Art Historians Have Never Thought or Published about Either Mushrooms or Trees, According to Wasson and Huggins
Terms: mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA) MICA Deniers MICA Affirmers
MICA Deniers Say Affirmers Are Supposed to Care What Art Historians Think about Mushroom-Trees, as “Expert Authorities on Related Matters”, Even Though Art Historians Have Never Given Any Thought about Either Mushrooms or Trees
Yet We’re Supposed to Personally Consult These “Expert Authorities on Related Matters” to Become No Longer Ignorant about Their Final, Established Conclusions Specifically about Interpreting Mushroom-Trees
Per the private MICA Affirmer, public MICA Denier “Gordon . . . . Wasson”, art historians don’t read mycology books.
Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms.
Gordon . . . . Wasson, SOMA, 1968, p. 180
Per MICA Denier Huggins, art historians don’t think about trees, which are merely peripheral in Christian art; proving that rule, is the single, lone, 1908, 86-page book, in German, by Brinckmann.
“Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted [read: censored] exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906)”
Ronald Huggins, “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”, 2024, Conclusion section, p. 26
These are expert ignoramuses that we are supposed to consult to find the cast-in-stone factual verdict conclusions from them, who have never given trees or mushrooms any thought.
Gordon . . . . Wasson, SOMA, p. 180, “Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms.”
Huggins Doesn’t Parrot Panofsky’s Circular Non-Argument “Plaincourault Can’t Mean Mushrooms, Because There Are Hundreds More Like It”
“… but You Are Too Ignorant & Blundering to Know That, Else You Would Instantly Retract, Were I To Inform You that There’s Hundreds of Other Mushroom-Trees”
It’s too lame and obviously circular of a presupposition-drenched argument for even such a low-tier arguer as Huggins to own this one.
Huggins does own the insult part, gladly – but his tone isn’t so pompous and cringeworthy as Panofsky’s and Wasson’s.
The argument from ignorance is a fleeting card, when you play it, it instantly becomes false: turns out, being informed of hundreds of mushroom-trees in no way halts MICA Affirmers from affirming mushroom imagery in Christian art.
This information INCREASES the likelihood of asserting mushroom imagery in Christian art.
I am surprised that duplicitous Wasson let “the public” see the fact of hundreds of mushroom-trees – a risky ploy.
Compound (next-tier) fallacious arguments: weave together insults to throw off the opponent.
Huggins is willing to channel Panofsky re: the good branches question, but doesn’t want to be associated with this crazy non-argument floating on a cloud of presupposition.
Not even Huggins stoops that low.
As a MICA Denier, you don’t care about the merit of arguments; just make a lot of noise and act like you’re putting forth actual arguments, throw 100 off-the-wall reasonings against the wall, and trust the audience to lap it up as if there were any substance — never mind that these wack arguments can’t stand up to a moment’s pushback.
The sheer weirdness & quantity of the obviously fallacious arguments is a tactic to throw off balance the MICA Affirmers.
Gnostic Informant Recounts How Richard Miller Hears Christian Scholars Who Know No Classics Deny that Jesus’ Resurrection Is Like Classics’ Ascension Stock Motif
At around 5:00 in the livestream vid now, Gnostic Informant says again, what they said recently, a good point:
The mass of ignorant scholars reacts this stupid way: “I haven’t heard that idea, so it’s probably false.” In a field that the person is not in.
eg Christian school scholar has never read Classics, and says “I never heard of that idea about antiquity, so it’s probably not credible.”
That reminds me of GREAT point:
Idiot poser ignorant art historians have not studied mushrooms, and have not studied trees.
Huggins says art historians have never given any thought to trees, because trees are merely peripheral, in Christian art, and that the single lone exception is Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
Livestream Video: MythVision & Gnostic Informant: Why Are We Obsessed with Mythology?
I watched this live.
Channel: MythVision Podcast 286K subscribers Livestream right now: Mar 19, 2025 Streamed live 3 hours ago Derek from MythVision is joined by Neal from Gnostic Informant to cover mythology we love. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwUfy26-alA —
Richard Miller’s book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity shows that the {resurrection} motif is standard in Classics.
Christian school scholars are 100% ignorant about Classics and rebut:
“I am completely ignorant about Classics, therefore Jesus’ resurrection is not similar to Hellenistic stock themes.“
That’s equivalent to art historians:
“I am completely ignorant about mushrooms and trees in Christian art, therefore mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms.”
Wasson Says Art Historians Are Ignorant about Mushrooms, and Huggins Says they are Ignorant About Trees
Argument from Tone and Quickness of the Authority’s Disavowal
Personally phoning an authority with stopwatch in hand is stock move by the MICA Deniers phonies who don’t care at all about good argumentation.
Gordon . . . . Wasson phones up Erwin Panofsky. and one other named lying ignoramus authority, and other unnamed lying phonies. Stopwatch in hand.
Letcher copies Wasson bunk move and phones his endnote contact. Stopwatch in hand.
Huggins phones his bunk authority. Stopwatch in hand.
I am impressed by the celerity and crispness with which these phony MICA Deniers play this same BUNK CARD.
WE DISAVOW!! with impressive celerity [Wasson’s words], and argument from tone (crispness) [Letcher quote p 36?] That’s our argument, so, CASE CLOSED.
Wasson cites Erwin Panofsky, setting the bunk pattern of arg from empty-headed authority.
Which Wasson would never take seriously, but he play-acts as con artist that WE MICA Affirmers are supposed to lap up the swill he serves up for us, garbage argument from authority, worthless & fallacious.
— authorities who are untainted by ever having given one moment of thought about either trees or mushrooms.
Letcher cites England historian Henrietta Leyser: Bernward Door blame panel depicts a fig tree: There is no evidence anywhere — such as 6 other Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, {floating mushroom hems}, {mushroom hems}, mushroom roof toppers and gate toppers, & Liberty cap roofs — to suggest that this lone, isolated instance is Liberty Cap mushroom.
Huggins Acts Like His Worthless Consulting of Blundering Ignoramus Elina Gertsman Is an Argument
Huggins equivalently bunkly cites Elina Gertsman.
The more that MICA Deniers show a complete lack of concern with good argumentation that could actually stand up to pushback, the more that MICA Affirmers emphasize utter DISRESPECT.
The MICA Deniers’ desperate, obviously fallacious argumentation exposes: THEY GOT NOTHIN.
Nothing but empty argument from authority, argument from non sequitur which is argument from prejudice, argument from bullying and censorship.
What Kind of Sleazy Characters Are MICA Deniers?
Letcher p. 35 endnote 31 mis-attributes the Allegro-Ruck Secret Amanita paradigm to Stamets & Gartz, who actually – entirely the reverse – are the scholars who provided the opposite, Explicit Psilocybin paradigm that Letcher used to disprove the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Gordon . . . . Wasson tries to FORCE others to conclude what he knows is false and baseless.
These low writers are willing to lie, deceive, misrepresent, censor, mislead, and insult MICA Affirmers.
Huggins covers for Wasson censoring Erwin Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann. Doesn’t credit Brown 2019 for exposing Wasson’s naked lies and cover-up ploy.
Huggins doesn’t point people to Brown 2019 so that everyone, not just Huggins, can see and cite (properly this time unlike Huggins) the censored Panofsky letters, showing anti-academic Wasson’s dirty strategies for deception and dissimulation.
Wasson claims a Medal of Grandest Discovery for himself, a medal of brilliance for figuring out mushroom-trees, at the same time as saying no it’s only indirect Amanita in Genesis Eden text in 1000 BC.
Wasson sells us that he’s the first to ever think of connecting the tree of knowledge with Amanita, at the same time as this expert at BS says that 42 years before him in 1910, the French mycologists were ignorant blundering simpletons for saying the fresco’s tree of knowledge = Amanita.
Huggins “Conclusion” section gives “criteria for deciding whether a given mushroom-tree is a tree or it is a mushroom” – ie, sheer arbitrary assertion that mushroom motifs are always to be ignored, “because” of a blast of argumenty-sounding noise by the paid, corrupt, compromised MICA Deniers.
MICA Deniers have the lazy, easy road, team of dirty players cheered on by all the phonies in the world, by the Salvation Salesmen and the Meditation Hucksters, who compete against Psilocybin except they can’t compete.
Although heavy breathing delivers an altered state of dizziness, like Thomas Hatsis’ deliriant scopalamine, only Psilocybin delivers the genuine goods: transformation from possibilism to eternalism, from {branches} to {cut branches}.
Photo Credit Julie M. Brown. Image processing & crop by Michael Hoffman.
🖐–>👆
Crop, image processing, and interpretation by Michael Hoffman.
The more Wasson & Huggins demand unearned respect, the more we kick their butts over the cliff deservedly: Wasson’s, Erwin Panofsky’s, Huggs’, & Leyser, Letcher, Gertsman — they’ve got nothing but they act like they’ve got substance when they argue like Erwin Panofsky:
“The Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom, b/c there are hundreds like it.”
The deniers have nothing but bullying and posturing, with these insultingly worthless non-arguments, committing every fallacious argument all at the same time.
That deserves the most intense disrespect.
MICA Deniers show complete lack of concern with good argumentation – it’s an insult to the topic and to MICA Affirmers.
Another pair of con artists teaming up, so compelling of an argument!
Huggins has no self-respect foisting this bunk, garbage argumentation on MICA Affirmers.
It’s all empty posturing, consulting people who have never given a moment’s thought to trees or mushrooms.
It’s all a put-on, puffing up his article with worthless citations from “pers. comm.”
What has this token cipher of an authority, Gertsman, ever written about mushroom-trees, or Psilocybin effects?
Foraging in Wrong Forest (Ronald Huggins) bunkly describes the tone of his authority’s reaction when consulted.
“When questioned on the topic by the writer, prominent [i got something prominent 4 u: 👆] art historian Elina Gertsman responded crisply:
“I very much do not think that Ottonian or Romanesque imagery was in any shape or form influenced by psychedelic mushrooms.”62
62 Gertsman to the author (Nov 23, 2023).
[“responded” on telephone, spoken, not via published writing – there are no published writings by art historians about trees, according to Hug, because trees are merely peripheral, according to these EXPERT “on related topics” art authorities, whose judgement we must therefore respect — based on their crispness of denial, not on their non-existent “expert” writings.]
/ from idea development page 24
Letcher Shroom p. 36: “Consult” Expert Henrietta Leyser: ITS FIG TREE.😑
Letcher “consults” the England history authority Henrietta Leyser (pers. comm.) to CONCLUDE this Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is a fig tree.
p. 35, Shroom:
Shroom, p. 36, mid-page endnote 33 “consults” the England history authority Henrietta Leyser (pers. comm.) to CONCLUDE this is a fig tree:
That’s what MICA Deniers tell us MICA Affirmers we need to do, “consult the art authorities [but DO NOT CONSULT . . . . Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings].”
Authorities on “related topics“, ie, they know jack about THIS TOPIC; these TWO topics: trees, and mushrooms, and never gave either topic any thought.
So they are authorities (on related matters), and, case closed. Therefore, if you affirm mushroom-trees, you are a blundering ignoramus (Wasson’s words).
Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Miller, 2014)
“This book offers an original interpretation of the origin and early reception of the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection.
“Richard Miller contends that the earliest Christians would not have considered the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection to be literal or historical, but instead would have recognized this narrative as an instance of the trope of divine translation, common within the Hellenistic and Roman mythic traditions.
“Given this framework, Miller argues, early Christians would have understood the resurrection story as fictitious rather than historical in nature.
“By drawing connections between the Gospels and ancient Greek and Roman literature, Miller makes the case that the narratives of the resurrection and ascension of Christ applied extensive and unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to Mediterranean “translation fables,” stock story patterns derived particularly from the archetypal myths of Heracles and Romulus.
“In the course of his argument, the author applies a critical lens to the referential and mimetic nature of the Gospel stories, and suggests that adapting the “translation fable” trope to accounts of Jesus’ resurrection functioned to exalt him to the level of the heroes, demigods, and emperors of the Hellenistic and Roman world.
“Miller’s contentions have significant implications for New Testament scholarship and will provoke discussion among scholars of early Christianity and Classical studies.”
Wasson Knows Art Historians Are Ignorant Fools, but He Bullies Mycologists to Submit to What He Knows Is Their Foolish, Prejudiced, Ignorant, Wrong Disavowals
I have NO reason to give art authorities ANY respect on mushroom-trees.
No problem, art historians being ignorant – but Wasson calls me a blundering ignoramus because I do the same as Wasson: Disrespect art authorities.
Wasson is smart and evil.
Wasson knows everything, short of comprehending {branching} on Psilocybin. Wasson is no fool. He knows art historians are fools and compromised.
Why Negative, Critical Rebuttals Are Basic in Scholarship
We must identify WHY Wasson used Panofsky (a non-censored portion of one of two letters) to publicly claim (pretend, make-believe, bluff) to reject mushroom-trees and bully anyone who asserted mushrooms.
Wasson’s Extreme Conflict of Interest
Wasson has a greater conflict of interest on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, than anyone else ever had any conflict of interest about anything.
Wasson has such an extreme conflict of interest, any negative assessment of mushroom imagery in Christian art is completely worthless.
Wasson had every incentive to lie and dissimulate and be duplicitous on this topic.
There is no way Wasson can have any credibility – unless he puts forth actual compelling reasoning & evidence, but the only thing he puts forth is fallacious argumentation that obviously he doesn’t believe.
We can be certain he doesn’t believe it – he is sharp, he is no dummy.
It would be an insult to Wasson’s intelligence, to think he’s stupid rather than a liar.
Out of respect for Wasson’s intelligence, I am certain and completely confident that he’s a liar, not stupid.
We have every reason to firmly conclude that Wasson has no credibility here and every reason to lie about his view (that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms) and fake-out “the public”, as a top industry propagandist, agent, ambassador, and banker for the Pope.
SKY-HIGH EXTREME CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Ruins any possibility of credibility regarding mushroom imagery in Christian art, if he gives a negative assessment.
The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle Regarding Scholars’ Public Disavowal of Mushroom-Trees
The Hoffman Uncertainty Principle: Given the tabu against mushrooms in religion, if a scholar asserts a negative view, we do not know their view.
They may very well hold a positive view and publicly lie, claiming publicly to hold a negative view.
A friend advises me to ignore the folly of others, and only state what is the case per my theory.
That’s 99% true, but: there are pros & cons of ignoring or attending to fools and folly in entheogen scholarship & theory of esotericism.
It is NECESSARILY important to me what Wouter Hanegraaff says about fixed stars & sphere 8 Ogdoad, in his new book about Hermetic Spirituality & Altered States. Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.
The Egodeath theory is OBLIGED to engage with such scholarship.
Much of scholarship inherently is, handling the previous scholarship, the state of play, and engaging in that conversation in order to redirect and steer that state of play.
The hard work of identifying what’s true, false, and off-base or garbled in previous scholarship.
eg: The Holy Mushroom by Irvin 2008 rebuts and quotes Andy Letcher 2006 book Shroom, where Letcher reasons:
If Wasson rejected the Plaincourault fresco as Amanita, therefore, we should too.
“Wasson badly wanted the Plaincourault fresco to be Amanita, but when the authority Erwin Panofsky set Wasson straight, Wasson immediately fell into line and cowered, trembling before the overwhelming authority of the greatest art scholar ever, Panofsky, who is as final of an authority as Aristotle, which is why modern science should not have begun, and we should have bowed down to Aristotle instead.”
“If the ultra-independent scholar Wasson came to an instant, total halt, kissing the feet of Panofsky the Great offering his neck in full submission, that proves that we must halt all talk of mushroom-trees being mushrooms.”
— Paraphrase of Letcher’s book Shroom, as quoted in Irvin’s The Holy Mushroom.
Wasson obediently accepted … … mushroom-trees to be rejected …
Track Record of No Credibility for Ruck and Wasson
At best, if we were overly charitable, Ruck Committee is guilty of extreme ambiguity and a host of problems, where he writes “Wasson’s conclusion” – is that phrase supposed to refer to:
Wasson’s assertion Genesis tree of knowledge = Amanita.
Paradise trees mushroom-trees = mushrooms (which Wasson publicly lied and pretended to deny).
Is Ruck telling scholars to agree with Wasson’s conclusion that Genesis text tree of knowledge = Amanita?
That was Wasson’s conclusion about a strenuously limited assertion/topic; as Irvin well writes, “tries to limit”: Wasson tries to limit, Ruck tries to limit. Limit the assertion to Genesis text 1000 B C; limit The Mushroom to walled-about, members-only, heretical sects.
So -called counterculture sect/ group/ cults/ communities — called that not by the Church, but called that by prohibition-dependent, prohibition-compliant, prohibition-accomodationist, prohibition-collaborator Ruck Committee; the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Is Ruck telling scholars to agree with the assertion that tree of knowledge mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, which Wasson lyingly and deceptively fought against to prevent anyone from asserting that, because of Wasson’s sky-high, record-breaking, truly EXTREME conflicts of interest?
You’d be a FOOL – like Letcher – to believe Wasson’s pretended rejection of mushroom-trees, to ignore the atomic blast of conflict-of-interest that Wasson has.
Like:
I REALIZE THAT WASSON WAS PAID ONE MILLION DOLLARS by the Vatican TO PERSECUTE MICA Affirmers, BUT STILL, I BELIEVE WASSON IS BEING HONEST, DESPITE 15 INTENSE REASONS FOR WASSON TO BE A LIAR ON THIS POINT. – Signed, Andy Letcher & Ronald Huggins.
Had scholars agreed that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, Wasson would have pretended to disagree and would have attacked the scholars as blundering ignoramuses that need to kiss Erwin Panofsky’s feet and submit to Panofsky’s ignorant, prejudiced, low-IQ, false view, which Wasson knew is false and feebly argued by Panofsky.
Panofsky was good to ask the meaning of branches, as Huggins parrots – in censored letter two (which Huggins ignores Wasson’s censorship of).
That was an intelligent question/ objection from Panofsky.
I have answered perfectly and profoundly that objection by Panofsky-Huggins.
… … Wasson’s (lying) public “conclusion”, or pretended conclusion.
Has Ruck ever proved wildly, bafflingly unreliable before?
Yes: 2009: “Ultimate proof of our paradigm is Dancing Man mushroom has red cap” (it’s blue).
Irvin and I independently noticed in “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56 Ruck Committee’s bizarre, massive error, or contradiction and inversion of history, where he places the phrase “Wasson’s Conclusion”; Ruck is telling a story that is the opposite of what happened.
In fact, Wasson vehemently went out of his way to bully, attack, and block anyone who said mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, from 1953-1986, never changing that public stance.
So how is it possible for Ruck to chastise scholars for “not agreeing with Wasson that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms”?
How can Ruck be either 100% confused about Wasson’s stated / professed position, or else telling such a whopper of a malicious lie & revision/ inversion of history?
The present article presents a highly plausible explanation, which is most likely correct:
Ruck Committee in 2001 “Daturas for the Virgin” got mixed up between:
Wasson’s actual, private, secret realization that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Wasson’s public pretending to believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial.
Wasson’s public pretending was very aggressive, mean, rude, pushy, & forceful, pretending to believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial.
Wasson did not believe Erwin Panofsky’s denial of mushrooms.
Wasson knew that Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings and Panofsky’s two, secret, censored paintings he attached to letter 1, censored by Wasson in SOMA p. 180, supported the affirmers of mushrooms, not the deniers.
Wasson did his best, using his aggressive propaganda skills, to actively impede research into mushroom-trees. For that, he forfeited his title, “Father of Ethnomycology”.
Wasson is revealed by Brown 2019 + my analysis since 2006 of the ellipses placed right where I desired to ACTUALLY “consult” what art historians had published about pilzbaum.
