovery and an independent philosophical interpreter of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When you cannot perceive every aspect of an object, it is insane to conclude with Bohr that the object must not have the aspects that we are incapable of observing.

The sane approach, per Albert Einstein, Heisenberg, David Bohm, and James Cushing, is to use the clues that are avaiable to construct a conceptually coherent model of what is evidently going on underneath the covers of what we *can* see. That model, being tangible and visualizable and comprehensible (unlike Copenhagenism) then provides maximal ability to do further experiments and observations, making progress in expanding the mental model and Theory.

Science must not be derailed by the separate, distinct issue of Ontology. We must look to Engineering instead, seeing as Science has lost its mind and its nerve and has prostituted itself in subservience to propping up the egoic project of freewill reification; when we need to figure shit out, Science gets off on throwing up its arms, while Engineering says “step aside: let me make sense of things and construct a sensible model of what’s going on under the covers.

Go do your Ontology stroking your beards, reveling in the prospect of joyous incomprehensibility, but don’t confuse that with real Science, which is about figuring shit out by hook or crook to make sense of the world, leveraging Feyerabend’s story of real science, which is “whatever method gets the job done, whatever it takes, case-by-case”.

What Philosophy of Science book discusses feedback between theory and data: the theory shapes the observation of the data, and the observed data shapes the theory, forming a feedback loop that alters the theory and the observing of data, until the theory and data match.

That’s how real science really works. hypothesis/prediction–>experiment to confirm/disconfirm (or way better, to *partially* confirm in particular ways: the confirmation isn’t a Yes or No; it’s a *complex vector* serving to push back to reshape the theory, not dumbly answer Y or N. A dynamic, elaborate data pushback vector.

The data to be explained (the explanandum) is: things experienced in loosecog, and mythemes.
Put simply:
Explain entheogen tripping, and explain mythemes.
Approach the data (explanandum) with initial rough ill-formed theory “mythemes are something to do with Cybernetics, Heimarmene, and Entheogens”. Tune and adjust some of the hypotheses in line with the explanandum:

Maybe snake = heimarmene.
Maybe the ancient banqueting tradition = entheogens.
Maybe “being alone and wrestling with the unnamed man all night to get a blessing from God” = control-cybernetics.
Maybe king = cybernetics.

Is there evidence throughout Western Esotericism and Western religion to support such conjectures? Yes, to the extent that metaphor is so interpreted, which requires judgment on “reading” metaphor, judgment to measure the degree of confirmation.

During 2001-2005, I got some possible confirmation of the 3 pillars (Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Entheogens) being expressed in the 4th pillar (Metaphor), in Western Esotericism and Western Religion. Entheogens were fairly easy and concrete to confirm the presence of.

Then, a few weeks ago (such as Sep 2011), I thoughts about books that have bits of my pillar-topics in them and yet fall miles short — that led me to invent the idea of organized weighting, in mythic Esotericism interpretation: the Pri1 referent and emphasis is required to be Cybernetics; Pri 2 = Heimarmene, and Pri3 = Entheogens, particularly mushrooms.

That Priority Sequence is versus Carl Ruck et al, who implicitly theorizes that the Pri1 target of myth is entheogens, and there is no Pri2 required, to understand myth.

Acharya S asserts, in throwback 1880s fashion, that the Pri1 reference topic is (literally) the sun, and there is no Pri2 target topic, to understand the religious myth around Christianity. Look at my posts 2001-2005 and ask in what way they were not yet a complete breakthrough to the degree I now have.

Why, or in what sense per Paul Thagard’s cognitive science-based computer modelling of scientific discovery, did I manage a mountain of total breakthrough around November 23, 2011, while in comparison, there was less complete breakthrough around November 14, 2001, 2005 with my main Theory-specification article, and by the end of December, 2007, when I tore myself away to hiatus til Sep. 2011?

It’s a matter of degree of cross-indexing, “deepening” the associations, and refining the internal infrastructure of the Theory, and gaining fluency and facility and adeptness at “reading” myth. I had to apply pressure for a few months in 2011 to turn the relatively charcoalish diamond of 2005 into a pure diamond. I had to do some passes at refining the Theory, making various *kinds* of improvements.

I finally had to yesterday start working on a model of theory-deepening or “breakthrough”, because I keep re-learning is that a breakthrough comes not at one moment, one day, but is preshocks, big earthquake, then aftershocks. The weeks and days leading up to yesterday, November 23, 2011, felt like a jackpot, joined by an increased rush of gold coins, followed by further bursts of increasing the flow every day, over a couple weeks.

I feel today that I’m past the peak of this unexpected motherlode jackpot, though I expect to find plenty more confirmation, not that any is needed. Now myth is before me like a library to read for general strengthening of the Theory and enjoyment — just the same way that reading yet another mysticism or religion book often feels worthwhile, for a somewhat different tone and perspective.

In 2007, I reached 70% toward 100% breakthrough. What was the 30% still missing?
o Priority Sequence (Pri1:Cyb Pri2:Heim Pri3:Mshr)
o Mushroom focus (very streamlined and thought-clarifying compared to hazy, uncertain, doubt-inducing “entheogens”)
o In 2005, I relied and was dependent on piecemeal evidence, needed Diamond Hammer of Interpretation to transcend bits of evidence — as I wrote recently: Quit acting as if the entheogen theory stands or falls with individual mushroom findings in art; certainly there are lots, it’s way too late to act as if we can dismiss the whole by rejecting every instance.

Andy Letcher in his helpful and harmful, badly argued, uninformed book (do your homework!), barely even acknowledges any of the by-then well-known instances of mushrooms in Christian art; his careless waving-aside of them starts to sound like that move JZ Smith critiques as obstinate apologetics: Protestant Jesus-guild members write “Because no one instance of pagan mythic religion is *exactly* the same as Christianity, we are justified in facilely dismissing the assertion “Christianity is like pagan religion; Christianity is pagan Mystery cult in Jewish drag.”

Letcher acts as if it’s unimportant whether his arguments actually have any persuasive power, or whether he presents a coherent argument; the only thing that’s important is to, one way or another, including kettle logic (inconsistent argumentation structure) to dismiss any bits of evidence he admits exist, to discredit in any way, in favor of any other (inconsistent) goal he invents on the spot to represent his own (inconsistent, shifting) position. His aim isn’t to construct a consistent position, except the general, ludicrous and ill-defined position, vaguely amounting to the position that religious mushroom use has no history.

o With the major topic of Entheogens, too, for a breakthrough, I had to recently quit piecemeal data-consideration; leverage the whole hypothesis system with vigor of consistency of assumption and interpretation/observation. I had to end the mere *piecemeal*-oriented focus to get it in our heads that “We get it, yes, mushrooms are all throughout myth.”

It’s not as if the Entheogen Theory of Religion any more these days hangs on the interpretation of a single item of data, like we could use the Plaincourault fresco as proxy for all the hundreds of explicit mushrooms throughout Christian and religious art.

o For yesterday’s breakthrough, there was a similar situation regarding the Heimarmene hypothesis/interpretation. *If* we interpret and “read” all snakes in all world myth as representing Fatedness of your worldline of your life, then certainly the idea of Heim is everywhere in religion. Indeed the snake is everywhere: why would it be, unless Heimarmene really is important and the snake really represents it?!

Snakebite and shedding skin are *not* represented; they are specifically — deliberately — *not* represented. That omission strategically only leaves the *shape* of the snake as the point, the reason, why the snake is chosen by religion as the main symbol depicting religious wisdom.

Then I combined ‘thread’, and the turning point was the argument I posted around Nov. 21, 2011 that snake = heimarmene based on:
Fates = finite thread = worldline
thread is isomorphic with snake
thread in Daedalus’ Labyrinth and Daedalus’ ant-threaded seashell.
serpent = wisdom

That finally led to my insight yesterday or so (~Nov. 22, 2011) of “serpent vs tree… oh, I see!, serpent in tree as a compare/contrast teaching-instrument, ; the serpent teaches about thinking about treeness (decision-tree openness or illusoriness) in the course of our life as control-and-decision-making agents.

My grasp of metaphor broke through to a greater depth of facility and skill in that I got that much better at reading mythemes, metaphors, analogies — for example, a big mytheme-recognition recently (one of many, coming too fast to type) was “the revealed knowledge in initiation is like a snake in a basket with a lid that can be removed to reveal the hidden snake”. Thus “initiation = revealing the hidden snake”

Also my recently forged Hammer of Interpretation rejects irrelevant noise: it told me that “shed skin and poison” are false derivations of why serpent = wisdom.

Also a big jump in my reading-ability was a deepening of associations, going a bit beyond what I wrote years ago. Why ivy is closely related to mushrooms/entheogens: things make sense if ivy’s *shape* is important and the mushroom reveals insight about the *shape* of a snake and *shape* of ivy vine.

How is ‘vine’ related to psychoactive ‘mushroom’? Either it’s a vine we never heard of (a long shot, pure conjecture), or, vine = mushroom because the mushroom reveals vine-shaped Fatedness of the worldline of a person’s life (a close association with great conceptual coherence, if we adopt my Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence).

70% reading-ability –> 100% reading-ability — involved many, many insights in the past week, 2 weeks, 2 months. The missing 30% was – of course — by definition, the ideas in my recent postings. So many of my recent postings are “the explanation” of why I had a breakthrough, a deepening, a great increase in the number of associations and the ability to read myth with greater facility than in 2005 or 2007.

I was working on so many different, interrelated topics through 2007, I didn’t only work on how to read religious myth. I made record progress 2001-2007, and was severely constrained in word-count in my main article.

I was greedily staking a claim across all religious myth — yet there were various major points still to be prioritized and somehow(!) squeezed in; which words could I have omitted to buy some more space to write explicitly the particular spin of the following idea, very important in myth?

male–>female = uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

source domain (metaphor) = target domain (non-metaphor)
metaphor = non-metaphor

A key idea was one that came to me in a forest walk on the path, thinking about whether Antiquity could have been able to comprehend the idea of worldline and heimarmene in a block-universe. Of course they could: the worldline idea is merely, simply like walking on a path. Actually I had that “path to Eleusis = worldline” idea for some time, from back when I read about Eleusis; see posting dates.

Well there’s an example of “getting an idea, yet not getting it all the way yet” — a common experience for me.

Yes, say in 2005, I had the idea that “path to Eleusis = worldline = snake”, but that’s slightly different than the recent 2011 idea that “That the concept of a worldline in a changeless spacetime block was easy for Antiquity to understand, is proven by the analogy of “procession along sacred ancient path to the Mysteries of Demeter at Eleusis = brass snake = vein in marble block = presetness of our lives and stream of conscious experiencing = worldline = heimarmene.”

Iterative, “deepening” Theory design is like the visual lock-on process when ferreting out a hidden autostereogram image: you glimpse some bits of data, create a theory of what else is there, try it, let the data push back, revise the theory, look more, see more, that perception of data pushes back more, revising your theory more, until you gain coherent lock-on, and then form a perfect theory (image) in your mind.

In 2005, I deduced the image yet didn’t truly directly perceive it. I saw the correct reading of Esotericism and religion correctly, but still it felt indirectly, piecemeal, haltingly, unnaturally.

11/23/11, I saw it in its direct fullness, richness, directly, thoroughly, via the more rigorously tuned, clarified, amplified, Diamond Hammer of Interpretation.

This was like correctly figuring out the autostereogram image by still only glimpsing pieces, so having a full image in mind yet not able to actually directly perceive and simply “read off” that image; your mental model/theory then is still not strong enough, good enough, to truly tune in, lock on, to the point of reading-off — it’s like singing along holding a hymnal but really just winging it, vs. actually reading-off from the hymnal.

Like looking while near-blind, and correctly knowing what’s there, but barely seeing it directly. Or accurately determining which song is playing on hissy FM reception and singing along, but really going from memory rather than truly hearing the song that’s playing.

Now I can sing along with the dead religions, even though the hymnal is too blurry to truly read.

I couldn’t actually *hear* it before, when I wrote my complete Theory-spec in 2005, which achieved closure and (at least implicit) comprehensiveness despite its severely constrained length (28 pages to dominate the entire set of fields, to take ownership of the entire field of religion, myth, altered-state mysticism, revelation, enlightenment, and satori, showing the way all the way for Cognitive Science of altered-state phenomenology as called for in Benny Shanon’s 2002 Antipodes of the Mind).

In 2005, I stated what I deduced the meaning to be — labored strenuous word-by-word reading or translating one word at a time. Like me reading French. I can eventually produce a translation, like working a jigsaw puzzle, out of order, with much hypothesis and tentativeness: correct, but anything but fluent; halting, struggle, unsureness but “I’m pretty much sure that’s what it is saying to the native speakers”.

In 2011, I directly perceived and read-off the meaning — fluent “transparent” direct reading of the text. Like me reading English. I do on-the-fly translation, not even felt as translation but “simply reading”.

My recent Priority Sequence idea was important — has roots in top-level outline of main article 2005, but then, I didn’t firmly list the *sequence* of priorities, such as judging Cybernetics to be more Important than Heimarmene, which was more important than Entheogens, which was more important than Metaphor.

I recently (see posting dates) thought of the *Priority Sequence* idea and the ancient *simplicity* (or “obviousness”) of the seemingly esoteric *heimarmene-snake* idea while I was walking in the forest looking at the changing mushrooms that are always there at the base of the decision-branching trees while controlling my legs to walk myself meandering along the fixed serpentine path that already existed winding itself around the executive decision trees such as are used by the king as pilot who steers the ship of state.

I was complaining about Manly Hall’s Secret Teachings of All Ages, which emphasizes most what matters least, but should emphasize most what matters most (that’s the Priority Sequence idea; walking myself with my weakened leg and my powerful leg along that winding path, I identified “Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Entheogens, Metaphor” as the correct priority sequence.

Degrees of comprehension:

The final paragraph of my main article/theory-specification does talk about the sacred marriage such as Dionysus and Ariadne, and Christ and his Elect (those who were chosen for regeneration before the foundation of the world), but a few important points are only implicitly present (the cost was a million dollars per word) — omitted partly because of intense self-imposed word-count limitations, and partly because more time was needed to do more extensive cross-indexing of the ideas and metaphors.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5647	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Social-political use & abuse of mystic revelation

Understanding the Politics of Applied Mystic Enlightenment/Revelation

Politics is very important because that’s the entire purpose of the New Testament (a sound purpose that’s always relevant): to use the same-old same-old mystic revelation that every two-bit cult offered as cheaply and ubiquitously as mushroom wine. Every POS Alchemy, brand of Gnosticism, and suchlike detritus and flotsam taught the exact same BFD revelation of mystic truth.

The only distinguishing, motivating purpose of bothering to invent the new religion, Christianity, was political: instead of using the old, standard, generic, routine, universal Transcendent Knowledge (that every two-bit scheme conveys) to prop up Domination Hierarchy, the purpose of the Christian expression of the same old Transcendent Knowledge was to direct that old universal Transcendent Knowledge toward propping up a just, humane, *egalitarian* socialpolitical arrangement of society instead of abusing the old routine standard universal revealed Transcendent Knowledge toward excusing and fakely pseudo-justifying the bunk, inhumane, unjust, irreligious, immoral *domination-hierarchy* socialpolitical arrangement of society.

Similarly in Athens’ democracy, there was great concern to control how the Transcendent Knowledge that was revealed in the Mysteries, was utilized in public — to protect the Mysteries’ revelation-knowledge from being abused by aristocrats who want to destroy and wipe out democracy, steal power from the citizens, and set up a domination hierarchy that is supposedly “justified” by the Transcendent Knowledge that’s revealed by the Mystery Cult initiations.

Yes, Transcendent Knowledge is supremely valuable — sure, fine, whatever. But *don’t* think that there is anything special and rare about it such that Christianity brings some kind of revealed Transcendent Knowledge that the other zillion run-of-the-mill brands and marketing packaging don’t *also* provide.

Christianity doesn’t provide *anything*, in terms of mysticism of (actually existing type of) salvation, that all other schemes (in their valid configuration/form) provide. Christianity provides the exact identically same revelation and regeneration and salvation and purification and athanatos that every other scheme of religion or Esoteric Wisdom provides — not one bit more.

As far as mystic revelation content is concerned, Christianity provides the exact same sh*t as every other two-bit scheme of religion, spirituality, or esotericism provides, in their valid forms. Christianity, esoterically, has *nothing* that other schemes of esotericism don’t also have. Esoterically, Christianity doesn’t provide anything more than other brands.

The only thing Christianity offers in contrast to other brands of religion or esotericism is the effort to direct the universal Transcendent Knowledge in support of egalitarian structuring of society, against the effort of other religions to abuse Transcendent Knowledge in pseudo-support of domination-hierarchy, to pretend that religious revelation advocates hierarchy and sheer power-based domination as a social arrangement.

The logic of Roman Empire, domination-hierarchy, and Mithraism: “I kicked your ass, therefore God has revealed that I am appointed by Him to rule over you. God made me master and you my slave. God made you my slave. Worship him, obey me; as you worship, revere, honor, and submissively bow down to God, faithful consistency dictates that you worship, revere, honor, and submissively bow down to me.”

The dog in Mithraic tauroctonys represents obedience and submission (reflecting dominance), along with faithful alliance and fidelity.

Early Christianity (whenever that was) is precisely the assertion that another logic, another train of reasoning, is valid and better: as one man bows in submission to the uncontrollable thought-source, so does each man bow down to the, or his, uncontrollable thought-source; and everything is predetermined; and such Transcendent Knowledge is either silent about the issue of how we should structure power-relations in society, or, Transcendent Knowledge dictates that we are all equals in the face of transcendent power; we are all heimarmene-worms and ego-killed kings, and to be consistent with that revealed Transcendent Knowledge, to reflect it and follow it as a template, we must set up a society with power-relations structured in an egalitarian configuration.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5648	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Ahistoricity is important because it’s Non-literalism

In the case of the truth about Christianity, to advocate Nonliteralism is necessarily to advocate Ahistoricity. It is self-contradiction to advocate Nonliteralism of religious figurations and themes, while also advocating Historicity regarding Jesus, Paul, Church Fathers, and Christianity’s Existence in Antiquity.

My current, latest thinking and feeling on the subject of whether Christianity existed in Classical Antiquity: From the time of Augustus Caesar to the 476 “fall of the Roman Empire” or to the rise of Islam that shut down the Mediterranean trade routes, Christianity as such didn’t exist; it only existed in precursor, piecemeal, proto-Christian form, such as Gnosticism.

In particular, per Edwin Johnson, the New Testament writings didn’t exist in anything recognizably like their present form (it’s a matter of degree) until close to Luther’s era. Christianity had a long, slow, late fade-in, so that Christianity, in New Testament form, was written by Luther & co, in 825 aka 1525. The details? Who knows.

The details are pretty unfathomable at this point, requiring much broad, time-consuming research. But this general idea of the very late, very slow fade-in of Christianity, such that Christianity only existed in a bare ghostly form through 476, and only existed in recognizable, written, NT form in 825 or 1525, is much closer to the truth than the theory that NT Christianity existed (in any meaningful, recognizable sense) in 325.

The issue is not the accuracy of the details, but rather, the truth of the general idea: that recognizable, written NT Christianity was brought together after 476 — not in 150 or 325. Recognizable, written NT Christianity was brought together not in 150, 325, or 476, but closer to 825 or 1525.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5649	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: The Hammer of Interpretation

Hoffman’s Diamond Hammer of Interpretation:

Any valid system of transcendent knowledge involves Cybernetics as its ultimate concern, Heimarmene as its main support of that concern, Entheogens as its means of access, and Analogy as its means of expression.

Any valid system of transcendent knowledge involves:

o Cybernetics as its ultimate concern (because religion is about *you*, what you experience yourself to be, a control-wielding agent moving yourself though space and time, deciding which branch of the decision-tree to take; the source of control-power in the mind, and helpless receiving of all thoughts),

o Heimarmene as its main support of the ultimate concern (way of organizing the mental model of control and time),

o Entheogens as its means of access (mushrooms make you perceive the uncontrollable source of thoughts and concomitant personal helpless subjection to your control-thoughts you are given), and

o Analogy as its means of expression (Metaphor-systems, a language of alluding to and vividly describing and conveying/communicating and structuring the above).

Hellenistic style would probably label it as “the Golden Hammer of Interpretation”, rather than ‘Diamond’, but ‘Diamond’ expresses the power of conceptual coherence and completely organized thought.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5650	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Wheat vs. Chaff: m-model of thot-src vs junk part of ego

My Theory considered as a “prediction” was strongly confirmed upon finding that Persephone has a winnowing basket in Hades to separate the wheat from chaff, meaning mentally separating the truth about egoic control power from our initial, animalistic incoherent misconception of egoic control power.

The post-initiation mother is Demeter.

The pre-initiation daughter is Persephone, representing the youthful egoic deluded self-concept. Persephone is forcibly made Queen of the Underworld.

Demeter was forced to sacrifice Persephone by Hades; Hades forcibly abducted Persephone away from Demeter, to Hades.

Hades is King/ruler of the Underworld of the cast-off ghosts of the ego-dead.

Demeter, Persephone, and Hades are metaphorically described (to help make them tangible and comprehensible) aspects of the initiate regarding the self-concept regarding mushroom-revealed perception of mental dynamics of self-command cybernetics power, including revealing fatedness.

In Antiquity, you take mushrooms, perceive the impotence of self-control cybernetics and perceive fatedness, and mentally grasp that perception more vividly by metaphorical descriptions such as ‘Persephone’, ‘Hades’, ‘abduction’, and ‘Demeter’.

The altered state makes you perceive your uncontrollable thought-source and your helpless thought-receiver, and this perceiving eliminates aspects of deluded egoic control thinking, identifying and removing an incoherent virtual agency from your mind and relegating that virtual agency to a category of “things that seemed to exist but don’t really exist”.

The altered state makes you perceive your uncontrollable thought-source [‘Hades’] and your helpless thought-receiver [‘Demeter’], and this perceiving eliminates [‘abducts’, ‘sacrifices’] aspects of deluded egoic control thinking [‘Persephone’, ‘ghost’], identifying and removing an incoherent virtual agency from your mind [‘exorcism’] and relegating that virtual agency to a category of “things that seemed to exist but don’t really exist” [‘Hades’, ‘underworld’].

Self-steering power, self-control cybernetics is metaphorized as ‘chariot and charioteer’.

Fatedness is metaphorized as ‘snake’, ‘thread’, ‘labyrinth’, ‘ivy’, ‘vine’, ‘ivy vine’, ‘grape vine’, ‘path’ (such as the path for the procession to Eleusis), and is often positioned under the vehicle, such as ‘snake under bull’, ‘panther under Dionysus’ chariot’, ‘snake under chariot’, or ‘snake-drawn chariot’ of the first-generation initiate of Demeter, Triptolemus.