In 2006 I WANTED to read what art scholars discussed about mushroom-trees – and I was mad at Wasson for not passing along the citation(s) that Panofsky HAD TO HAVE PROVIDED when Erwin Panofsky made huge claim “we art historians are thoroughly familiar w/ pilzbaum.”
I wrote in several paragraphs in 2006 the Plaincourault fresco article at Egodeath.com, accusing Erwin Panofsky of exagerrating how many publications there are, how strong their case in the publications, and I accused Wasson of withholding citations that Erwin Panofsky had to have provided to back up Panofsky’s very strong claim of “thoroughly familiar”.
I said I doubt you guys are so expert, at all, and I detect Wasson withholding the probably feeble citation(s).
I was proved right on both of my 2006 accusations, by Brown 2019.
Wasson is revealed to be the father of lying propaganda, paid by Vatican to lie and cover up mushroom-trees.
As a draft article author wrote, “SURELY Wasson MUST have realized the plainly obvious: the “hundreds of mushroom-trees” reported by Panofsky in 1952 mean mushrooms.”
That is true, but, KEY REALIZATION OF MINE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, any time we say “Wasson’s view”, we have to differentiate between Wasson’s publicly stated view that he rudely pushes onto others by force of propaganda, vs. Wasson’s private view.
For purpose of contrast: Wasson is a liar, Panofsky is an idiot.
Wasson disrespected Erwin Panofsky’s two letters.
As a propagandist and smart person about mushrooms, Wasson knew Erwin Panofsky was wrong & just biased/ prejudiced.
Pan’s arg from “the Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom b/c there are hundreds like it” proved to Wass that Erwin Panofsky is clearly arguing purely from prejudice.
Huggins proves that by parrotting Erwin Panofsky branches arg and then in Concl section paragraph, Huggins pretends to derive “criteria for deciding whether”, but what Huggins delivers there is pure 100% textbook case of non sequitur aka argument from prejudice, pure decree that no mushroom-trees mean mushroom and we are to – for no reason provided – just ignore the mushroom features and only affirm the tree features (branches).
Huggins is a terrible person for not acknowledging Brown 2019 publishing of Erwin Panofsky TWO censored letters. Huggins lamely cites: see the drawer at Harvard, which you are not allowed (as Irvin documented, probably in a suit) – and does not point us to Brown 2019.
Huggins impedes access to the Panofsky/Wasson correspondence, and yet leverages it in his own arg’n — sleazy scholarship dirty tactics.
Huggins uses, yet doesn’t even properly cite Brinckmann or Brown 2019 or Panofsky’s letters in his Biblio References section of Foraging in Wrong Forest.
Huggins mentions Brinckmann’s book and Panofsky’s letters in the article body or footnotes, only.
An academic ethics violation from Huggins, like Matt Johnson charged Hopkins with.
Huggins sides with the bad people: Wasson & Erwin Panofsky. Huggins plays defense for these wretches.
Huggins hangs out w/ the wrong low-credibility crowd, BadCo, the MICA Deniers.
Six-gun in my hand, propagandist covering up Union Carbide Affair.
Covering up mushroom-trees til the day I die, working for the Pope.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST = ZERO CREDIBILITY Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson = infamy.
Huggins in Foraging in Wrong Forest demands — parroting Erwin Panofsky’s censored letter 2 — that entheogen scholars explain branches in mushroom-trees. I have done so.
Psilocybin gives an experiential vision of non-branching possibilities; Psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism, depicted efficiently by genre of mushroom-trees, as non-branching; via the combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Wasson is smart, but an evil liar propagandist, the opposite of a scholar: the anti-scholar, on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Panofsky is an idiot (though we can weigh Panofsky’s argumentation, eg the branches problem that he points out, that Huggins parrots in “Foraging in Wrong Forest”).
Astoundingly Major Errors by Wasson
Has Wasson ever proved to have no credibility before?
Yes, Brown 2019 revealed the TWO(!!) Panofsky letters + SOMA p. 180 ellipses (pointed out/ connected by my deep analysis) to impede library consulting while at the same time as condemning us to “consult” art authorities.
Samorini 1997 + Brown 2016 noted it’s unbelievable and incredible that bold Wasson would instantly cave to art authority with no trace of pushback at all, AS IF some dipsh!t know-nothing who never wrote a word on the topic of trees in medieval art, constitutes rock solid, cast-in-stone, final word, that warrants no critical pushback whatsoever – what an act, a put-on – and it actually worked!
Totally inconsistent of Wasson, 0% believable, as Samorini & Brown pointed out.
We had to wait until Samorini 1997/98 to finally have an entheogen scholar follow-up on Erwin Panofsky 1952/1968 lead “Hey everyone, there’s hundreds of mushroom-trees, not only the Plaincourault fresco!“
That marks the start, 1998 article Samorini, of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm), against 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
Irvin exposed Wasson’s extreme conflict of interest as Vatican banker, & the Union Carbide Affair propagandist.
Astoundingly Major Errors by Heinrich
Also comparably, Hein 1995 Strange Fruit wrote “Allegro said Jesus was leader of a mushroom cult.”
This is 100% false and totally confused, not even remotely the case, almost the OPPOSITE of what Allegro asserted.
How could you not know that Allegro said Jesus didn’t exist but was “The Sacred Mushroom, Amanita”?
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A TOTAL, MASSIVE ERROR??!
Astoundingly Major Errors by Brown
How could anyone make such a colossal error?
As I efficiently listed recently in a valuable article, I listed/ summarized the many errors by entheogen scholars, such as Brown not having seen the popular images of Amanita with sometimes serrated base – how could you not know this?
Unbelievable.
And like the other examples, Brown manages to take this low-harm error, and put 100% focus on it so as to blow up with maximum damage; betting the farm on this one point of interpretation and then botching it.
Ruck says “This one fact will shut up art historians forever, case closed: the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has red cap.”
(It’s plainly blue.)
Way to go, give an aggressive framing so as to inflict maximum damage on yourself and turn a minor error into maximum baffling loss of credibility.
Why Ruck Is Confused About Wasson’s Position as Publicly Presented to Other Scholars, vs. Wasson’s Actual Position
As Irvin points out, and as I separately flagged, Ruck chastises other scholars for not agreeing with Wasson’s assertion that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Carl Ruck is completely confused, or is maliciously misrepresenting what position Wasson publicly asserted, in order to give Wasson credit for asserting what Wasson in fact vehemently rejected, as far as Wasson’s feigned, pretended, public stance that Wasson vigorously pushed for decades, all his life into 1986.
Any scholar who did what Ruck is telling them they should have done – asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms — Wasson would have viciously attacked and insulted that scholar as a blundering ignoramus, as Wasson did to the lead mycologist John Ramsbottom in 1953.
Ruck hung out with Wasson and that is how Ruck would have known and could easily detect that Wasson actually, privately believed: of course mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushroom.
Wasson lied about his position and attacked and insulted people who correctly recognized mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Wasson successfully tried to block and discourage ethnomycology research in Christian history, because Wasson had a conflict of interest, as the banker for the Vatican.
Items Censored by Wasson
Wasson has NO credibility, he forfeited any respect, and Brown 2019 rightly destroyed Wasson’s undeserved reputation, catching Wasson – even more than John Ramsbottom did in 1953 – deceiving and misleading the public by censoring the pair of letters from Panofsky to Wasson, including censoring:
CENSORED by Wasson: Erwin Panofsky’s twice strong urging to consult (genuinely “consult”, ie, academic library research, NOT improper, suspect, abnormal, personal communication), Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
CENSORED by Wasson: Erwin Panofsky’s two attached pictures of mushroom-trees, which Erwin Panofsky describes as “even more emphaticaly https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7 — “a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown“ (“schematization of” is rhetoric spin forcefully pushing Panofsky’s story)
CENSORED by Wasson: The existence of a 2nd letter from Erwin Panofsky to Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson. Wasson lied and misled people to deceive them and to misrepresent the situation, writing for decades as if there was only one letter.
As Wasson’s Intimate, Ruck Got Confused, and Mixed Up Wasson’s Actual Position with Wasson’s Pretended, Public Position, and Demanded Scholars Agree with Wasson’s Actual Position, not His Pretended Position – OOPs, Leaked the Truth
Ruck was exposed to both Wasson’s actual position – that of course mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, and also Wasson’s lying, pretended public position, that anyone who says mushroom-trees mean mushrooms is blundering and ignorant and has failed to consult the facts from art authorities (a 1-way consultation; do not ask questions or call B.S. on the ignorant art authorities).
Ruck got mixed up about Wasson’s actual private view vs. Wasson’s prepostrous, feigned public view, which is how Ruck managed to write, against all historical reality, saying “Wasson’s conclusion” immediately after Ruck wrote that mushroom imagery in Christian art proves Wasson was right about Genesis text’s tree of knowledge indirectly meaning Amanita in 1000 BC.
The placement of the phrase “Wasson’s conclusion” within Ruck’s sequence of points, can only mean that Ruck is chastising scholars for not affirming mushrooms as Wasson affirmed mushrooms – as if Wasson publically affirmed mushrooms!
Wasson did the extreme opposite!
“Daturas for the Virgin”, first page
“Daturas for the Virgin” page 56
“Daturas for the Virgin” page 57
“When Amanita is not available, a close equivalent producing similar effects is the deliriant, Datura [not the psychedelic, Psilocybin!]” – Ruck Committee.
Ruck Got Mixed Up between His Close Associate Wasson’s Personal, Actual, Sane Position, and Wasson’s Lying, Phony, Pretended, Insane Public Position
Ruck forgot that publicly, Wasson did not affirm mushrooms, but vehemently denied mushrooms and shot down anyone who affirmed mushrooms.
“Wasson’s conclusion”: p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, Ruck et al, Entheos 2, 2001
Ruck says obstinate scholars refused to discuss “Wasson’s conclusion” that mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.
Irvin chastises Ruck’s inversion of historical fact.
Wasson persecuted, insulted, defamed, and harrassed mycologists who asserted that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, from Dec. 1953 to 1986, all his life.
Samorini (1997), Brown, and other entheogen scholars have exclaimed how uncharacteristic and unbelievable it is that the bold, independent thinker Wasson halted instantly the moment art authorities made a sheer claim that mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms, as if the decrees of art historians are cast in stone and automatically binding.
eg Wasson’s letter to Ramsbottom Dec. 1953, citations in Egodeath.com the Plaincourault fresco article with research by Irvin & me.
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” says:
Art historians don’t think or write about trees, because trees are merely peripheral — with the single exception of Albert Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
Irvin Falsely Credits Allegro with Asserting that Mushroom-Trees Mean Mushrooms
Allegro only wrote that our sacred because Amanita-based the Plaincourault fresco was mushrooms, which, per Cyberdisciple, was not an original idea, and was not integrated into Allegro’s theory.
Allegro is not even an entheogen scholar; he’s a “smash Christianity” linguist and anthropology theorist.
Irvin is wildly wrong and commits almost the same egregious inversion of historical fact as Ruck:
In The Holy Mushroom, p. 103, Irvin criticizes Ruck for falsely crediting Wasson with asserting mushroom-trees mean mushrooms — when, publicly, Wasson did the extreme opposite.
But Irvin turns right around and makes almost the same outrageous, bunk move, of baselessly crediting Allegro for asserting that mushroom-trees (as a class, in reference to Ruck’s phrase in “Daturas for the Virgin” p. 56: “paradise trees”) mean mushroom.
Irvin asserts in italics that Allegro’s position was that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
But Allegro never said anything about the class of hundreds of mushroom-trees mentioned by Panofsky 1952/1968, or else such a quote would be displayed on the cover of Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom.
Irvin falsely gives Allegro credit for asserting that Panofsky’s hundreds of mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Yet Irvin gives no evidence that Allegro ever even thought about any mushroom-trees other than the Plaincourault fresco.
Wasson SOMA p. 180 reads like pure bullsh!t — because that’s what it plainly is
A Lying Argument from Authority; an Authoritarian Cover-Story Ploy
Gordon Wasson, Father of Academic Obstructionism of Mushrooms in Christian History
Banker for the Pope, Conflict of Interest, Zero Credibility
Wasson’s word “consult” is pure bullsh!t.
Aasson chastises “blundering, ignorant” mycologists for not “consulting” — while at the very same time, Wasson deletes the Brinckmann citation, to deliberately PREVENT consulting the only publication that the “competent” art historians have ever written about trees in Christian art.
Someone wrote “We can safely assume that SURELY Wasson MUST have realized mushroom imagery in Christian art means purposeful mushroom imagery.”
I said “citation needed”; Wasson WROTE no such thing, as every entheogen scholar points out.
I should have said: You are correct but:
When you are a liar, it’s hard work keeping your lies straight.
As analyzed by Jan Irvin in The Holy Mushroom, 2008:
Carl Ruck wrote, in “Daturas for the Virgin” article, p. 56:
“Wasson’s conclusion”; ie: Ruck means Wasson’s PRIVATE conclusion, which only buddy Ruck was privy to.
Irvin told me in 2006: Ramsbottom LEAKED Wasson’s dirty strategy of lying to the public about his view.
“Rightly or wrongly, we are going to claim that mushroom-trees don’t mean mushrooms.”
Gordon Wasson didn’t figure out that his public posture of committed skeptic was exposed in John Ramsbottom’s 1953 book, until 1970 when Allegro endnote quoted Wasson’s admission of lying about his view.
p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, Ruck et al, Entheos 2, 2001 – trainwreck at “Wasson’s Conclusion” that mushroom-trees mean mushrooms
Pros and Cons of Rough Simplified Assertions
Censoring yourself, to avoid any imprecision, is a mental constraint and handicap. the diamond hammer of interpretation: Punchy Forceful Pronouncements, use heavy-handed theorizing, confident and aggressive.
Push back against the cheating biased dirty players.
The scholarly playing field for theory-construction is not level.
Do not play the game as if life is fair and unbiased.
Motivation for this Page: Buggy Mobile App
I updated the WordPress JetPack app before I started this page, because the app was sluggish, buggy, and spazzy.
When writing on mobile device, I must post short, fresh posts, not edit the long idea development page 26.
Great 4-hour, In-Depth Voice Recording
Excellent 4-hour voice recording today Sat Mar 15 2025 Egodeath Mystery Show.
I read aloud Brown 2016 book passages from The Psychedelic Gospels.
I read aloud pp 103-105 The Holy Mushroom Irvin 2008.
Many passages are of great interest now, since I have been intensively studying & analyzing so many points of dispute for years and marking up the books and articles.
My commentary is increasingly insightful: half truths by Ruck, Irvin, Letcher, Brown; entheogen scholars.
I’m getting really clear about why Hanegraaff is blocked from placing the fixed stars in the Ogdoad.
This week I watched a YouTube video conversation between astrologer Chris Brennan, who wrote a book on history of astrology, & Dr. Justin Sledge:
video: Fate & Astrology.
Sledge further confirmed my hypothesis from around 2004, that Early Antiquity had a 2-level model:
Transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
As a backlash and 1-upping, that involved inverting from positive to negative valuation of eternalism:
In 150 AD, Late Antiquity changed to a 3-phase model:
Transformation from naive possibilism, to eternalism, to qualified possibilism.
I said aloud against Brennan:
It’s not true that Christianity was distinctive for inventing freewill; so did Hermeticism, Mithraism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, etc.
Then Sledge repeated my words verbatim, but omitting Mithraism & adding 150 AD Jewish religion.
Davidson follows in the muddy footsteps of Wouter Hanegraaff, who is incapable of placing the fixed stars in sphere 7 or sphere 8 (as he wrote in footnote 114), so omits them from his cosmos model <shrug>.
Strategy: Quote Wouter Hanegraaff’s Confusions/ Contradictions about Which Sphere Number Is Fate, then Same for Davidson, then Show It’s Same Type of Confusion
I snagged entire insane vid transcript of a Wouter Hanegraaff follower who likewise can’t count to 8, cannot say the number of the sphere that contains fixed stars.
This page is for me to pick out the 3 incoherent statements re: fate, fixed stars, rising above Saturn[sic] puts you above fate. fixed stars = Fate.
Where put fixed stars? CRICKETS.
Disaster quote footnote from Wouter Hanegraaff
“i can’t figure out where fixed stars go – not Saturn sphere 7, and they certainly can’t be in our precious fate-free sphere 8 Ogdoad, which is same thing as sphere 9 Ennead, so i give up.”
I’m dumping this big transcript here (not in idea development 26) in this new page for analysis, to email Wouter Hanegraaff & this author to answer Wouter Hanegraaff’s question on p. 294 footnote 114 of the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.
Paul Davidson & Wouter Hanegraaff Can’t Count to 8, Contradict Which Sphere # Contains Fixed Stars
currently section is dup’d in idea development 26 & the present new vid page
PD has no website. I am looking at Paul Davidson site instaad to see if I can copy transcript from there instead of finishing format it myself. search web Paul Davidson hermeticism https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Davidson+hermeticism This might be his channel: “Over at his YouTube channel The Inquisitive Bible Reader, Paul Davidson …”
I am going to email Wouter Hanegraaff & Paul Davidson and point out INCOHERENT SELF-CONTRADICTION:
If you rise above Fate as soon as you rise above Planet 7 Saturn & reach sphere 8 = Ogdoad, and the fixed stars = Fate, then what level # contains fixed stars, which are Fate?
It can’t be sphere 7, b/c moving planet level 7 is Saturn, which is Fate.
It can’t be sphere 8, b/c that (the Ogdoad) is above Fate according to you [wrongly], but the fixed stars = Fate, according to you [correctly].
What have you done w fixed stars (Fate)?
What sphere # do you put the fixed stars in?
The correct answer every schoolchild before 1600 knows: fixed stars are level 8, Fate, Ogdoad.
What is the lowest sphere that’s above Fate? You say 8, incoherently & incorrectly. The answer is 9, Ennead.
You write as if Ogdoad and Ennead are both above Fate, with no real difference between them.
YOU ARE CONFUSED and unable to count to 8.
Ogdoad = Fate = 8th sphere = — the THE PICTURES IN YOUR OWN VIDEO PLAINLY SHOW THIS!! CAN YOU NOT COUNT TO 8?!!
This is ULTRA elementary, so much, your diagrams plainly show this.
Point in your diagram, point to zodiac sphere, tell me what # is that? Obviously and plainly, sphere 8.
WTF do you think the word “Ogdoad” means? 8th sphere.
Davidson eventually clearly states that, one time, only (fixed stars = sphere 8 = Fate); yet, like Wouter Hanegraaff, he keeps saying “above Saturn = above Fate“, directly contradicting himself, silently, INFINITELY CONFUSING, without him acknowledging & addressing his direct self-contradiction.
The purpose of this page is to gather the three directly self-contradictory statement sentences from the video.
Above Saturn (sphere 7) = above Fate.
Fixed stars = Fate.
Ogdoad (sphere 8) = above Fate. then where the f are the fixed stars, all of a sudden? DOES NOT COHERE! 🌌💥
How in the hell do you keep saying “rise above Saturn sphere 7 to rise higher than fate“?
But where are the fixed stars? Higher than Saturn!
How are you so plainly inconsistent?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU NEVER JOIN THE TWO FACTS:
FIXED STARS = FATE
FIXED STARS = SPHERE 8
THEREFORE SPHERE 8 = FATE. <– YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SAYING THIS. YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN!
Explanation for the psychological insanity:
You are trying to “protect” level 8 Ogdoad from being Fate.
In fact rising above Saturn (fate) puts you still in Fate (the sphere of the fixed stars).
Reaching sphere 8 does NOT put you above Fate, which you keep falsely, incoherently saying.
ONLY sphere 9 (or higher) is above Fate.
Level 8 is NOT above Fate.
Wouter Hanegraaff’s footnote 114 “I can’t figure out if fixed stars go in Saturn sphere 7 or Ogdoad sphere 8”:
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me.”
Annotations by Michael Hoffman
“Bibliography: Christian Bull, “The Tradition of Hermes Trismegistus,” 2014. [quoted very heavily by Wouter Hanegraaff i finally mem’d title, 4 parts: Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, 2022] M. David Litwa, “Hermetica II: The Excerpts of Stobaeus,” 2018. Wouter Hanegraaff, “Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism,” 2006.
Video Info in the Description
Video: What is Hermeticism?
297,189 views Sep 20, 2024
YouTube channel: ReligionForBreakfast
959K subscribers
Bibliography:
* Christian Bull, “The Tradition of Hermes Trismegistus,” 2014.
* M. David Litwa, “Hermetica II: The Excerpts of Stobaeus,” 2018.
* Wouter Hanegraaff, “Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism,” 2006.
Chapters
00:00 Intro 1:39 Hermetica explained 6:01 Hermetic and Platonic Cosmogony 10:09 Fate and the Hermetic Human Condition 12:08 Ascension, the Way of Hermes, and Rebirth 19:30 Was Hermetism a Religion? 24:48 I included a bonus section about baboons in the Nebula version of this vid
Transcript
Writer: Paul Davidson.
From YouTube, formatting & commentary by Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com.
Intro
Early Christian writers weren’t exactly looking to Pagan philosophers for advice on theology.
In fact they were more focused on debunking the traditional Greco Roman religions.
But Hermes trismagistus stands out as a rare exception
a mythological philosopher viewed by many as the ultimate sage and viewed by some Christians as a non-Christian philosopher who somehow stumbled upon true Christian theology centuries before the arrival of Christ
a fourth century Christian author named lactantius argued that Hermes recognized the Oneness of God, affirmed the notion that humans were made in the image of God, and even believed that God had a son.
Lactantius wrote that Hermes said everything about God the father and much about the son which is contained in the divine secrets.
So what did Hermes trismegistus teach that he even impressed otherwise harsh critics of Greco Roman religion?
Today we’re examining hermeticism or what Scholars Now call hermetism, an esoteric religious and philosophical system that wove together Greek philosophy, Egyptian religion, Greco Roman mystery religion, Judaism, Alchemy, and astrology.
Hermetic philosophy went on to influence scholars in the Islamic world and hermetic texts were eventually rediscovered by Europeans during the Renaissance and were translated into Latin, making them available to new generations of European scientists philosophers and theologians.
Much of modern Western esotericism is indebted to the ideas preserved in these ancient texts.
Now Scholars use the term hermeticism to refer to this later reception and reinterpretation of hermetic texts from the Renaissance onward, and they use the term hermetism to refer to the ancient tradition.
And today we’ll be focusing on the latter so what is hermetism and what are its Core Concepts and principles.
Hermetica explained
Most of what we know about hermetism comes from a gigantic body of ancient texts known as the hermetica.
These are texts attributed to the aforementioned Hermes trismegistus which means Hermes the Thrice greatest.
That’s like really really really great.
[3 really’s on the Max Freakout Really scale; really really really intense loose cognition/ high dose]
Hermes trismegistus was not a historical person but a mythological combo of the Egyptian god th
and his Greek equivalent Hermes th was the god of scribes wisdom astronomy and Magic
he was associated with the Ibis and the baboon and is frequently depicted as an ibis-headed man in Egyptian art
in Greek religion Hermes was the Emissary of the Gods and one who could guide souls in the afterlife
as far back as the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th Century bcee the Egyptian god th was identified with the Greek Hermes
and during the helenistic period some intellectuals believed that the gods had originally been humans who lived in ancient times
and Hermes trismegistus received the same treat
in many hermetic texts he appears as a human
and by the first century CE Hermes trismegistus was recognized as the quintessential philosopher magician and divine Sage of the distant past
in reality all of the texts of the hertica are pseudonymous
the scholar Christian Bull [intensely cited by Wouter Hanegraaff] theorizes they were composed by heniz Egyptian priests
the Roman geographer strabo for example mentions Egyptian priests living in Thebes educated in philosophy and astronomy who attribute to Hermes all wisdom of this particular kind
but whoever wrote These text texts they really knew their philosophy
hermetic texts show influence especially from middle platonism but also from stoicism and neop Pythagorean thought as well as Jewish thought in some cases
the oldest text in the hermetica May date as far back as the 2 or 3rd Century bcee though some of the more famous philosophical texts date from the 1st to 3rd Century CE
and there were a lot of hermetic texts ancient people threw around what were probably wild exaggerations
the philosopher yamus for example shares a report that there were 20,000 books attributed to Hermes the Egyptian priest
Mano claims over 36,000
exaggeration or not, there were many many texts attributed to Hermes trismegistus or one of his disciples
and most of them are lost to us
so our picture of hermetism is incomplete
and these books cover a huge array of topics
now Scholars of the years have categorized the hermetica into technical texts and religio philosophical texts
the technical books cover topics like astrology, the power of gemstones and plants Alchemy and Magic
the philosophical ones discuss the structure and origins of the cosmos, the nature of human beings, the properties of God, and how to ascend after death
as with many scholarly categories though these are modern labels that wouldn’t have made sense to the ancient people writing and reading these texts
you can find ritual techniques in the philosophical books, and you can find philosophy in the technical books
so don’t think of these as Stark hard and fast categories
one characteristic that the Hermetic philosophical books do share is that they’re not presented in a way that a modern reader might expect
so what’s so different about them
oh hi [alter ego at the vid cam, troublemaker pushing back]
well uh they’re usually written as interactive dialogues between two characters usually Hermes trismegistus and one of his disciples like Isis esus or his son tot
[troublemaker cameraman:]
oh so like a Socratic dialogue
[presenter:]
well not exactly, both Socratic dialogues and hermetic dialogues use the conversational format but the tone and aim between the two genres is very different
so in Socratic dialogues the tone is investigative and critical; sometimes it’s even light-hearted with Socrates engaging in back and forth
uh back and forth exchanges with his companions to get them to uncover contradiction and to push them to deeper understanding of a particular concept
while in hermetic dialogues the tone is much moreac and mystical
Hermes trismegistus is just imparting Divine wisdom to a passive student who’s just asking questions without much push back
got it
[troublemaker:]
I’m going to need a citation for that
[presenter:]
Okay, fine. Sources is in the description below, as usual.
The most famous philosophical texts are found in a compilation called the Corpus hermeticum 17 treatises that were compiled into one text centuries later sometime during the Byzantine period.
So while these are among the most well-known hermetic texts, they should not be considered a hermetic Canon of authoritative texts, like what the New Testament is for Christianity.
Other compilations include some texts found among the nonami Cotes
and there’s also 40 excerpts in an anthology by the fifth century author Yan stas
Hermetic and Platonic Cosmogony
with so many texts and many of them fragmentary it’s impossible to identify a consistent systematic hermetic theology, but we can identify some key themes shared across these texts
And a good place to begin is the Hermetic understanding of cosmogeny the origins of the cosmos
this is primarily laid out in a text called pandre
This is a dialogue between a being named pandr and Hermes trismegistus
pandre is the teacher in this case and seems to be a reference to God himself
according to this text the essence of God is mind or Nous
creation begins with God or I guess I should say the first mind speaking into existence his son the logos together with the second mind aka the Craftsman or demiurge.
The logos descends into nature to become the four elements, while the demiurge creates seven Heavenly rulers the seven classical planets the Moon Sun Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter and Saturn
[moon mer ven sun mar jup sat -> fixed stars -> precession]
[he groups: moon sun; vs. 5 planet-stars: mer ven mar jup sat]
These in turn set creation in motion producing animals and other living things from the elements
this cosmogeny is largely inspired by platonic philosophy
in Plato’s tus Plato shares an elaborate Cosmic model that formed the basis for how philosophers understood cosmogeny for the next few centuries
Plato described the cosmos as a great sphere with Earth at its Center
the stars and the Seven classical planets revolve around the Earth in their own concentric spheres
the planets were regarded as deities and the cosmos itself was filled with souls and other intermediary spirits
[demiurge = ruler of planet rulers = fixed stars, all-important sphere around which other levels are in relation to.]
Everything was composed of four primal elements earth air fire and water
and the world was created not by the Supreme God who existed beyond the cosmos but by a second Divine being called the Craftsman or demiurge
furthermore the creation of the world [cosmic 4D rock] requ required the uniting of two opposing forces necessity [~eternalism] or Ananke which brings about activity and disorder and intellect or Nous which subjugates necessity to order and [high, post-Psilocybin] reason.
Most Greco Roman philosophical systems including middle platonism, stoicism Gnostic Christianity and hermetism were based on this framework.
[you DISHONOR MITHRAS – David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism]
But each had its own spin on it
hermetic texts like the PO mandre share a very lofty Transcendent view of God whom they called the father.
as the scholar David Litwa puts it, the Hermetic God is a supreme ineffable being who transcends language bodies and all perceptible reality
in a writing called Hermes to esus Hermes tells his pupil God is not mind but he is the cause of mind’s being;
he is not Spirit but the cause of spirit’s being;
and he is not light but the cause of light’s being.
Now we don’t always find agreement in the exact specifics of the Hermetic view of God but it’s clear that the Hermetic God is one is supreme and is utterly transcendent.
pandre also describes a demiurge or Craftsman which might sound familiar if you’ve seen my videos on gnosticism or valentinian Christianity. [linked above]
Several ancient groups around this time believed in a lower Creator God who crafted the material world.
[heimarmene; he dwells in level 8 Ogdoad fixed stars]
But while the demiurge in these other Traditions is either ignorant or even malicious, the Demi orent in hermetism is closer to Plato’s idea of the Craftsman.
he’s not necessarily a bad guy he’s just second to the ultimate God
in this case a second Nous or mind
hermetism also shares a very LOF y view of humanity in pandre the supreme god creates a primordial androgynous human
the text says Nous the father of all who is life and light gave birth to a man like himself whom he loved as his own child
this human is described as having the image of God
and here we see some influence from The Book of Genesis
this androgynous primordial human is allowed to join in the demiurge’s work creating the material world, what the text calls nature [heimarmene; eternalism]
When this human sees their own reflection in water the human desires to inhabit nature causing the Primal human and nature to embrace.
And the text implies sexually because this Embrace produces a being that is uniquely comprised of a mortal body and an immortal Soul.
PO mandre says for this reason of all living beings on Earth man alone is two-fold Mortal because of the body Immortal because of the real man real man in the sense of an essential human our true self
later all living things including the human are split into male and female
female so they can multiply
Fate and the Hermetic Human Condition
However, humans retain this dual nature, an immortal Essence that is divine and a mortal body that is tied to the world and controlled by Fate — capital F Fate.
In hermetism, Fate could be described as a cosmic force or external energy that governs the world and imposes action on it.
And it was closely related to the movement of the stars and planets.
[why then do you keep omitting stars from Ogdoad and falsely saying Ogdoad is above Fate? (as often as not) saying that to go above Saturn is to go above Fate – then what about fixed stars, which you sometimes said is fate? no cohere]
One hermetic text says the Stars serve fate.
One can neither Escape fate nor protect oneself from the powerful imp influence of the Stars.
[beware: Wouter Hanegraaff is horribly misleading here: when HE says “stars”, he deceptively means the planetary wandering “stars”, b/c Hanegraaff can’t decide where to place fixed stars, ie, he thinks 7 won’t work (true) and he thinks 8 won’t work (false; confused) b/c he treats sphere 8 as if = glorious freewill, purified of awful eternalism – backwards!]
[soul can’t; spirit, only, can escape eternalism / heimarmene/ Fate/ “the world”/ “nature” etc]
The stars are the instrument of Fate.
By Fate’s decree all things reach their intended end in nature.
And among human beings fate was also administered by the decans, the Egyptian zodiac. [fixed stars]
These were 36 constellations [fixed stars] that were important for tracking the calendar.
And they had astrological significance as well.
They were conceptualized as Egyptian astral [fixed stars] deities who controlled 10 days each for a total of 360 days.
[stars AS WELL AS planets:]
herst Hermeticists believed that the decans together with the seven planets could cause major events like famines droughts and earthquakes.
But fate really only controls our bodies [soul] and the world of matter not our true essential self [spirit].
The Divine part of humanity can break free from fate.
[transcend eternalism; we can wash clean our freewill thinking, to use the illusion-premised personal control system, yet also be righteous and fully rational]
Another hermetic text reads we have the power to choose: to choose the better is up to us.
[who is this ‘us’? the egoic personal control system, now washed clean and JUSTIFIED]
Choosing when dictated by vices draws near to bodily nature since all intelligent reason in us has free choice, Fate does not control it [high Reason].
So this dual Divine material nature means that the Mundane world can distract us or turn us away from the correct path.
And some hermetic texts describe this Human Condition somewhat pessimistically
pandre reads he who loves the body which is born from the error of Desire remains wandering in the dark and sensibly suffers the effects of death.
But other texts describe it more optimistically.
Humanity’s dual material and divine nature means that humans occupy an honored middle position between the gods and material things.
The Hermetic text called Aesclipus reads wondering at Heavenly beings and worshipping them tending Earthly beings and governing them.
So Humanity stands between the Earthly and divine.
Ascension, the Way of Hermes, and Rebirth
but regardless of how the human condition is framed hermetic texts share a deep concern with ascending and reuniting with the supreme god
in a dramatic scene in pandre the soul after death ascends through the seven heavens
[WHAT THE HELL ABOUT THE 8TH HEAVEN, FIXED STARS – THERE YOU GO AGAIN, FORGETTING AND SWEEPING UNDER THE RUG – CAN YOU NOT COUNT, CONSISTENTLY, TO 8??]
and merges with the first mind
this is the final good for those who have received knowledge to be made God with the Mortal body Left Behind one
must Ascend to the highest realms the eighth and Ninth spheres
[there you go again conflating 8th & 9th spheres, which are: pure Fate, vs. transcend Fate]
Why the eighth and Ninth?
Well remember that the seven planetary spheres govern the material world through fate.
[PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MISSING FIXED STARS ALL OF A SUDDEN – Hanegraaff i see you wrote this, not Davidson]
So you need to ascend above them [spheres 1-7, only??!!] in order to be beyond the influence of Fate where your essential human can reunite with the Divine.
These Realms are called the Ogdoad [pure eternalism] and Ennead [transcend eternalism] respectively.
The Ogdoad means the eight-fold. [pure eternalism]
In its original meaning it refers to the eight primordial deities of Egyptian religion.
[his word ‘original’ might (but i doubt) hint that he’s waffling between two different systems: highest fate-level is 7 Saturn, vs. later, the highest fate-level is 8 fixed stars – but he needs to be WAY clearer, if that’s what he’s doing]
In the Hermetic system though these become the Eight Powers that make up the realm of the demiurge.
This realm is the eighth sphere of the Cosmos located just beyond the seven planets.
[Correct, SO HOW COME YOU KEEP SAYING “ASCEND ABOVE SATURN/ABOVE FATE?? instead of properly saying “ascend above Saturn to attain pure fate” and then after that, “ascend above fixed stars/ above fate“?]
The Ennead on the other hand means the ninefold. [transcend eternalism]
And it’s an even higher realm of existence, in Egyptian mythology referred to the nine great deities worshiped at heliopolis: Atum Shu te n GB n Osiris Isis set and nephus.
[Do the author & Hanegraaff claim to be discussing two different cosmos models, where in the simpler earlier model, the upper Fate sphere is Saturn, so that (in that model) the sphere of the fixed stars = above Fate?? and the later model is mine, where Saturn & fixed stars are Fate, then above fixed stars – in Ennead – is above Fate?? They need to be WAY clearer about this flip-flop, if that’s what they intend.]
In hermic cosmology, the Ennead becomes the ninth sphere of the cosmos where the self- begotten Nous dwells and it’s the destination of the most righteous Souls [no, spirit – soul is stuck at 8 Ogdoad, max] after [psychedelic ego] death.
So how do you ascend up into the 8th and 9th?
[CONFLATION OF SPHERE 8 & 9! FOLLOWING HANE, HE THINKS BOTH ARE ABOVE FATE WHICH IS SATURN BUT WHERE THEN FIXED STARS? Can we say the author here is somewhat inconsistent? If I mark up all the key assertions, yes.]
Well various texts provide instructions on how to achieve this Ascension.
Scholars call these instructions the way of Hermes.
Though as we’ll discuss in the next section we should be careful about framing this way of Hermes as a distinct religious community
A lot of hermetic texts could be classified as initiatory
But it’s not really an initiation into a distinct cult like the cult of Isis or the cult of mithis.
Hermetism probably wasn’t that well organized.
We can call them initiatory in the sense that these texts serve the purpose of guiding a reader or a disciple through a transformative mystical journey of deeper and deeper knowledge.
[reaching the Egodeath theory: Transcendent Knowledge; psychedelic eternalism, aided by CLARIFYING (not confusing, like Hanegraaff & his dubious hermeticists) analogy; {myth} & {motifs} to help explain Transcendent Knowledge; transformation from possibilism to eternalism, per def’n of the word ‘analogy’]
This path to deathlessness [means maturity, no longer immature ego death reminder; a-thanatos] or salvation [rescue from control instability & heimarmene] is not for everyone but only for an elect few [who are predestined, ie, pre-existing w/ enlightenment].
In fact some hermetic texts describe something like the belief in the transmigration of the Soul as in after death one soul is usually reborn into another body
The Souls of the just are reborn as kings philosophers and esteemed intellectuals.
The Souls of the wicked though are reborn in the bodies of animals
One text reads yet if you are workers of Greater sins you will not advance from the molded [mortal] body.
When your due service is paid you will not dwell in Heaven nor even in human bodies.
You will complete the rest of your lives wandering the bodies of non- reasoning beasts.
[like Phil. dept. psychedelic philosopher Chris Letheby, or Thomas Hatsis “the shape of the liberty cap is anachronistic”]
Only the most righteous will Ascend after [ego] death which might take many lifetimes. [Psilocybin sessions]
Another text reads:
Do you see how many bodies we must pass through my son? How many troops of demons
[guard the heimarmene Psilocybin transformation gate]
cosmic connections and Stellar circuits in order to hasten toward the one and only.
But for the initiates who are worthy and righteous [washed clean your the egoic personal control system, while always using freewill thinking, now qualified] enough to attain it.
This means breaking free from fate,
[going above sphere 8 fixed stars = spirit is free from fate]
learning the secrets needed to pass beyond the planetary [sic! YOU FORGOT — AGAIN — THE FIXED STARS!] spheres.
[does “the planetary spheres” magically somehow include sphere 8, fixed stars?? i smell Hanegraaff’s fingerprints all over this copypaste confusion job]
[you DO pass above planet sphere 7, to EVENTUALLY reach above Fate, but not yet. first, above 7, you reach pure Fate – fixed stars – home of the demiurge — and THEN you move not above planets, but rather, above fixed stars sphere, to FINALLY reach 9, above Fate its not that hard, ppl 🤨 ]
[secret to pass = password/ toll for the guarded gate]
The starting point appears to be Gnosis or knowledge, particularly knowledge of the self.
[personal control system]
People need to obtain true intimate knowledge of their True Divine Nature.
[inside the mind is hidden source of control thoughts – seeing that, during Psilocybin peak window = Transcendent Knowledge & ego death of king ego]
We saw this in that quote from pandre which describes merging with the supreme god after [ego] death
[beware of beginners’ Unity (false/ premature) model of Transcendent Knowledge]
The final good for those who have received knowledge
[is Rev 22:14 – pass through gate, eat tree of life 13 fruits]
The initiate must be taught that they are an immortal [a-thantos, no longer subject to ego death seizure instability] being with the potential to ascend [ability to endure the Psilocybin state] through the Heavenly spheres [DO YOU MEAN 1-7, OR 1-8 – WHICH WOULD INCL FIXED STARS, WHICH IS FATE] and reunite with their true Source.