Fatedness is also metaphorized as the basilisk (rooster+snake)-drawn chariot of Saturn, near the sphere of the fixed stars, which sphere is represented as a snake, with the sphere of Saturn and fixed stars equated with fatedness.

Triptolemus is the most important first-generation initiate of Demeter. Triptolemus steers and controls his snake-drawn chariot, spreading knowledge of “agriculture” — how to make hidden wheat sprout, which is a metaphorical description referring to knowledge of how to reveal the workings of control in the mind and thus sacrifice the delusion portion of egoic control-thinking.

In case the term ‘sacrifice’ is too charged, vague, indirect, and metaphorical: that ‘sacrificing’ of the deluded aspect of egoic mental model is to identify and eliminate/repudiate it, like, for example, Physics eliminated the ‘phlogiston’ concept as unnecessary and useless and an interference to successful explanatory efficacy.

Whether the Scientific method is mischaracterized as Hypothesis/Prediction/Confirmation or accurately characterized as a theory-data feedback loop, my serendipitous happening upon a strange picture of Persephone in Hades serves as theory-confirmation of my Theory (no longer a hypothesis) of Hellenistic religious myth as firstly about Cybernetics, supported by Heimarmene, accessed via Entheogens, visualized via Metaphor.

When reviewing the story of Persephone yesterday (Nov. 24, 2011) to see which god abducted her, I saw a curious picture of Persephone at her study desk in Hades’ underworld, lifting the lid of the desk. My first inclination was the terrible habit of throwing up my arms saying “How should *I* know? It’s just some stupid random Greek stuff. <shrug>” Fortunately there was a caption, although a bunch of meaningless, unhelpful jargon:

Persephone opening the “Liknon Mystikon”

WTF is the impenetrable decipherable alienating term “Liknon Mystikon”? Will this research effort be at all worth the payoff, to pointlessly find that she’s opening her school desk to retrieve a pencil? Again, I had a terrible habit of wimping out, collapsing in intimidation.

But I gathered my wits, stopped, broke out the sentence terms, and researched the unknown terms, working the equation though I feared (this is why I have the bad habit of wimping out and wilting in the face of the unfamiliar) having to learn Greek and Latin and dead religions and spend a month in antiquarian studies, only to find the scene is random, unworthwhile content that is of no use to anyone.

“A bunch of random decoration? I don’t have time for deciphering that.” I gathered my wits, reminded myself of the requirement to be resourceful and have a can-do attitude toward working through the math, deciphering, and interpreting the ramifications.

The deciphering turned out to be trivial and easy, and the payoff turned out to be a jackpot directly supporting what I had posted only a couple days before — and I wasn’t even particularly looking for such confirmation; it was serendipitous. The alien terms I was intimidated by in the equation/sentence to be deciphered were not ‘pinax’ or ‘Locri’ — so don’t be intimidated by those.

The only alien unknowns to research are ‘Liknon Mystikon’. A search immediately produced the jackpot result: A liknon is a winnowing fan to separate grain from chaff.

A winnowing fan separates the grains from the worthless chaff, like separating a lie from truth. The chaff, the lie, is the imagined egoic power of control over the source of one’s thoughts, and the ability to control and change your destiny.

Upon perceiving this delusion, the purely deluded aspect of egoic thinking vanishes, going to Hades, the underworld land of shadows, ghosts, where Persephone (the deluded self-concept) was abducted by Hades (King/ruler of the Underworld) and made Queen of Hades — Queen of the people who only seemed to exist, until initiation; Queen of Ego Delusion, Queen of Dead Egos.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5651	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

The Scientific Method is “Theory-Data Feedback Loop”, not “Hypothesis/Prediction/Confirmation”

The Scientific Method continues to be crudely characterized, in passing, as Predictionism, never with a justification for this rigid and arbitrary emphasis. I never see proper discussions of the Scientific method presenting an argument in favor of this “Science = prediction” characterization. That characterization is treated as if it’s the standard agreed-upon, well-justified definition of the Scientific method, yet no proper discussion actually asserts that view!

The Predictionism view is a conclusion-summary, with no connection to the real discussions, reasoning, about how “the Scientific method” actually works. It’s a free-floating characterization unconnected to the actual argumentation. Thus there’s a disconnect between such “summaries” and what the Philosophers of Science actually think.

No Philosopher of Science, in a serious critical discussion of the Scientific method, defends anything like that crass “summary” of Science as Prediction — yet that summary-characterization continues as a bad meme to propagate itself. The meme needs to be exterminated once and for all.

The actual Scientific Method is a dynamic ongoing interaction between theory and data, with the theory testing and probing the data in various ways, getting dynamic feedback from the data that changes various aspects of the theory, which then is able to better probe and observe the data and collect the data, so that the data then pushes back and feeds back to altering the theory, until there is a match between theory and now fully as possible perceived data.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5652	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Wheat vs. Chaff: m-model of thot-src vs junk part of ego

Decoded: Demeter holding up a grain to Triptolemus: Demeter holds up a grain and chaff showing them to the initial initiate Triptolemus. You are Triptolemus, the initiate. Demeter is showing you during mushroom initiation a grain and a chaff.

That mytheme is a metaphor and analogy from the Source Domain of “agriculture”, pointing to the Target Domain of self-control cybernetics and self-concept as control agent, cybersteering control-power agency.

That mytheme describes and depicts by analogy: mushroom perception makes you perceive that part of your egoic self-concept is valid and real, and part of it is illusory and unreal.

Wheat grain does not mean wheat grain: it means the truth about egoic control agency.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5653	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

When deciphering a language, eventually you can write and speak new statements in the language. Thus a metaphor points to the target meaning, and once you possess the target meaning, you are able to generate new metaphors, becoming a mythmaker, able to speak the language of myth.

The Egodeath theory is both a Core theory of the self and the transformation of self-concept, and, it is the deciphering of a language of metaphors.

This pairing of interests is not new:

o Generating an independent Theory/model of the world; constructing a Core theory of the self and the transformation of self-concept.

o Encoding and decoding, encryption and decryption; ciphering and deciphering; communication and linguistics. The deciphering of a language of metaphors about the self and the transformation of self-concept, and learning to generate new statements or symbol expressions in the deciphered language, translating between the source (metaphorical) and target (non-metaphorical) languages, becoming able to construct meaningful, valid statements within the existing metaphor-domain, and, becoming able to construct new metaphor-schemes — new expressions or embodiments of Perennial Transcendent Knowledge.

Esotericists (Adepts, Magii, Magus) in the early Modern period (and later: Boehme, Crowley) similarly figured out how the self-concept is corrected and transformed on mushrooms, and some of them also did related work on encryption and deciphering, of hieroglyphs, of symbols, of metaphors, particularly in this uber-domain, this master domain, Perennial Transcendent Knowledge.

This unchanging Transcendent Knowledge has is explicitly summarized and effectively condensed for the first time in known history in the form of my Egodeath theory, hand-drafted August 1988, uploaded as Core summary to Principia Cybernetica at start of 1997, and uploaded as main theory-specification 2005-2006.

My Theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, explicitly and scientifically explains Transcendent Knowledge; this theory-expression doesn’t rely on metaphors, but stands apart from them and explains them, and utilizes them to increase the grasp of the non-metaphorical concepts of the Core theory.

The Theory also demonstrates application of this metaphor-handling capability and metaphor understanding, by demonstrating the creation of new metaphor schemes that express Transcendent Knowledge, such as in terms of Cognitive Science, Cybernetics, Robotics, Telepresence, Computer Science — following the poetic lead of Neil “the Professor” Peart’s 1975 song No One at the Bridge (nautical metaphors) and especially his songs The Body Electric (1001001 is “I” in binary encoding) and Vital Signs.

The metaphor-domain of Cognitive Science is valuable because it is closer to the target domain than other previous source domains are, such as Alchemy, Persephone, and Jesus. The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence is an independent new late-Modern era discovery of Perennial Transcendent Knowledge from within a cultural context such as the computer labs at Stanford University in Silicon Valley.

CTET as a religion: name of the religion: Cybernetic Transcendence or CybTrans (a literal description of the religion), like my original domain name, Cybtrans.com. A more poetic name? I refer to it as TK, meaning my particular Theory and expression. ‘Egodeath’ is another effective label, which isn’t the title of a religion, so much as a statement of what religion is.

Metaphor-theme of the religion (so direct, it’s barely a metaphor): Cybernetics & Cognitive Science, or the Cognitive Phenomenology of Personal Cybernetics. My theory — what the Perennial Philosophy really is — is Kubernetes Gnosis; Gnosis of Kubernetes; Transcendent Knowledge of Cybernetics; Gnosis of Cybernetics; CyberGnosis, which is *the* Gnosis, unveiled and directly named.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5654	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: The name of my Theory and of the system of religion I created

Below, my favored term is listed first in each list.

The formal name of my theory is
The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
The Cyberfatedelic Theory (explicit and short and designed to list the 3 important referents of myth & religion in priority sequence: 1) Cybernetics; 2) Heimarmene; 3) Entheogens)

The informal names of my theory:
The Egodeath Theory
Transcendent Knowledge (TK)
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Egodeath

Possible useful informal short name of my theory as the name of a brand of religion:
Egodeath (pithy and short without being an acronym; sound roots in ancient and 1960s tradition)
CyberGnosis (explicitly explanatory, combines late-Modern style with Christian roots in Hellenistic Classical Antiquity)
CybTrans
Cybernetic Transcendence
Kubergnosis
The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
Cognitive Science
Perennial Transcendent Knowledge
Cybtrans.com
TK
Transcendent Knowledge
CTET
Cybernetics & Cognitive Science
Cognitive Phenomenology of Personal Cybernetics
Perennial Philosophy
Kubernetes Gnosis
Gnosis of Kubernetes
Transcendent Knowledge of Cybernetics
Gnosis of Cybernetics
Gnosis

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5655	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: How to think coherently: Engineering, not Science

It is important and mandatory that people learn and cross-index ideas about Heimarmene in all major aspects.

http://www.egodeath.com/QMHiddenVariablesDeterminism.htm

Bell admitted to Huw Price that hidden variables determinism is the only tangible and coherent model but must be rejected by Science in order to preserve free will. Thus our falsely so-called “Science” has admitted that Science starting with Bohr = prostitute, degenerated, a travesty of rationality, = pseudo-Science.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5656	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Killed ego = girl (Persephone), revised ego = woman (Demeter)

Why egodeath is the death of a girl

Here’s how you are the woman Demeter: you are the helpless thought-receiver, and you were overpowered by your male transpersonal portion, who injected egodeath thoughts into you, killing your daughter/girl childself; that is..! … egodeath is a girl.

The lower mind (before & after initiation) is female because helpless thought-receiver.

The egoic delusion that is eliminated during initiation is female because it is the youthful self-concept that the lower mind used to have; to retain continuity, back-project the same gender from “my practical control-power is now recognized as female psyche because it helplessly receives thoughts that are injected by a separate locus of control”, back onto the previous version of the psyche; therefore, the previous self-concept is described also as female; a daughter.

Thinking about loosecog and time travel helps get into the Demeter headspace.

How egodeath is like a son dying
How egodeath is like a daughter dying
How egodeath is like a father losing a son [God, Jesus]
How egodeath is like a father losing a daughter
How egodeath is like a mother losing a son
How egodeath is like a mother losing a daughter [Demeter, Persephone]

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5657	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 25/11/2011
Subject: Re: Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

The Extreme Radical Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion, including Nonliteralism & Politics

Any valid system of transcendent knowledge involves entheogens. But further, going beyond the Extreme Radical Maximal *Entheogen* Theory of Religion, is The Maximal Cybernetics/Heimarmene/Entheogen/Metaphor Theory of Religion and Esoteric Knowledge, condensed as “The Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion” — plus the important topics of Politics and Nonliteralism/Ahistoricity (topics which I fold into the words ‘interpretation’, ‘metaphor’, and ‘theory’).

The Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion

or shortenable because already absolutistic:

The Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion
or
The Cyberfatedelic Interpretation of Religion

In ‘Cyberfatedelic’,
1.Cybernetics is listed first because it is Pri1
2. Heimarmene is listed second because Pri2
3. Psychedelics/Psychotomimetics/Schizogenics/Entheogens/Mushrooms is listed 3rd because Pri3
4. Theory or Interpretation is listed 4th because Metaphor is Pri4
…5? Political Application (Use and Abuse) of Religion, and Nonliteralism/Ahistoricity eg of Jesus, Paul, Church Fathers, and Christianity in Antiquity, none of which existed except in a weak sense.
…6? Nonliteralism/Ahistoricity eg of Jesus, Paul, Church Fathers, and Christianity in Antiquity, none of which existed except in a weak sense.

Metaphor, Politics, and Nonliteralism are closely related, in Christianity. It’s possible to fold Politics and Nonliteralism (Ahistoricity) into the bucket “Metaphor”. I *have* often written and remarked that surprisingly, Ahistoricity — huge as it *seems*, and as much work as I’ve contributed in that field, is quite minor in my Theory.

Now that Michael Rinella provides leads that I can use to relate Entheogens and Politics in Athens’ democracy, I can apply much similar treatment of Christian and Hellenic religion:
o Fold Politics into Metaphor for Christianity
o Fold Politics into Metaphor for Hellenism
o Fold Nonliteralism into Metaphor for Christianity
o Fold Nonliteralism into Metaphor for Hellenism

My Core theory with the later metaphor extension added inherently has to discuss Metaphor at length. But it doesn’t take many words to adequately treat Ahistoricity or Politics in my Theory appropriately. The lack of needing to expound at length on my research on Politics and Ahistoricism, for the purpose of presenting the valuable summary of my Theory, is reflected in the extremely short coverage — though dead-on and profoundly suggestive — of those topics in my main Theory-specification article.

In a single brief section of that article, I both dismiss Jesus and Paul as ahistorical (I need to extend that to Church Fathers and Christianity in Antiquity), and mention in a general way “the Roman sociopolitical arrangement … a polemical counter-narrative about … sociopolitical concerns … rebuttal and alternative to Roman imperial theology”, though I don’t there provide the specific words “domination hierarchy” and “egalitarian”.

The latter is why Sally nagged me about leaving out the meaning of the cross in its Roman Imperial context, which would add “domination hierarchy … egalitarian”.

Which is more important, for Transcendent Knowledge?
o Understanding the Politics of Applied Mystic Enlightenment/Revelation
o Understanding the Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism of Jesus/Paul/Church Fathers/Christian Antiquity

Politics of applied Transcendent Knowledge is important against domination hierarchy and in support of egalitarian freedom.

Ahistoricity is important, a mandatory slate-clearing prerequisite to enable grasping and understanding Transcendent Knowledge. Gaining Transcendent Knowledge requires that we cast out, exorcise, the deluding demon of Historicity and Literalism. The Historicity delusion and confusion works exactly as Literalism; so, define why Literalism must be cast out, to gain salvation.

The Cyberfatedelic Interpretation of Religion, including Nonliteralism/Ahistoricity and Political Philosophy of Transcendent Knowledge (social-politically applied religion).

My own main driving interest is not Ahistorcity or
I might fold Ahistoricity (Nonliteralism) and Politics aspects of the Theory,

I’ve said “I extended to add history and metaphor.” But that included Politics and Ahistoricity. Thus it is elegant to say:

1985-1997, I created the Core theory:
o Cybernetics (Pillar 1)
o Heimarmene (Pillar 2)
o Loosecog/Entheogens (Pillar 3)

1998-2007, I extended the theory to cover also:
o Metaphor (Pillar 4)
o Ahistoricity/total Nonliteralism of Jesus and Paul (by 2011, also Church Fathers & Christianity in Antiquity)
o History of entheogens throughout all religion (I defined the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion)
o Politics of applying mushroom-state revelation (Christianity rebuttal to Roman Empire Political Theology; Athens’ democracy vs. aristocrats)

Given that it’s not necessary for my Theory-expression to go into great detail in Ahistoricity or Politics, I am inclined to expand the defined scope of my Metaphor bucket to officially include Ahistoricity and Politics, rather than messily breaking out as footnotes, separate buckets about Ahistoricity and Politics. Those two topics are key, important topics — but not warranted as broken out to level 1 for a *general* Theory of religion.

My Theory is a *general* theory of religion, and therefore the special topics of Ahistoricity and Politics — although extremely important for the world’s most important religion, Christianity — can and should be folded into Metaphor, similar to how the distinct topics (broken out in main article) of Loosecog and Entheogens, I have chosen to combine into a single bucket. Thus I can retain 4 Pillars of Fundamental Dogmatic Truth:

1. Cybernetics, including Control and Communication (such as of the Theory)
2. Heimarmene, including Worldlines and Block Universe
3. Loosecog, including Entheogens and Schizophrenia
4. Metaphor, including Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism and Politics, and Communication-encoding

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5658	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: When I independently figured out & learned Entheogen theory

I deduced the entheogen theory independently, and then confirmed it in Allegro & Heinrich, and then in the other authors. When I finally learned, late, about books about the Entheogen theory, around 2000, I got off to a good start, with Heinrich’s book:

Strange Fruit
Alchemy and Religion: The Hidden Truth
Alchemy, Religion and Magical Foods: A Speculative History
Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy

I figured out Truth about religion and ego transcendence on my own, nonmetaphorically, in 1988/1993/1997, and then in 1998-2001-2007 & 2011 I looked to decode world religion to confirm the Truth I had already found on my own.

I looked in the New Testament sometimes around 1986-1989 (my notes assert that eating the scroll in Revelation is mushrooms, which I deduced completely on my own, not having heard of Wasson and Allegro then), but started serious work on world religious myth and metaphor in 1998.

I independently discovered the hypothesis that the scrolls eaten in Revelation were mushrooms, as indicated in my notebooks from that time, around 1988 (1986-1989). I didn’t hear of Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, or Heinrich, or the Entheogen theory of religion, until around 2000 (my postings at Mindspace or Jesus Mysteries or Gnostic Yahoo Group with Coraxo would show when I first heard of the Entheogen theory of religion, as opposed to deducing it on my own starting around 1988.

Possibly the first I ever read about entheogens was in 1988, with Charles Tart’s call for state-specific or multistate Science. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs probably had little ancient coverage.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5659	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: When I independently figured out & learned Entheogen theory

When I first did library research, in 1988, there was a dominant biased presupposition held almost universally, which we are still shaking off: the unexamined presupposition that psychedelics were a new discovery and were used never or only in rare and abnormal cases in religion history.

The truth per my Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion is that psychedelics — more than deliriants, opium, or cannabis — such as, most typically, psilocybin mushrooms, were the main, normal, standard means of accessing religious experiencing in all eras, regions, and religions throughout religious history — which is closer to the truth than the biased official view that still, unbelievably at this late date, holds, but that official view is fast losing its credibility and hypnotic effect.

A new book came out from Cambridge on Mystery Religions, and it continues to tout the old outdated official view, but the advancement is indicated by the fact that the book sees fit to at least acknowledge the entheogen theory, albeit in order to hurl that theory instantly into the trash can in a manner like the heavily biased and uneven book by Andy Letcher.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5660	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: If prove ancients believed my Core theory, are we proved true?

What if Antique religion is false? For example:

o What if we, in a practical and familiar sense, *can* control the source of our thoughts? What if we really are metaphysically autonomous and independent, like gods?

o What if Heimarmene isn’t true? What if our future in a profound sense is up to us, is created freely by us? What if Copenhagenism and manyworlds is true? What if freewill is the case?

o What if Antique religion was nothing but confused psychotomimetic mushroom-induced hallucination and schizophrenic delusions of reference and control?

Then my Theory must explain the untruth as an untruth, and explain and identify the system that ancients deludedly believed.

My programme, approach, and purpose was:
1. Figure out Truth (1985-1997).
2. Justify my Truth by getting confirmation from religions (1998-2007 & 2011).

My 1998 project of using the NT to confirm my Core theory, required cracking the code of ancient religion; that amounted to utilizing my Core theory as a Hypothesis, and using ancient religious myth as the language to be deciphered or the code to be cracked.

If my Core theory succeeds at cracking the code of ancient religion, as measured by the great ability of my Core theory to make sense out of ancient religious myth, then ancient religion “confirms” my Core theory, in that ancient religion *agrees with* my Core theory.

But just because, say, Jesus & Demeter’s hierophants agree with my Core theory, does not prove my Core theory is correct — it only proves that Jesus (& Demeter’s hierophants) and I agree and believe the same; but logically, we might both be completely wrong.

Which of these questions is my research of 1998-2007 & 2011 trying to answer or confirm:
o Is my Core theory true?
o What is ancient’s Core theory underneath their overgrowth jungle of metaphor?
o Is the ancients’ Core theory true?
o Do the ancients have the same Core theory as I do?

How I thought about it in 1998:

“I’m certain my Core theory is correct. And I readily assume that Jesus must have understood the same thing. Therefore, I expect to be and should be able to confirm by reading the New Testament with a suitable coherent interpretation, that Jesus believed and taught the content of my Theory. That is, I am Michael the Archangel; what I am revealing is what Jesus said would be revealed by Michael at the end of time.

“If Jesus can be shown to believe the content of my Theory, then I consider my Theory to have been proved correct by the highest authority of religion, or one of the highest authorities, Jesus — and I am thus true to the prediction or doctrine of Michael the Archangel revealing all things at the end of time, which will amount to the public end of egoic delusion, that period of the Modern era with linear time, giving Transcendent Knowledge to everyone.”

I was unaware of Pagan Hellenistic religion when I constructed my Core theory 1985-1997. Before 1998, my only significant exposure to Christianity was that I read fundamentalist Dave Hunt’s books around 1995, and only owned the Bible in King James and NIV translations, and barely dabbled in reading those.

1998-2001 I studied religious myth for the first time. I started initially learning and figuring out Pagan religion along with reading the NT interpretively, around 1998.

I quickly felt that it is impossible to understand the NT without understanding Hellenistic religion and the cultural context of the NT, which is the Roman Empire, including Jewish religion as a subset of the Roman Empire. The Jewish religion is not the sole cultural context of Christian origins. The Roman Empire is more a foreground than a background of Christian origins.

With my non-metaphorical Core theory in hand, it took me 3 years to go from knowing nothing about religious myth and little about Christianity, to grasping the essential breakthrough idea that religious myth is, as a rule, metaphorical description for altered-state cognitive phenomena and about insights into noncontrol and fatedness, and that entheogens are typically, often, or commonly involved.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5661	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: If prove ancients believed my Core theory, are we proved true?

Interesting set of answers:

1. Is my Core theory true? Don’t know.

2. What is ancient’s core theory underneath their overgrowth jungle of metaphor? The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.

3. Is the ancients’ core theory true? Don’t know.

4. Do the ancients have the same core theory as I do?

Proposition A is The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
Proposition B is Ancient Religious Myth.

Then the questions are expressed as:
1. Is A true?
2. What is B?
3. Is B true?
4. Is A = B?