[the hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts: that is what’s important, much more so than pop beginners dabblers shallow “Unity” theory]
In book four of the Corpus hermeticum Hermes tells his son knowledge is not a beginning of the good, but it furnishes us with the beginning of the good that will be known.
“So let us seize this beginning and travel with all speed, for the path is very crooked that leaves familiar things of the present to return to primordial things of old.”
Now in pandre this ascent and merging with God is something that happens to you after you [ego-] die.
But other writings interpreted this as an ecstatic experience which could happen to every hermetist in this life.
[AS IF the first sentence didn’t mean the same damn thing!!]
Dr David Litwin describes it as a rebirth into higher Divine Consciousness.
And several hermetic texts seem to describe rituals [of ingesting Psilocybin] where an initiate could experience a rebirth and activate their higher Consciousness.
One of the best examples is book 13 of the Corpus hermeticum where hermes’s son tot undergoes a ritual of [ingesting, then] rebirth.
The text begins with tot asking Hermes to teach him the way:
“I am ready now and my mind is set firmly away from the beguilement of the world.
Fulfill your promise to me in which you said you would set before me the way in which rebirth is bestowed.”
Hermes responds by explaining that rebirth requires that tot cleanse himself of the the irrational torments of matter.
[“matter” = Fate; also, pollution = possibilism-thinking that causes control instability]
These torments of matter are a list of vices or sins like Injustice, lust, greed and envy.
But Chief among them [vices/sins] is ignorance.
[of the Egodeath theoryTM at Egodeath.com: you gotta believe in eternalism, ie, you are experientially revealed to be a helpless puppet frozen in rock, enslaved, isn’t my theory awesome?!]
Next, tot must observe a period of ritual silence before Hermes announces that TT is being purified by God and is being filled with divine power, most notably, knowledge.
After all, you need knowledge to get rid of that ignorance.
[naive freewill thinking; naive possibilism-thinking: thinking you – the egoic personal control system – are source of your thoughts, as if they aren’t frozen in 4D block eternalism]
Henceforth my child Rejoice the powers of God purify you.
[reveal illusory status of autonomous control & possibility-branching w/ egoic steering-power]
A new to us has come knowledge of God and when it comes my child ignorance has been expelled.
So now that tot has been filled with these Divine Powers.
Hermes then teaches tot how to perform the hymn of rebirth.
An Earthly version of a cosmic song.
And the text actually goes into a lot of detail about how to perform it:
“And so my son standing in an open space and facing south at The Descent of the Setting Sun kneel down in prayer;
and likewise face East at Sunrise.”
And here’s why I said you can sometimes find ritual techniques in the philosophical books:
The text has specific instructions on how to perform this hymn.
The Scholar Christian Bull thinks that the hym that follows was actually performed by hermetic groups and may have been drawn from a hermetic hymnal.
It’s even titled “Secret hymn book song number four”, so maybe it was part of a collection.
The hymn itself Praises God as the source of all existence and order in the cosmos:
“Together Let Us Praise Him raised high above the Heaven’s creator of all nature.
Now the hymn lyrics don’t actually look like a typical ancient Greek religious hymn.
In fact a lot of the language looks more like what we see in Greek magical papy from Egypt.
So some Scholars think it was translated from an Egyptian original.
overall
Corpus hermeticum 13 describes a mystical experience that transforms the initiate.
He no longer identifies with his material body [Fate, or, the egoic personal control system] but has emerged with the Nous.
[Nous is probably sphere 9 precession of equinox outside Fate heimarmene fixed stars ogdoad shere 8 like in Mithraism per David Ulansey]
It’s called a rebirth because he essentially is a new human
Scholars describe it almost like an exorcism: you exorcise all of that ignorance, [illusion-based the egoic personal control system] deceit and envy, and replace it with knowledge truth and joy.
And being filled with these Divine Powers the person essentially is now composed of a new immaterial and Immortal body, a body impervious to the vicissitudes of fate.
It also means that when this initiate dies their essential self will automatically be released and returned to its place of origin.
Another text describing an initiate glimpsing the 8th and 9th Realms is called the discourse on the 8th and 9th which was discovered among the nagadi codices.
[8 = reach 100% grasp of eternalism/ fatedness; 9 = sort of transcend eternalism/fate]
The text begins with tot reminding Hermes of his promise to induct him into the Ogdoad [sphere 8, actually heimarmene; fixed stars] and Ennead. [sphere 9, actually this is the lowest sphere that transcends heimarmene]
[REACHING 100% HEIMARMENE FIXED STARS IS A HUGE PROJECT, CHALLENGE, ACCOMPLISHMENT; 99% OF YOUR EFFORT IS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS VICTORY, TO REACH 100% ETERNALISM/ PUPPETHOOD/ ENSLAVEMENT IN ROCK; ie Wouter Hanegraaff has all his values backwards & disproportionate, huge confusion around this. — Michael Hoffman]
“My father, yesterday you promised me that you would bring my mind to the 8th.”
[Make me fully perceive and comprehend fatedness/ heimarmene/ eternalism, and hang onto that POV this time.]
[Hanegraaff thinks 8th = pure from Fate/ eternalism. It’s the exact opposite! purifed of possibilism-thinking/ naive freewill thinking]
[purify thinking, get rid of possibilism-thinking reliance; attain 100% eternalism-thinking; reach full Fate] and afterwards you would bring me into the ninth. [transcend eternalism]
[{purify} = get rid of freewill thinking reliance! Get rid of possibilism; the mental {dirtiness} is not Fate (eternalism); it’s possibilism! Hanegraaff has it entirely backwards, he thinks purify means get rid of eternalism-thinking – {wash robe} actually means attaining eternalism-thinking]
Hermes agrees, and they start singing A Hymn of ascent.
At its climax, the initiate sees the 8th sphere. [100% pure fate, purified of contamination which is naive possibilism-thinking aka egoic freewill thinking, as if monolithic, autonomous control.]
[the climax of the journey is achieving & retaining grasp of eternalism, NOT possibilism or transcending eternalism]
“I see the ogdoad [fixed stars/ heimarmene / eternalism / puppethood enslavement to Fate, sphere 8] and the souls [notice not spirits, that’s 9] that are in it and the angels [now sphere 9] singing hymns to the Ennead and its power,
[Ennead = sphere 9 = precession of equinoxes, above fixed stars zodiac; above {the hard-won amazing ultimate achievement, which is eternalism}]
and I see him who has all their power [at level 10, creator/God] and who creates by means of the spirit.”
[spirit = sphere 9]
In other words, the initiate glimpses what he will see when his body [fate level] dissolves [loose cognition] and
[maybe that means attain fate, or maybe the egoic personal control system; maybe egoic deluded belief in possibilism as foundation]
his soul ascends after [Psilocybin ego] death.
[per Valentinus per Gnostic Gospels / Pagels’ first 3 books, soul usually is lower than spirit. usually soul = fixed stars = heimarmene; only the spirit = transcend heimarmene = 9th sphere, per Mithraism]
From these two text we see that hermetist were deeply concerned with a transformative process of rebirth and the Soul rejoining God after [psychedelic ego] death.
[We don’t mean mere popular Psilocybin dabblers’ beginners’ glimpse of Unity; but rather, post-battle full completion of initiation after the long hard work that’s 99% consists of struggling to REACH & ATTAIN heimarmene – barely any of the journey is re: transcending heimarmene! That last bit of the journey is but a tiny flip from Ogdoad to Ennead, only. Disproportionate Wouter Hanegraaff has the emphasis all backwards, counter to his egoic freewill-worshipping presuppositions. Transcendent Knowledge is MAINLY transformation from possibilism to eternalism, NOT mainly transformation from eternalism to possibilism – latter is minor afterthought at end of main journey, NOT the bulk of the transformation work/journey!]
But both emphasize that you can experience an ecstatic Union [read: typically, beginner glimpse of union unearned, unclean pollution; get kicked out of Heaven by offended god] with the Divine even while alive, which you could achieve through personal [control system] purification and proper ritual.
Was Hermetism a Religion?
Now the fact that these two texts describe specific hymns raises the question:
What did hermetic practice look like?
Scholars have long debated if there were hermetic religious communities.
Like were there people walking around calling themselves hermetist attending hermetic churches and Performing this ritual of rebirth?
To answer this question it’s helpful to consider what we mean by religious community
one might think of a community similar to a Christian Church
in late antique Egypt Christian was a social identity
Christian communities would meet at recognizable buildings called basilicas, led by recognizable religious authorities called priests or monks
they shared a sacred story about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and they shared communal rituals like baptism or the Eucharist [Psilocybin]
This kind of structure provides a clear sense of identity and belonging to its adherents and a clear set of characteristics that help us identify a specific religion that we call Christianity.
On the other hand we can imagine a looser less definable group maybe something like a reading Circle or a philosophical Society groups where individuals are drawn together by a shared interest in certain texts and ideas.
But without formalized doctrines or authoritative leadership scholars in recent years have argued there must have been some sort of hermetic communities though it’s difficult to Envision what they really looked like on the ground scattered throughout hermetic texts are references to communal rituals like a ritual Embrace and formal prayers
A great example is found from another text
from the nagadi codes the so-called prayer of Thanksgiving which appears to be some sort of hermetic lurgical prayer possibly chanted as part of a hermetic Gathering
The prayer starts with an introductory Line “This is the prayer that they spoke”, perhaps alluding to an actual social group, before it launches into a prayer of thanks for the Supreme God:
“We give thanks to you every soul and heart is lifted up to you honored with the name God and praised with the name father”
hermetic ideas permeate the prayer like the idea that humans possess a spark of the Divine and that there’s a connection between the Divine mind and the human mind enabling them to comprehend higher truth
“we Rejoice having been illuminated by your knowledge
we Rejoice because while we were in the body you have made us Divine through your knowledge”
again notice that focus on Gnosis
the prayer ends with a side note that again seems to imply a ritual Gathering of some sort
when they had said these things in the prayer they embraced each other and they went to eat their holy foodwhich has no blood in it
[Psilocybin; fungus, not plant, not meat]
this seems to be a reference to a vegetarian [fungal] sacramental meal which is also mentioned in another hermetic text called Aus
wishing these things we turn to a pure meal [Psilocybin] without flesh of animals
now it might be a stretch to say that this prayer was performed in a lurgical setting like a hermetic Church though maybe we can Envision something like a masonic lodge a fraternity or a philosophical school
we just don’t know
David Litwa envisions something like a philosophical Discussion Group, a loose group of individuals seeking salvation through initiatory readings
Christian Bull argues that wherever and however these rituals were performed these gatherings likely involved Egyptian priesthoods and groups connected somehow to Egyptian temples
in Roman Egypt he speculates we can Envision an Egyptian priest setting up a reading group in the Marketplace or public forum or maybe in the private house of a wealthy individual
ancient texts also mention Egyptian priests living in Temple complexes
like they actually lived there like on a campus
and groups would gather for [Psilocybin] banquets or other gatherings in a room or building on the premises
Dr Bull proposes that hermetism might have originated in groups devoted to various Egyptian gods around the turn of the Common Era as the educated Elite of the Roman Empire traveled to Egypt seeking the ancient wisdom that Egypt was famous for
Egyptian religion became commercialized so to speak Priestly Association dedicated to th Hermes spraying up in cities like hermopolis and Thebes where pilgrims could be instructed by actual Egyptian priests
and these Egyptian priests adopted the language and vocabulary of Greco Roman philosophy combining Egyptian and Greek elements in a way that would have seemed exotically Egyptian to foreigners but accessible to any educated person
so we don’t have evidence that people were walking around calling themselves hermetist like how Christian was a label of self-identity by this time
but it is likely there were voluntary associations of people reading these text texts holding to a hermetic world view of the cosmos and salvation and participating in hermetic rituals like that prayer of Thanksgiving
It’s Tricky though because these texts reflect the opinions of literate experts literate philosophers speculating about the nature of the universe and God
so when you pick up PO Andre are we getting a glimpse into a world viw and ritual life shared by a lot of people or are we just getting a glimpse into the mind of a single literate philosopher?
Overall, hermetism offered what we could call a practical theology an attempt to bridge abstract philosophical ideas with lived practical experience
yes hermetism was rooted in complex theoretical cosmology and ideas about the nature of the Divine, but it also offered concrete practices that initiated followers on a path toward salvation.
For hermetists, salvation is not something you just passively await; it’s actively pursued through a process of alienation from the world [heimarmene], rebirth, and mystical Union with the supreme god.
[Union is overemphasized by the huge mass of beginners; control transformation is under-ack’d]
The belief that humans possess a dual nature part material part divine implies an ethical responsibility to govern one’s body and mind properly.
Hermetic teachings thus encouraged followers to transcend Earthly desires and the distractions of the material world [ie 4D block universe eternalism/ heimarmene] in order to break free from Fate’s control.
In this sense, hermetism provides a pathway not only for understanding the cosmos, but for living a righteous divinely attuned life.
I included a bonus section about baboons in the Nebula version of this vid
So we’re coming up on the 10-year anniversary of religion for breakfast
I published my first video in October 2014 and back then one of my earliest Inspirations was Abigail Thorne over at philosophy tube
she was starting to publish talking head explainer videos about philosophy
I was starting to publish explainer talking head videos about religious studies but while my format has stayed mostly the same over the years she has evolved into publishing these amazing 1hour long deep
dives with elaborate costumes and sketches
and she’s just recently jumped to the next level releasing her first original short film Dracula’s ex-girlfriend
It’s about two former Rivals who share the same toxic ex Count Dracula
now I know a lot of you watching my channel are into esoteric topics and the Occult so trust me there’s definitely some audience crossover appeal here
what better way to kick off spooky season than a film about vampires made by a philosophy content creator
you can watch it exclusively on nebula a streaming service built by and for independent creators where you can watch a ton of amazing content totally adree
and Abigail’s film is a great example of what we’re doing at nebula empowering independent creators to elevate their work giving them the freedom and resources to make better stories with better production value all without the negative incentives of clickbait and Advertiser friendly guidelines that you find on other platforms
you can find original content like archaeology Quest a show featuring two science creators trying to learn how to live in the Stone Age making their own tools and hunting we’ve also started a current events-based show called what to follow USA where the tldr news team guides you through the weekly chaos of American political news nebula Originals like these are the best example of what we do on nebula we’re a group of dedicated creators coming together on our own platform to push ourselves to the next level to get a yearly nebula subscription
/ end of transcript from YouTube formatted by Michael Hoffman Egodeath.com, EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com
Confirmed Davidson Contradicts
April 4, 2025: Confirmed that Hanegraaff and Davidson both silently try to hide and obscure the fact that their negative attitude about fixed stars contradicts their positive attitude about Ogdoad.
They take an obfuscationist, Y-shaped strategy to hide from the gullible(?) reader that their attiudes are incoherent and contradictory.
The reason why Hanegraaff and Davidson confuse the reader and do not simply put the number “sphere 8” throughout their treatment:
were they to put “sphere 8” every time they mention the hated “fixed stars = fate”
or — on their separate arm of discussion — every time they mention the beloved “Ogdoad” (where they sneakily GO SILENT about the fixed stars),
it would become clear to the reader that the same sphere, 8, is incoherently described – in one arm of discussion — as despicably inside the cosmos, or – in the other arm of discussion — as gloriously outside the cosmos.
The solution, for the reader to expose the authors’ efforts to hide their incoherence & pretend it’s the reader’s fault for being confused:
Every time the author mentions Saturn or the 7 planets or “the planetary cosmos”, write “sphere 7” or “spheres 1-7”.
Every time the author mentions fixed stars or zodiac or “constellations” or “Ogdoad, write “sphere 8”.
Every time the author mentions Ennead or Pleroma, write “sphere 9”.
Now it will become clear the author’s contradictory attitudes about sphere 8:
When Hanegraaff or Davidson talks about sphere 8 re: fixed stars, sphere 8 = bad = Fate.
When Hanegraaff or Davidson talks about sphere 8 re: Ogdoad, sphere 8 = good = above Fate.
Their cheap magician’s bluff that the author tries to pull over on the audience is: the fixed stars (bad!) are in sphere 8, but transcending Fate (good!) is instead, in a sphere called “Ogdoad”.
This flimsy bluff tries to hide that the Ogdoad is identical w/ sphere 8, and Hanegraaff and Davidson are trying to hide that they have self-contradictory attitudes re the same sphere, “8” (bad! Fate!) aka Ogdoad (good! Above Fate!)
Don’t let Hanegraaff-Davidson bluff and confuse you: the highest level of the cosmos and Fate is not Saturn (sphere 7).
Reiterate the takeaway: to catch the authors trying to hide their two incoherent contradictory story framings and bluffing with their “stars (Fate) vs. Ogdoad (above Fate)“ incoherent nonsense, always assign the sphere # to the authors’ shifting shell-game terms.
Always translate to sphere # 1-9 (especially 8);
INTERROGATE THE AUTHOR:
WHAT SPHERE NUMBER ARE YOU NOW TALKING ABOUT WITH YOUR EVER-SHIFTING TERMS? DO YOU MEAN SPHERE 8? OR 7 OR 9?
Especially forcefully pin down weasel-word Hanegraaff & Davidson re: sphere 8.
Because DAVIDSON, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SPHERE 8 WHEN YOU UTTER “OGDOAD” THEN YOU *MUST* MEAN FIXED STARS, SO Say It!!
Say “the fixed stars are here, in the precious Ogdoad”!
You can’t, because you try to hide your incoherent contradiction:
out of one side of mouth, fixed stars are bad = Fate = the sphere above Saturn.
out of the other side of mouth, Ogdoad is good = above Fate = above the 7 evil fate-ruled planet spheres. [note the stars go missing suddenly and “sphere 8” goes missing, as sleight-of-hand terminology shifts now to obscurantist “Ogdoad”, hyping and framing Ogdoad AS IF it is above cosmic Fate.]
The audience has to resort to card-counting; forcefully (against the author’s objection) assigning sphere #s, especially re: sphere 8, to prevent Davidson’s attempt to hide his incoherent self-contradiction, simultaneously saying sphere 8 is Fate and is Above Fate.
That’s what I did in Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022).
Throughout the book, I marked every instance of the above word lists as sphere # 1-9, especially sphere 8, to catch Hanegraaff telling two contradictory, incoherent stories, and strategically going silent about the fixed stars every time his brings up his precious “Fate-free[sic] Ogdoad” fake academic incoherent construct.
Hanegraaff & Davidson keep kicking the fixed stars into the Hanegraaff Rejected wastebasket, try to to hide the fact that his cosmos is a Yaldabaoth monstrous creation malformed abomination self-contradiction guaranteed fury frenzy chaos wrath impurity turmoil.
He lectures on purity and casting out planetary pollution, yet constructs a thoroughly dirty cosmos.
YOU MUST BRING TOGETHER YOUR PRECIOUS WORD “OGDOAD” AND THE FIXED STARS.
Stop pretending they are unrelated and different.
The Ogdoad is defined by the fixed stars.
See Also
My Wouter Hanegraaff pages about his crazy dilemma:
He can’t put fixed stars in sphere 7 or 8.
He conflates/ equates sphere 8 and 9, wasting sphere 8, serving no purpose.
He says going above 7 = going above Fate, which is fixed stars.