The interesting set of answers is:
1. Is A true? d/k
2. What is B? = A
3. Is B true? d/k
4. Is A = B? Y

But 2 and 4 are somehow redundant. As a matter of historical fact during my Theory development, I approached the questions involving B as follows:
1. Is A true?
2. Is A confirmed by B; that is, is A = B, where B is presupposed as true?

But question 2 implicitly (in addition to the uncritical presupposing) makes a really stunning or presumptuous assumption, that the theorist is *capable* of *evaluating* (or “reading”, “deciphering”) B. Now that, in 2001-2005-2011, I have made a *huge* breakthrough to decode and decipher ancient religion for the first time in the late-Modern era — a huge breakthrough that was merely casually assumed as if a given, in 1998 … a minor incidental footnote in fine print:

“By the way, note that evaluating “A ?= B” will require that you take a moment to decipher and crack the code of the Ancient Mysteries and make totally clear and coherent the esoteric reading of the New Testament, which scholars have all but given up on for the past many decades, or even the past few centuries such as during the Modern era in general. This will be relatively easy if your Core theory indeed matches the ancient’s encrypted or encoded core theory.”

Fortunately, during 2001-2005, I got sufficient tentative confirmation that my Core theory indeed matches the ancients’ encoded core theory. And by yesterday, November 23, 2011, I got more than tentative confirmation: I proved that my Core theory matches the ancient’ encoded core theory; so that, in effect, my Core theory was the first successful decryption algorithm to crack the cipher of Hellenistic religion including the NT and OT, and Eastern and world religion such as Zen and Tantric Buddhism.

Now having proved that my Core theory is the decryption key for all world religion, and having proved that my Core theory is approved and “confirmed” by world religion, which is to say that the decoded and extract core referent target meaning that’s expressed by the metaphor-jungle that world religion is packaged and communicated in, it strikes me that that “confirmation” of my Core theory by virtue of my Core-theory-decrypted world religion core *matching* my Core theory, doesn’t prove that my Core theory is correct, and neither does the authority of my late-Modern invention, my Core theory, *prove* that world religion is (in its esoteric metaphor-target payload) correct.

My Theory confirms the truth of world religion.
and
World religion confirms the truth of my theory.

or equivalently

My Theory is true iff world religion is true.

A iff B.

That is, my explicit Theory is true iff world religion is esoterically true.

There is also this kind of circularity: my Core theory implicitly amounts to the assertion that world religion when read through the interpretation-filter that’s provided by this Core theory, will be revealed — if both theories are correct and therefore match — as expressing the same core theory.

Detractors or skeptics or critics could argue that ancient religion doesn’t actually wrap the same core theory as my Core theory, but only appears to me to do so because I’m projecting my Core theory onto antiquity. Specifically, I detect the “signature” priority sequence of world religion as 1: Cybernetics, 2: Heimarmene, 3: Entheogens, not because that’s the priority sequence that’s actually held by world religion, but only because I’m selectively observing the data.

Critics assert that world religion is actually literal sun worship, for example, and only by ignoring the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence for that proven 1880 theory, do I come away with the false impression, so it merely appears to me because of my intensive lossy filtering-away of the massive contradictory data, it only *looks* to me, through my heavy distorting filter, *as if* world religion expresses the target meaning, and has the priority sequence of, 1: Cybernetics, 2: Heimarmene, 3: Entheogens.

My thinking in 1998:

Is my Core theory true, as proved by the fact that Jesus [or by 2001, “world religion”] agrees with it?

That strategy of proof contains at least two kinds of big problems!

For one thing, assuming that you have a correct understanding of world religion including New Testament Christianity, the only thing that that world religion can prove is that there’s agreement or a match between my Core theory and the esoteric core theory expressed by world religion.

For another thing, how can you know that you have a correct understanding of world religion? Another angle on that question is, .. a major showstopper problem!, is that — to put it generally — all scholars are completely baffled by the meaning of Christianity, NT Christianity, ancient religion, Hellenistic religion, and world religion — in short, all modern scholars are completely unable to understand religion. Religion is a total mystery and massive, completely unsolved problem for Modern scholars!

So how can you naively, so naively, presume, Michael Hoffman of 1998: “Ok, I now have my Core theory. Now I need to merely determine that Jesus asserts my Core theory.” Or equivalently: “To prove and corroborate my Core theory, I merely need to take a moment to show that ancient religion and world religion and Christianity and the Mystery Religions (esotericism) agree with and express my Core theory.”

The problem with that infinitely naive, innocent question, is that Religion is a total mystery and massive, completely unsolved problem for Modern scholars!

But it just so happens that there is a saving, “decryption key” effect: the Core theory amounts to a hypothesis of what decryption key is able to make sense and devise vastly greater explanatory coherence and account for a vastly broader scope of data, and map to the previous attempted, dismally failed theories — innumerable failed attempts to untie the Gordian knot (as finally my Hoffman’s Diamond Hammer of Interpretation did, my sword of Alexander the Great) — to explain why those theories failed.

A iff B — is circular so *logically* nothing is “proved proved” with unassailable certainty. But practically, this is how “knowledge” works: A and B cross-corroborate each other, increasing the likelihood of truth (mutually, for both A and B), based on:

o The argument from conceptual coherence
o The argument from breadth of explanatory power
o The argument from consensus agreement with other investigators/testers/observers/ASC explorers
o The argument from ability to map to previous theories
o The ability to make full sense of metaphor-encoded world religion by using my core Theory as a decryption key or observing-filter
o The extensive connection of my Core theory to the key priority-sequence topics of 1: Cybernetics; 2: Determinism; 3. Loosecog; 4: Metaphor, as those topics appear in many fields, including Religion, Psychology, Philosophy, Physics, Music, Philosophy of Science, Entheogens, Myth, and Cognitive Science.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5662	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Applying the Theory to myth improves the Theory

The Core theory needs a term to efficiently differentiate between the portion of the self-concept “who” dies as purely worthless illusion, versus the retained egoic-shaped mental functioning, sans delusion, after initiation: the chaff, and the wheat.

I discovered that applying the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence develops that Theory, at the same time as cracking-open the Mysteries of world religion.

Applying an explanatory framework develops the explanatory framework.

Not only is the metaphor extension of my Theory improved by applying the Theory as explanatory framework to explain religious mythic metaphor; even the Core theory’s infrastructure is improved and refactored and more thoroughly internally cross-indexed by pressing against, or acting against, or dancing with, the Myth to be explained.

Hellenistic mythic metaphor, in order to be considered to be well-decoded by the Theory, mandates that the decoding Theory must have cleanly bounded concepts that map cleanly to the source (mythic metaphor) domain. This is an example of how Metaphor improves non-metaphor Theory, in the feedback loop:

observing-Theory –> partially observed-data –> modified observing-Theory –> better-observed-data

Or equivalently, in the case deciphering and decryption and interpretation of world religious myth:

attempted interpretation –> encrypted data partly with bits of coherence read –> revised interpretation –> mostly-coherent-read data –> successful interpretation –> fully coherently read/extracted data, and, the ability to write and encrypt into the deciphered language; read/write ability; like ability to myth-make

Thus Holyoak & Thagard in Mental Leaps write that the source–>target (metaphor–>referent) relationship is actually two-way: metaphor<–>referent, so that the mind can efficiently traverse horizontally and vertically as:

metaphor 1 in the metaphor domain <– referent 1 in non-metaphor domain
|
V
metaphor 2 in the metaphor domain –> referent 2 in non-metaphor domain

Thus

metaphor<–>referent
religious mythic metaphor<–>Egodeath Core theory

Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought
Keith Holyoak, Paul Thagard
1995
http://amazon.com/dp/0262581442
MIT Press

For example:

1. Starting in the top right, referent/target/nonmetaphor domain, moving left to the metaphor domain:
Personal control (a concept in the referent domain) is like a woman (a figure in the metaphor domain), and when this is revealed, your former self-concept as autonomous control-agent is eliminated; personal control is revealed by mushroom-induced loosecog as a helpless thought-receiver with thoughts forcibly inserted by an alien locus of control.

2. Then traversing down within the source/metaphor domain, we can say that:
A woman was formerly a girl who was a different person, and the woman sacrificed her daughter, or her daughter was abducted by a male, forceful penetrator/inserter of thoughts.

3. Therefore, coming back into the referent/target/non-metaphor domain of cybernetic-psychedelic cognitive science, we can *learn* from/following the metaphor-domain’s internal logic, that:
We would benefit from defining bounded/delimited concepts that map to the woman and the previous girl.

It’s as if the application domain we’re applying software to is guiding our decision in refactoring the code base to make it more flexible and usable and maintainable, more capable, better, more sophisticated, more highly developed. In that analogy, the source/metaphor domain is “some application domain”, and the target/nonmetaphor/referent domain is like “software code base to be refactored”.

Applying the Theory (model, explanatory framework, model, or decryption-scheme) to a puzzling myth-scheme, or to encrypted data, or to an undeciphered language, or to some datum to be explained, develops the Theory; is good for the soul of the Theory; is character-building for the Theory; strengthens the Theory.

Theory must be tuned and adjusted so that it has neatly labeled concepts underlying the metaphors:
o Persephone
o Chaff
o Wheat
o Demeter as portion of egoic thinking retained after initiation
o Sol vs. Luna, in Mithraism
o Mithras’ bull before, during, and after initiation

It would be unrealistic to expect the Core theory to develop (during 1985-1988-1993-1996), neatly labeled concepts that optimally match these various mythemes and metaphor-system components. The Core theory reached logical closure and completeness around 1989 or 1993, but another kind of closure was still needed, regarding mapping to metaphor — per Paul Thagard’s Pri3 criteria for a good theory: mapping well to previous theories.

I knew right away, in January 1988, that it would take some time to map the new mental model to existing theories and schemes.

There’s also blurry overlap between the Pri1 criterion “has better breadth of explanatory power” and the Pri3 criterion “maps better to previous theories”. This depends on whether you consider the Tauroctony a competing theory, or the data (explanandum) to be explained.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5663	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Re: Data–>Theory fdbk adjusts Theory to lock-on to data

Regarding Antique and pre-Modern religion and wisdom-traditions; the religious view held by Antiquity —

o In some sense, ancient religion can be considered to be a competing theory against the late-Modern CTET/Egodeath theory.

o In another sense, ancient religion can be considered the explanandum — the data to be explained.

Are these the data to be explained? Or are these “competing, previous theories”?

o The story of Dionysus and King Pentheus

o The New Testament, and mythemes in the Old Testament such as wise heimarmene serpent as teacher winding up an educational model of a decision-tree with illusory virtual pseudo-possibilities branches, making the mind perceive control and decision processing by giving the Amanita

o Demeter and her youthful egoic deluded self-concept Persephone, Queen of the Underworld, who Demeter was forced to sacrifice by Hades (King of the Underworld of the cast-off ghosts of the ego-dead) and the snake-drawn chariot that Triptolemus steers, spreading knowledge of “agriculture” — how to make hidden wheat sprout; ie how to reveal the workings of control in the mind and thus sacrifice the delusion portion of egoic control-thinking.

o Mithraism, Tauroctony diagrams of heimarmene and the coupled division of mental control into uncontrollable thought-giver (Sol; transpersonal self) and helpless thought-receiver (Luna; personal self);

The cave of the mind is lit-up above by the torch held up making perceptible the uncontrollable thought-source in the coital process of forcefully injecting thoughts into passive helpless thought-receiver and forced executor;

The basement underneath the cave of the mind below is lit up by the torch held down to uncover to make perceptible the guiding track of snake-shaped heimarmene laid out permanently embedded in the worldline of each person suspended in the spacetime block.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5664	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: +Core, -Metaphor(Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, Politics)

Elevating the 3 Core Pillars (Cybernetics, Fatedness, Loosecog); Demoting Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, Politics as subtopics of a mere Metaphor appendix.

The 3 Pillars contain links to Metaphor and its demoted, peripheral subtopics of Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, and Politics. But the latter are chained down and kept in their lowly place, and enabled paradoxically to be taken to the full extreme, by being so briefly treated and demoted. If I treat Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, and Politics as a really big deal, then they will continue to be controverted.

By demoting them, I demonstrate how elementary and what mere confusions these errors really are:

o The error of assuming literalism and historicity in the New Testament;

o The error of thinking that entheogens are merely incidental in religion;

o The error of thinking that Christianity became popular because it’s about supernaturalist spirituality — when it was in fact popular as a political tract against domination hierarchy (the esoteric content was the least valuable, least precious, least distinctive, *least novel* aspect of early Christianity).

Metaphor (including Ahistoricity, Entheogen History, Politics) is helpful in strengthening the 3 Core pillars. Applying the Core, over the wall, to Metaphor, and then adjusting the Core (on the first side of the wall) to better apply to Metaphor, makes the Core stronger while keeping the Core pure.

By removing Metaphor far away from the 3 Core Pillars, or by not mixing-up Metaphor with the 3 Core pillars in the first place, produces a clean Separation of Concerns: the Core principles (must-have), versus the historical happenstance and peripherals (History of Entheogens, History of Metaphors, Ahistoricity, and History of Politics). As far as Level 1 buckets are concerned, rip Core Engine (Engineering) and History (Metaphor) apart.

Demote and Amplify:
Shrink the importance of the topic of Entheogen History, while amplifying the intensity of my assertions in that field.
Shrink the importance of the topic of Christian Ahistoricity, while amplifying the intensity of my assertions in that field.
Shrink the importance of the topic of Christian Politics, while amplifying the intensity of my assertions in that field.

Metaphor, in practice, is very important, and so warrants Level 1 bucket — but only 1 bucket, and only as an appendix, cleanly sealed-off from the Core Pillars. Metaphor is not a Pillar of Transcendent Knowledge; Metaphor is incidental, variable, not necessary. Esoteric Perennial Transcendent Knowledge is distinct from metaphorical packaging, and demands a late-Modern, Engineering type of non-metaphorical Philosophy expression, which uses minimal metaphor that is custom-tailored to be as direct and explicit as possible.

The Core theory (my theory; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence) has four pillars, but only two are the ultimate content that is revealed. What is *revealed* by Pillar 3 (loosecog, mushroom-induced metaperception, mental model transformation) and *expressed* by Pillar 4 (metaphorical description, nonliteralism, Politics mythemes) is the first two: Pillar 1 (self-control cybernetics noncontrol and forced control), and Pillar 2: presetness and unchanging preexistence of all our thoughts, experiences, and control-will.

The 3 Core Pillars of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence form the perfectly coherent and all-powerful Diamond Hammer of Interpretation that constitutes 100% conceptual coherence, 100% explanatory power, and 100% mapping to all genuine, valid, authentic expressions of transcendence.

Lately I’ve been writing the pattern

Metaphor–>Cybernetics, Fatedness, Loosecog
which proves that Metaphor itself is not part of the target, referent, non-metaphorical, Core domain.

Metaphor points to the meaning, but is not itself the meaning. Metaphor is “a finger pointing at the moon”. Perhaps this is one reason Zen wishes to short-circuit and kill the intellectualization: do away with the confusions and endless bickerings about Metaphor, in order to cut straight to the point, like an Engineer. The point of Metaphor is the 3 Core Pillars — not Metaphor itself. Metaphor is merely the tin can containing the piece of gold. Don’t mix up the envelope with the message being transmitted.

The pillars of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence:

1. Cybernetics; self-control cybernetics noncontrol in conjunction with uncontrollable forced control. The Control portion of Cybernetics (steersman agent; Communication and Control in Man and Machine).

2. Heimarmene; Fatedness, destinedness; predestination, timeless changeless holistic vertical block-universe determinism; presetness and unchanging preexistence of all our thoughts, experiences, and control-will.

3. Metaperception; loose cognition, loose mental functioning binding; loose binding of mental construct association matrixes, induced by mushroom-induced metaperception.

== Appendix: Applied Theory; History: ==
4. Metaphor; Analogy; expression and vivid tangible communicative embodiment by metaphorical description. Metaphor fits under the Communication portion of Cybernetics (steersman agent; *Communication and* Control in Man and Machine). This can also subsume the important — but not Level 1-scoped — topics of Politics and Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism.

In the main Theory-specification article, Politics and Ahistoricity are in the “Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion” category — which is not a main category according to my new idea of Priority Sequence!

You could say that my main article was written and structured to please the concerns of 2005, whereas now that I have left Earth and Time behind, and am seeing through more universal perspective, and I strive for a purist distinction between Metaphor and Core theory, and I am writing to reveal the Mysteries for everyone in Antiquity, I am thinking in terms of an Expert System rather than writing a nice article, I wish to have a strict cordoning-off to quarantine Metaphor and History separately from What Is Revealed.

I want to appreciate the Core theory as a Scientific theory, and my great Priority Sequence idea says that Metaphor is dead last in importance.

1. The most important knowledge revealed (such as to a late-Modern atheist Engineer) is about Cybernetics. Not about Metaphor. Not about Politics. Not about Ahistoricity. Not about the Entheogen Theory of Religion. The latter were later for me, after I engineered the Core theory.

2. The second most important knowledge revealed (such as to a late-Modern atheist Engineer) is about Heimarmene. Not about Metaphor. Not about Politics. Not about Ahistoricity. Not about the Entheogen Theory of Religion. The latter were later for me, after I engineered the Core theory.

3. The third most important factor constituting the technology that is the Egodeath theory (such as for a late-Modern atheist Engineer or Cognitive Scientist) is about Loosecog. Not about Metaphor. Not about Politics. Not about Ahistoricity. Not about the Entheogen Theory of Religion. The latter were later for me, after I engineered the Core theory.

By segregating the Metaphor bucket away from the Core buckets, in how I arrange the Level 1 & 2 outline break-out, this can help push apart Core non-metaphorical explanation and Metaphor explanation, that can help maximize the two.

The main Theory-specification article was custom-outlined for the Salvia Divinorum magazine rather than according to my recent concept, of the Priority Sequence and 4 Fundamental Pillars.

The Breakout of Topics/Buckets Used for Main Article:
o The Entheogen Theory of Religion
o The Dissociative Cognitive State
o The Block Universe and Frozen Worldlines
o Self-Control and the Hidden Source of Thoughts

Pillars in Priority-Sequence:
1. Cybernetics (Control, Communication:Teaching/Learning)
2. Heimarmene (Fatedness, Worldlines, Block Universe)
3. Loosecog (Entheogens, Mental Construct Processing)
==========================
4. Metaphor (Analogy, Nonliteralism, Ahistoricity, Politics, Communication:Encoding)

Flagging the Main Article Sections in terms of 4 Pillars:
o The Entheogen Theory of Religion [3: Loosecog (Entheogens); 4: Metaphor (History, Ahistoricity, Politics)]
o The Dissociative Cognitive State [3: Loosecog; 4: Metaphor]
o The Block Universe and Frozen Worldlines [2: Heimarmene; 4: Metaphor]
o Self-Control and the Hidden Source of Thoughts [1: Cybernetics; 4: Metaphor]

This mapping-analysis raises the question of whether structuring the Theory per the Pillars adequately expresses the Entheogen Theory of Religion. Given the Pillars, which bucket of those 4 does The Entheogen Theory of Religion fit into? The implication here discovered is that my main article overemphasizes the Entheogen Theory of Religion, at the expense of which of the Pillars?

Where does The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion fit, below?
1. Cybernetics
…… Control
…… Communication
…… Teaching/Learning
2. Heimarmene
…… Fatedness
…… Worldlines
…… Block Universe
3. Loosecog
…… Entheogens
…… Mental Construct Processing
== Appendix: ====================
4. Metaphor
…… Analogy
…… Nonliteralism
…… Ahistoricity
…… History
…… Politics
…… Communication:Encoding
…… The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

Another reason the main Theory-specification article was broken out into the main categories it used, different than my new Priority Sequence, is space-limitations. I wanted to have Metaphor as a separate section, but realized I could fold Metaphor into the other sections, which inevitably weakens the separation between the nonmetaphorical Core and the Metaphorical extension.

The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion reeks of today’s world and biases and preconceptions and literalistic confusions. It only *seems* super-important now, because Prohibition and forgetting plants has been so complete in these darkest ages of the Kali Yuga. My job is to routinize the 4 Pillars and their subtopics.

o Ahistoricity? Routinize it; put it in its modest place.

o Entheogen theory? Quit fence-sitting, quit being timid about it: I so routinely take it to the max, that I end up demoting it: Yes, *all* valid religion is mushroom-based; deal with it; assume it; be done with it; demote that fact and focus on more important things, quit being stuck in that doorway. Same with Ahistoricity.

You can focus and fixate all night on the history of entheogen use (like Carl Ruck), and on Ahistoricity (like Earl Doherty), and on Politics (like Richard Horsley) and you still won’t get a clue about the real, main Gnosis that is revealed and expressed in the Core theory.

The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence is merely *built on*:
o My Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion.
o My theory of and research contributions in Ahistoricity (nonexistence) of Christianity in Antiquity, Church Fathers, Jesus, and Paul.
o My breakthrough custom version of Crossan/Borg/Horsley/Wright et al, the Political purpose of creating Christianity by leveraging the routinized mushroom religion of Antiquity.

But just because my Theory is *built on* my customized building-blocks of Maximal/Radical Entheogen Theory, Politics, and Ahistoricity, and just because those topics are currently of interest to some people now or my readers who live in Antiquity, does not mean that these building-block topics that seem oh-so-important are actually warranted as Level 1 Pillars in an explanation of what Transcendent Knowledge is and how it has been communicated in Metaphor.

Today’s audience wants a big focus on Ahistoricity and the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion. And early Christians, like Plato, want a big focus on the Politics of how the revealed Mysteries knowledge is applied to prop up egalitarian or hierarchy systems of society.

But in keeping with the future perspective, and being true to the Engineering origins of the Theory, which remember were successful at the greatest breakthrough ever, of Transcendent Knowledge as brand new independent dispensation *from* the heart of late-Modern engineering — *not* a tradition-styled inheritance passed from one metaphor-based teacher to a student, through time.

I conquer, vanquish, and do away with these over-charged topics of Ahistoricity/Politics/Entheogen History, by refusing to grant them the high-ranked couches at my mushroom-wine banquet.

I send these harmful, confusing, distracting topics — that were entirely unnecessary for me in engineering the Core theory (it actually *helped* me that I was wholly ignorant of those confusing topics) — to the children’s table so that we grown-ups can think clearly and cut straight to the central topics that actually matter, that actually hold up the structure of the Core theory.

By the same logic that says Politics and Ahistoricity are important but not the true drivers of the Core theory, the primary location for the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion could be in “Metaphor”. Another argument for that same conclusion is provided by the history of my construction of the total Theory: I created the Core theory first, with almost no idea of anything like the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion, then developed the latter as part of the History/Metaphor R&D:

1985-1997: I created the Core theory “in the Engineering Department” without any Humanities/Classics input except indirectly through a few early meta-theory books by Ken Wilber and a single Zen book by Alan Watts:
1. Cybernetics
2. Heimarmene
3. Loosecog

1998-2007 & 2011: I changed my focus from Engineering to the Humanities/Classics department to get confirmation of the finished Core theory, which had already reached completeness and closure:
4. Metaphor, History, Ahistoricity, The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion.