3 Models to Summarize in Branching-Message Mushroom Trees Article: Psilocybin Transformation; Astral Ascent Mysticism; Mushroom-Trees
EgodeathTheory site is an Advanced, Leading-Edge, Working, Idea Development Site, Not Polished Publishing
News Flash! Houot’s Ship Taken for Ransom by Pirates, Dionysus Brings It to a Halt with Vines, Saves the Pilot Who Honors Dionysus; Lion & Bear Kill the Captain
h3 Sailing the Acid Trip Ocean, by Blizzard of Ozz band, 1981
Egodeath Mystery Show About Scientific Exploration Discovery Field Log Notebook of Visionary Technologies of Seeing Looking Using Astrolabe Armillary Sphere Compass Navigation Tools Rational Explicit Map of Cognitive Phenomenology and Illuminating, SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF Psilocybin Hyper-Eternalism Transformation that underlies common-core mysticism and perennialism after you throw away the baggage noise and {lift the lid} to {reveal} the {veiled snake engine} and are {sacrificed to be made athanatos}
h3 No One at the Bridge, Rush, 1975
h3 Ride Captain Ride lyrics, by Blues Image, 1970
h3 Postmortem: Foolish Captain Wasn’t Equipped to Endure Psilocybin
The bifurcation even runs through the heart of Psychedelic Science at Hopkins (email to book club April 1, 2025)
Houot’s Categories of 3 Approaches per Sociedelic Review: Healing; Spirituality; Science
Therapy paradigm lexicon
Mysticism paradigm lexicon
Technology paradigm lexicon
Hermetica as a Path of Initiation (Litwa, 2025)
Timothy Freke: Reconcile Individual & Nondual; eternalism & possibilism; altered state & ordinary state
Respecting & reconciling both Science & Spirituality (Email sent L 2:06 pm Mar. 30, 2025)
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)
Email to Timothy Freke Mar. 29, 2025 7:44 am – Su: Egodeath updates, rebirth into eternalism then transcending heimarmene in Late Antiquity [1 email in thread]
email to Timothy Freke: AM Houot’s book Rise of the Psychonaut advocates “Science”, doesn’t grasp Transcendent Knowledge – 8:12 am Mar 30 2025
email 2 Freke: Houot book Rise of the Psychonaut advocates Science, doesn’t grasp Transcendent Knowledge – 8:28 am Mar. 30, 2025
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 9:25 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 9:38 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 10:32 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Two Distinct Audiences for Ahistoricity: Mythicists vs. Esotericists
Timothy Freke = Transcendent Freewill
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 8:04 am, Mar. 30, 2025
Max Freakout Productions
Lion Snake in Mithraism & in Gnosticism
Development of a Given Religion (Gnosticism, Eleusis) in 150 AD
Mithras Is Killing / Sacrificing Eternalism
Fine Print in Late Antiquity Religion Marketing Materials
Video: The Demiurge, Marcion and the Corpus Hermeticum – Conversation w @m.davidlitwa
The Evil Creator: Origins of an Early Christian Idea (M. David Litwa, 2021)
Value-Flip from Positive Planets in Classical Antiquity, to Negative Fate Planets in Late Antiquity
Editorial Reviews
“The Devil Created the Eternalism Cosmos Prison; Christ Lifts Us to Escape the Prison of Eternalism, into Transcendent Possibilism” – Early Christianity
The God of the Egodeath theory = The God of Eternalism = Yaldabaoth Lion-Headed Snake, Hypercosmic Fire Breathing (Mithras Leonocephalic snake-wrapped)
the Egodeath theory 1997: Eternalism is the Only, Highest God / Coraxo 2000: There Is a Higher, Above Eternalism
‘Yaldabaoth’ Means Control Instability Chaos: Non-Viable Control from Bad Model of Transcendent Personal Control System Transcendence During Psilocybin Transformation
Tree of Too Much Knowledge, Get Kicked Out Until Washed Robe and Can Pass Gate Eat Tree of life
The Creator of Eternalism Is Sus
Sledgeathon Listening Banquet Party – Videos to Listen
Email 3 to Timothy Freke 8:35 am Mar. 29, 2025 – Su: 2nd-phase Egodeath theory beyond 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism & beginner Unity glimpse
Houot tries to perpetuate the bifurcated war between the Psychedelic Mystics vs. the Psychedelic Scientists, which is a Retarded, Retarding Bifurcation – He Makes No Attempt to Bridge, But Only to Push Away [compare how I hate and push away Neuroscience, b/c that approach deletes/ eliminates a Cognitive approach]
Michael A. Williams Review of Litwa’s Book
21 Books by David Litwa on Christian Origins & Religion in Late Antiquity, Hermetica
Evil Creator is at Audible, Book by David Litwa –
{display hand} Motif = Knowledge of Non/Branching (Email to Cyberdisciple Mar. 28, 2025)
New Page format id’d: the “Article Reaction Page” format
Recently Invented New Type of keyboard shortcut: Citation w/ Link
Brown 2016: keyboard shortcut
Brown 2019: keyboard shortcut
Samorini 1997: keyboard shortcut
Samorini 1998: keyboard shortcut
Huggins: Foraging Wrong – keyboard shortcuts
Hanegraaff – Hermetic Spirituality bk 2022 – keyboard shortcut
Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff book price: $148.84
SPIRITUAL LIBERATIONTM*
*PRODUCT CONTENTS MIGHT NOT MATCH PICTURE ON BOX
Dumped/ Developed Ideas in Rise of the Psychonaut page, moved to below
Generic Book Review by Cybermonk: “This book is not entirely bad; it has a couple good sentences”
Headings Outline of Rise of the Psychonaut
Announcing: Brown Virtual Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art [check name of db in 2019 brown article – not “committee”, failed idea]
Browns’ Dual Dogmatic Pitfalls
ALL YOUR MICA ARE BELONG TO US.
keyboard shortcut for The Holy Mushroom
The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity Paperback – October 29, 2008
Conclusions Section of Brown 2019: “Academically Irresponsible” Thug Bully Force Tactics to Deceive and to Try to Impede Scholarship – Take Note, Sleazy Huggins, DEFENDER of Panofsky-Wasson, the Bad Company You Hang With and Play Cover For: You Deniers Ain’t Lookin’ So Hot, Huggins
Conclusions Section of Brown 2019: “Academically Irresponsible” Wasson
Wasson’s Thug Bully Force Tactics to Deceive and to Try to Impede Scholarship
“Wasson’s Attempt to Force MICA Denial, Which Irvin Complains About? This Is Fine” – Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article
Samorini’ s so-so typology of mushroom-trees
“Conjuring Eden”
New: YI Tree Branching Form Recognized in “Lot’s Wife Pillar of Salt Burning City” Stained Glass Window, March 25, 2025
Yugler Exemplifies Characteristic Modern Corruption and Obscuring of Myth
Perseus Looks at Medusa’s Face
Medusa Is Invisible
Jungianism Sucks Because It Replaces, Not Clarifies, Myth
Correct Use of Analogy
St. Eustace Crossing the River (Chartres Cathedral)
Don’t Cross the Streams
Fav Article Title: J. Z. Smith: “In Comparison a Magic Dwells”
The Key Central Topic of Everything Is, Free Will vs. Determinism [Better: Possibilism vs. Eternalism]
The Term ‘presentism’ is relevant for psychedelic-state metaperception
Outdated Term in Egodeath Lexicon: ‘metaphor’ <– bad, say “analogy”
Presentism
the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
Questionnaire Authors 1) Conjoined Impaired Control + Impaired Cognition into single factor; 2) placed item 54 fear of loss of control into ANX anxiety factor, why?
1) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Made a Single Factor Scoped as ICC; “Impaired Control and Cognition”
2) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Initially Placed OAV’s Item 54 “Fear of Loss of Control” into the ANX “Anxiety” Factor; Should Have Put It into ICC (or better, an IC) Factor Instead
3) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Dropped OAV’s Item 54 “Fear of Loss of Control” into the ANX “Anxiety” Factor; Should Have Put It into ICC (or better, an IC) Factor Instead
4) Griffiths Should Not Have Gathered Initial Item Pool from 11-Factors’s low level factors; Ought to Have Copied from OAV’s Angst Dimension DIRECTLY, to not overlook 8 broad effects items of 21
Alternatively, Grifty could have copied entire “Unpl Exp” hi-lev dim from 11F questionnaire, which includes the 8 “dropped from factors” items, as well as the 7-8 ANX items + 6-7 ICC items
What is Studerus Team Trying to Accomplish with their shiny new heavily marketed low-level “factors”, if those factors FAIL to capture “anxiety about control”??
What a COMPLETELY USELESS, POINTLESS SET OF FACTORS!!
todo: copy emojis
Subsets of Negative Psychedelic Effects that Make Up the 11F qair’s Unpleasant Experiences hi-level dimension (which = OAV’s Angst/ Dread/ DED/ Dread of Ego Death
DED = Dread of Ego Disaster
11f; 11f-m; 11f-l – set of 3 verbosities of shortcut expansion
The Grifty Group & the Stud Group Are Marketing-Driven Psychedelic Pseudo Science
OAV’s Angst/ Dread/ DED Dimension (Dread of Ego Death)
Item 54, “anxiety about control”, Fails to Fit Only into Our “Anxiety” Factor or “Control” Factor — So, Simply Drop It!
todo: –> copy emojis
Griffiths Team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science
Has Anyone Seen the Buddha Statue?? Matt? What Have You Done with It?
THUS THE MALFORMED 11F BEGAT MALFORMED CEQ, CREATING THE YALDABAOTH OF QUESTIONNAIRES
Low-IQ Chris Letheby/ Philosophy Department False-Dilemma Debate: “Which One Exists: Mind, or Matter?” – Irrelevant for the All-Important Control Transformation Experience
keyboard shortcuts: kws: from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
Phase: Blank Books Self Help Cajoling, vs. Binder Sheets + Acronyms Definition Notation like [MCP] with Pentel P205 Mech Pencil
Phase: Create Core 2-level Egodeath Core Theory: Reach Eternalism; Phase: Add Myth Analogy, History of Religious Myth; 3-Phase/3-Level Model (Transcend Eternalism)
4-Hour Productive Voice Recording Sat. Mar 15, 2025
Slow, Buggy, Drainy App
Breakthrough: Wasson’s Private View vs. Wasson’s Public View (They Differ; He Is a Liar)
WordPress Mobile App
Pagels’ First 3 Books Compatible with the Egodeath Theory
Video: The Valentinians: Ancient Christian Gnostics? (ReligionForBreakfast, 2022)
Beginner Perennialism & Esotericism: 10% Beginner Unity Glimpse + 1% Advanced Unity + 0% Control Transformation Though That’s 95% Bulk of Transformation
Set of 3 Incoherent Assertions Made About Treatise on the 8th & 9th: Which Sphere # Contains the Fixed Stars (which are Fate), If Rising Above Sphere 7 Saturn = Rising Above Fate?
Wouter Hanegraaff & Followers: “Whether the number 8 should be included with the number 7 or should instead be placed after 7 remains an open question for me.”
Paul Davidson & Wouter Hanegraaff Can’t Count to 8, Contradict Which Sphere # Contains Fixed Stars
The Losing Framing: A zero-sum fight between which is true: freewill, or causal-chain determinism
I hate irrelevant, causal-chain determinism! And freewill isn’t the case at the underlying level! A Lose/Lose Debate of Folly, Buffet of Folly
Neuroscience Is the Enemy of the Cognitive Phenomenology-Based Explanatory Framework Realm
Gain Split-Level Compatibilism (Better Characterization of the Outcome than “Gain Eternalism” or “Gain Qualified Possibilism-Thinking Including Eternalism-Thinking”
bull facing right means you are looking from POV outside the cosmos , outside the sphere of the fixed stars. per David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism.
this hypercosmic POV = you are outside of & above Fatedness/ heimarmene/ cosmic frozen rock of 4D Spacetime, per Late Antiquity mystery religions via entheogenic experience of hyper-eternalism
if u have picture of u holding arm. sphere, it means u r enlightened w gnosis wisdom
which u r, so.
the sun & planets & sphere of stars revolves around a SPHERICAL earth. not around a flat earth! 😑
Like Hanegraaff, Paul Davidson (the video’s script author) can’t bring himself to mention his “precious” magic word ‘Ogdoad’ (cosmic sphere 8) in the same sentence as “evil” fate-soaked ‘fixed stars’ – a contradictory mess of a narrative results.
Hermetic Writing Title “The Eighth Reveals the Ninth” Proves that I Am Right
when u hang out 2000-2025 theorizing about transcend eternalism, and learn to stand on right foot in Psilocybin, using egoic personal control system (washed clean), to have stable control, you have then moved from … graduated from sphere 8 to sphere 9 the pleroma. –
Never since the album liner notes for Free Will seen such dubious triple-negatives:
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/discorse.html — son, write this book for the temple at Diospolis in hieroglyphic characters, entitling it ‘The Eighth Reveals the Ninth.'”
“I will do it, my <father>, as you command now.”
“My <son>, write the language of the book on steles of turquoise.
“My son, it is proper to write this book on steles of turquoise, in hieroglyphic characters.
“For Mind himself has become overseer of these.
“Therefore, I command that this teaching be carved on stone, and that you place it in my sanctuary.
“Eight guardians guard it with […] of the Sun [David Ulansey’s Mithraism hypercosmic sun].
“The males on the right are frog-faced, and the females on the left are cat-faced.
“And put a square milk-stone at the base of the turquoise tablets, and write the name on the azure stone tablet in hieroglyphic characters.
“My son, you will do this when I am in Virgo, and the sun is in the first half of the day, and fifteen degrees have passed by me.”
“My father, everything that you say I will do eagerly.”
“And write an oath in the book, lest those who read the book bring the language into abuse, and not (use it) to oppose the acts of fate. Rather, they should submit to the law of God, without having transgressed at all, but in purity asking God for wisdom and knowledge.
“And he who will not be begotten at the start by God comes to be by the general and guiding discourses.
“He will not be able to read the things written in this book, although his conscience is pure within him, since he does not do anything shameful, nor does he consent to it.
“Rather, by stages he advances and enters into the way of immortality.
“And thus he enters into the understanding of the eighth that reveals the ninth.”
“So shall I do it, my father.”
“This is the oath: I make him who will read this holy book swear by heaven and earth, and fire and water, and seven rulers of substance, and the creating spirit in them, and the <unbegotten> God, and the self-begotten one, and him who has been begotten, that he will guard the things that Hermes has said.
“And those who keep the oath, God will be reconciled with them and everyone whom we have named.
“But wrath will come to each one of those who violate the oath. This is the perfect one who is, my son.”
4D-Transcendent Graduation Day for the Egodeath Theory
apr 3 2025
Upgrade Notice for Transcendent Knowledge PhDs: the PhD has been Upgraded so as to Include Hyper-Eternalism; doubled in value
Litwa’s title for 8th/9th is very interesting: “The Eighth Reveals the Ninth”, supports The Egodeath Theory — now with Hyper-Eternalism!TM
Wisdom? not so much, in this video 😄
At least Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff admits he’s stumped, in a footnote:
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn, sphere 7] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [sphere 8] remains an open question for me.” 🤡🌌
Hanegraaff thanked me for info about that, so ok 🤷♂️
ordered the new Hermetica I book – by David Litwa – & “Cosmology in Antiquity” book to further prove my model of astral ascent mysticism – bound for hyper-eternalism! 😇👼🚀 beyond fixed stars, in the Pleroma with the Aeons spirits.
cosmic sphere 9 outside the sphere of the fixed stars is sometimes called “the Pleroma” it seems – same level as Mithraism’s precession of the equinoxes; = transcend no-free-will/ Fatedness; become spiritual, per Late Antiquity.
/ end of messages texts copypaste
Houot Withholds His Milestone Discovery per Rise of the Psychonaut: Guess: altered state aliens contact us
Houot’s Brand of (Immature, Irrational, Mentally Ill) Religion, Marketed as “Science”
Houot’s silly brand of science fiction religion with mental alien entities contact in your mind when tripping but selling/marketing/ advertising his tripping as “science explorer discoverer” – A CALL TO POSTURING.
Houot insults religion, yet delivers his own made-up flimsy religion that he calls “Science”, by which he means, take firm control of the wheel of the mental space ship, to steer through the branching manyworlds physical external cosmos and do trade with mental space aliens. T
The closest Houot comes to mentioning the true Physics religion of 4D Spacetime Mysticism is to mention “relativistic” then immed emphasize Quantum” because Houot worships Quantum Mysticism false religion
he believes in the religion of Quantum Mysticism , ignorant of the true religion of 4D Spacetime Mysticism includugin hyper-eternalism / transcendent compatibilism
transcendent compatibilism tc NOT a mere armchair, Phil dept position; it means you are able to endure Psilocybin and have been purified to stand on right foot and pass gate, finally keyboard shortcut for rev 22 14:
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” – Revelation 22:14 (the last page of the Bible), NIV
fkking awesome keyboard shortcut type! quotes hell yeah. far better than any mere psychedelic is Mythic Plane Amanita, the Super Psychedelic!! <– keyboard shortcut??
Mythic-Plane Amanita, the Super-Psychedelic!!
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion: of secret cults and societies of initiates and whispered lost knowledge.” – Dale Pendell, Pharmako Gnosis, first sentence of Amanita chapter dpam
I HATE the 2nd part! Except when I am focusing on the Secret Amanita paradigm.
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.” – Dale Pendell, Pharmako Gnosis dpa
Pharmako Gnosis: Plant Teachers and the Poison Path Dale Pendell
4D Spacetime Mysticism fdsm ok fsm ok 4sm fail
4D spacetime fds ok 4s fail 4d fail
todo: add to Rise of the Psychonaut page this answer:
p. 254 – Houot withholds what he thinks the “grand gesture” will be. “what the defining grand gesture of the Psychedelic Age of Discovery will look like … what I think the grand gesture will be … what moment will define the coming Psychedelics Age of Discovery … to galvanized ppl around a crystallzn point re: exploration of Other Worlds, prize equiv to circumnavg world; traverse continent or solar system, XPRIZE of psychedelic exploration figuring out what?”
what the defining grand gesture of the Psychedelic Age of Discovery will look like … what I think the grand gesture will be … what moment will define the coming Psychedelics Age of Discovery … to galvanized ppl around a crystallzn point re: exploration of Other Worlds, prize equiv to circumnavg world; traverse continent or solar system, XPRIZE of psychedelic exploration figuring out what?
p 254, Rise of the Psychonaut , Houot
Answer: Per the Egodeath theory <- brand name the Egodeath theory of psychedelic hyper-eternalism the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism the theory of psychedelic hyper-eternalism the theory of psychedelic eternalism: <- descriptive neutral direct theory descriptor brand name + descriptive specifier: the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism
The “hyper-” specifier fits better in first sentence than in short name of the theory.
per the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism:
1) We discover Jan 1988 that no-free-will = ego transcendence.
2) We transcend eternalism. [i was writing about this in 2001, 2007 article integrates it, March 2025 I emphasize best kind of Compatibilism in Marketing framing introducing ppl to Egodeath theory]
3) We figure out how to have stable self-control in Psilocybin. [I think of stand on right foot — when did i fully explain stand on right foot motif / technique? feel my March 2025 work on POSITIONING, characterizing. TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT I EMPHASIZE THAT NO-FREE-WILL/ ETERNALISM IS THE CASE, ALSO TO THAT EXTENT EMPHASIZE FREEWILL EXPERIENCING/ THINKING; VIRTUAL FREEWILL – = A BALANCED VIABLE MODEL & VIABLE FOR MARKETING / COMMUNICATING THE THEORY]
We reach cosmos sphere 9 the Pleroma above outside of eternalism.
We transcend no-free-will.
We reach the cosmic sphere of hyper-eternalism, penetrate through the sphere of the fixed stars.
Rise of the Psychonaut Uses Conventional Debate Position Terms that I NEVER Employ
“sacred” – I never write that word.
“divine” – I never write that word.
The fact that I never employ Houot’s KEY terms, is a big red flag and highly valuable clue that something is off-base — same exact situation within the Mysticism Wars:
“mystical” – I never employ that word in my core theory. I explain the mental dynamics that OTHER people label as “mystical”. I do an anti-Mystical approach to explain that which other ppl call “mystical”.
“naturalism materialism secular” – I never write that word.