I don’t want to give too much weight and credit to the bad old Metaphor-dependent expressions. There’s been too much poetry, too much art, not enough plain-spoken, straightforward, no-nonsense discussion of what religious experiencing and revelation is. Those emphases, our current notions about what’s important, have misled us. I engineered the Core theory without being hypnotized by those soft, peripheral topics.

I succeeded because I didn’t read books, but observed my own self-control struggles and analyzed control-across-time, applying an Engineering and Phenomenological Cognitive Science and Self-Help sensibility.

There’s no *need*, with my Theory, to dirty the Core explanation with Politics and History and Nonliteralism, at the Level 1 break-out, though Metaphor, subsuming Politics and History and Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism, does warrant breakout as a Level 1 topic that’s the lowest priority and is segregated and quarantined as the last, least-important topic: poetry and literalist confusion and anti-entheogen bias must be demoted in order to let the true main points rise up to their full height and stand on their own.

I can dismiss and dispatch Ahistoricity, Politics, and History of Entheogens in a few paragraphs subsumed under Metaphor, separated from the Core Pillars that *truly* constitute the actual universal (interplanetary; all sentient beings) referent content of Transcendent Knowledge. My audience is androids, AIs, and intergalactic sentient beings, letting the revealed knowledge itself dictate the structure of the truly Core theory, with Earth’s particular messed-up history of incomprehension as a mere appendix.

Metaphor is not the Core Knowledge, and does not belong in the 3 Core Pillars.

o Maximal Entheogen theory of religion: Here is mere incidental Historical happenstance.
o Politics: here is mere *applied* use and abuse of the Core knowledge.
o Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism: Here are the screwed-up confused notions people had in the ordinary-state culture: we must negate those as a preliminary and prolegomenon, to clear the way for coherent comprehension instead.

There are 3 Core Pillars and 1 Appendix Pillar, Metaphor, subsuming the incidental, non-core topics of Politics, Ahistoricity/Nonliteralism, and the History of Entheogens.

It is a radical move characteristic of my thinking, to discover right thinking about Ahistoricity, Politics, and Entheogen History, and then turn around and demote those as mere subtopics of the grudgingly important but least important, appendix topic of “Metaphor”.

There are not 3 Pillars of the Core theory. There are only 3 Pillars of the Core theory: Cybernetics, Fatedness, and Loosecog.

There is a separate “Pillar” (Metaphor) that is merely mandatory for the sole reason that we must stop Literalism, to clear the way for correct thinking, and to consider how Earth happens to have expressed the Core Pillars and gotten confused into Literalism and has fought over how to abuse the Core knowledge to pretend to prop up historical structures of society: domination hierarchy versus egalitarianism.

Ahistoricity isn’t as important as the core pillars. Ahistoricity merely *seems* important at the moment, prior to propagation of the Egodeath theory, as if Ahistoricity should be a sibling of the 4 Pillars.

Similarly, early Christians would clamor to promote Politics (exciting! relevant! motivating!) as an unsurpassedly important topic, the entire motivation for bothering to create yet another costume (the Hellenistic Mysteries in Jewish, anti-Roman drag) for the same old routine Esoteric Transcendent Knowledge (yawn) of salvation, purification, forgiveness of sins, imperishability (whatever; been there, done that, the Empire of domination-hierarchy still sucks, after the mushroom mixed-wine wears off).

Phase 2 of my work figured out such metaphor.

Phase 3 of my work is communicating the theory in conjunction with metaphorically packaged/structured/expressed “previous theories”. The Communication aspects of my Core theory and the Metaphor extension (including Ahistoricity/Nonliteralness and Politics) fit under both into Cybernetics bucket (because Cybernetics is Communication as well as Control) and in the Metaphor bucket (because Metaphor is used to grasp, make vivid, and convey the wrapped ideas).

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5665	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Understanding is a matter of degree, adeptness, fluency, skill

Adequate understanding of the Egodeath theory requires rigor and detail, thoroughgoing association-mappings, thoroughness, closure, comprehensiveness, thorough cross-indexing.

In 2006 I had the idea of the Sacred Marriage, but didn’t fully grok the idea of *why* the personal mind is female, in terms of passive thought-reception. I built up my recent wave of breakthrough after the Esotericism Book Expo and then getting the 2 books on Esotericism I’ve been wanting for years — I needed time to look at that type of illustration more, just to make more connections, firmer connections, deeper association links, tighter connections.

In 3rd Grade, I could read, write, think, and talk, but now I can read, write, think, and talk better. I had the idea but a little more weakly, didn’t get the fullness of the idea. I discovered and wrote about the idea but didn’t grok the extent of, had to think more, write more, more intensely, just plain review the ideas more.

My Theory Specification has Sacred Marriage but not a very explicit explanation of why the personal control-mind is female and the transpersonal mind-controller is male.

As an example of awesome but not perfect Theory, I found a garbled point “Sol is awareness” — no, Sol is the uncontrollable thought-source, Luna is the helpless thought-receiver, now divinized by sacrificing the deluded portion (aspects) of egoic thinking. Awareness or psychedelic metaperception is represented as a sun ray between Mithras looking behind his thinking and Sol looking at Mithras; ‘awareness’ and ‘perceiving’ include Sol’s eyes, the sun ray between Sol and Mithras, and Mithras’ eyes.

The degree or percentage of grasping a domain: You might seem to perfectly well grasp some things, but fluency is a matter of degree. My main article had closer to a bare minimum (due to severe space limitations and due to newness of deciphering myth) — I was still fresh, green, still more an outsider than it would appear, still had only a fractional grasp — the article is flattering, bringing out the best of my not-as-complete understanding.

My assertions were bold and correct and almost completely insightful, but my *feeling* was still tentative, unlike my recent victory of gaining a sense of surefootedness and confident thought-leadership.

I have strengthened my intensity of sureness, by weaving more, becoming more masterful, becoming fluent, having been brought into the ranks of the Adept, as well as having the distinguishing contribution of an explicit, non-metaphorical, ultra-clear explanatory model, with a clarity of organization and a cogency never before provided in known history.

Ken Wilber in The Atman Project and No Boundary describes “the self” as having to develop thoroughly within a given psychospiritual developmental level in order to differentiate itself from that level, transcend that level, de-identify with that level, avoid repressing and dysfunctionally/regressively dissociating from that level, and then operate-on that formerly identified-with level.

A thorough Egodeath theory needs to have a thoroughly adequate and capable grasp of the language of Esotericism and religious metaphorical analogy. The transcendent mental model must become adept within the domain of all the primary areas of the Egodeath theory: Cybernetics, Fatedness, Loosecog, and Metaphor.

The criteria for reaching the level of Adept at Transcendent Knowledge are, you must know:
1. All about Cybernetics and its metaphors
2. All about Fatedness and its metaphors
3. All about Loosecog and its metaphors
4. The cross-indexing of all these.

Theory and metaphor of Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Loosecog (including Entheogens). Practically, you must know the arbitrary Historical Application of Transcendent Knowledge: Metaphor (including Politics and Ahistoricity/Nonliteralness).

Did I recognize and grok ‘ivy’ as heimarmene-vine in 2007? I almost entirely did, yet still, not as much as now: I feel I crossed a threshold, moving from an outsider looking in, to an insider, yesterday (November 23, 2011). In 2007 I mostly understood ‘ivy’ and ‘vine’ as meaning heimarmene.

I posted the proposed recognition in February 2005, completely correctly. But now I deepened my *sense* of understanding it, and I rediscovered it, with an increased degree of intensive grasp of the ramifications of the association-mappings.

I grasped the basic idea in 2005, but not as many of the connections of the idea. I figured it out — but I didn’t grok it, the profound ramifications of it. This is yet another example of how a breakthrough is experienced as pre-shock, main earthquake, then aftershocks. It’s strange how I have a breakthrough and gain deep understanding, and then later, I experience that breakthrough and understanding as if new, again, but deeper still.

Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought
Keith Holyoak, Paul Thagard

“In the web of culture, analogies should be powerful connecting strands, not devouring spiders.”

That metaphor is comparable to the basic idea of Christianity and Athenian democracy:

“The metaphor-leveraging enlightenment about fatedness in conjunction with personal noncontrol of our thoughts, that’s revealed by mushrooms, should be used to support a just and kind egalitarian society, not to justify a violently oppressive domination-hierarchy such as the Roman Empire, the propaganda for which makes great claims but the reality of which falls well short of those claims. Metaphor and enlightenment should be used in service of egalitarian societal structure, not to justify domination-hierarchy.”

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5666	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: Important but periph. topics: Ahistoricity, Politics, Enth History

Important but peripheral topics: Ahistoricity, Politics, Entheogen History

Mapped: My intellectual history sequence; main article’s main section arrangement; 3 Core Pillars + Appendix

Here are correlated:
o The sequence in which I developed the main Theory topics
o The main topics in the outline of my main Theory-specification article
o The main topics arranged as 3 Pillars and 1 Appendix

Where to place the following important yet peripheral topics in the top levels of the outline/structure of the Theory?
o Metaphor
o Ahistoricity (of Christianity in Antiquity, Church Fathers, Paul, and Jesus)
o Politics (applied mycorevelation, to justify/excuse domination hierarchy or egalitarianism)
o Entheogen History (extreme radical maximal entheogen theory of religion)

There is a clean mapping between my main article (Theory-specification article for Salvia Divinorum magazine), and the Priority Sequence I identified in 2011. The main article is in reverse order of my Priority Sequence, with Metaphor mostly redistributed into the 3 Core Pillar topics, and Entheogen History emphasized in place of Metaphor.

Main Article:
4) Entheogen History (including Ahistoricity, Politics, & mention of Metaphor)
3) Loosecog (including relevant Metaphor)
2) Fatedness (including relevant Metaphor)
1) Cybernetics (including relevant Metaphor)

Priority Sequence:
1) Cybernetics
2) Fatedness
3) Loosecog
4) Metaphor (including Ahistoricity, Politics, & Entheogen History)

Argument in favor of reverse presentation as used in the main article:
First, cover Metaphor (nonliteralism and ahistoricity and the purpose of early Christianity), to clear away confusion that blocks understanding. Familiar topics.
Then, apply Loosecog, as the doorway to go through to see what’s revealed. How mental model transformation works. Somewhat familiar topic.
Next, the clear, simple model of Fatedness, as framework for organizing ideas about control and time. Horizontal-time, domino-chain Determinism is popular in some 15 fields but this changeless, holistic, preexisting-future, “vertical Determinism” is unfamiliar in the OSC-based Modern era.
Finally, Cybernetics: noncontrol is the main, ultimate point, now that the preliminaries are out of the way or made available as thinking tools.

Argument in favor of labelling the first section as Entheogen History rather than Metaphor, in the article for Salvia Divinorum magazine. Here’s why I used the structuring
Entheogen History (Ahistoricity, Politics, Metaphor)
rather than the structuring
Metaphor (Entheogen History, Ahistoricity, Politics)

The subject of Wasson, Allegro, and Plaincourault was somewhat distorted by that article being commissioned by a particular journal (The Journal of Higher Criticism) with particular requirements for style, audience interest, and scope.

Similarly, the subject of the Egodeath theory was somewhat distorted by the article being commissioned by a particular magazine (Salvia Divinorum) with particular requirements for style, audience interest, and scope. Thus the article doesn’t represent the true, native, inherent shape, structure, and outline, and balance of emphasis of the Theory-in-itself.

The particular article was proposed by and written for the editor of Salvia Divinorum magazine, and therefore needed to lead with an emphasis on Entheogen History, followed by Loosecog as the second major section.

In that context, for that audience, the first main section needed to focus on Entheogens with Metaphor as a subtopic of that, rather than the inverse. However, as exemplified in Carl Ruck’s corpus, we’ve seen the limitations of treating the entheogenic plants themselves as the main focus of what’s revealed.

o The plants are only important because of the loosecog they cause.
o Loosecog is only important because of the Fatedness it reveals.
o Fatedness is only important because of the Noncontrol it reveals.
o Politics is only important after the revelation core is revealed, as a mere application of the core technology after that technology is created and grasped.
o Ahistoricity is only important as preliminary clearing-away of confusion that blocks conceptual coherence and clear understanding.
o Metaphor is only important as a vivid communication of the actual knowledge content.

Thus the hierarchy of importance and subsuming topics is like:

Cybernetics (the only truly import. revel’n: nature of self-ctrl agency)
… Fatedness (only important b/c reveals cybernetic noncontrol)
…… Loosecog (only important because of Fatedness it reveals)
……… Entheogens, Enth Hist (plants only import. b/c cause lcog)
………… Ahistoricity (only import. as prelim confusing-clearing)
………… Politics (only import. after core revealed, as appl’n of tech)
………… Metaphor (only import. as vivid comm’n of knowl content)

Cybernetics
… Fatedness
…… Loosecog
……… Entheogens, Entheogen History
………… Ahistoricity
………… Politics
………… Metaphor

That’s the reverse of the main article’s outline, which is:

Entheogen History (incl. Ahist’y & Politics, mention Metaphor)
Loosecog
Fatedness
Cybernetics

______________________________

The sequence in which I developed the main Theory topics:

Cybernetics: Spring 1985 (roots to homework mgmt 1976)
Loosecog: October 27, 1985
Fatedness: January 11, 1988
Metaphor: 1998, milestone November 14, 2001
… Ahistoricity [check posting dates]
… Politics (applied revelation)
… Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion
______________________________

The main topics in the outline of my main Theory-specification article:

The Entheogen Theory of Religion [Entheogen History]
… Politics & Ahistoricity (combined as 1 level-2 section)
… brief mention of Metaphor
The Dissociative Cognitive State [Loosecog]
… including Metaphor
The Block Universe and Frozen Worldlines [Fatedness]
… including Metaphor
Self-Control and the Hidden Source of Thoughts [Cyb’ics]
… including Metaphor
______________________________

The main topics arranged as 3 Pillars and 1 Appendix:

1. Cybernetics
…… Control
…… Communication
…… Teaching/Learning
2. Fatedness
…… Fatedness
…… Worldlines
…… Block Universe
3. Loosecog
…… Entheogens
…… Mental Construct Processing
== Appendix: ====================
4. Metaphor
…… Ahistoricity
…… Politics of applied enlightenment
…… Communication:Encoding
…… The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5667	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: As above, so below; interp’d as torch held up & down

Noncontrol and Fatedness co-imply each other, although they are distinct, as I thought, and as Mithraism shows (“scientifically confirming my hypothesis prediction”).

The 3-level tauroctony depicts forced thoughts (Sol) and thought-noncontrol (Luna) as what’s torch-illuminated above the cave ceiling, and depicts Fatedness (snake) as what’s torch-illuminated below the cave floor — showing that Mithraism considers the revealed topics of noncontrol and fatedness as two distinct, yet co-illuminated factors or conceptual principles.

Mithraism diagrams personal control cognition in tauroctony diagrams, with separate levels for heimarmene and for the coupled division of mental control into uncontrollable thought-giver (Sol; transpersonal self) and helpless thought-receiver (Luna; personal self);

The cave of the mind is lit-up above by the torch held up making perceptible the uncontrollable thought-source in the coital process of forcefully injecting thoughts into passive helpless thought-receiver and forced executor;

The basement underneath the cave of the mind below is lit up by the torch held down to uncover to make perceptible the guiding track of snake-shaped heimarmene laid out permanently embedded in the worldline of each person suspended in the spacetime block.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5668	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 26/11/2011
Subject: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

In what sense does false ego exist? Degree of Being of ego?

In what sense does Ego (the deluded egoic self-concept or mental model) — labelled as ‘Persephone’ — exist, before/during/after initiation?

How does the mental model regarding the ego-delusion change during initiation? Does the degree of existence of ego change during initiation? Does the false ego exist more before initiation than after?

Where did the abstruse, pointless philosophizing about Degrees of Being come from? What’s the real purpose of Semantics and Analytic Philosophy?

After initiation, does Demeter have access to Persephone? In what sense? To what extent? In what positive and negative sense? That is, after initiation, in what sense does Demeter have access to Persephone, and in what sense does Demeter not have access to Persephone?

The term ‘Persephone’ by definition means “the delusory, nonexistent, false-ego aspect of personal thinking”. Any truth statement about ‘Persephone’ applies to “the false ego” as well, by definition.

Demeter has more being than Persephone. Demeter is wheat, Persephone is chaff.

Bracketing-aside the crass literalistic issue of whether Jesus existed as a single identifiable historical individual, we come to the actual nature and spirit of the early debates about Jesus’ body and form, where ‘Jesus’ by definition means the same thing as ‘Persephone’: that is, “the false ego”.

Jesus exists less than Christ and God. Jesus is chosen and identified as destined for destruction, accursed, producing purification, cancelling of sin, and imperishable life. (All in a specific defined or definable sense, and not in another sense.)

Do you agree that Jesus needed to be baptized? This is not a question that is posed within a literalist context; it is a question within the domain of concepts about egodeath and the false ego as mental self-concept about personal control agency. That’s what early Christianity argued about, more than whether Jesus existed literally.

Do you agree that Jesus was sinless? If he was sinless (before he became Christ) then he is an alien creature. Was Jesus a creature, created? Same. For Jesus to be a figurative template model that each person follows, Jesus must be like normal people.

These questions have nothing to do with some presumed historical individual; they are questions about mental structures during mushroom initiation, when ego is seen to be illusory in some aspects, as a personal control agent, in the light of perceiving fatedness and noncontrol of the thoughts that the mind is forced to receive by the hidden uncontrollable transpersonal source of thoughts.

To have sin is to mistake the unreal egoic self as real — to be possessed by a demon. Persephone is demonic thinking. Is demonic thinking real? How real and how unreal is demonic, egoic thinking? Is demonic illusion-based thinking a real process, a real function? How so, and how much? What degree of Being does demonic illusion have?

Is the virtual ego real? Is the person who appears in the mirror real? (As distinct from the person who stands in front of the mirror.) In what sense does Harry Potter exist? (Asks the author of the book Jesus Potter, Harry Christ.) Have we fallen in love with our reflection? How real is your mental image of yourself before and after enlightenment through mushroom-initiation?

Once my mind recognizes mental error, is that mental error still available for use? Can the mind, or “the self” per Ken Wilber, then transcend and operate on the mental error, of ego?

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Books:

Denying Existence: The Logic, Epistemology and Pragmatics of Negative Existentials and Fictional Discourse
Arindam Chakrabarti
2010
http://amazon.com/dp/9048147883
“Philosophical problems regarding the logical status of empty (singular) terms such as `Pegasus’, `Batman’, `The impossible staircase departs in Escher’s painting `Ascending-Descending’+ etc., and regarding sentences which deny the existence of singled-out fictional entities. It will be fascinating for literary theorists with a flair for logic, to students of metaphysics and philosophy of language, and for historians of philosophy interested in the fate of the Russell-Meinong debate. For teachers of these aspects of analytic philosophy this will provide a textbook which goes beyond the Western tradition (without plunging into any mystical Eastern `Emptiness’, which is what some previous comparative philosophers did).”

[find my book title like:]
On the Existence of Fictional Objects

Fiction and Metaphysics
Amie Thomasson
1999
http://amazon.com/dp/0521065216
Cambridge Studies in Philosophy

Group: egodeath	Message: 5669	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

God = Hades = uncontrollable thought-source
Christ = Demeter = helpless thought-receiver after initiation
Jesus = Persephone = false ego perceived as illusory during initiation = original self-concept as control-agent before initiation

The = symbol means “is in some ways isomorphic with”. Definition of those ways must be separately spelled-out using precise, transcendent use of semantics. Transcendent skill at semantics is an end-product of initiations, especially in the Egodeath theory which explicitly provides such language.

Persephone is abducted to Hades’ underworld.
Jesus or Christ descends to Hell or Purgatory to lift up and redeem the souls of the Prophets, Saints, and his Elect given to him by God the Creator before the foundation of the world (compatible with double-predestination).

Related to versions of predestination: Some theologians like systematic, consistent asymmetry:

o When we do evil (ie be egoic in our self-concept) our moral action is to be attributed to us as sinners.
o When we do good (ie be transcendent in our self-concept, perceiving that our thoughts are given to us uncontrollably) our moral action is to be attribute to God, not to us.

This inconsistency or asymmetry reflects that our conception of moral agency changes from freewill delusion to no-free-will enlightenment, during initiation/purification/regeneration. We are changed from a freewill thinker to a no-free-will thinker through initiation.

Before I was initiated, I was a morally culpable agent and I set myself up as ruler independent from God, and considered myself the controller of my thoughts, and the giver of my thoughts; I gave myself my own thoughts; I created my own thoughts, as a control-agent. “I control my thoughts.”

After I was initiated, I thought of myself as not a moral agent, and consider God the ruler and giver of my thoughts.

To be fair, and precise, one could say that ego is not “false”, but rather, is *vague*, a sort of first-order approximation — just like advocates of determinism have a self-concept that’s not so much false, as too-vague. The function of initiation is to perceive key infrastructure, and get clearer about determinism, and aspects of noncontrol, and aspects of control. To say “Persephone = false self-concept”, can be accused of being too vague, too crude, not granular enough to be fully meaningful.

It is good and fair to consider initiation as *problematizing* egoic self-concept and our sense of freedom and control-power — initiation as infra-personal Philosophy: “What goes on in the egoic, personal mind? How is illusion utilized in the mind, to get control-things done? What perspectives are possible?”

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5670	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: In what sense does Ego/Perseph. exist? Degrees of Being

A consistent conception of Jesus as sinless is that the child Jesus understood Egodeath theory prior to being initiated. During mushroom-wine Passover-themed banquet initiations, Jesus had a deepening, actual experiencing, of no-free-will, Fatedness, and noncontrol of his thoughts given by God the uncontrollable thought-source. He went from a youthful state of intellectual, ordinary-state based belief in no-free-will, to an adult, initiated state of *experiencing* this perspective.

So Jesus didn’t *need* mushroom baptism in the Holy Spirit of loosecog perspective, to gain basic understanding of personal control-agency, but he did need that initiation-series in order to test and deepen the associations, which he already intellectually understood.

A person could be sinless nowadays by reading the Egodeath theory several times, and then as an already sinless and washed-clean, purified person before initiation, the person could then go on to experience a series of water-diluted wine initiations, which would deepen their sinlessness.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5671	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Caduceus: mycopercep shows sep ctrl-lev relations/harmony

Two Snakes: When there are two balanced snakes in a symbol, 1 is Male (= uncontrollable thought-source), 1 is Female (helpless thought-receiver). The pair constitutes and depicts the structure of personal control in the mind. There is often a depiction of ‘perceiving’, indicating loosecog as given by mushrooms. The caduceus for example is a symbol of perceiving the two distinct locuses of control that operate in the mind.

The snakes aren’t identical. One is male, one female. They are complementary, not identical.

Two snakes, one on top with wings and crown, one on bottom with no wings, no crown, forming a cup: the upper snake is male, lower female.

Upper snake = sun, staff, spear, phall = uncontrollable thought-source

Lower snake = moon, cup, wound, womb = helpless thought-receiver

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5672	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Main religious myth systems I explain

My main focus is listed first. I should post a summary of my mapping of Egodeath theory to each metaphor-system, similar to the annotated approach in Carl Ruck’s Greek Myths book.

Christianity, God, Christ, Jesus, Dove, demons, Virgin Mary, purgatory
Imperial Ruler Cult, Caesar, Jupiter, Eagle, Victory
Mithraism, Sol, Luna, bull, snake, torchbearers
Demeter, Persephone, Hades, Eleusis, Triptolemus
Dionysus, King Pentheus, Maenads, Ariadne
Daedalus, labyrinth, Minotaur, Theseus, Ariadne
Neoplatonism/Ptolemaic astral ascent mysticism (lower planets, Saturn and fixed stars, the heavens above the fixed stars)
Platonism: cave, ascent, Good, shadows
Western Esotericism: snake, alchemy
Perseus, Medusa, Gorgon

As an infrastructure design principle, the non-metaphor based Core theory ideally should contain concepts that cleanly map to each metaphor-system. It might be impossible to have a single static set of concepts that cleanly maps to all metaphor-systems, due to conflicting ways of grouping concepts in various metaphor-systems.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5673	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Self-control seizure in Mithraism via Cyb/Heim/LCog/Metaph

Invincible Mithras is the Unconquerable god, the Invincible god, the Unconquered god. That’s because Mithras there represents ego-killing, ego-disproving, ego-overpowering power; the lower, personal, helpless thought-source portion of the mind’s control system (control-thinking) cannot control the higher, transpersonal, uncontrollable source of thoughts, which Mithras controls or Sol controls.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5674	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion

The Extreme Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion is too vague, too mild, and not ambitious enough. It’s too vague about what is revealed by entheogens; it commits the very error Ruck makes: it focuses on the plants themselves, whereas the ancients were more ultimately concerned about, or at least as concerned about, what visionary plants reveal: noncontrol of thinking, and heimarmene.

The Extreme Radical Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of All Culture and Topics
The Cyberfatedelic Theory of All Religion and Culture
The Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion
The Cyberfatedelic Theory of Culture

The Cyberfatedelic Theory of All Religion and Culture holds that an elementary prerequisite to any topic is that everyone must be able to apply the Egodeath theory to it — not as a constraint on thought, but as an always-available point of reference to open up thought. For example, any discussion of freewill interpretations of Physics need to begin with everyone being routinely familiar with Fatedness as pictured in the elementary theory of Egodeath.

The Cyberfatedelic theory is utterly elementary and basic, the obvious starting point and point of reference. There’s no valid reason for anyone to not be familiar with it, like 8th grade math is routinely expected and assumed to be at everyone’s command as a matter of course.

Throwback, unambitious positions are listed first:

The Minimal Entheogen Theory of Religion — There’s no authentic religion based on visionary plants. Mircae Eliade’s day, you could say this — now, it’s politically incorrect and scholars know that they would be laughed out of court for saying this; it would make them look completely out of touch, living under a rock.

The Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion — There’s some entheogen use in authentic religion.

The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion — Religion must include entheogens to be valid; entheogens are the reference criterion for authenticity of religion.

The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture — Authentic religion and culture necessarily is based on entheogen use.

The Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion — Authentic religion is based on entheogen use to perceive personal noncontrol of thoughts, in conjunction with fatedness (an experienced life is a worldline in a
changeless block universe).

The Maximal Cyberfatedelic Theory of Religion and Culture — Authentic religion and culture is based on entheogen use to perceive fatedness and personal noncontrol of thoughts.

Maximal, moderate, and minimal entheogen theory
http://egodeath.com/ViewsOnEntheogensInReligiousHistory.htm

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5675	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

Paul Thagard’s 3rd criterion for a superior theory is that it explains and maps to the terms of the previous theories, explaining why they seemed right but are not as right, while providing broader scope of explanatory power and greater conceptual coherence. By that measure, the Egodeath theory or Cyberfatedelic theory is a superior theory than the “sun worship” theory and the “fertility/s*x worship” theory, because the Egodeath theory provides a better explanation of why there is the appearance of sun worship and s*x worship, very commonly throughout world religious history.

uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver
lingham–>yoni
male–>female
man–>woman
sun–>moon
object–>reflection
king–>queen
plug–>socket
source–>sink
puppetmaster–>puppet
master–>slave
amphora–>cup
spear–>wound
phall–>womb
object–>shadow
alive–>ghost
wand–>cup
driver-gear–>driven-gear
engine–>driveshaft
fountain–>cave
lord–>subject
controller–>controlled
dominant–>submissive
upper–>lower

The sun-worship fallacy
The fertility-cult/s*x worship fallacy
These were not the ultimate target. These are not religious topics. But experiencing and perceiving your own thoughts being overpowered by a higher power, is and feels religious, terrifying, awesome, destabilizing. The sun is the source of light. The moon reflects light. The uncontrollable thought-source, made perceived by mushrooms, produces thoughts and those thoughts then appear to originate (especially in the OSC) from the helpless thought-receiver, but mushrooms’ loosecog makes the mind perceive that the thoughts don’t actually originate from the lower, local, normally visible portion of control-functioning in the mind. Thus sun–>moon and phall–>womb are excellent analogies, well-selected, to represent ….

Egodeath is also shown to be a superior theory to the “literal snake worship” theory of religion, based on the Egodeath theory’s recognition of ‘snake’ as representing mushroom-induced perceiving of the fated worldline of mental constructs in changeless spacetime. The snake-worship theory has only weak conjectures about why anyone would worship snakes. The new Mystery Cults book from Princeton

right-hand–>left-hand
God said “But Jonah, the people of Nineveh are children, they don’t know their left hand from their right, and you expect I should strike them down?” Consider “knowing your left hand from your right” as perceiving in loosecog that your personal control system consists of an uncontrollable thought-source and helpless thought-receiver.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5676	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

Thus “sun–>moon” and “phall–>womb” are excellent analogies, well-selected, to represent the two components of control, two separate locuses of control in the mind, constituting enlightened personal control thinking and a more accurate model of personal control thinking than the pre-initiation egoic mental model:

uncontrollable thought-source–>helpless thought-receiver

The new Mystery Cults book from Princeton by Hugh Bowden: the end of the book covers snake handling in current Christianity, but this is literalism and emotionalism, not ancient snake-shape understanding.

Mystery Cults of the Ancient World
Hugh Bowden
2010
http://amazon.com/dp/0691146381
http://google.com/search?q=%22Mystery+Cults+of+the+Ancient+World%22+Bowden
Princeton
Bonus: acknowledges the entheogen theory, in the standard official doctrinaire diminishing way. Thousands of scholars make this move in all the books: nowadays to publish in this field, you *must* show that you are aware of the entheogen theory, and you *must* treat it as briefly as possible, in a diminishing way. This has become the standard routine treatment, or non-treatment, or mis-treatment, of the day, in the Prohibition-complicit official academic press. It would be interesting to collect a few hundred of these toe-the-line statements; “Pay no attention to the mushroom behind the curtain!”

The Marriage of the Sun and Moon: A Quest for Unity in Consciousness
Andrew Weil
1980
http://www.erowid.org/library/books/marriage_of.shtml
The final chapter is titled same as the book.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5678	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Social-political use & abuse of mystic revelation

Christianity doesn’t provide *anything* that other schemes (in their valid configuration/form) don’t also provide, in terms of mysticism, purification, regeneration, revelation, conversion, new life, and salvation (of the actually existing type).

Group: egodeath	Message: 5679	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Rebis diagram: horiz & vert pairs, 2 meanings of ‘lower/higher’

The Rebis diagram is a control-components/transformation image.

The Rebis diagram contains two distinct systems of two items: a horizontal contrast and a vertical contrast. This reveals a kind of figure-of-3, like 3 circles with two on the top, one on the bottom. The Rebis diagram exposes the ambiguity — or better, that there are two distinct meanings — of the terms ‘higher’ and ‘lower’, and ‘egoic’ and ‘transcendent’.

Multiple mappings are legitimate, as long as they are defined. Thus a fully adequate Egodeath theory must be double the size; double the mappings.

When you say ‘higher’, do you mean the more sophisticated model of control (bi partite) (as within the context of contrasting the before- and after-initiation models), or do you mean the uncontrollable thought-source within the context of the more sophisticated model of control?
When you say ‘lower’, do you mean the less sophisticated model of personal control (pseudo-autonomous; pseudo- uni partite), or do you mean the helpless thought-source within the context of the more sophisticated model of control?

The initiate ends up with a mental model that has the following concepts:
o The autonomous control model before initiation (before loosecog perception and the resulting mental-model transformation)
o The uncontrollable thought-source
o The helpless thought-receiver
o Loosecog perception of the uncontrollable thought-source forcing thoughts into the helpless thought-receiver.

The Rebis diagram centrally depicts a person with two heads (male and female) standing on a winged dragon-serpent that’s on a winged sphere underneath with geometry symbols, and the rebis man-woman holds geometry instruments.

All seven planets are shown, alluding to Ptolemaic/Neoplatonic astral ascent mysticism. The sphere of the fixed stars is suggested by the star shapes of the planet symbols, and is near the bounding egg shape. The sphere of the fixed stars = Fatedness/heimarmene. Mercury = Hermes = messenger carrying the caduceus two-snake message from the gods, is shown in the Rebis diagram as above the man-woman, between and above the sun and moon.

Mars = male symbol, Venus = female symbol, are shown in stars by the king; that male/female pair alludes to uncontrollable thought-source and helpless thought-receiver. To the right of the andro-gyne are the symbols for Jupiter and Saturn. Saturn is associated with ego-sacrifice at the Fatedness/heimarmene level (fixed stars) in standard Ptolemaic astral ascent mysticism. Mapping the two main concepts of what’s revealed in loosecog: perceiving noncontrol maps to the Mars/Venus pair, and perceiving Fatedness/heimarmene maps to the Jupiter/Saturn pair.

androgyne = andro-gyne = male-female = man-woman

hermaphrodite = herme(s)-aphrodite

Sun is prominent, near man’s head (sometimes crowned, thus king).

Moon is prominent, near queen-head.

King = ruler = locus of control in the mind = hidden uncontrollable thought-source.

Queen = ruler = locus of control in the mind = visible helpless thought-receiver.

Dragon = serpent = egoic control thinking, repudiated as illusory during initiation and purification and refinement of thinking.

Wings on sphere = mushroom loosecog perceiving of control dynamics in the mind.

Winged Dragon = mushroom loosecog perceiving of control dynamics in the mind, such that egoic control-agency self-concept is seen as delusion, a delusion that however is useful and props up the enlightened, Rebis mind. Egoic serpent thinking is replaced by Rebis, two-ruler, sacred marriage thinking.

“Separate and coagulate” refers to both the loosecog state and to differentiating and unifying the two locuses of control that are always operative in the personal control functioning of the mind, but are not consciously explicitly mentally modelled or understood until after the series of mushroom initiations.

Enter the loosecog state, perform mental model transformation of autonomous control into bifurcated personal/transpersonal control, then return to tightcog state, possessing the old, uni partite and the new, bi partite models of personal control agency.

1. Before initiation: Start with the mental model self-concept as single autonomous control-agent (the dragon that’s later stood on).

2. During initiation: Enter loosecog, making mind perceive that personal control consists of uncontrollable thought-source inserting thoughts into helpless thought-receiver. Then see that those two locuses of control are united (coagulated).

3. End of initiation: Finally, the mind contains two distinct mental models of control: the “egoic, single autonomous locus of control” model below, and the “two distinct unified locuses of control” model above (the Rebis). The mind still remembers and utilizes the “single autonomous locus of control” mental model of personal control power, but the mind after initiation also includes a more detailed, sophisticated mental model of personal control as “bi partite, two distinct unified locuses of control-agency”.

The Rebis man-woman holds geometry instruments, indicating comprehension and rational understanding of the underlying principles of the world. The geometry-understood world, or Earth (symbolized and identified as “dot in circle”) is winged, indicating rational knowledge that’s perceived in the altered state (mushroom-induced loosecog). The geometry symbols of circle, 3, 4, jointed compass, and right-angle square, represent Rationality, Reason, Logic, Intelligence, Measurement, Mapping, Surveying, Analysis, Perceptiveness, Assessment.

A somewhat equivalent symbol from the domain of Engineering would be the Boolean truth table for logical AND, combined with a latching relay circuit (the foundation of digital computers). The Egodeath theory is encoded by the Rebis and can be encoded in representations from Engineering, including the Arabic mathematical symbols 1 and 0.

The truth table uses the binary number system:
0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100…

A * B = A AND B
0 * 0 = 0
0 * 1 = 0
1 * 0 = 0
1 * 1 = 1

A + B = A OR B
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
1 + 1 = 1

1 = uncontrollable thought-source = male
0 = helpless thought-receiver = female

Also, expressing the vertical contrast of andro-gyne above, dragon below:
1 = bi partite model of personal control = hermaphrodite (andro-gyne) in Rebis diagram
0 = uni partite model of personal control = dragon in Rebis diagram

In models of contrasting aspects of personal control agency, “higher” and “lower” can refer to either:
o The enlightened model of control: the uncontrollable thought-source and helpless thought-receiver (the horizontal pair, andro-gyne)
o The deluded, uni partite model of control.

Reading A:
‘Higher’ can refer to the uncontrollable thought-source, in the bi partite model of personal control.
Reading B:
‘Higher’ can refer to the bipartite model of control, as opposed to the lower, uni partite model of control.

Consider the image of Michael the Archangel spearing the dragon/serpent/basilisk: this can be legitimately read as either:
Reading A:
Michael = uncontrollable thought-source
serpent = helpless thought-receiver
or
Reading B:
Michael = bi partite control
serpent = uni partite control

The general theme of “two things”, or “the person has two natures” can mean either:
A. Personal control agency is uncontrollable thought-source and helpless thought-receiver.
or
B. Personal control agency is initially modelled per the egoic model, and then is modelled per the transcendent model.

The final, single, whole, integrated, post-initiation person has 4 distinct natures: in the order in which our 4 natures are revealed during the initiation sequence:
1. Pseudo-autonomous control agency (the dragon)
2. Loosecog perception/pure awareness (the star above and center, Mercury/Hermes)
3. The helpless thought-receiver (female head, moon; also Venus because female)
4. The uncontrollable thought-source (male head, sun; also Mars because male)

1. First, before initiation, you experience yourself as autonomous personal control agent, controller of your thinking and will.
2. During traditional mushroom initiation, you enter the state of loosecog perception.
3. You experience yourself as helpless puppet at the mercy of a hidden uncontrollable source of your thoughts that are forced upon you threateningly, until you identify and sacrifice, repudiate, your claim to have power over your thinking.
4. You experience yourself as identified with the transpersonal uncontrollable source of thoughts.
5. As expressed in the Rebis diagram, in the end, you end up identified with each of the above, now distinguished and integrated in your final mental model of personal control agency.

I map no-free-will or heimarmene to Saturn, and therefore map pseudo freewill (at an advanced, Titan stage of initiation in Ptolemaic/Neoplatonist astral ascent mysticism) to Jupiter.

“Egoic vs. transcendent” can mean either:
A. The helpless thought receiver is egoic control, and the uncontrollable thought-source is transcendent control of the mind’s thoughts.
or
B. The pre-initiation model of control is egoic thinking, and the post-initiation model of control is transcendent thinking.

“I have egoic and transcendent thinking.” That can mean either:
A. My mental model of control comprises two parts: the uncontrollable thought-source and the helpless thought-receiver.
or
B. My mind possesses and utilizes the pre-initiation mental model, which is egoic thinking, as well as the post-initiation mental model of personal control, which is transcendent thinking.

Sometimes the Rebis is shown holding a mushroom-wine cup that contains 3 cybercontrol snakes. One important meaning of ‘3 snakes’ is:
One of the upper snakes = uncontrollable thought-source
Other upper snake = helpless thought-receiver
Lower snake = pseudo-autonomous personal control agency; animalistic crude, primitive, youthful/childish uni partite model of personal control.

The two upper snakes there represent together the bi partite intelligent, sophisticated, adult, mature, bi partite model of personal control.

In a similar woodcut diagram, a star and crowned bird is shown above a king standing on a sun and queen on moon. The star and bird are loosecog perception of how personal control thinking works in the mind. The three (crowned bird, king queen; = star, sun, moon) are depicted as interlinked though distinct.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5680	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Rebis diagram: horiz & vert pairs, 2 meanings of ‘lower/higher’

Rebis images:
http://google.com/search?q=rebis&tbm=isch

Mapping the Rebis diagram to the tauroctony diagram of Mithraism, by using the non-metaphorical Cyberfatedelic theory of religion:

Given that the Rebis cleanly maps to the Tauroctony, this definitely indicates that an adequate structuring and presentation of the Cyberfatedelic theory must define equivalent, non-metaphorically expressed concepts that cleanly map to the associated elements in the Rebis and Tauroctony.

In this sense, metaphor-schemes teach (and inform and give information to) the non-metaphorical explanatory theory/framework. Theory learns from data; theory is shaped (organized, in-formed) by data. Theory is informed by data.

bull = dragon = Theory element A
Mithras = andro-gyne, sometimes shown as king-queen ruler = Theory element B
Sol = sun & male head = Theory element C
Luna = moon & female head = Theory element D
“looking”-ray = star/Mercury/Hermes = Theory element E

Thus by using the Theory to identify the mappings between metaphor-systems, we determine which mappings are standard and frequently utilized in metaphor-systems, and then adjust the Theory layout or architecture, or refactor the object-oriented design and Separation of Concerns in the Theory, to ensure that the Theory contains primary, named elements that map cleanly to many of the metaphor-systems that are the data or phenomena to be explained.

Thus the design-work for the Theory constructor to do amounts to filling-in the following component-map, toward constructing a diagram of the Theory, in this case, the Cyberfatedelic Theory of Ego Transcendence. It amounts to an assignment.

____________________________

Assignment:

Given the following symbol equivalence mappings between the Rebis diagram and the Tauroctony, provide concept labels and definitions for a non-metaphor based explanatory theory or framework that emphasizes Personal Self-Control Cybernetics Agency, Fatedness/Heimarmene/Determinism, and Loose Cognition from Mushrooms.

bull = dragon:
Theory element A is well-labelled as ‘__’, which term is defined as __.

Mithras = andro-gyne or king-queen ruler:
Theory element B is well-labelled as ‘__’, which term is defined as __.

Sol = sun & male head:
Theory element C is well-labelled as ‘__’, which term is defined as __.

Luna = moon & female head:
Theory element D is well-labelled as ‘__’, which term is defined as __.

“looking”-ray = star/Mercury/Hermes:
Theory element E is well-labelled as ‘__’, which term is defined as __.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Group: egodeath	Message: 5681	From: Michael Hoffman	Date: 27/11/2011
Subject: Re: Self-control seizure in Mithraism via Cyb/Heim/LCog/Metaph

Rock birth, birth from a rock: the mushroom loosecog state makes the mind perceive the changeless spacetime block universe, and a person’s entire life as a frozen worldline embedded in the spacetime block like a vein in a block of marble. The transcendent self-concept is born then. Born from seeing the block universe. Born from a rock. Rock birth.

Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.

Egodeath Yahoo Group – Digest 125: 2013-12-03

_{Site Map}

Group: egodeath	Message: 6351	From: egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com	Date: 03/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6352	From: Vincent McHugh	Date: 17/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6353	From: Vincent McHugh	Date: 17/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6360	From: egodeath@yahoogroups.com	Date: 01/07/2014
Subject: File – EgodeathGroupCharter.txt

Group: egodeath	Message: 6361	From: andrewfplunkett	Date: 13/07/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6362	From: Scott Finch	Date: 13/07/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6363	From: Kurt	Date: 18/07/2014
Subject: [Obituary] Stephen Gaskin (1935-2014)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6368	From: egodeath@yahoogroups.com	Date: 01/12/2014
Subject: File – EgodeathGroupCharter.txt

Group: egodeath	Message: 6408	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Test post

Group: egodeath	Message: 6409	From: opuslola@…	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Test post

Group: egodeath	Message: 6410	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6411	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Test post

Group: egodeath	Message: 6413	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6414	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6415	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6416	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6417	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6418	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Best glass oil rig design

Group: egodeath	Message: 6419	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: To upload

Group: egodeath	Message: 6420	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: To upload

Group: egodeath	Message: 6421	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: To upload

Group: egodeath	Message: 6422	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6423	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6424	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6427	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6428	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6429	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Group: egodeath	Message: 6430	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Group: egodeath	Message: 6431	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Group: egodeath	Message: 6432	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Group: egodeath	Message: 6433	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Group: egodeath	Message: 6434	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Paul’s road conversion = Balaam’s donkey conversion

Group: egodeath	Message: 6435	From: egodeath	Date: 18/12/2014
Subject: Bk: Cosmology and Fate (Lewis)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6436	From: egodeath	Date: 18/12/2014
Subject: Predestination and Free Will (Barry Clay)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6437	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6440	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6441	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6442	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6443	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6444	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6445	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6446	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6447	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6448	From: egodeath	Date: 20/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6449	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Group: egodeath	Message: 6450	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Prohibition-compliant meditation

Group: egodeath	Message: 6451	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Kenneth Humphreys on apologists for Jesus’ historicity

Group: egodeath	Message: 6452	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Entheogenshow.com podcast

Group: egodeath	Message: 6453	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: List of my claims to priority of discovery

Group: egodeath	Message: 6454	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Re: List of my claims to priority of discovery

Group: egodeath	Message: 6351	From: egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com	Date: 03/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

quick & dirty blurry compressed version of video lecture about the chalkboard diagrams (also see the static photo, which is clearer):

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F0B8qHZAfuY9KxclRzMzJPUjRwRVk%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Ddrive_web&h=zAQEn4CY7

Group: egodeath	Message: 6352	From: Vincent McHugh	Date: 17/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Received your latest transmissions of Dec 1,2,3

Sending out thoughts of love, support and safety with you on your path of this important work.

A few thought that mesh with your own;

The most difficult is to embrace your own annihilation, and to endure the intensity of the boundless transcendent state. Leary said, “The random spinning of the mind must be centered on prayer”.

A necessary background in metaphor and myth is needed to assimilate these experiences into a coherent worldview. Some background in psychology, which essentially is a mythmaking discipline, is needed as well.

In the ancient world the mysteries were concealed from the young and those that did not have sufficient preparation for the experience.