“secular” – I never write that word. I never employ that word. I imagine if you search the present site and Egodeath Yahoo Group Max Freakout archive & Egodeath.com, 0 hits on ‘secular’ – it is literally not part of my vocab and CERTAINLY isn’t a part of my lexicon for core theory per
the Egodeath theory is the analogical psychedelic eternalism dependence explanatory model of X
Note the form above:
<theory brand name> is the <character descriptors key words> explanatory model of <referent explanandum>
<variable 1> is the <variable 2> explanatory model of <variable 3>
the Egodeath theory is the analogical psychedelic eternalism dependence explanatory model of ego transcendence [confirmed per 97 subtitle below]; satori [0 hits in 1997 spec – check 2007 main article]; enlightenment [7 hits in 1997]
“The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death explains what is revealed in religious revelation and in enlightenment, including the nature of personal control agency.”
“The essence and origin of religion is the…”
good wording there:
“Self-control stability is restored upon transforming one’s mental model to take into account the dependence of personal control on a hidden, separate thought-source, such as Necessity or a divine level that transcends Necessity.”
(“transcend Necessity” – i didn’t say you can transcend Necessity; i said GOD could perhaps do so)
the 2007 Summary/Intro conclusion para:
“Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation. Religious initiation teaches and causes this transformation of the self considered as a control-agent, through a series of visionary-plant sessions, interspersed with study of perennial(!) philosophy. Most modern-era religion has been a distortion of this standard initiation system, reducing these concepts to a weak interpretation that is based in the ordinary state of consciousness.”
around apr 1 2025, noted: Mithraic lion-headed gatekeeper figure — SNAKE HEAD IS ABOVE HIS HEAD!! David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism misses that? Supposedly the lion’s head is above sphere of the fixed stars ; above heimarmene – BUT, YET, the snake’s head is still ABOVE the lion’s head!
that 2007 article section cites (“Heimarmene or universal fatedness was centrally important in ancient astrological cosmology (Barton 1994), and was a major theme in Hellenistic-Roman astral ascent mysticism and religion (Cumont 1960). Transcending astral fatedness“): https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Astrology-Sciences-Antiquity-Tamysn/dp/0415110297/ —
Ancient Astrology Tamysn Barton, 1994, Routledge Part of: Sciences of Antiquity (9 books) Blurb: “An account of astrology from its beginnings in Mesopotamia, focusing on the Greco-Roman world, Ancient Astrology examines the theoretical development and changing social and political role of astrology.”
Cosmology in Antiquity [ordered] Rosemary Wright Part of: Sciences of Antiquity (9 books) “Examines the cosmological theories of the `natural philosophers’ from Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes to Plato, the Stoics and the NeoPlatonists. Also discusses and emphasizes the importance of Babylonian and Egyptian forerunners.” Chapters include:
at 1:20:00, Sledge rejects both errors (just like Brown positions themself as centrist by rejecting mushroom imagery in Christian art (St. Walburga tapestry, definitely not Amanita) and affirming it by also at the same time displaying that same art in beautiful gallery of awesome instances of definite Amanita imagery in Christian art):
Avoid psychedelics eliminativism – I agree, that is baloney.
Avoid DMT reductionism (“it’s always DMT”).
Sledge means: Avoid entheogenic reductionism; avoid saying that the way esotericists accessed the altered state of consciousness was always psychedelics.
Sledge is wrong. This is false centrism.
In fact, the way ppl had the altered state of consciousness sufficient for mental model transformation is always, exclusively psychedelics, no other method.
That’s my official firm position.
My Wussy Half-Truth in 1997 like the traditional methods of the mystics are non-drug entheogens
“There are multiple triggers for the dissociative cognitive state, including psychedelics, meditation, schizophrenia, sensory deprivation, hyperventilation, temporal-lobe epilepsy, UFO abduction, and near-death experiences.” – Michael Hoffman 1997
“the” dissociative state? maybe, but that is BS, in that it is not sufficient to cause mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism. “DIZZY DOESN’T COUNT” – Michael Hoffman slogan.
“Dizzy Doesn’t Count”
{balance scale} = BS
I give NO credit to claims of “the traditional methods of the mystics” that are allegedly non-drug.
Non-drug entheogens is academic balony, with ZERO substantiation. It is pure doctrinal positioning, a circle of academics pleasing each other, not reality.
Heavy breathing makes you dizzy – it does not cause mental model transformation, mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism. which is the only thing that’s relevant for this debate.
My authority: My leading-edge father in 1980 led me in Grof BS Breathing. It is way way way too weak. weak!
keyboard shortcut for my 2004 “Entheogenic Esotericism” post
“Authentic esotericism is entheogenic esotericism. Entheogens are the key to esotericism. This is the simplest possible theory of esotericism, and the most natural, the least contrived and strained. Theories of esotericism that are not based on entheogens suffer from the problem of grandiose verbiage, unmet promises and claims, chronic vagueness, excuses for lack of potent and prompt efficacy, and no ability to deliver the experiences which are talked about. Drug-free esotericism doesn’t work; it is not effectively ergonomic.” – Michael Hoffman, Egodeath Yahoo Group, June 12, 2004
that lacks definition: “sufficient for mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism” – note also: hyper-eternalism
When You Think of Psychedelics Extremism, Think Egodeath theory
I agree, Justin Sledge, it is always Psilocybin, never DMT. Do not say it’s always DMT. It is always Psilocybin. (It is never Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens.)
Per hardline Egodeath theory:
No one ever had mystic experiernc any way other than Psilocybin.
Academics lie when they emphatically proclaim their DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF FAITH that “there are many ways to produce same effect as Psilocybin” – LIARS CLUB. Fabricicated alt methods do not work, defined as: they do not produce sufficient effect. re strength or reliablility. note however, Cuebensis is not as reliable or ergonomic as blotter. Cubensis is hard to worrk with, for Psilocybin transformation.
Top Pri Topics/Pages
Important Existing Draft Pages to Publish
How Branching and Non-Branching Depicts the Two Models of Possibility and Control
Can We Have Stable Control on Psychedelics?
I want to take two pages out of Draft mode and publish them, then fill them in & move my sections of writing around, to cover the 3 topics that are listed in this existing page title:
What Did I Discover? For Houot per Rise of the Psychonaut. i can draft that in above page.
I won’t ever publish the pages on tough/important topics if I wait til they are filled with content.
Recent fast and dirty way of working on idea development here at WordPress here: draft live first, clean up (move around) later.
This site ranges all the way from idea development pages that are freeform, yet have headings & toc, to formal polished articles.
Ideas for Branching-message mushroom trees Article
Not handholding of every instance of the 4 motifs.
Give the general interp theory, give separately the gallery, and point out a few selected things about each gallery picture; don’t even TRY to write at the level of indivdual pics.
LET THE DATA SPK FOR ITESLEF when accompanied by my 3 summary models.
Use more separation: over here the 3 summary models; over there the selected gallery of images.
NOT like present draft that’s a gallery OF COMMENTARY POINTS.
do not make the article a catalog of all, specific, paritcular commentary points.
Step back; let the execellent 3 system summaries do the work, indirectly.
don’t make the “obvious” points.
just give the top non-obvious, most interesting points about each image.
Knowing that no-free-will is the case, while acting apparently “like” freewill is the case.
Higher mind rider of donkey knows no-free-will is the case; lower mind donkey acts like freewill is the case.
Mytheme decoding: {rider above donkey on path}
The Best Kind of “Compatibilism”.
Knowing that no-free-will is the case, while acting apparently “like” freewill is the case.
Higher mind rider of donkey knows no-free-will is the case; lower mind donkey acts like freewill is the case.
3 Models to Summarize in Branching-Message Mushroom Trees Article: Psilocybin Transformation; Astral Ascent Mysticism; Mushroom-Trees
Structure of Branching-message mushroom trees article: Deliver 3 Model summaries, and then the gallery with minimal commentary.
The Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism & Psilocybin transformation. Include hyper-eternalism.
summary of astral ascent mysticism per the Egodeath theory.
summary of mushroom-trees genre: branching-message mushroom trees; the combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Gallery, with minimal notes – just hints and announcements. Low wordcount. Sparse commentary; terse. Just the best – NOT routine pointing out of every instance/aspect of motifs of {mushrooms}, {branching} , {handedness}, and & {stability}. I’m more interested in just commenting on the advanced ideas, like {gate}, like {rider above donkey on path}.
EgodeathTheory site is an Advanced, Leading-Edge, Working, Idea Development Site, Not Polished Publishing
The content is neat and good in the Egodeath Yahoo Group archive, but, stuff gets lost there.
As messy as this WordPress site is, it seems more organized that the Egodeath Yahoo Group.
I never liked the organization threading arrangement at the Egodeath Yahoo Group.
WordPress here is more organized, even if less polished because
THIS IS A WORKING IDEA DEVELOPMENT SITE, not, mainly, a polished articles site.
News Flash! Houot’s Ship Taken for Ransom by Pirates, Dionysus Brings It to a Halt with Vines, Saves the Pilot Who Honors Dionysus; Lion & Bear Kill the Captain
Sailing the Acid-Trip Ocean Lyrics by Bob Daisley —
Photo: CybermonkPhoto: Cybermonk
Egodeath Mystery Show About Scientific Exploration Discovery Field Log Notebook of Visionary Technologies of Seeing Looking Using Astrolabe Armillary Sphere Compass Navigation Tools Rational Explicit Map of Cognitive Phenomenology and Illuminating, SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF Psilocybin Hyper-Eternalism Transformation that underlies common-core mysticism and perennialism after you throw away the baggage noise and {lift the lid} to {reveal} the {veiled snake engine} and are {sacrificed to be made athanatos}
Photo: Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., Egodeath Mystery Show
Seventy-three men sailed up From the San Francisco Bay Rolled off of their ship, and here’s what they had to say “We’re callin’ everyone to ride along to another shore We can laugh our lives away and be free once more”
But no one heard them callin’ No one came at all ‘Cause they were too busy watchin’ those old raindrops fall As a storm was blowin’ out on the peaceful sea Seventy-three men sailing off to history
Ride, captain ride upon your mystery ship Be amazed at the friends you have here on your trip Ride captain ride upon your mystery ship On your way to a world that others might have missed
Seventy-three men sailed up from the San Francisco Bay Got off the ship, and here’s what they had to say “We’re callin’ everyone to ride along to another shore We can laugh our lives away and be free once more”
Ride, captain ride upon your mystery ship Be amazed at the friends you have here on your trip Ride captain ride upon your mystery ship On your way to a world that others might have missed
Ride, captain ride upon your mystery ship Be amazed at the friends you have here on your trip
Moving Past Bifurcation in Psychedelic Science (Email to Alan Houot, Apr. 1, 2025)
Hi Alan,
Looking forward to reading my printout of the Sociedelic book review.
When I’m thinking smaller-picture, I focus on your advocacy being for Science, at the expense of Religion or suchlike – sometimes, you treat mysticism as mental illness, immaturity, and irrationality.
I guess I partly agree with that withering view: they are not fit for science exploration & discovery.
That’s a hard part of your book to overlook.
I’m trying to evaluate your ideas beyond that sticking point.
I try to respect “both sides”.
But when I think on a bigger scale, it is remarkable how the entire field of Psychedelic Science right now is intensely split in a battle between:
A low-quality, narrow-minded “science” approach. Mascot: Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson. vs. A low-quality, narrow-minded conception of “religion” or “mysticism” or suchlike. Mascot: Roland Griffiths.
The takeaway lesson for my framing of my theory of Psilocybin transformation:
I love STEM, and I love esoteric religion but hate its garbled expression.
The main, highest job of Science, and a Science-type explanatory framework, is to explain the best aspect of religion or Transcendent Knowledge – and reject poor wording that esotericism or mysticism uses; aim for clear, textbook-style presentation instead.
* Chris Letheby (psychedelic Phil. dept) writes insultingly of mysticism – but in a way, so do I. Letheby wrote an article titled: How to Win the Mysticism Wars.
* Matthew Johnson filed ethics violations complaints against his own Griffiths Hopkins team, which can’t ever(?) publish the 2016 Psilocybin research on religious professionals.
Johnson accuses science of pushing newage spirituality; he sides with hardcore extremist materialist naturalist scientists against mystical woo – a bifurcation that you and everyone & I should reconcile. That’s hard work, but:
Science is worthless and lazy and empty bragging, if it fails to explain Psilocybin transformation, and worse, if it fails to even TRY to explain the merit underneath the noise in religious revelation & mental transformation.
The Mysticism Wars = The battle within Psychedelic Science, between the Scientific Psychedelic Scientists (Johnson) vs. the Mystical Psychedelic Scientists (Roland Griffiths).
Matthew Johnson (Griffiths Hopkins group that blew up and is no more) participates in the article debate series “Moving Past Mysticism”.
Must-read, this chain of some 10 articles: Check out the wording in the titles:
High Mysticism: On the interplay between the psychedelic movement and academic study of mysticism (Baier, 2021)
Mystical experiences without mysticism: An argument for mystical fictionalism in psychedelics (Garb & Earleywine 2022)
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Chris Letheby [Phil.] 2024)
The Most Controversial Paperin the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day: Was the Psychedelic Renaissance Led by Science or Faith? (Travis Kitchens 2025) – w/ help from my colleague Cyberdisciple – re: Hopkins’ 2016 Religious Professionals psil. sessions
Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation – relevance: Houot advocates “phenomenology”, but I like Benny Shanon’s approach to that more, and especially the approach in this article.
todo: Re-title my “Moving Past Mysticism” page to the above wording; my current title is too special-purpose advocating my own theory as better than either of the two debate positions.
todo: make a “reference” subset page that is ONLY citations & excerpts, without my commentary. Need separate pages: 1 for citations, 1 for commentary.
Houot’s Categories of 3 Approaches per Sociedelic Review: Healing; Spirituality; Science
“The Hermetic corpus is a spiritual and intellectual treasure stemming from ancient Egyptian sages who could write and think in Greek.
“Since the Renaissance, this corpus has appeared in an order that does not fit the path of spiritual initiation suggested by the corpus itself.
“The present edition reorders the corpus—including the Latin Asclepius and the Nag Hammadi Hermetica—into four progressing parts: introductory tractates, general discourses, detailed discourses, and revelatory discourses.
“A short spiritual commentary follows each tractate.
“The book is written for all lovers of the Hermetica, but in particular for those who are willing, in some sense, to join the way of immortality.”
Timothy Freke: Reconcile Individual & Nondual; eternalism & possibilism; altered state & ordinary state
Freke’s adjustments late in theorizing are like mine.
Per Ken Wilber – “embrace and include” both views.
Respecting & reconciling both Science & Spirituality (Email sent L 2:06 pm Mar. 30, 2025)
Houot in Rise of the Psychonaut sides with Naturalism Science against spirituality, which is – he says MOST of the time in Rise of the Psychonaut – irrational, immature, even mentally ill.
He extremely (usually) takes sides.
Houot is merely a symptom of the rift and bifurcation that runs through the middle of entire field of Psychedelic Science.
The “Moving Past Mysticism” article debate within Psychedelic Science.
The mystic scientists vs the anti-mysticism scientists, within Psychedelic Science.
Matthew Johnson filed ethics violations complaints against his Griffiths Hopkins team for introducing spirituality in the research.
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)
translation: disrespect spirituality, grant us Materialist Naturalist Scientists the win. Reject “any esotericism” (Houot p. 10).
Rather, instead, what are ways to reconcile forms of science & forms of spirituality?
Include Least Dogma & inclusiveness.
The problem is not Houot; he is a symptom of the divide.
_______
Polishing my presentation for Eric S, to put forth a model of Psilo maturation/ Psilo transformation
I cannot hold myself to too high of a standard here. Have to cut myself some slack.
I can’t shoulder all burden of reconciling the parties that fall into polarization.
I will make an effort to reconcile, even as I put forth a specific, useful, clear model of Psilo transformation & myth & art motifs –
I shall present two contrasting views together, that both have distinct, big parts to play as a sacred marriage of two ways of thinking – a specific kind of compatibilism of two distinct ways of thinking.
— Michael
Email to Timothy Freke Mar. 29, 2025 7:44 am – Su: Egodeath updates, rebirth into eternalism then transcending heimarmene in Late Antiquity [1 email in thread]
Hi Timothy,
Be sure to see my 2020-era WordPress site, massive evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The timing of Jesus Mysteries book & underground conversation w/ you & Gandy about censorship of entheogens, was perfect.
Nov. 2020 huge breakthrough in Great Canterbury Psalter and genre of mushroom-trees but so huge, it still continues in 2025:
Day 1 of creation – everyone is looking at this comic page in Great Canterbury Psalter since 2000 (Paul Lindgren found), but, only I in 2025 finally saw:
the pans of God’s {balance scale} in Day 1 of Creation are indicated as filled with mushrooms, b/c day 4’s mushrooms point up to {balance scale} pans:
when Psalter reader lifts his R finger higher than L, he is attacked (loss of control); lower R finger slightly lower than L, means relying on R foot to get control stability on Psilocybin / Cubensis, then the army threat backs off: control stability returns:
I’m trying to figure out if I have your Hermetica book 2008 and if that’s same as your 2022 Hermetica book.
I heard back from Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff – I wrote “entheogenic esotericism” 8 years before his keynote of that title,
and I fixed his broken cosmos model / astral ascent mysticism —
his Hermetical altered states book is unable to place the stars b/c he is too against no-free-will / eternalism/ Fate.
He can’t handle the shocking proposition of rebirth that is mainly into Fate/ heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism (w/ only a bit, above that into transcendent virtual possibilism / virtual freewill power).
Listening to Demiurge / Archons vids on ESOTERICA Dr. Justin Sledge YouTube channel. = eternalism and rising higher than the heimarmene-soaked stars that Wouter Hanegraaff can’t deal with.
– Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com – the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism, & transcending a litle, into qualified possibilism (virtual freewill)
email to Timothy Freke: AM Houot’s book Rise of the Psychonaut advocates “Science”, doesn’t grasp Transcendent Knowledge – 8:12 am Mar 30 2025
Hi Timothy,
In his new book Rise of the Psychonaut, Houot (“Ooh-Oh”) perpetuates the rigid standoff between “Science” (good) vs. “Religion” or “Spirituality” (bad).
He’s really pushy about that, though at spots in his book, he makes slight reconciliatory noise.
Hubristic, and he cautions against being closed minded but he is closed minded, identified as “naturalism” and materialism science
– count me out, that’s not the correct way to do STEM applied to Transcendent Knowledge & Psilocybin exploration.
The Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science: Stupid old standoff between bunk “science” vs. bunk “religion”:
In a bad way, Houot is inspiring me to bridge Science-done-right w/ Religion-done-right.
. . . . perceives him as autistic, no feelings, & churlish – socially not harmonious.
He will attend my psychedelic church book club meeting, connected w/ Erik Davis.
Led Zep IV book by Erik Davis 2005 covers my basic model that terminates in no-free-will / eternalism – he missed that I was then starting to work on adding Late Antiquity’s aspiration to “transcend heimarmene”.
Davis p. 118: astral ascent mysticism, but little sense of above the the sphere of the fixed stars per David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism, is higher level: precession of equinoxes, sphere 9, above fixed stars, = transcend no-free-will/ heimarmene (but only the spirit pokes through, that high up – subject to Fate still).
Davis p. 122 – the Egodeath theory – no indication that I was starting to add theme, “transcend heimarmene/ transcend no-free-will sort of”
Classical Antiquity Psilocybin transformation terminated in heimarmene and worshipped Necessity / block-universe determinism / block-universe eternalism.
Late Antiquity: Psilocybin transformation: culture then flipped against heimarmene and claimed to transcend Fate. All brands claimed to transcend Fate. Aim above heimarmene. Still, rebirth really is into eternalism, 8/9 – then a little above that, in the Ennead, sphere 9.
I explained for Wouter Hanegraaff b/c he cannot figure out where to put stars!