Today this prohibition is echoed in the legal system that recognizes its dangers but makes no provision for its benefits. The state of the transcended ego is a reversion to our primary state (our true birthright) that has been concealed by our cultural and linguistic conditioning.

This is what McKenna means when he say’s “culture is not your friend” These states are not specific to any culture or religion but are a reality that we wrap in the cultural contexts we have available to us to enable us to speak of what is otherwise unspeakable.

In other words, to quote Alfred Korzibsky “The map is not the territory”

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:13 PM, “egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com” <egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

quick & dirty blurry compressed version of video lecture about the chalkboard diagrams (also see the static photo, which is clearer):

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F0B8qHZAfuY9KxclRzMzJPUjRwRVk%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Ddrive_web&h=zAQEn4CY7

#ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 — #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp hr { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799hd { color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ads { margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ad { padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ad p { margin:0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ad a { color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-lc { font-family:Arial;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-lc #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799hd { margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-lc .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ad { margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799actions { font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity { background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity span { font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity span:first-child { text-transform:uppercase;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity span a { color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity span span { color:#ff7900;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799activity span .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799underline { text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach { clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach img { border:none;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach label { display:block;margin-bottom:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach label a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 blockquote { margin:0 0 0 4px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799bold { font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799bold a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 dd.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799last p a { font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 dd.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799last p span { margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 dd.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799last p span.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799yshortcuts { margin-right:0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach-table div div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach-table { width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799file-title a, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799file-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799file-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799file-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photo-title a, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photo-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photo-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 div#ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-msg p a span.ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799yshortcuts { font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799green { color:#628c2a;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 o { font-size:0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photos div { float:left;width:72px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photos div div { border:1px solid #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799photos div label { color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799reco-category { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799reco-desc { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 .ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799replbq { margin:4px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-actbar div a:first-child { margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg { font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg table { font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg select, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 input, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 textarea { font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg pre, #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 code { font:115% monospace;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height:1.22em;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799logo { padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-msg p a { font-family:Verdana;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-msg p#ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799attach-count span { color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-reco #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799reco-head { color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-reco { margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ov li a { font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ov li { font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ov ul { margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-text { font-family:Georgia;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-text p { margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-text tt { font-size:120%;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799 #ygrps-yiv-1465634961yiv6493342799ygrp-vital ul li:last-child { border-right:none !important;} #ygrps-yiv-1465634961

Group: egodeath	Message: 6353	From: Vincent McHugh	Date: 17/12/2013
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Received your latest transmissions of Dec 1,2,3

Sending out thoughts of love, support and safety with you on your path of this important work.

Entheogenic produced temporary suspension of ego conditioning allows access to transcendent states but does not guarantee it. It is necessary to have a “prepared heart” in order to benefit from these experiences. The most difficult is to embrace your own annihilation, to endure the intensity of the boundless transcendent state. Leary said, “the random spinning of the mind must be centered on prayer”. A necessary background in metaphor and myth is needed to assimilate these experiences into a coherent worldview. Some background in psychology, which essentially is a mythmaking discipline, is needed as well. In the ancient world the mysteries were concealed from the young and those that did not have sufficient preparation for the experience. Today this prohibition is echoed in the legal system that recognizes its dangers but unfortunatly makes no provision for its benefits. The state of the transcended ego is a reversion to our primary state (our true birthright) that has been concealed from us by our cultural and linguistic conditioning. This is what McKenna means when he say’s “culture is not your friend”. These states are not specific to any culture or religion but are a reality that we wrap in the cultural contexts we have available to us to enable us to speak of what is otherwise unspeakable. In other words, to quote Alfred Korzibsky “The map is not the territory”

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:13 PM, “egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com” <egodeath-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

quick & dirty blurry compressed version of video lecture about the chalkboard diagrams (also see the static photo, which is clearer):

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F0B8qHZAfuY9KxclRzMzJPUjRwRVk%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Ddrive_web&h=zAQEn4CY7

#ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 — #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp hr { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682hd { color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ads { margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ad { padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ad p { margin:0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ad a { color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-lc { font-family:Arial;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-lc #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682hd { margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-lc .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ad { margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682actions { font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity { background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity span { font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity span:first-child { text-transform:uppercase;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity span a { color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity span span { color:#ff7900;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682activity span .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682underline { text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach { clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach img { border:none;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach label { display:block;margin-bottom:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach label a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 blockquote { margin:0 0 0 4px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682bold { font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682bold a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 dd.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682last p a { font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 dd.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682last p span { margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 dd.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682last p span.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682yshortcuts { margin-right:0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach-table div div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach-table { width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682file-title a, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682file-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682file-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682file-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photo-title a, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photo-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photo-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 div#ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-msg p a span.ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682yshortcuts { font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682green { color:#628c2a;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 o { font-size:0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photos div { float:left;width:72px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photos div div { border:1px solid #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682photos div label { color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682reco-category { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682reco-desc { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 .ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682replbq { margin:4px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-actbar div a:first-child { margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg { font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg table { font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg select, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 input, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 textarea { font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg pre, #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 code { font:115% monospace;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height:1.22em;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682logo { padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-msg p a { font-family:Verdana;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-msg p#ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682attach-count span { color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-reco #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682reco-head { color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-reco { margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ov li a { font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ov li { font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ov ul { margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-text { font-family:Georgia;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-text p { margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-text tt { font-size:120%;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682 #ygrps-yiv-377135245yiv4198604682ygrp-vital ul li:last-child { border-right:none !important;} #ygrps-yiv-377135245

Group: egodeath	Message: 6360	From: egodeath@yahoogroups.com	Date: 01/07/2014
Subject: File – EgodeathGroupCharter.txt

The Egodeath Yahoo group is a Weblog sent out by Michael Hoffman,
covering the cybernetic theory of ego death and ego transcendence,
including:

o Block-universe determinism/Fatedness, the closed
and preexisting future, tenseless time, free will as illusory, the
holographic universe, and predestination and Reformed theology.

o Cognitive science, mental construct processing, mental models,
ontological idealism, contemporary metaphysics of the continuant
self, cybernetic self-control, personal control agency, moral agency,
and self-government.

o Zen satori, short-path enlightenment, and Alan Watts;
transpersonal psychology, Ken Wilber, and integral theory.

o Entheogens and psychedelic drugs, mystery religions, mythic
metaphor and allegorical encoding, the mystic altered state, mystic
and religious experiencing, visionary states, religious rapture, and
Acid Rock mysticism.

o Loss of control, self-control seizure, cognitive instability, and
psychosis and schizophrenia.

— Michael Hoffman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath
http://www.egodeath.com

Group: egodeath	Message: 6361	From: andrewfplunkett	Date: 13/07/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Thanks for sharing this, it was very interesting to watch. I had trouble with the link and I had to remove the facebook URL and change the URL encoded characters to their normal form, but got it to work. In case anyone else has trouble with the above link, this is the version that worked for me:

IMG_6466.MOV – Google Drive


	IMG_6466.MOV – Google Drive JavaScript isn’t enabled in your browser, so this file can’t be opened. Enable and reload.
	View on docs.google.com	Preview by Yahoo

Group: egodeath	Message: 6362	From: Scott Finch	Date: 13/07/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

It immediately influenced my studio practice and the imagery in my artwork. Thank you.

On Saturday, July 12, 2014, andrewfplunkett@… [egodeath] <egodeath@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks for sharing this, it was very interesting to watch. I had trouble with the link and I had to remove the facebook URL and change the URL encoded characters to their normal form, but got it to work. In case anyone else has trouble with the above link, this is the version that worked for me:

IMG_6466.MOV – Google Drive

IMG_6466.MOV – Google Drive
JavaScript isn’t enabled in your browser, so this file can’t be opened. Enable and reload.

View on docs.google.com

Preview by Yahoo

Group: egodeath	Message: 6363	From: Kurt	Date: 18/07/2014
Subject: [Obituary] Stephen Gaskin (1935-2014)

Attachments :

Stephen_Gaskin-1970-San_Francisco-NYT.jpg

Stephen_Gaskin-1969-Alamy.jpg

“To me this is the real inner meaning of the Vow of the Bodhisattva:

The deluding passions are inexhaustible, I vow to extinguish them all.
The way of the Buddha is unattainable, I vow to attain it.
Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them all.
The truth is impossible to expound, I vow to expound it.

By the time I get this far, I generally lump them
together as,

“I vow to shovel shit against the tide forever.””

— Stephen Gaskin, Cannabis Spirituality, 1996, 1st. Ed.,
High Times Books, New York, pp 6-7

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10946714/Stephen-Gaskin-obituary.html

Stephen Gaskin – obituary

Stephen Gaskin was a teacher who led a caravan of hippies across
America to found a commune built on tradition

04 Jul 2014

Stephen Gaskin, was a self-confessed “professional hippy” who became an
unlikely presidential candidate.

As a proponent of love, peace and harmony, he co-founded “The Farm” – a
spiritual community of like-minded tie-die clad, vegetarian,
pot-smoking pacifists – in Summertown, Tennessee, in 1971. It became
the largest hippy community in the world and an example of an effective
self-sufficient subculture.

As a potential leader of the free world – campaigning in the primary
elections of 2000 – Gaskin was a Green Party hopeful with a mission to
introduce universal health care, reform financial institutions and
legalise marijuana.

Although he failed to win the Green Party ticket for the presidential
poll he fought a frank and funny campaign. “Did you inhale?” he was
asked about his personal experience of marijuana. “I didn’t exhale,” he
answered.

Stephen Gaskin was born on February 16 1935 in Denver, Colorado, and
had a peripatetic, eclectic upbringing that, while atheist, was
inclusive of various cultures. His father was variously a cowboy,
builder, mail clerk and commercial fisherman and Stephen was raised
throughout the south west of America, with periods in Santa Fe,
Phoenix, and San Bernardino. “I’d been to so many different places I
had to learn how to make friends on purpose,” he recalled. He
maintained that his freethinking was hereditary, noting that his
grandmother was a suffragette and his great uncle helped the
longshoreman’s union in San Francisco.

Gaskin served in the US Marine Corps between 1952 and 1955, during
which time he fought in Korea. During the Sixties he lived in San
Francisco, where he taught English, semantics and creative writing at
San Francisco State University, working under the celebrated linguist
and semanticist SI Hayakawa.

Gaskin’s formal teaching grew into a more personal and philosophical
pursuit through his experimental “Monday Night Class” – an open
discussion group involving up to 1,500 students and held in 1969 and
1970 at a huge auditorium in the city’s Bay Area. His classes ranged
from “Group Experiments in Unified Field Theory” to “Magic, Einstein,
and God”. In these gatherings he discussed “consciousness, the
spiritual plane, religion, politics, sex, drugs and current events” –
all viewed through the kaleidoscopic lens of the Sixties counterculture
movement (and its psychedelic pharmaceutical refreshments). Unified by
the hippy sensibility, the classes formed the genesis of the group that
settled at The Farm.

In 1970 Gaskin led 250 people in a caravan of “20 or 30 old buses” from
San Francisco to Tennessee on a four-month lecture tour of churches and
colleges. “The farther we went, the more people there were who joined
the caravan,” he said. “Pretty soon there were three or four hundred of
us and the police were meeting us every time we crossed a state line.”

As a location for a commune their pocket of Tennessee countryside, with
its blackjack oaks and Amish communities, held mixed blessings. Though
the thousand acres of farmland they bought was cheap, it was closer to
the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan than it was to a main road or a
hospital.

The community that Gaskin built was not based on free-love – its core
values included the sanctity of marriage, importance of hard work and
respect for the Tennessee locals: “You can’t jive anybody who’s
teaching you how to run a tractor. It’s something to watch a cat who
was once with the Hell’s Angels being taught to run a tractor by an old
man and being respectful to that old farmer.”

Eventually, applicants to join The Farm required sponsorship by a
resident, a plan for their livelihood, and an explanation of what they
might bring to the community. They then had to pass a probationary
period.

Gaskin’s attitude to drugs also followed a relatively conservative
line. “Don’t lose your head to a fad,” he said. “The idea is that you
want to get open so you can experience other folks, not all closed up
and off on your own trip. So you shouldn’t take speed or smack or coke.
You shouldn’t take barbiturates or tranquillisers. All that kind of
dope really dumbs you out. Don’t take anything that makes you dumb.
It’s hard enough to get smart.”

In 1974, however, Gaskin went to prison for possession of marijuana.
“After we’d been here for a while, we got busted for growing a hundred
pounds of grass in the back,” he said. “And we weren’t sure whether the
neighbours were more uptight with us for doing that or for being so
dumb that we planted it in the deer trails where every hunter who came
through could see it.”

He served one year of a three-year sentence. On his release he
discovered that his voting rights had been rescinded. He sued the
government and after a series of lower court victories won his case, in
1981, at the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Under Gaskin’s guidance The Farm’s ethos extended well beyond its
geographical boundaries. The community supported aid efforts in
Guatemala, Chernobyl, Belize and the Bronx in New York.
Meanwhile, his wife, Ina May, developed a respected free midwifery
service for residents and “outsiders” alike – she turned down an offer
to be privately flown to Hollywood when Demi Moore went into labour.
Other on-site ventures have also flourished, from book publishing to a
soy dairy.

Gaskin was a prolific writer. His books on hippy spirituality include
The Caravan (1971); Hey Beatnik! This is the Farm Book (1974); and
Amazing Dope Tales and Haight Ashbury Flashbacks (1980).

In 2004 Gaskin was inducted into the Counterculture Hall of Fame,
joining the likes of Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and his own wife, Ina May.

While The Farm was home to thousands in its heyday, there are presently
just 200 residents – the majority of whom are over 50. It is, however,
one of the longest running communes in America. When asked in old age
why the community survived, Gaskin emphasised its practical approach.
“We were hippies wanting to live together and we accepted the
discipline it took to do that,” he said. “Utopia means nowhere. The
Farm has a zip code.”

Stephen Gaskin was married and divorced three times before he married
Ina May Middleton. She survives him with their two sons and a daughter,
along with a daughter from his second marriage and a son from a
“non-marital relationship”. Another son predeceased him.

Stephen Gaskin, born February 16 1935, died July 1 2014.

—

Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha

— Prajna Paramita Sutra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra

—

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/stephen-gaskin-hippie-who-founded-an-enduring-commune-dies-at-79.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stephen-f-gaskin-founder-of-the-farm-commune-in-tennessee-dies-at-79/2014/07/03/5bc44a1a-02c0-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

http://www.tennessean.com/story/life/2014/07/01/stephen-gaskin-founder-farm-dies/11934969/

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/the-farm-summertown-timeline/11936383/

http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/stephen-gaskin-1935-2014.html

http://www.thefarm.org/

@@attachment@@

Group: egodeath	Message: 6368	From: egodeath@yahoogroups.com	Date: 01/12/2014
Subject: File – EgodeathGroupCharter.txt

Group: egodeath	Message: 6408	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Test post

Test post from MH.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6409	From: opuslola@…	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Test post

It seems you have been hacked. Dating sites abound in my e-mails.

—–Original Message—–
From: egodeath@… [egodeath] <egodeath@yahoogroups.com>
To: egodeath <egodeath@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 14, 2014 4:05 pm
Subject: [egodeath] Test post

Test post from MH.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6410	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

The photos from Rome by Cyberdisciple bolstered my focus on the image of a snake on a debranched tree, which is shown in books. There are two paintings, in black and white, which came together Thanksgiving week 2013. I haven’t recounted the intellectual events from Thanksgiving week 2013 through June 2014. Staff of Asclepius the healer. Any combination (esp. pair) of key metaphor symbols implies the entire system: snake/tree, king/tree, snake/pole, worm/bush.

I have photos of Post-It Notes and art book entries showing how to completely condense the metaphors expressing what is revealed in the mystic state: heimarmene & cybernetics; fatedness, personal non-control (of a key type), and a new idea missing from the 1988 Core Theory: monopossibility, which is the missing link connecting block universe fatedness to personal nullity of control-power. I explained my summary post-it notes to baristas. I should describe and post the photos of the post-it notes with maximally condensed, maximally expressive metaphor-diagrams.

Branching possibilities is an illusion; there is only one truly possible path frozen in spacetime. The more potent the Egodeath theory is, the simpler and more extreme. There are only two perspectives; we switch from the first to the second. (And they might talk of “transcending” the second perspective.) From the false, tree perspective (Possibilism) to the snake perspective (Eternalism). Mythic metaphor describes the switch from the Possibilism perspective to the Eternalism perspective.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6411	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Test post

Monitoring. Might turn off postings. Might moderate posts.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6413	From: egodeath	Date: 14/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

My 2006 main article is missing monopossibility/ theory of nonbranching (of possibility). At ‘stag’… ‘animal’ for example. Ancients considered the idea of nonbranching to be key and ultimate, given the ultimate position of the image of snake on debranched tree, as in the staff of Asclepius and the donkey with rider reaching the snake on debranched tree.

The concept of Rock (meaning the block universe) gets no attention — fatal oversight. Rock is as important as snake, king, and debranched tree.

tree/pole/branch/stauros/stake refer to nonbranching (of possibility). King on tree = king on cross = king on pole/stauro/stake. Monopossibility kills the steersman king, everything now recognized as being frozen into rock (spacetime).

— Original R&D by Michael Hoffman

Group: egodeath	Message: 6414	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

By “Original R&D”, I had in mind “original research and original discovery”.

Searching for ‘branch’ in the Egodeath Yahoo group shows that I first posted about Possibilism vs. Eternalism September 11, 2007. The search shows that I developed, discovered, and recognized the Theory of Nonbranching (of possibility) in religious mythic metaphor, during 2011 and 2012. In the video recording of December 2, 2013, when I said I researched tree vs. snake during the past year, I meant “around a year ago”. But as always, a “new” idea, an insight breakthrough, has roots going back years.

I have yet to post why my Thanksgiving week discovery that “tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism” was huge. And why the total fallout from that breakthrough was huge.

April 1987 — A sudden stylistic change; mental construct processing; domain of control; loose cognition; use of acronyms (condensed abbreviations of phrases). I became a real independent thinker, or idea developer, at that time. This could be called a breakthrough in approach to modeling thinking, as mental construct processing; mental construct association matrixes.

January 1988 — Block universe breakthrough; birth of the Core Theory. Main breakthrough.

November 2001 — Reading Revelation, realized the joking metaphors expressing no-free-will; thus got my desired-in-1999 confirmation that “Jesus and Paul assert my Egodeath theory” (as I put it in 1999). Birth of the Phase 2 theory: religious mythic metaphor describes entheogens revealing fatedness and personal non-control. A peak breakthrough.

~2003, discovered snake/serpent means Heimarmene (block-universe fatedness). (Search the Egodeath Yahoo group to see my development trajectory from hypothesis to confirmation.) An essential key breakthrough.

2006-2007 wrote the main article.

Thanksgiving week 2013, a peak breakthrough: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism. This was also based on long-term work on the problem of interpreting the story (or story-twist) of tree of knowledge (of good & evil) at the start of the Bible/Old Testament. Developed this recognition and breakthrough through June 2014, perfecting the diagram of king/tree/snake/rock/puppetmaster/fate-steering-rail. Staff of Asclepius the healer. snake on pole, ram caught in bush, king in tree (had been working on Dionysus story of king Pentheus caught up in tree, and “king hung from a tree” in bible (OT & Jesus) for years).

After the video lecture Dec. 2, 2013, I refined the idea of “meta-steering” — I can clarify that idea, but it does come down to some kind of “meta-steering” is an illusion throughout our experience of being a power-weilding control-agent. We do a kind of steering, but we lack a kind of meta-steering. There is change, but not meta-change. There is pseudo-possibility branching, but only one actual possibility, the one fated and frozen in future spacetime.

Thanksgiving 2013, I had been working on multiple mytheme-interpretation problems for years, including story of tree of knowledge, and Dionysus in tree, and Jesus’ death on a stauros (stake)/cross/pole. That also led to my full ability to read the Villa of Mysteries fresco, which I haven’t yet posted (huge breakthrough or application of the Egodeath theory’s interpretation scheme to decipher religious mythic metaphor).

January 21, 2014, figured out, and discovered the problem of, the Staff of Asclepius the healer. Drew Post-It Note explaining the Staff of Asclepius. Later (I have dates), refined the Post-It Note diagram condensing the metaphors for switching from Possibilism to Eternalism. Later, June 14 2014, I discovered the interpretive principle that any pair of key mythemes implies the entire system; king on cross = serpent on pole = worm eating bush = king on tree. Broke through in interpreting, fully reading, Villa of Mysteries fresco. Brought together the Theory of Nonbranching (of possibilities) using 2011-2012 work on branching and nonbranching in mushroom trees, snake/hydra, Typhon father of all monsters, monster living hidden in fountain in cave; hydra (ironic branching of the non-branching Heimarmene snake) vs. nonbranching tree (ironic nonbranching).

— Michael Hoffman, December 14, 2014, Original Research, Original Discoveries: religious mythic metaphor describes entheogens revealing Eternalism and the illusory nature of meta-steering

Group: egodeath	Message: 6415	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

In my 2006-2007 main article, I wasn’t satisfied with “time pole”, as an explanation for Moses’ healing snake-on-pole. Daily I see debranched trees alongside highway construction, holding up telecomm panels forming a grid. How do you make a pole? You find a tree and cut off its branches. A pole is a debranched tree; the emphasis is not pole=time, but rather, pole=monopossibility — that’s an error in the main article.

The goddess turned the hunter into “an animal” — that is an error in the main article; should say “turned him into a stag with branching antlers and his hunting dogs killed him; negating Possibilism”.

I have carefully analyzed the kylix (mushroom wine drinking saucer) showing Jason spewed forth dead from giant snake, ivy-strand tree where branching is hidden by the Golden Fleece (compare ram caught in bush, in sacrifice of Isaac). That is the black & white image on the cover of the book Greek Mythology, which inspired my Thanksgiving 2013 tree vs. snake breakthrough when I turned the page of the Joseph Campbell book and saw in black & white the Eve half of a diptych painting, by Cranach the Younger and/or Elder, buddy of Martin Luther, showing Eve holding branch of tree of knowledge, branching antlers behind her, holding branch in front of her.

Pretty big breakthrough around June 2014, fallout from tree vs. snake breakthrough: I re-did some Web research on Calvinism and found the great book “The Dark Side of Calvinism”, which proves that the hyper-calvinism asserted by John Calvin himself asserts God as the author of evil. This led to my complaint and observation again, that people misunderstand the nature of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’; there are two meanings: reward/punishment for freewill egos, vs. mystic-altered-state experiencing of hellish turmoil until sacrifice the egoic freewill power claim.

Thus, I discovered that Calvin’s extreme Calvinism is correct (systemically coherent) but conventional view of heaven&hell as reward/punishment for egos is incorrect; it’s the lower view in mass religion, not the esoteric revealed higher meaning of ‘heaven’/’hell’. Rob Bell & Progressive Christianity rejects ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment). Hell is the loosecog state for purification to remove freewill thinking from our thinking, to become divinized and coherent and healed. Hyper Calvinism is correct (coherent) but Hell is not what Calvinists think. Calvinism is true but its Hell is false. Religion has a lower, false interpretation, and a higher, true interpretation.

Prior to the November 2013 tree vs. snake breakthrough, I had been searching the Web for “block universe”, thinking “*Surely* people have seen the profound implications”. That period of re-doing some Web research deeper, set up the Thanksgiving 2013 recognition that tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

An idea is a connection-network. An insight is a greater degree of connections, and key revisions (Paul Thagard’s book Conceptual Revolutions).

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist. Original research and original discoveries.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6416	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

URL for my video lecture on “tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism”, at Google docs, not as clear as the uncompressed original file.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8qHZAfuY9KxclRzMzJPUjRwRVk/edit?usp=docslist_api

Group: egodeath	Message: 6417	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

The link (for my shared video file at Google Docs) isn’t working on my iPhone 6 Plus. The file is at Google Docs and I can view it in my Google Docs account. I plan to upload the video to Egodeath.com, uncompressed.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6418	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Best glass oil rig design

Part of the fallout from my Thanksgiving week 2013 tree vs. snake breakthrough is that I thought of this glass oil rig design for vaporizing honeycomb or other texture of cannabis oil: a snake winding up a debranched tree per the Staff of Asclepius the healer; a key feature is the emphatically cut-off branch stubs, asserting the fatedness snake and repudiating the assumption of multipossibilities and our egoic control power of meta-steering among those possibility branches. We steer along our preset steering-rail that is frozen into the spacetime block per Eternalism.

Some glass oil rig designs seem to be unconsciously heading this direction in the abstract, with a snake-like spiral of glass winding around a plain glass cylinder, without debranched stubs, without tree trunk or branch features.

— original research, discovery, & design by Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist, 2014

Group: egodeath	Message: 6419	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: To upload

Web image searches showing the staff of Asclepius, Moses’ serpent on a pole, and Hercules’ club — all as a debranched tree.

Video lecture on tree vs. snake, uncompressed

Villa of the Mysteries fresco images with my full deciphering

Books:

The Dark Side of Calvinism

no historical Paul (Robert Price)

ahistoricity of Mohammed

Richard Carrier’s book on ahistoricity of the Jesus figure
What the fall of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll means for the Egodeath theory; ersatz substitute lower Christianity vs. bona fide higher Christianity.

Martin Ball’s explanation of oneness and we are part of God.

False, lower Islam.

Criticism of attempts to combine God’s goodness & omnipotence, criticism of shielding God from being the author of evil in order to save ethics.

Progress in stopping the war on drugs. Countering antidrug attitudes; adolescents naturally seek drugs and ego death insight, which is spiritual maturation. God is puppetmaster of the evil, delusion-preserving prohibitionists, who have power because God put them in that role, frozen helplessly in spacetime. Forgive the prohibitionist puppets, blame God instead.

Expanding the condensed list of metaphors thread, such as rock stone statue marble.

Photos: Post-It Notes showing snake tree king rock steeering hand-of-God; summaries of metaphor imagery combinations.

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6420	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: To upload

When I wrote the Wasson Plaincourault article, I learned to never trust my memory or impression of what someone wrote, but always triple-fact-check and quote. Especially given weaselly, politically evasive, self-contradictory writings on history of visionary plants in Our cultural history (R Gordon Wasson, Richard Schultes).

I often think that I have written directly on a point, making a particular point explicitly — but when I try to find my writeup, to point to it, I can’t find anything but a slight allusion to the idea in my online published writings. Therefore, I must write anew about things and points I have supposedly covered before. A fresh writeup is the only way to be sure my clearest best latest ideas have been written up. Partial repetition ensures development/evolution of my writings. I wrote about branching and nonbranching (of possibilities that are supposedly open to our personal domain of control/steering power) multiple times between 2011-2012, before the connections exploded into complete recognition of religious mythic metaphor such as nonbranching mushroom trees. “Repeating” my writeups develops the ideas (connection-networks).

— Michael Hoffman, the discoverer of no-free-will in religious mythic metaphor

Group: egodeath	Message: 6421	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: To upload

I want to transcribe the video lecture about my discovery that tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

–Michael Hoffman, Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6422	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

Dates for Priority of Discovery, from photos and their timestamps:

Friday, November 29, 2013, 7:42 pm (the day after Thanksgiving): I discovered that tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism, upon seeing the right half of this painting in black & white, together with the cover of Fritz Graf’s book Greek Mythology: An Introduction, which shows the kylix/mushroom-wine saucer showing Jason spewed dead from the giant Heimarmene-snake, while Athena (with snake-fringes and death-face) and owl looks on, with ram golden fleece hung in nonbranching ivy-strand quasi-tree. This was one of my top 3 all-time breakthroughs.
img_6414.jpg photo of page of a large Joseph Campbell / Bill Moyers book “A. Eve tempted by the Serpent, Lucas Cranach, ca. 1530.”

That was interwoven with recognizing many depictions of person’s head coming forth from a snake, including Eve’s head. I want to inventory and upload pictures of these.

December 2, 2013: chalkboard video lecture on tree vs. snake.

Jan 3 2014 6565jpg found king in tree shot by bow and arrow in esoteric drawing confirming Egodeath theory. De Alchima, Leyden, 1526. Fountain section of esoteric art book.

January 24, 2014: figured out staff of asclepius, drew Post-It Note for Karen barista: “mono-possibility tree- rigid serpent: your future possibility = fatedness. [branch stubs =] illusory virtual-only possibility branch per freewill. Staff of Asclepius the healer”

feb 9, 2014 6604 jpg. draft Post-It Note condensing mythic imagery expressing realization/revelation of no-free-will. led up to refined:

February 11, 2014: gave Post-It Note to Levi barista cosmetologist with gold ink accents, left side: king steering in tree “king with power of steering and control in open future possibility tree”; right side: puppet king steering along fixed real snake path and of God puppetmaster from cloud. lacked indication of rock universe cave surrounding all that, though. “puppet forced to steer by uncontrollable puppetmaster along rigid snake path”

March 9, 2014: 6662-6672 jpg: I drew excellent, refined, condensed diagrams and text in art signing book at coffeehouse, titled Religious Myth Deciphered. snake on pole moses, staff asclepius, debranched club of Heracles, fully mature diagram in metallic multi color ink: appearance reality king tree steering pump at snake rock rigid rock universe with text including:
left side: “normally we experience as an autonomous king with steering power in a multi-possibility tree, with open future.

“King with power of steering and control and open future possibility tree.”
[ there is a mushroom in the middle of the diagram]
right side: “After mixed wine, we experience as a puppet forced to steer a long a pre-existing snake-shaped rail, mono possibility. We have virtual possibilities and a single actual possibility, our path frozen in rock. Puppet forced to steer by hidden uncontrollable puppetmaster along rigid snake path.”

— original research and discoveries by Michael Hoffman, based on research since 1985

Group: egodeath	Message: 6423	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

“and of God puppetmaster from cloud”
should read:
hand of God puppetmaster from cloud

“appearance reality king tree steering pump at snake rock rigid rock universe”
should read:
[left side:] Appearance [right side:] Reality
king tree steering puppet snake rock (rigid rock universe)

Group: egodeath	Message: 6424	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

“right side: puppet king steering along fixed real snake path”
should read:
right side: puppet king steering along fixed rail snake path

Group: egodeath	Message: 6427	From: egodeath	Date: 15/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

John Earman has articles about non-branching spacetime, and about varieties of determinism (which “is still a matter of debate”).

Pruning Some Branches from “Branching Spacetime”. 2008
http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2008a.pdf

Aspects of Determinism in Modern Physics. 2007
http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2007a.pdf

Reassessing the Prospects for a Growing Block Model of the Universe. 2008
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/13214/

Group: egodeath	Message: 6428	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

I declare a moratorium on Relativity and Quantum Physics. They add confusion that prevents us from doing first things first; the first thing is to fully grasp block-universe fatedness. In 1900 it was possible to think about the iron block rock universe, possible to grasp the full ramifications of no-free-will. But we didn’t have that clarity, and then we piled-on Relativity and QM and then got ourselves lost in equations, confusions, preventing from ever thinking clearly and simply. So we had to wait until my main article of 2006-2007, and my addition of monopossibility in 2013-2014, to see a full clear view of the entire system of simple block-universe no-free-will, in Philosophy, Psychology, religious experiencing, mythology, and Physics. It’s like trying to learn C++ programming without understanding C programming: step 1 has to be for everyone to understand the Egodeath theory.

— Michael Hoffman, pointing to the simplest ideas first

Group: egodeath	Message: 6429	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Why was the tree vs. snake breakthrough experienced by me as so surprising, profound, fundamental, and wide-ranging in ramifications?

I discovered and showed that spacetime physics, and the philosophy of it, is closely aligned with the ancients’ concern with tree, snake, king, rock, steering, searching, death, and myth. Spacetime physics talks of spacetime worms, branching possibility tree, a line of possibility into the future, a tree trunk of what transpired in the past.

I was looking for stag antlers in Greek myth but found them at the tree of knowledge — multiple separate research projects slammed together when I combined seeing Lucas Cranach’s branching-focused tree of knowledge, various human heads coming out of snakes, and the Jason in Garden of Hesperides kylix (mushroom wine drinking saucer).

My research on mushrooms found that we should consider ergonomic the seeminglyly arbitrary use of mixed wine — this is an original announcement: the throwing away of the mushroom dregs, not ingesting the mushroom pieces, might be important to make mushroom extract safer and more psychoactive in proportion to toxicity. Using a krater mixing bowl for a batch enables redosing and controlled dosage, thus lengthening the session and tempering the peak. Thus imitating the way mixed wine was used could be key to increasing the effectiveness of mushrooms.

Ancient Near Eastern religion clearly, evidently, must have understood tree vs. snake and the centrality (crux) of Possibilism vs. Eternalism. Cranach’s painting implies that so too did the Cranaches, Luther, and Calvin. The story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, this tree and snake, is fundamental and foundational at the start of the Bible. Jesus compares himself with Jonah and the fish (sea serpent spewing forth a man) and Moses’ healing snake on a pole. The tree of knowledge as pointing out the crux as branching vs. nonbranching possibility, extremely confirms my focus on block-universe determinism, giving me far more confirmation than I imagined possible. I felt lightning arcing to connect Greek myth and Jewish stories, as well as Ancient Near Eastern religion, when I put together the Jason kylix and Eve’s branching tree. perfect elegance of expression of the best distinction in philosophy of time: is the future a single preexisting possibility path, or branching? If nonbranching, egoic meta-steering power is dead illusion. Ancients understood but spacetime physics is lost in its complexity and struggles to think about this most basic contrast to its full extent. Only mythic visual art imagery is simple enough to strip away the inessentials and represent what’s at stake, what the two options are and their ramifications: is future possibility tree-shaped, as we initially assume, or snake-shaped?

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist, December 16, 2014

Group: egodeath	Message: 6430	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

A little patch of preserved forest I walk in frequently, looking at mushrooms, put me consciously in the same context as ancients: I knew that just like them, I could think about the basic fundamental ideas: branching paths, branching trees, steering decisions, non-branching mushrooms. I leveraged this timeless simple framework of thinking, provided by this forest patch, to ask what ‘sacred crossroads’ meant, 2011-2012.

— Michael Hoffman, Dec. 16, 2014

Group: egodeath	Message: 6431	From: egodeath	Date: 16/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

All the complexities of determinism in Physics debates simply reduces (boils down) to branching vs. nonbranching possibility, and a concommitant scope of personal control possibility-steering power. Physics in the tightcog state fails to emphasize and perceive {possibility nonbranching interlinked with control-agent non-meta-steering} as the crux of the matter systemically, or else Physics would recognize this theme at the heart of religious mythic metaphor.

There is some sporadic disorganized discussion of no-free-will and illusory agent responsibility, in Physics and in Reformed Theology, but the pieces haven’t been systematically and simply brought together and reduced-down to fundamental clarity, until my tree vs. snake discoveries of 2011-2014.

Either there are branching possibilities and we have meta-steering power suitable for selecting which branch we enter, or there is only one real possibility frozen in place in the future, and we lack the kind of steering power to deviate from that branch (extended trunk).

Elaborate discussions of spacetime models in Physics, and of the order of salvation in Reformed Theology, put forth distracting and irrelevant twists and views and alternative wording, that hides this fundamental simplicity of the opposition and contrast between these only two models of possibility and control.

Thus writers don’t even know the simple worldmodel of Eternalism and noncontrol, even as they assert or reject no-free-will. A specific, focused, relevant connection-network of ideas and metaphors is required but missing from the Physics discussions and Calvinism/TULIP/Reformed Theology discussions.

— Michael Hoffman, simple fundamental thoroughgoing Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6432	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Deciphered: tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism

Popular paranormal Physics, pop spirituality, pop pseudo-Calvinism, pop religion, pop thinking — is based on sand, on a foundation premise of possibility branching with egoic steering power and open future. Before mixed wine initiation (loosecog), we think “open-possibility steering power”.

That is the default initial assumption, unstated, taken for granted throughout our thinking; the only way we know how to think, until we are dynamically shown the nonbranching way and its non-meta-steering. Oedipus steered but couldn’t steer away from his destined rail. Anyone who isn’t focusing on comprehensive nonbranching and non-meta-steering (Eternalism), automatically habitually assumes Possibilism; open future, multipossibility branching, metasteering power.

— Michael Hoffman

Group: egodeath	Message: 6433	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Egodeath diagram and lecture

In a txt msg I sent June 15, 2014, I alluded to the important idea/principle:

Any pair of key mythemes, or combination of key mythemes, implies the entire classic system of using metaphors to describe visionary plants revealing fatedness and personal non-control.

For example:
snake in tree,
brass serpent on pole,
dead king on tree/pole/cross,
ram caught in bush,
winged eye on pole w 2 snakes coupled,
Snake around pole (debranched tree).

That is a distinct principle of myth.

from txtxs:
photo caption:
“King snake in tree. (crown) A compound mythic image”

With that idea (“mytheme pairs represent the entire system”), my theory of religious mythic metaphor is complete. My 1988 Core Theory, and my 2007 main article, lacked “nonbranching/monopossibility”- a mandatory idea which is as important as the tree/snake contrast eg tree of knowledge of good/evil, which represents/expresses the idea of monopossibility, like king oedipus’ inability to deviate from his fated path; our future is frozen in rock and “alternative paths” are illusory. My 1988 theory & 2007 article didnt see the crucial, fundamental “monopossibility/ possibility-nonbranching” idea & mythemes, discovered 2012-2014.

Any pair of key mythemes represents the entire system of metaphors for visionary plants revealing fatedness & personal non-control.

That important idea/realization was june 15 2014 or couple days later. that was the last key idea to play out from the thxgivingweek 2013 tree-vs-snake breakthru over course of 6 mo 20 days.

Myths closely related:
king on a cross
king caught in a tree
ram caught in a bush
worm eating at Bush; various combinations, conjunctions are interesting

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist; original research

Group: egodeath	Message: 6434	From: egodeath	Date: 17/12/2014
Subject: Re: Paul’s road conversion = Balaam’s donkey conversion

A key characteristic of the donkey is that it automatically follows a path, like a steering mechanism that follows along a rail – the heimarmene snake rigid rail frozen into the future.

On a sarcophagus (a casket made of rock), a relief shows a man riding carried by a donkey along a path leading to a snake on a debranched tree. The man is not holding reins steering the donkey. The donkey is one’s steering-activity, which is frozen into the rock future, frozen carved in the spacetime rock block universe from the timeless moment of creation.

— Michael the Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6435	From: egodeath	Date: 18/12/2014
Subject: Bk: Cosmology and Fate (Lewis)

Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies)
Nicola Denzey Lewis
2013
http://amazon.com/o/asin/9004245480

Book review by Michael Hoffman:

Title of review: You are ignorant slaves of fate; we have been released
5 out of 5 stars

People in Mediterranean antiquity including Jews, Pagans, Gnostics, and Christians, around the 1st Century, believed in fatedness. Then around the 2nd Century, people adopted a rhetoric of transcending fatedness, while disparaging other people or the other groups as being ignorant and being slaves to fate. This book supports the 3-tiered systematic analysis in my Egodeath theory, in which we move through three stages during initiation experiences:

1. Ignorant freewill thinking.

2. Enlightened realization of fatedness and personal noncontrol. This stage disparages stage 1 (ignorant freewill thinking).

3. Transcending fatedness to gain a transcendent freedom. This stage conflates and disparages stage 1 (ignorant freewill thinking) and stage 2 (realization of fatedness and personal noncontrol).

Lewis’ analysis is not as systematic, but supports this explanation of how stage 2 was first positively valued and then later was negatively valued.

Lewis shows that competition and rhetoric inflation led all the groups (Jews, pagans, Christians, gnostics) to praise themselves as having true freedom and disparage the other people as being both ignorant (per stage 1) and slaves of fate (as realized in stage 2). People didn’t complain of themselves being enslaved by fate; they disparaged other people as being ignorant and enslaved by fate. However, during initiation, as I have analyzed, the experience of fatedness and personal noncontrol give rise to panic and egodeath, which amounts to suffering enslavement by fate.

Lewis misses this point and understates the intensity of ancient experience of enslavement to fate; she argues that enslavement to fate was mere rhetoric, but in fact enslavement to fate was intense peak experiencing. Lewis’ theory is literary scholarship unplugged from intense, lightning-bolt, ancient experiential transformation of consciousness. Once this connection is made, from initiation experience to the encounter with fatedness, Lewis’ book can be corrected and recognized as relevant to explaining the heart of religious origins in antiquity.

— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theorist
Posted first at Amazon on Nov. 11, 2014

Contents (my transcription from the hardcover):
Introduction
Chapter 1: Were the Gnostics Cosmic Pessimists?
Chapter 2: Nag Hammadi and the Providential Cosmos
Chapter 3: ‘This Body of Death’: Cosmic Malevolence and Enslavement to Sin in Pauline Exegesis
Chapter 4: ‘Heimarmene’ at Nag Hammadi: ‘The Apocryphon of John’ and ‘On the Origin of the World’
Chapter 5: Middle Platonism, Heimarmene, and the Corpus Hermeticum
Chapter 6: Ways Out I: Interventions of the Savior God
Chapter 7: Ways Out II: Baptism and Cosmic Freedom: A New Genesis
Chapter 8: Astral Determinism in the Gospel of Judas
Chapter 9: Conclusions, and a New Way Forward
Selected Bibliography
Subject Index

Below is more about the book, which I posted originally in this post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/conversations/messages/6309

Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies
Nicola Denzey Lewis
http://amazon.com/o/asin/9004245480
Due out Feb 2013
Nicola Denzey Lewis, Religious Studies professor, specialist in Gnosticism.
Condensed by Michael Hoffman:
“Gnosticism as a philosophically-oriented religious movement, with the perception of the cosmos as negative or enslaving. Astrological fate in the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Judas, Trimorphic Protennoia, and the Pistis Sophia. The concept of enslavement to heimarmene originated in Greek Stoicism, was deployed in the Pauline writings, and was later used by Christian and non-Christian second-century intellectuals. The ancient cosmos, its influence, and being free of its potentially pernicious effects. Gnosticism within the context of the intellectual history of the Roman Empire; emergent Christianity; the religions of Graeco-Roman antiquity.”

Contents:
Were the Gnostics Cosmic Pessimists?
Nag Hammadi and the Providential Cosmos
This Body of Death: Cosmic Malevolence and Enslavement to Sin in Pauline Exegesis
Heimarmene at Nag Hammadi: The Apocryphon of John and On the Origin of the World
Middle Platonism, Heimarmene, and the Corpus Hermeticum
Ways Out I: Interventions of the Savior God
Ways Out II: Baptism and Cosmic Freedom
Astral Determinism in the Gospel of Judas
Conclusions, and a New Way Forward

Same author:
Introduction to ‘Gnosticism’: Ancient Voices, Christian Worlds
Nicola Denzey Lewis
http://amazon.com/o/asin/0199755310
2012
Oxford University Press

Group: egodeath	Message: 6436	From: egodeath	Date: 18/12/2014
Subject: Predestination and Free Will (Barry Clay)

Predestination and Free Will
Barry Clay
March 2014
http://amazon.com/o/asin/B00J8XHITG

Title of review: Freewillist, defines predestination as foreknowledge, not preordaining
4 out of 5 stars

Book review by Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com), posted June 8, 2014:

The author accommodates predestination by defining predestination as foreknowledge rather than preordaining. He attempts to use an exclusively freewillist solution to reconcile predestination and freewill assertions in the Bible.

The author doesn’t use a “sequential bi-modal meaning-switching” explanation to reconcile predestination and freewill assertions in the Bible. Per the Egodeath theory, the Bible initially asserts freewill to the uninitiated, and subsequently reveals no-free-will to the initiated, with two contrasting networks of meaning regarding ‘sin’, ‘saved’, ‘heaven’, ‘hell’, ‘heal’, ‘wine’, ‘exorcise’, ‘eternal life’, ‘good’, ‘evil’, and ‘die’. The Bible is based in a Reformed theology that systemically redefines these terms, and playfully contrasts the pre-initiation and post-initiation meaning-networks, for the purpose of building a populist egalitarian social-political network, in contrast to hierarchical Imperial Theology which utilized pagan initiation into no-free-will.

Clay’s writing is an example of the freewillist meaning-network of key words, which is the initial mode or layer of the bi-modal or 2-layer religion of New Testament Christianity.