Bridge STEM and satori revelation (Ramesh Balsekar: no-free-will = enlightenment):
As I’ve been doing forever: 1988, 1997 core theory outline; 2000 added myth, ~2003 added per Late Antiquity “transcend no-free-will”:
Jan 1988 breakthrough, “here is what Satori revelation is ACTUALLY about, from STEM explanation successful.
2000, started adding Psilocybin religious myth;
2013 started adding art motifs,
2020 added {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs – success & received lots of corroboration every step of the way.
— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism
email 2 Freke: Houot book Rise of the Psychonaut advocates Science, doesn’t grasp Transcendent Knowledge – 8:28 am Mar. 30, 2025
At my psychedelic church’s book club, author of Rise of the Psychonaut will join the meeting.
Houot is bad: he reflects the stupid battle perpetual standoff between junk “Science” vs junk “Spirituality”; which is reflected throughout the broad field including within the Hopkins Psilocybin group, which was split apart and terminated due to that dysfunctional rift.
Big news, implosion of field of Psychedelic Science & the Psychedelic RenaissanceTM:
Matthew “lose the buddha statue” Johnson FILED ETHICS VIOLATIONS COMPLAINTS against his Roland Griffiths team, which DISBANDED – trouble in Psychedelic Science Land.
Hopkins Griffiths can’t ever publish their 2016 much-ballyhooed Psilocybin research administered to religious professionals?! Written up in New Yorker a year ago.
Johnson accuses the mystical Psychedelic Scientists of corrupting Science research by pushing newage cult. He wants extremist Naturalism – I reject their imbalanced notion of Naturalist Science.
Houot, key Question: Do you believe that Transcendent Knowledge exists?
He does not; he disparages ALL ESOTERIC & SPIRITUAL, it is all immature trash to REJECT blanket; scorched earth.
The Moving Past Mysticism dust-up debate, fight; the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science.
“Ending the Mysticism Wars” (by trashcanning & disrespecting all mysticism, declaring victory for the materialist psychedelics scientists side) is the article title by mediocre psychedelics philosopher Chis Letheby, who sides with Matthew Johnson & the cartoon Materialist hardcore Naturalist Scientists CONDEMNING/ rejecting ALL THINGS MYSTICAL, in all ways — same as the author Houot who will join the book club meeting.
Solution at 3 levels:
tiny level: Teach author Houot to respect mysticism and reconcile science & religion.
Reject the industry’s adversarial attitude of “us superior rational scientists vs you muddled immature mystics”.
local level: at my psychedelic church: per pastor: “Least Dogma” commitment: be inclusive and bridge the two warring half baked positions.
Big Picture entire field: reconcile culture standoff pitting junk Science vs junk Religion.
— Michael
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 9:25 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Hi Timothy,
Before I’m contaminated by hearing your view on your topic you are interested in:
The author took down his great article about the Egodeath theory & altered state perception:
Article: Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
I recently got the conference book that has the article, and I probably have copies on my drive. I read-aloud on Egodeath Mystery Show podcast; read it a few times.
Engineering key words:
* Useful
* Relevant
Unlike Phil dept. Though Kant seems good. I dislike continental Phen’y like Houot advocates, in dissertation & Rise of the Psychonaut.
for blotter or Psilo loose cognitive state, of loose cognitive association binding.
— Michael Hoffman
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 9:38 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Hi Timothy,
Article attached:
Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
2014
Excellent, ideal article, for basics of the Egodeath theory circa 1987.
Glad I found the article document. Attached. The article is published in this book – maybe there’s a YouTube video of the talk:
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness
2014 Cameron Adams (Editor), David Luke (Editor), Anna Waldstein (Editor), Ben Sessa (Editor), David King (Editor)
Also my copy with more white space — though lately, I would do one sentence per paragraph – tons of white space, to read-aloud on Egodeath Mystery Show.
— Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 10:32 am, Mar. 29, 2025
Correction: My followers/colleagues’ names of 25 years, maybe I will memorize them:
this article author. Bio at end of article.
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com Classics scholar & expert in the Egodeath theory. He is cited in article by Dr. Jerry Brown at Graham Hancock site rebutting Thomas Hatsis who is a denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
You have written about no-free-will, entheogens, ahistoricity, therefore can easily study the Egodeath theory.
— Michael Hoffman
Two Distinct Audiences for Ahistoricity: Mythicists vs. Esotericists
In an interview with Tim Freke, Derick Lambert at MythVision YouTube channel differentiates his TWO OPPOSITE AUDIENCES re: ahistoricity:
Mythicists – stunted. Jesus didn’t exist, yes he did, no he didn’t. DEAD END. Negative mythicism [my term].
Esotericists – what’s important is positive comprehension of religious myth in the Psilocybin state. Positive mythicism [my term].
Timothy Freke = Transcendent Freewill
Timothy Freke tf
transcendent freewill tfw
Su: Why I am a perceptual dualist: experiential realm relating to external world – email to Timothy Freke, 8:04 am, Mar. 30, 2025
Hi Timothy,
Please send me your thick chapter about entheogens that the publisher mostly deleted from the Jesus Mysteries book.
5:07 am Mar. 29, 2025 archons Esoterica episode: serpent lion yaldabaoth = Leonocephalic –
who has a snake body & lion head?
sledge doesn’t mention Mithraism and should.
Leonocephalic snakewrapped
Yaldabaoth lion head snake body
previous
Development of a Given Religion (Gnosticism, Eleusis) in 150 AD
I previously posted, in emailing T Fontaine, that Eleusinian mysteries lasted so long, they spanned the Great Pivot Point from aiming for ehim, heimarmene, to aiming a little above Heimarmene. Diddnt it mst have changed w the times per Marketing dept?
Diddn’t Sledge say in previous videio, Demiurge was neutral until 150 AD then Seth made Bad Archon, prison wardens, evil Demiurge – near end of Gnosticism 3 videio by ESOTERICA utoob ch. says that very popular in early Christianity was exterme anti-cosmicism ie extreme extreme EXTREME ANTI-ETERNALISM concept driving religion. Anti-Cosmic era of Gnosticvism = 150 AD = the start … the flip against grandpa’s heimarmene-worshhip = anti-eternalism, then the heresy hunters pushed against the extremely popular early form of Christianity that was themed extreme anti-eternalism ie anti cosmicism that held that the Creator of the Fate-ruled cosmoos was evil, world = prison, gnosis [3:00 in “What is the Demiurge – Ptt 3 – Simon Magus & the Gnostic Revolution] which i have to mention April D DeConick book The Gnostic New Age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfG0w4k6EA8&t=200s – “prison, escape above outisde to our true home the spirit realm of hypercosmic light”- i mix in David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism. WAITING AND WAITING FOR SLEDGE TO MENTION Mithraism. HE NEVER mentions when I expect him to.
The Mithras Liturgy – Mystical Ascent in the Mystery Cult of Mithras ESOTERICA 834K subscribers Apr 9, 2021 “The Mithras Cult was among the most popular new religious movements of the Roman Empire though very little is known of its rituals or mythology. [“new” – compare end of Demiurge 3 ep he says i think, Prison Warden Demiurge version of Gnosticism started 150 AD]
“This episode explores the one of the only surviving texts – a liturgy for mystical ascent promising a mystical vision of the Mithras as a solar [no, hypercosmic sun] deity and nothing short of immortality.”
/ end of blurb – at 4:33 shows statue tauroctony where left guy weight L non-bent leg, torch aim up right guy weight R non-bent leg, torch aim down proving the Egodeath theory is false, disconfirmed the science hypothesis so instantly abandon the hypothesis because BEEN DEBUNKED, that is how Science works, per the just-so story – that HISTORIANS (not pie-sky theorists) of science say is false.
According to grade-school tale of “how Science works”, when a theory is disconfirmed, you abandon it.
Acording to historians of science, when a theory is disconfirmed, you lie and make excuses and double down and force it on others until other people die and you are last one standing. in this case, THE ANCIENT STATUE IS WRONG, PROBELY HAS MITHRRAS LOOKING DOWN – FAIL. or, Entheos cover is reversed in fact, blurb of video recomm Clauss book, that has the cover reversed insanely – COSMIC FAIL. wrong POV on Taurus from below, supposed to be from above. Killing cosmic fate [5:40 am Mar 29 2025] – Mithras is killing heimarmene cosmic zodiac, he is born out head above the sphere of the fixed stars. When killing eternalism
Mithras Is Killing / Sacrificing Eternalism
Classical Antiquity , aim for eternalism: 2-level , 2-phase intiation: transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Sacrifice possibilism-thinking, gain eternalism, end of trajectory.
l-a d Late Antiquity , aim above eternalism ; 3-phase initaiton: sacrifice eternalism-thinking (after leave naive possibilism-thinking), gain qualified possibilism-thinking. Marketing’s emphasis to mislead Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff is sell “transformation from eternalism* to **possibilism” [*after the MAIN transformation: transformation from possibilism to eternalism] **qualified. gain virtual-only possibilism. fine print. for entertainment purpose only. Not legal tender. Does not actually give possibilism. Only the ethereal spirit reaches outside/above heimarmene.
Fine Print in Late Antiquity Religion Marketing Materials
Esoterica Live – Mithras Liturgy, Sheol and Other Topics – Q&A ! April 16, 2021 , incl: 0:23 – Mithras Liturgy 53:49 – The Hermetic Hangover 1:03:46 – Have You Ever Done Psychedelics 1:14:58 – Metal Music Is Esoteric or Occult
“we are like marionettes controlled by archons” 15:30 in Archons vid.
archons connot not “great emperor” but “petty governor”.
“21:00: “even talking about “communities” is highly conjectural” – I heard Wouter Hanegraaff say this, but now, mar 29 2025, occurs to me this sounds like my crit’m of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) – to erect their narrative they have to construct and fabricate “members-only, closed, secret communities” –
NEVER will Ruck EVER write about an individual who is among the mass population using Amanita; is it ALWAYS framed by Pope Ruck as “members-only, closed-walls, communities of heretical sects”. His secrecy-first premise — the secrecy tail wagging the Amanita-use dog — demands Ruck always must add and fagbricate his construction, his invention with no evidence, “underground heeretical sects”, which Andy Letcher shreds and disproves in 2006 book Shroom p 35-36 – by drawing upon 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) from Stamets & Gartz.
Sledge & Wouter Hanegraaff say: Heremetism might have been only individuals tripping and reading.
I say against Ruck & even Samorini: stop saying “sects, cults, certain communities”, say individuals in Christendom, used Amanita.
Video: The Demiurge, Marcion and the Corpus Hermeticum – Conversation w @m.davidlitwa
The Evil Creator: Origins of an Early Christian Idea (M. David Litwa, 2021)
[hypoth: 150 AD, everyone flipped to be anti-cosmos/ anti-eternalism story/narrative – and we see this loud & clear in orig Christianity]
“This book examines the origins of the evil creator idea chiefly in light of early Christian biblical interpretations.
“It is divided into two parts.
“In Part I, the focus is on the interpretations of Exodus and John.
“Firstly, ancient Egyptian assimilation of the Jewish god to the evil deity Seth-Typhon [lion serpent?] is studied to understand its reapplication by Phibionite and Sethian Christians to the Judeo-catholic creator.
“Secondly, the Christian reception of John 8:44 (understood to refer to the devil’s father) is shown to implicate the Judeo-catholic creator in murdering Christ.
“Part II focuses on Marcionite Christian biblical interpretations.”
[Litwa thinks Classical Antiquity Hermetica … planets give good gifts. Corruption added in Late Antiquity: negative Fate planets inserted]
Value-Flip from Positive Planets in Classical Antiquity, to Negative Fate Planets in Late Antiquity
book blurb con’t:
“It begins with Marcionite interpretations of the creator’s character in the Christian “Old Testament,” analyzes 2 Corinthians 4:4 (in which “the god of this world” blinds people from Christ’s glory),
“examines Christ’s so-called destruction of the Law (Eph 2:15) and the Lawgiver, and shows how
“Christ finally succumbs to the “curse of the Law” [eternalism?] inflicted by the creator (Gal 3:13).
A concluding chapter shows how still today readers of the Christian Bible have concluded that the creator manifests an evil character.”
/ end of book blurb Litwa
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Nevertheless, the book offers an extremely helpful and compelling exploration of the various voices in the early Christian centuries who held this view, making clear that it was sufficiently widespread that it cannot be explained as a late anomaly.”
— James F. McGrath, Butler University, The Society of Biblical Literature
“It is a highly recomendable book which will introduce its readers in a world of practice and reflection on how people developed novel Jewish forms of life in the aftermath of the crisis of the first and second major Jewish revolts against the Romans, and the re-writings of these debates in later times.”
— Markus Vinzent, San Miguel de Abona
“The Evil Creator is a thoughtful and historically-responsible reading of the Bible.
“Examining the Creator Deity of the Bible through the lens of various early Christian interpreters who themselves long ago identified many of the same concerns that modern interpreters struggle with today makes this book not only a valuable contribution to the field of Biblical Studies but also important for modern readers who ponder the God of the Bible.”
— Kevin Sullivan, Illinois Wesleyan University
“David Litwa is to be congratulated for this book, which is both well-researched and thought-provoking.
“He compellingly delineates here how the idea of an inferior creator-God arose directly from what was said in some of the earliest and, for many, sacred Christian texts, including Paul’s letters and the Gospel of John.”
— Ismo Dunderberg, author of Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus
“The Devil Created the Eternalism Cosmos Prison; Christ Lifts Us to Escape the Prison of Eternalism, into Transcendent Possibilism” – Early Christianity
[6:33 am Mar 29, 2025]
The God of the Egodeath theory = The God of Eternalism = Yaldabaoth Lion-Headed Snake, Hypercosmic Fire Breathing (Mithras Leonocephalic snake-wrapped)
the Egodeath theory 1997: Eternalism is the Only, Highest God / Coraxo 2000: There Is a Higher, Above Eternalism
Virtual Possibilism; Precession [got David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism book in e2001]
‘Yaldabaoth’ Means Control Instability Chaos: Non-Viable Control from Bad Model of Transcendent Personal Control System Transcendence During Psilocybin Transformation
ESOTERICA Justin Sledge “What is the Demiurge – Pt 3” at 33:33,
“the name Yaldabaoth means child of chaos, which doesn’t mean anything.” I am the only god. (?) not. tries to imprison per later accretions added.
lion headed serpent in early Christianity which = Sethian Gnosticism – compare Mithras lion, snake wrapped. head in the hypercosmic sun light. breathing fire.
cosmos-crafting demon, the eternalism block-universe eternalism cosmos/ heimarmene / Fate.
Tree of Too Much Knowledge, Get Kicked Out Until Washed Robe and Can Pass Gate Eat Tree of life
This a.m. had mar 29 2025 a.m. had insights on inversion tale of tree of knowledge in eden:
often feel guilt for taking too much sacrament, guilt and pleading, get kicked out from the state.
you think we have right to Psilocybin?
ok, ingest mass qty and see how wonderful your tree of knowledge is.
fear of Psilocybin OD = God prohibits sinners from eating from tree of life & having non-dying a-thanatos that mature ppl have
(Houot says so many half truths that need restatement, eg “immature”)
The Teacher of Rigtheousness kicks out of the garden gate fire blade angel guarded.
Don’t blame Bible God; blame The Teacher, the Golden Teacher kicked you out, unwashed immature control agent.
The Creator of Eternalism Is Sus
per Sledge end of Demiurge part 3 vid.
Sledgeathon Listening Banquet Party – Videos to Listen
Special focus: 150 AD, all brands of religion, including Mithraism & Christianity – not alien Gnosticism, but rather, anti-demiurge/ anti-cosmos / anit- anti-eternalism/ eternalism-transcending Gnosticism IS early Christianity.
Demiurge Vid 3 again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfG0w4k6EA8&t=449s – “What is the Demiurge – Pt 3 – Simon Magus & the Gnostic Revolution” “The demonic cosmos-creating Demiurge is at the core of the Sethian Gnostic mythology, but how[150 AD??] did this idea develop? From Samaria would emerge a theologian and mystic who would become, for Christians, the most fundamental of all heretics: Simon Magus. But how did Simon of Samaria’s theology actual influence early Christian thought? Further, how did Menander of Samaria and Saturninus of Antioch all contribute to the Christian doctrines that would give rise to Sethian Gnosticism and the myth of the demonic Demiurge known as Ialdabaoth. Here we dive deep into ancient theologies now long lost and condemned as heresy but were actually at the heart of the development of Christianity itself.” [The God of the Egodeath theory = The God of Eternalism = Yaldabaoth Lion-Headed Snake (fire comes from lion mouth; hypercosmic sun light)]
Email 3 to Timothy Freke 8:35 am Mar. 29, 2025 – Su: 2nd-phase Egodeath theory beyond 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism & beginner Unity glimpse
Look forward to YouTube, your views on beyond nonduality.
I reject BOTH of Chris Letheby’s Phil-Dept options: he says when he is in altered state, he says only mind exists.
Sober, he says only matter exists.
Reject both, irrelevant.
Defining mysticism as “Unity” is for beginner glimpse only.
Control transformation is more where it’s at, and “relational” mysticism; personal control system: from monolithic, autonomous control, to 2-level, dependent control.
Engineering is to provide a useful, relevant model of Transcendent Knowledge – ie, personal control system: control transformation.
That is relevant, not “unity/ nondual realization” – that’s not real mysticism/ enlightenment, which is more relevant and practical.
Control stability in Psilocybin state via mental model transformation.
from:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control
to:
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
row 1: held up by God, stand on right foot — not rams who stand on left foot in fire of the Psilocybin loose cognition state:
Email to Timothy Freke 9:10 am Mar. 30, 2025 – Su: 2nd-phase Egodeath theory beyond 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism & beginner Unity glimpse
Hi Timothy,
We both are refining and balancing and adjusting our mature expressions of Transcendent Knowledge.
Compatible with religious myth & the ancient conclusions/ model: be sure to consider this time tested Psilocybin Wisdom, given that you are balancing your view. This is the sure view to commit & articulate to ACTUALLY benefit everyone.
Without this view, spiritual theorists are not actually benefitting ppl; such a malformed model fails the Reference Test given by Psilocybin, The Teacher of Righteousness.
For stable control in Psilocybin state, the mental model of the personal control system is reshaped per 4D spacetime eternalism (your future course of thoughts is already set in stone): if do not affirm that, do not have stable control. Fall down.
But also affirm spirit rises above heimarmene-soaked fixed stars.
Even though Fatedness is the case and YOUR FUTURE COURSE IS ALREADY EXISTING IN FUTURE GIVEN TO YOU unalterable, set in stone;
king frozen powerless statue (king sees snake, is turned to rock statue); {snake frozen in rock}.
Surrendered to Heimarmene cosmic rock prisonkeepers archons at body & psyche level,
ONLY THE SPIRIT rises above Fatedness, your future thoughts are frozen embedded in rock.
You helplessly receive your control-thoughts, which are non-branching and already exist frozen in rock. Experienced in altered state.
Use egoic freewill power of steering in APPARENT branching possibilities but repudiate that, too! in a way.
Completion of Initiation; perfection; purified & reconciled.
Stable control in Psilocybin state. The TEST OF TRUTH.
If you don’t repudiate freewill power claim steering in branching tree, unstable self-control.
Yet ALSO affirm the egoic personal control system; you must affirm compatible child + adult mental model.
Use freewill child thinking AND repudiate relying on it: it is virtual only.
CONSTRUCTIVE INTEGRATION OF REVELATION OF 4D block-universe eternalism w no-free-will but w 2-level, dependent control (relational mysticism ) rather than taking monolithic, autonomous control too literally like childish thinking:
per the medieval art genre, Psilocybin heyday of mushroom-trees:
Medieval had a fully developed use of Psilocybin, depicted via {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs ; mushroom-trees genre.
keep your left foot, but rely on / stand on right foot ; use BOTH adult no-free-will AND child-like freewill thinking.
stand on both feet: virtual freewill AND actual no-free-will; virtual possibilism thinking AND mature, eternalism-thinking
To be a-thanatos, immortal, no longer dying ego death / control instability,
the resulting BALANCED combination of mental models is
qualified possibilism-thinking.