— Book review by Michael S. Hoffman, Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6437	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Around the Tree: Semantic and Metaphysical Issues Concerning Branching and the Open Future
Fabrice Correia (Editor), Andrea Iacona (Editor)
2013
http://amazon.com/o/asin/9400751664

Group: egodeath	Message: 6440	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Publisher’s description

Over the past few years, the tree model of time has been widely employed to deal with issues concerning the semantics of tensed discourse. The thought that has motivated its adoption is that the most plausible way to make sense of indeterminism is to conceive of future possibilities as branches that depart from a common trunk, constituted by the past and the present. However, the thought still needs to be further articulated and defended, and several important questions remain open, such as the question of how actuality can be understood and formally represented in a branching framework. The present volume is intended to be a 360 degree reflection on the tree model. The contributions is gathers concern the model and its alternatives, both from a semantic and from a metaphysical point of view.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6441	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

https://books.google.com/books?id=xoea_H0_m30C&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=possibility+branching+no+free+will&source=bl&ots=qZFvvq9Nzq&sig=LnBVMcKHPljiTZGG4eFyBz29J9E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yaiTVOOEM9bVoAS7nYA4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAjgK

https://books.google.com/books?id=xoea_H0_m30C

Group: egodeath	Message: 6442	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

Search term combinations:
possibility branching no free will
Spacetime worm
Worldline
World-line
“Spacetime worm”
Snake
possibility branching
no free will
“possibility branching”
“no free will”
Tree
Forking path
space time “worm theorist”
Trousers

Group: egodeath	Message: 6443	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Bk: Around the Tree: Branching Future (Correia)

For example:
http://4chandata.org/x/Let-s-imagine-our-universe-in-the-fourth-dimension-It-would-appear-as-a-long-growing-snake-the-beginning-of-the-universe-in-the-fr-a70639

Stocking wrote 2012-09-24:
it looks more like a tree since there is a here and now. Not that the other possibilities don’t exist, however our one true existence makes a solid snake, unfortunately, the uncertain future has to look like a giant tree branching ahead of that snake.
… The snake that is history and the tree that is the future, and also the possible tree that is the past, the infinity that surrounds the one true timeline.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6444	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Intelligible, specific, articulate praise and clarification of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, alternating with vague and content-free disparagement:

http://www.psychonaut.com/general-psychonautics/35445-whats-happened-michael-hoffman-egodeath.html

Page 8 (2014):
http://www.psychonaut.com/general-psychonautics/35445-whats-happened-michael-hoffman-egodeath-8.html

Group: egodeath	Message: 6445	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

The Egodeath theory is a breakthrough in many ways, including systematically, scientifically unifying and integrating the following fields:
Free will and determinism
Philosophy of Spacetime Physics including Relativity, Quantum Physics, block universe, time travel, many worlds/multiverse
Religious mythic metaphor
Entheogens, Psychedelics in terms of cognitive phenomenology
Cognitive science of altered states; LooseCog Science
Ahistoricity of Jesus, Paul, and other religious founder figures
Religious origins without historicity of founder figures
Western Esotericism; alchemy, magic, exorcism, astral ascent mysticism/astrology
Control agency
Gnosticism
Ancient Near East religion
Ancient mystery cults
Philology; how to read esoteric religious texts and reliefs and frescoes and imagery (eg hydra, Typhon, Medusa/king turned to stone)
Culture of Mediterranean Antiquity
Art interpretation
Jewish mysticism
Et cetera

— Michael Hoffman, theorist of mythic metaphor, entheogens, loose cognitive state, fatedness, and control-limits

Group: egodeath	Message: 6446	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Additional fields that the Egodeath theory enables integrating together intelligibly and cohesively:

Global universal world mythology from all religions

Rock lyrics (the authentic mystery religion of the late-modern era)

For example: Learning to Fly (Pink Floyd’s standout track), Help!, Stairway to Heaven, Black Blade, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, No One at the Bridge, Somewhere in Time, I Wanna Be Sedated, Twilight Zone (on 2112), The Body Electric; Free Will; find “lyrics” in the Egodeath Yahoo discussion group.

The consistent set of Heavy Rock lyrics, when recognized (like world mythology) as description of cognitive phenomenology of the entheogen-induced loose cognition state, provides confirmation of Egodeath theory’s interpretation of the other integrated fields: academics are untrustworthy and mislead, while Rock lyricists provide a relevant, reliable, more trustworthy report on entheogenic experiential cognitive phenomenology.

Movies: Matrix, Donny Darko

Any idiot can write “I disagree with Hoffman” and some do, but adding persuasive substance to that down-vote is impossible. Generally, thinkers agree with the enlightening value and merit of this integrative theory, or parts of it and selective applications of my Theory as an explanatory breakthrough paradigm that a given thinker is engaged with, though there is still powerful censorship, a discussion blackout, silenced voices of agreement.

— Michael Hoffman, the interdisciplinary Egodeath theorist

Group: egodeath	Message: 6447	From: egodeath	Date: 19/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Lyrics: I meant to add here the true masterpiece, the *original* and only real release of the album Diary of a Madman. As an integrated concept album it is greater even than Caress of Steel or its Side B: Fountain of Lamneth. Academics under the boot-heel of the conditions of Prohibition can’t go there. Investigation of higher knowledge was relegated to Heavy Rock lyricists, such as the Professor on the drums.

— Michael Hoffman, King of the Madmen, king of the heads

Group: egodeath	Message: 6448	From: egodeath	Date: 20/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

There hasn’t been a disparagement of the Egodeath theory that is articulate, only drive-by reductionism that merely indicates the ignorance and lack of reading on the part of the commentor — lack of reading the Theory and lack of reading broadly across domains. I should continue developing in this correct direction I have been pushing. There is no actual pushback; there are no objectors really to write a rebuttal to, but only work to be done further clarifying the direction. It’s not a matter of rebuttal to critics, but purely a matter of further clarification pushing in the same direction I have always successfully pushed. There are no real critics of the theory, only a few inarticulate and vague mislabelings of the theory by those who are not qualified because their thinking and reading is too narrow to evaluate, or interestingly comment on, the Theory.

One person said the Theory is merely the same as Joseph Campbell. That indicates that the person has not read the Theory and is himself overly focused on Joseph Campbell.

These flippant, careless, lazy labellings of the Theory obviously say nothing about the Theory and its scope, but say a lot about the person who wrote the posting and about the limitations of scope of their thought. No one has written a disparagement of the theory or a rejection of it that is worth paying attention to.

Campbell is not wrong and gives partial insight. The only significant thing I got from Campbell so far was Cranach’s painting – rather, showing only half of the painting (one half of the altar dyptich), in black and white not color, which I connected (ignoring any text in the book, which was entirely unhelpful regarding the painting) to a black-and-white image of the Jason kylix (mushroom-wine drinking saucer) painted by Douros.

Someone wrote that the Theory has too much Christianity. That indicates they have not read the Theory except through a narrow filtering lens of blindness and that they have read a little pop Christianity and a little other religion.

Such bald assertions never have any attempt to justify or substantiate or spell-out their claim.
The only real, articulate criticism of the Theory has been on the effectiveness of meditation, but even there the person is not arguing against what the theory says but rather they are arguing against a misreading of the theory. I have always clearly emphasized (I like to think) that meditation is bunk because it “can” induce enlightenment but is extremely non-ergonomic.

The word ‘can’, in their biased, prohibition-complicit rhetoric, is misleading. Meditation *can*, “can”, induce panic attack and enlightenment — except, in fact and in practice, meditation does not, without psychedelics, lead to enlightenment about non-control and fatedness and recognizing religious mythic metaphor as referring to entheogens revealing Heimarmene and Cybernetics.

If you claim that you care about meditation, then you are wrong unless you also advocate our right to meditation with psychedelics otherwise you are just another Tool of the state, fraudulent authoritarian liars, prostituting yourself to be used by the prohibitionists – you are a sellout to the prohibitionist state and an enemy of actual religious experiencing.

To advocate meditation while belittling psychedelics is to be a fraud and to be complicit in Prohibition. Avocates of meditation who falsely belittle psychedelics are guilty and complicit in putting people in jail under fraudulent pretenses. They have the blood of today’s martyrs on their hands. If you advocate meditation, you must advocate psychedelics even more so, or else you’re acting foolish, spouting prohibitionist lies that oppress people.

The meditation advocates are privileged aggressors who cooperate, collaborationist with the prohibitionists. These drug-slandering meditation advocates’ thinking is infected by prohibitionist biased attitudes. These meditation bullies beat up on psychedelics, taking unfair cheap flimsy pot-shots from their privileged Establishment-friendly positions. Due to Prohibition-based censorship, no worthwhile writers are allowed to publish rebuttals to the absurd claims, the absurd put-downs that the meditation advocates make against psychedelics.

The Theory is highly interdisciplinary, but cheap inarticulate critiques, which are merely bald assertions, indicate lack of interdisciplinary awareness and indicate narrow reading all around.

One criticism is “I don’t like the Egodeath theory because I don’t like no-free-will.” That is not an actual critique. More relevant would be to say: given that the Theory emphasizes no-free-will (and monopossibility and a kind of personal non-control – experientially revealed through the loose cognitive state induced by Psychedelics, and described by religious mythic metaphor) as a master solution to many domains, how well does the Theory make that connection? That would be an actual critique of the Egodeath theory – rather than a mere blunt inarticulate dismissive labeling of supposedly the Theory. Does the Theory succeed at its actual claim?

If you critique the Theory, you must critique what the Theory is. The Egodeath theory is the proposal and discovery that metaphor describes Psychedelics revealing fatedness (our inability to avoid the preset future) and a kind of personal non-control, and that that formula enables bringing together some 20 fields that people puzzle over. That is the goal that the theory and the actual critique of the theory would have to be: does it accomplish that goal? These fields that the critique would have to mention include mythology, religious experiencing, altered states, metaphor, and agent control of the future.

Is no-free-will and monopossibility and non- meta-steering (“personal non-control”) the case?

o It is what we experience as revealed in the loose cognitive state induced by psychedelics.

o It is what thinkers in antiquity and various fields have thought and have argued and have represented in art and metaphor.

o It is the way that suddenly we can solve and integrate puzzling interpretation across some 20 domains.

The coherence theory of truth — by that definition of ‘truth’ — says the Theory is true.

If the Egodeath theory is not the explanation of all these puzzles, then what is? There is no explanation unless you count Renée Gerard whose theory of religious violence is utterly worthless and completely off-track, utterly failing to account for psychedelics, the altered cognitive state, free will as an urgently experienced problem inducing panic and a death experience, and personal non-control.

In Philosophy of Science, the theory of paradigm replacement fails to apply here, because the existing “theory” is no theory at all. Our situation is not analogous to Ptolemaic cosmology versus Copernicus. Rather, we have at best literalist misreading of myth in the ordinary state of consciousness, versus the altered-state-metaphor reading. There is no competition against the Egodeath theory. There is no theory that competes against the Egodeath theory; there is only mystification, head-scratching, or plainly wrong literalist supernaturalist reading, as far as the field of religion and myth.

It is not a matter of one theory competing against another for greater explanatory coherence; the situation is that we have no theory whatsoever, and are completely puzzled across these fields (spacetime, freewill, myth, religion, agent control, entheogens/altered states / multistate science ) and then this Theory successfully identifies the puzzles and solves all of the puzzles altogether, across all these domains, interdisciplinary. There are a few books on theories of myth — they are worthless and irrelevant and unhelpful. Those theories are not an effective competitor like Earth- vs. sun-centered cosmology are competitors.

— Michael Hoffman, the interdisciplinary, omnidisciplinary Egodeath theorist, December 20, 2014

Group: egodeath	Message: 6449	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Re: Others’ summaries of the Egodeath theory

Damned iPhone autocorrect. I turned it off but not in time. The name is Rene Girard.

I want to discuss my thoughts on phablets — lots of room for improvement — if I can keep it on-topic, relevant.

Group: egodeath	Message: 6450	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Prohibition-compliant meditation

There is a bait-and-switch on the part of (drug-free) meditation advocates. In their aggressive, overreaching, Prohibition-compliant put-down mode, they claim that anything psychedelics does, meditation does better (in particular, give enlightenment).

Then when effectively challenged on that unsustainable claim, they backpedal on what their position is, saying meditation is good for relaxation and that is the relevant goal.

Another contradiction to be deconstructed in meditation rhetoric: meditation is sold as giving enlightenment, and then when it fails as it practically always does, it’s claimed that only one or two people are good enough to reach enlightenment, and enlightenment is difficult and beyond our ability to communicate, and it is nebulous and is transmitted through magical power of touch from mystical authority to obedient follower, and that anyway the purpose of meditation is not enlightenment but merely relaxation anyway, thus changing their claims to far easier claims that they *can* meet, and denying that they made the previous aggressive grandiose claims.

Nothing is so twisted and crooked as the arguments of meditation advocates who sit in their privileged position, paid and egged on by the Establishment (Prohibitionist) press, spewing forth a self-contradictory mixture of praising and belittling psychedelics — an awkward politicized dance — similar to the hot and cold attitudes about psychedelics written by Richard Evans Schultes; Andy Letcher; Gnosis & Tricycle journals special issues on psychedelics.

There is an industry of selling ersatz spirituality in place of Psychedelics, similar to the Historical Jesus industry. Both of these false industries have to be policed vigorously, by the Establishment-compliant paradigm police, censoring any genuine treatment of Christian origins without historical founder figures or censoring any pure unequivocal praise of psychoactives.

You must equivocate, when writing about Psychedelics. Prohibition has not censored all forms of writing: prohibition has created a monstrosity of writing in a waffling self-contradictory way about psychedelics you’re allowed (permitted) to praise psychedelics as long as you also unfairly disparage them. The result begs for deconstruction, to point out the internal self contradictions in such writing.

— Michael Hoffman (Egodeath), December 20, 2014

Group: egodeath	Message: 6451	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Kenneth Humphreys on apologists for Jesus’ historicity

Kenneth Humphreys – a relatively new page at his site:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/newapologists.html

If I were on a desktop PC I would quote some passages. This phablet is currently exhausting, tedious, and slow for basic text operations, discouraging that (until the tech industry reorganizes to optimize for this new capable mobile form factor).

It was probably Robert Price who quipped about “paradigm policeman”, probably referring to Bart Ehrman’s book weakly defending Jesus’ historicity.

Were I on a desktop PC instead of this tedious bleeding-edge 2014 phablet, I would quickly fill an evening posting about Richard Carrier’s new ultimate book asserting ahistoricity, and comparable books – Price on Paul’s ahistoricity; a book on Mohammet’s historicity (I think of variable spelling here as reflecting not caring, since founder figures are ahistorical).

Great work here by Humphreys. He elaborates my points, which are clearer than Carrier that I’ve read. As I put it years ago, we must define “Jesus didn’t exist” to mean: there was no *single* individual who was necessary for Christian origins, on whom Christian origins depended, without whom Christianity could not have been created. The Jesus figure is essentially composite, formed in a big crunch, not a big bang.

— Michael Hoffman (Egodeath), December 20, 2014
Sent from my primitive, crippled, not ready for prime time awkward mobile device

Group: egodeath	Message: 6452	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Entheogenshow.com podcast

I dedicate this post to guys who are 13, justified by Our own western mediterranean antiquity cultural history represented in Our mythic metaphor of ‘youth’ and ‘beard’ initiation and the ‘r*pe’ rapture carrying away carrying off of the ‘maiden’ which is us in our non-initiated youth phase; same as indigenous cultures we are.

http://www.entheogenshow.com

On the iPhone phablet in the Podcasts app I searched on “entheogen” and this new podcast came up as the only hit. I recommend episode three – they completely overlook Prohibition around October 6, 1966 as the cause of the flip of attitude from infusion[Apple bug: teach Siri voice-recognition the word ‘entheogen’]-positive to infusion[entheogen ]-negative in the writings that the establishment permits to be published.

[Simple elementary operations are impossible or extremely difficult and slow with a phablet today, until the industry fixes bugs to de-cripple it. with great difficulty I attempt to copy and paste the webpage episodes one through three descriptions below. as a temporary compensating Band-Aid I need my Bluetooth physical keyboard which I don’t have here.]

episode three suggests to me a profitable discussion three-way topics visionary plants I use that term because voice recognition recognizes it eastern religion western religion IPoint out eastern religion per James Arthur and others is based on visionary plants

eastern religion without visionary plants is fake and fraudulent because it denies the truth that the origin and true nature of eastern religion and meditation is visionary plants

the podcast psychedelicists take for granted the historicity of Jesus: Jesus as head psychedelic head. I found amplifying Carl rock[Ruck] that western religion in antiquity is visionary plants mixed with hierarchical or egalitarian social-economic politics and culture

Western religion in denial of its origin from visionary plants is fake ersatz substitute, in denial of the truth of its visionary plants origin and meaning.

My original research found that the idea in ancient myth is that ‘beard’ equals ‘initiated with mushroom wine’ (at the mushroom banquet the king-steersman is turned to stone; the youth is sacrificed when you see the rigid serpent frozen in the rock block universe) therefore the idea is that as with indigenous culture age 13, *AGE THIRTEEN* is the natural age of visionary plants to induce switching from the childish free will worldmodel of Possiblism (our Power steering among multiple possibility branches in the future) to the adult mental worldmodel of Eternalism (my word: mono-possibility) in which our future is a single pre-existing preset snake-shaped path that we discover and are forced to steer along.

— Michael Hoffman (Egodeath), head psychedelicist

#3:
Is the psychedelic experience “real”? Does that question have merit?

Is taking entheogens “cheating”? Why do people think so?

Is the entheogenic experience comparable to experiences achievable through meditation, yoga, shamanic drumming, etc., or is it substantively different?

REFERENCES:

Interview with Patrick Lundborg: 60’s psych & garage guru, psychedelic culture scholar and author of brilliant „Psychedelia” and „Acid Archives” books

002: PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH RENAISSANCE, PART 2 /OCTOBER 14, 2014

002: Psychedelic Research Renaissance, Part 2
Brad, Kevin, Joe

Brad, Kevin, and Joe discuss: Dr Robin Carhart-Harris is the first scientist in over 40 years to test LSD on humans – and you’re next

Stanislav Grof, 1975: “psychedelics, used responsibly and with proper caution, would be for psychiatry what the microscope is for biology or the telescope is for astronomy”.

Professor David Nutt: “I think it’s the worst censorship of research since the Catholic Church banned the telescope.”

See also: Nutt calls the outlaw of entheogens “the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Copernicus and Galileo”

Carhart-Harris scanned test subjects’ brains with an fMRI scanner while they were on LSD, showing for the first time higher activity in the hippocampus, which is involved in memory.

Schedule I drugs: “high potential for abuse”, “no currently accepted medical use”, “lack of accepted safety” – LSD; really?

Carhart-Harris: “It’s slightly hypothetical, but it’s based on what we know about the way the brain works, which is that it settles into configurations of activity that seem to underly certain psychopathologies. Depression and addictions rest on reinforced patterns of brain activity, and a psychedelic will introduce a relative chaos. Patterns that have become reinforced disintegrate under the drug. I’ve used the metaphor of shaking a snow globe”

Carhart-Harris: “music can do a number of things. It can have a steadying influence, but it can also help facilitate emotional release.”
Posted in Research, LSD
0 Likes
Share
COMMENTS (0)Newest FirstSubscribe via e-mail

Preview Post Comment…
← 003: Resident psychedelicists discuss entheogens vs. other paths
001: Psychedelic Research Renaissance, Part 1→
001: PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH RENAISSANCE, PART 1 / SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

001: Psychedelic Research Renaissance, Part 1
Brad, Kevin, Joe

– Kevin discusses his first encounter with the word Entheogen

– we discuss a recent article in the Daily Beast: Psychedelics Are Ready for a Comeback, featuring an interview with Tom Shroder, author of the new book, Acid Test: LSD, Ecstasy, and the Power to Heal

“The whole idea that it was creating a generation of ‘valueless zombies’ or something or that healthy people would go crazy from taking one dose of psychedelics was never justified by the facts. It was never as dangerous as many other drugs that did become prescription drugs.”

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2314091-1975384E000005DC-421_634x398.jpg

LSD, MDMA, Research September 18, 2014
Comment 0 Likes

–

Group: egodeath	Message: 6453	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: List of my claims to priority of discovery

I am the one who discovered these ideas (in the late-modern era): These ideas should spread recognized as my ideas, insights, breakthroughs.

Jesus of Necropolis, is the joke behind Jesus of Nazareth: he came from the cemetary city of the dead, the egodead. I am the one who recognized this mythic joke.

I am the one who recognized Help! as Lennon’s first LSD lyric and wrote about it on the world-wide web.

t b c

— Michael Hoffman (Egodeath), 50 years ahead of other theorists across fields

Group: egodeath	Message: 6454	From: egodeath	Date: 21/12/2014
Subject: Re: List of my claims to priority of discovery

One organizing structure for my firsts is my onionlayers; what is core and peripheral in my Theory:

from core to periphery:

cybernetics (personal non-ability to steer away from preset path)
fatedness
visionary plants
… mental construct processing; loosecog
metaphor (religious mythic metaphor)
ahistoricity of religious founder figures (Jesus Paul apostles Buddha Mohammed Moses Adam eve)

on the laptop in a 2013 2014 idea file I have a nice two column table: the two views regarding: cybernetics fate visionary plants metaphor and historicity. you either believe all *these* views in these fields or all of these *other* views, as an integrated set/system across these fields — The lower vs higher system of thinking & assumptions.

in Gospel of John and maybe Mark it is surprising how frequently Jesus makes fun of literalist clueless interpreters of the passages scream out mocking today’s clueless non-initiate yetlower thinkers full straight into the pit of literalism and cluelessness perfectly demonstrating what these passages laugh at. I noticed that recently and have not listed out these yet.

— Michael Hoffman Egodeath

Update: Found Table of Contents of Hatsis’ Forthcoming Book

Book Link

My Book Review (December 16, 2020)

Cyberdisciple’s Critique Showing Allegro’s Book Is Irrelevant to Entheogen Scholarship

Andy Letcher’s Book, Shroom

My Review of Hatsis’ Recent 2022 Book, Continued

Hatsis Cancelled His Book “The Sacred Mushroom Conspiracy”

See Also

Cognitive Science of Religion, Loose Cognitive Science

Differentiate Between the Field of Study, Personalities, and Theories

Define the Field in Terms of the Topic, Not in Terms of Personalities and Their Particular Narrow Theories

Heading

Heading

What’s Not Acceptable

Required Evidence Exhibits You Must Be Aware Of, to Earn a Voice/ the Podium/ a Platform/ the Mic

Prerequisites to contribute in this field

Who Speaks for this Field, and Who Doesn’t

Principles Guiding this Field

Relevance of World Religious Mythology

Relevance of Non-Mushroom Psychoactives

Heading

The Egodeath theory & Gnosis on a Post-It Note

Coffeehouse Guestbook Entry Summarizing the 2013 Breakthrough: {tree vs. snake} = possibilism vs. eternalism

Religious Myth Deciphered

The Two Mental Worldmodels: {king steering in tree} -> {wine} -> {snake frozen in rock}

Post-It Note: {rod of Aesclepius} Decoded

1988 Article Drafts and 1989 Artist’s Blank Book

August 12, 1988 Handwritten First Draft of the Theory of Ego Transcendence

Article Drafts and Per-Semester Writing Binders 1986-1989

Final Draft of Main Article, September 24, 2006

Pre-Mytheme-Decoding, Snake Frozen in Block Universe, ~1994

Dried Amanita

Ink Brush Michael the Archangel

April 1987 – January 1988 Idea Development with P205 Pencil on Binder Filler Paper

Blank Book Like Used During the Initial Phase of Idea Development, October 1985-March 1987

Idea Development Notes During Engineering Class, ~August 1986-March 1987

Who Needs to Change What

The Distinct Questions to Differentiate and Specifically Address

See Also

Search Links

Photos

Campbell’s Book with Eve Multi-branching Eden Tree

The Cover Image of Fritz Graf’s book Greek Mythology: An Introduction