Now you are washed clean, able to pass through guarded gate to eat from tree of life while stable viable personal control system. Important end of Bible study Rev 22.
Final 2 pages of bible – study; especially fav Rev 22:14 —
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
March 29, 2025, sent to Rick L, cleaned up here – todo: where else do I recently summarize this?
In advanced psil state, branching possibilities is revealed as illusion when see inner workings of the egoic personal control system who exerts power of steering in a branching tree to create the future
non-branching means non branching: snake shaped pathvof ur future life ; = enlightenment that one’s snake-shaped path in 4D spacetime, tgat path is seen frozen in rock, imprisoned in fate rock, slave
now you are a competed purified initiate enlightened. honoring the gods. no lomger turmoil & trespassing, bringing impurity that raises fury stormy anger of the insulted DISRESPECTED gods.
the path for you is decided from outside your control, done deal, future path non-branching possibilities, only the path forward is real, stone-
NEXT, reincorporate the egoic personal control system, w adjustments cleansing child-thinking.
Ken Wilber “embrace and include ” childish thinking of branching steering, and use the egoic personal control system which u now perceive & use all the time, corrected, purified, made mature
“Reach Fate” Achievement Earned!
Treat this Isaac, your child thinking, like u r riding a donkey – ur BELOVED only son. dont get rid of ego; use it, dis-indentify w it, egoic thinking was only an immature-phase, temporary level of identifying, it it always will be used; reconciling and” ride” egoic thinking.
Be inclusive: SUPPORT and love your egoic, childish, branching-possibilities, freewill thinking.
todo: image: Entry Jeru
todo: image: Isaac – Jesus head :: donkey head = Abr head :: Isaac head.
REGAIN FREEWILL, ABOVE FATE
no-free-will & 4D spacetime eternalism/ heimarmene is the case (else control instability during Psilocybin) – but also,
finally, above the heimarmene fixed stars per Mithraism & Late Antiquity, you kinda get freewill, monolithic, autonomous control again — but, merely VIRTUAL,
qualified possibilism-thinking , “set free from Fate heimarmene cosmic prison ransomed rescued lifted up – rise above fate(!)”
“Transcend Fate” Achievement Earned!
With ALL of the elect, above the fate-soaked sphere of the fixed stars, be lifted up to poke head (spirit) in sphere 9 Mithraism : precession of equinox above the reach of the prison warden ARCHONS (petty governors).
as {adult}, {immortal}, Psilocybin transformation motif, in mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The Egodeath theory is about control transformation, not Unity or nonduality: control transformation in light of block-universe eternalism, producing 2-level, dependent control; relational, transpersonal mysticism.
50% chance I have this and have read it, or do not and have not <shrug> https://www.amazon.com/Hermetica-Lost-Wisdom-Pharaohs-Unabridged/dp/1648371779/ — well wait THIS IS NEW BOOK?? 2022 THEN I SHOULD GET IT The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs (Unabridged) Hardcover – July 12, 2022 – THE PAPERBACK says 2008. hc says unabr. 2022.
paperback 2008 blurb:
“The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs Paperback – December 26, 2008 by Timothy Freke (Author), Peter Gandy (Author) 4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars (2,641) 4.2 on Goodreads 1,851 ratings See all formats and editions The first easily accessible translation of the esoteric writings that inspired some of the world’s greatest artists, scientists, and philosophers.
Here is an essential digest of the Greco-Egyptian writings attributed to the legendary sage-god Hermes Trismegistus (Greek for thrice-greatest Hermes), a combination of the Egyptian Thoth and the Greek Hermes.
The figure of Hermes was venerated as a great and mythical teacher in the ancient world and was rediscovered by the finest minds of the Renaissance. The writings attributed to his hand are a time capsule of Egyptian and Greek esoteric philosophy and have influenced figures including Blake, Newton, Milton, Shelley, Shakespeare, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Jung.
Providing a fascinating introduction to the intersection of the Egyptian and Hellenic cultures and the magico-religious ideas of the antique world, The Hermetica is a marvelous volume for anyone interested in understanding the West’s roots in mystical thought.”
— 2008 paperback 145 pages
hardcover 182 pages:
2022 hardcover blurb: The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs (Unabridged) Hardcover – July 12, 2022 [same as Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022)] Timothy Freke (Author), Peter Gandy (Author) 4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars (2,641) 4.2 on Goodreads 1,851 ratings
Note that Freke wrote book passages asserting:
no-free-will
entheogens / psychedelics
ahistoricity
I met w/ F&G privately underground during The Jesus Mysteries book tour. We discussed, eg, censorship of entheogens writings.
2022 hardcover blurb of Hermetica by F&G:
“Explore the Essential Teachings of the Ancients
“Serving as a theological basis for major world religions such as Christianity and Islam, the Hermetica has had an influence on Western culture that cannot be overstated.
Max Freakout Triveryhigh [very, very, very high]
blurb con’t:
“The collection of Greek texts-attributed by some to the legendary Hellenistic god Hermes Trismegistus (literally, Hermes the thrice great) in second-century Alexandria-is said to represent the divine philosophical and mystical practices of the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt (around 3000 BCE).
In this creative, approachable introduction to the central ideas and essential teachings of the Hermetica, authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy offer a profoundly inspiring gateway to understanding and appreciating the profound wisdom of the ancients.
“Following an enlightening historical overview of the material contained in the massive Corpus Hermeticum, Freke and Gandy present a diverse sampling of Hermetic thought with extracts of Hermes’s beautiful, poetic writings on topics including
creation,
the cosmos,
human culture,
prophecies,
the Zodiac,
incarnation of the soul,
death, and
immortality
, and others.
Along with each free-verse extract, the authors provide helpful commentary that explains the original text and places it in context for modern readers.
An invaluable resource for initiates in Hermetic studies or anyone seeking a deeper understanding of human spirituality, mysticism, and consciousness [Houot rejects spirituality, rejects mysticism, DOES Houot REJECT PSYCHEDELIC STUDY OF CONSCIOUSNESS?] [whatever those are supposed to me],
“this book belongs on the bookshelves of any who seek a greater awareness of humanity’s place in the cosmos. [that sounds like Houot and sounds like what Houot demonizes] [Houot tries to perpetuate bifurcation war between the Psychedelic Mysticis vs. the Psychedelic Scientists, which is a retarded bifuration]
Houot tries to perpetuate the bifurcated war between the Psychedelic Mystics vs. the Psychedelic Scientists, which is a Retarded, Retarding Bifurcation – He Makes No Attempt to Bridge, But Only to Push Away [compare how I hate and push away Neuroscience, b/c that approach deletes/ eliminates a Cognitive approach]
“Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy are also the celebrated authors of The Jesus Mysteries, Jesus and the Lost Goddess, and The Laughing Jesus, as well as many other books on world spirituality.”
“Readers interested in why so many ancient Christians concluded that the creator was evil have here in one book an extremely well-researched assemblage and exposition of evidence suggesting answers.
“Litwa reviews the role of
indigenous Egyptian myth,
Graeco-Roman philosophical argument, and above all,
interpretations of Jewish and Christian scripture.
His sobering concluding chapter reviews how ancient evil-creator doctrines live on today.
An important contribution on a perennial theological challenge.” — Michael A. Williams, University of Washington, Seattle
“This book should be taken in the context of early theological divisions between ancient Jewish and early Christian sects and used to deepen our understanding of the extreme changes theological positions can take over time.” — Rob Perry, Religious Studies Review
“M. DAVID LITWA is a scholar of ancient Mediterranean religions with a focus on early Christianity.
“He has taught courses at the University of Virginia, the College of William & Mary, and Virginia Tech.
“He is the author of recent publications including
21 Books by David Litwa on Christian Origins & Religion in Late Antiquity, Hermetica
How the Gospel Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myth
, and
Posthuman Transformation in Ancient Mediterranean Thought: Becoming Angels and Demons
“He is currently Research Fellow at the Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry at Australian Catholic University in Melbourne.”
/ end of Reviews portion of Litwa book blurb
New Edition of Corpus Hermeticum by Christian Bilber(?) – mention Christian Bull, Wouter Hanegraaff, bilberg will be shocking and dismaying, he is removing glosses.based on Philological grounds. Love of Languages. Litwa thinks Bilb is right, hermetica is corrupted. Corp Hermetica 3 is FULL OF GIBBERISH. Copenhaver tried to make French translation make the gibberish sound good. Bilver is removing the junk. to reveal the meaningful text, be prepaered by taking Litwa’s course.
ESOTERICA 834K subscribers Share 34,310 views Sep 27, 2024 A conversation with my friend and colleague Dr. M. David Litwa.
{display hand} Motif = Knowledge of Non/Branching (Email to Cyberdisciple Mar. 28, 2025)
I am starting to think that the {display hand} motif = Transcendent Knowledge of non/branching, because fingers are PERFECT to contrast/ depict non/branching; possibilism vs. eternalism.
Secret gesture password = indicate to me that you understand “branching vs. non branching”.
Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.
Left-hand Y-form mushroom :: Right-hand I-form mushroom = L-hand splayed fingers held away from ground :: R-hand single finger held close to ground
But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.
And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.
/ end email to Cyberdisciple Mar 28 2025
New Page format id’d: the “Article Reaction Page” format
In the case of a book: voice dictate all headings of the book.
Make a page, containing all headings – dedicated to the book or article, so that the Find operation is constrained – Exception: yesterday for David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism, I made 1 page contianing TWO articles, which are related like a pair and so I can Find across both of his articles.
in the case of an article, my page can have full text.
“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Giorgio Samorini, 1998) https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam-alberifungo-1998.pdf & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/ – That was the first time that I created such a page, containing someone’s article, the purpose was not to add my markup & commentary; the purpose was to make his unreadable article pdf readable. Adding headings. Addidng whitespace. Breaking up paragraphs. Inserting better, color pictures. Needed b/c he sent me article long ago, but not digestable.
I made such a page – I did this first with Samorini “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998) b/c it is a hugely crucial article – not to overlook his shorter Wasson the Plaincourault fresco article in 1997.
Though Samorini sent me the print articles 97 & 98, they are b/w not color, and the 1998 article is far, far too dense to comprehend; my page format style is tons & tons of white space, adding I added headings by using each picture caption in Samorini article as a heading.
I ALWAYS badly need a toc for every book, that listas EEVERY heading, not just damn chapter title, usseless!
I cannot digest a book w/o the full toc of all headings.
One time a couple years ago, I dictated by voice, all headings of a book, I think, a few years ago, which book?? See site map, books section. Possibly an article it was.
it works well for portion of article, but that means, this way would work ultra great for entire article. eg it is very hard to digest:
If only I had my own post/page w/ full text of article – don’t need all formatting / b/c have pdf to READ.
I need a spot to WRITE and way to add format highlight.
WORKS GREAT! The most efficient way, works better for article than for book, eg I can easily work w/ Brown 2 bb19 gbut hard to work w/ Brown 2016.
The equiv page format for a book is: voice dictate the outline of all headings of book, in a page, and comment on each section heading.
Recently Invented New Type of keyboard shortcut: Citation w/ Link
Brown 2016: keyboard shortcut
The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026 bb16
purchased July 22, 2016 published September 24, 2016 shipped on September 26, 2016
Brown 2019: keyboard shortcut
Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019 bb19
todo: copy to new page. then add page url to the keyboard shortcut. has a couple good passages, about the badness of Wasson, new date 1184 not 1291, a call — VERY GOOD HISTORICAL POINT IN TIME SNAPSHOT OF THE BIRTH OF 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Purchased: July 14, 2022 Published: June 30, 2022 Paid: $148.84 I was snoozing, ordered too late: 2 weeks. The Hane man snuck up on me. Price fear? All that $ and I received a bunk Ogdoad – THE THE SPHERE OF THE FIXED STARS BUT WITH THE STARS REMOVED – RIPOFF!
Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff book price: $148.84 🌌💥😱
Photo: Michael Hoffman
Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff
Ripoff: He sells you the sphere of the fixed stars (Ogdoad, sphere 8), but without any stars in it! He removed the fate-soaked stars and moved them to Limbo — not Saturn sphere 7, not in Ogdoad sphere 8 — just …. nowhere.
Over here, Hanegraaff’s cosmos model. Over there, in null space, the fixed stars. not a SPHERE of fixed stars; rather, all of the stars, removed from the sphere which they defined, #8.
What a weird non-cosmos cosmos.
His book tells us about enlightenment of the Truth… but Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff delivers malformed Yaldabaoth instead.
Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity by Wouter J. Hanegraaff
Blurb:
“In Egypt during the first centuries CE, men and women would meet discreetly in their homes, in temple sanctuaries, or in solitary places to learn a powerful practice of spiritual liberation.”
The Egodeath theory Marketing Department sells you “spiritual liberation” by making you a slave of Fate, frozen embedded {snake frozen in rock} — and then a half step higher raises merely only your tiny Spirit portion above Fate.
imagine my book page for: book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022 — containing all the headings of the book. Awesomely useful.
SPIRITUAL LIBERATIONTM *PRODUCT CONTENTS MIGHT NOT MATCH PICTURE ON BOX
Michael Hoffman, ~1991, ink brush in blank art book
“They thought of themselves as followers of Hermes Trismegistus, the legendary master of ancient wisdom.
“While many of their writings are lost, those that survived have been interpreted primarily as philosophical treatises about theological topics.
“Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff challenges this dominant narrative by demonstrating that Hermetic literature was concerned with experiential practices intended for healing the soul from mental delusion.”
“The Way of Hermes involved radical alterations of consciousness [THROUGH NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS] in which practitioners claimed to perceive the true nature of reality [slave of Fate frozen in Rock, helpless puppet] behind the hallucinatory veil of appearances [virtual illusion of freewill steering among branching possibilities].
[illusion of branching possibilism w/ monolithic, autonomous control; freewill steering power illusion]
“[Darth] Hanegraaff [DESTROYER OF STARS; STAR DESTROYER] explores how practitioners went through a training regime that involved luminous visions, exorcism, spiritual rebirth [FROM SATURN SPHERE 7 INTO OGDOAD SPHERE 8 THAT HAS BEEN DE-FATED; DENUDED OF ITS FATE-SOAKED STARRY CONTENT – ROCK FRAGMENT EMOJIIS], cosmic consciousness, and union [beginner Psilocybin users’ first-time experience] with the divine beauty of universal goodness and truth to attain the salvational [lift me above Fate, after you reconfig me for no-free-will, then a bit more to rise a little half step higher, to virtual possibilism-thinking] knowledge known as gnôsis.”
Dumped/ Developed Ideas in Rise of the Psychonaut page, moved to below
March 25, 2025 – I did random idea development in Rise of the Psychonaut page, moved to below.
First, I drafted the below 20 sections within my Rise of the Psychonaut page .
I ended up using the following 20 sections as a practice warmup run: I made a new page, Brown db of mushroom imagery in Christian art — and in that page, did some fresh write-up like the below 20 sections.
Then moved the 20 orig warmup draft sections from Rise of the Psychonaut page to below.
Crop by Michael Hoffman YI tree form branching discovered today March 25, 2025
Generic Book Review by Cybermonk: “This book is not entirely bad; it has a couple good sentences”
Scholarship is a matter of highlighting the good sentences and phrases, and ignoring the fluff.
What are the good points that Ruck, Huggins, Houot deliver, that have the potential to be a good idea after they are fundamentally repaired and transformed?
Houot is smart to propose battle over Great Canterbury Psalter: “All mushroom-trees mean tree, not mushroom, because they have branches.” I accept your terms of battle, given that mushroom-trees have cut branches.
At the moment I have the text of two articles David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism.
My task and scholarship strategy is to highlight the valuable words and delete the worthless words.
With Houot, my task is to vooice transcribe all headings into an out
Headings Outline of Rise of the Psychonaut
Which sections are valuable?
Which sections are worthless?
Which 3 sentences of the book are valuable, as opposted to the worthless remainder? This is the positive attitude a scholar must have especially in the field of entheogen scholarship.
My aim is to exemplify and be a model of constructive scholarship: which two sentences of Rise of the Psychonaut are not worthless? 😊👍
God: “I will relent from burning the book, if you can find one good sentence in it.”
Cybermonk reviewing Rise of the Psychonaut: [7:16 pm March 25, 2025] just noticed for first time – posted to my gallery Dec. 2020, i got this image possibly 2003, or a long time ago. If 2003, now 2025 – 22 years, possibly, I had this image before now realizing: YI tree form.
i got better on drive.. oh, i think this is a special printout of mine from 2003? on plastic??
Image contributed to Brown Virtual Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art by Michael Hoffman, found maybe 2003, uploaded to WordPress / web Dec. 2020
Announcing: Brown Virtual Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art [check name of db in 2019 brown article – not “committee”, failed idea]
Browns’ Dual Dogmatic Pitfalls
ALL YOUR MICA ARE BELONG TO US.
Browns forfeited their Psychedelic Gospels theory v1, because they identified it with their wise [foolish] rejection of Walburga tapestry which they are strangely glad to display crowning their brilliant gallery of MICA both in 2016 & 2019 – QUADRUPLE PENALTY FOR BROWN & BROWN 2016 & 2019.
Browns’ Dual Dogmatic Pitfalls; Browns Fell Into their Own Dogmatic Pit in that speccically, their Exhibit A – Bet The Farm, is, “Walburga is vial therefore not mushroom plus serrated base therefore can’t be Amanita”, is what they mean by “the dogmatic pitfall of seeing mushrooms everywhere”; when I caught this ~Nov 2020, that constituted Browns fumbling the ball, and I picked up their failed psychedelic gospels theory v1 and now i running w it away, my Psychedelics Gospels theory v1; ALL YOUR MICA ARE BELONG TO US. They forfeited the Psychedelic Gospels theory v1 because they identified it with their rejection of Walburga
My finding of Browns’ Walburga error led to Prof Jerry Brown asking if Cyberdisciple & I wrote an article about compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art, so i did, in Nov 2020, which led to my huge breakthrough via f134 Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter. eventuating eg in my 2025 perception in the seemingly well picked-over, even by Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article 2024, f11 Great Canterbury Psalter comic panel – 6 Days of Creation + Eden, picked over by everyone since 2000 Paul Lindgren, yet, MASSIVE discoveries remained FAILED to see by me Nov … I failed since when d.. 2001 “Conjuring Eden” ? does it show 6 days? does M&M ARthur 2000 show 6 Days?? If so, I was blind to Day 3 branching forms progreession, & Day 4 4 mushrooms pointing to {balance scale} , since 2000: TOOK ME 25 YEARS , took entheogen scholars 25 years to open their eyes to see. “well picked over image” yet WE ARE BLIND. FFS IT EVEN SHOWS AN {OPEN BOOK}!
M&M 2000 cover shows Day 4: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI. what other Great Canterbury Psalter images shown in book? ___
x https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439215170 – i bought color, $43, so late, March 11, 2023 – embarrassingly late. I own Irvin a book review. Strong 5 stars, must-have., must-read. excuse: I was burned out re: Wasson after writing the article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm — i stupidly assessed “there’s little to be gained from rehashing”. but there are so many great points and interesting contradications in The Holy Mushroom (the Amanita Primacy Fallacy; Irvin’s inconsistent disrespect for Psilocybin, which eventually led to him DEMONIZING Psilocybin yet remaining silent re: his pet Amanita idolatry)
“Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities:
“In both stories the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth.
“Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view.
“To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim.
This leads to lively debate, counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée.
Jan Irvin (The Holy Mushroom) has captured what we might call an “anthropology of clarification” regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time.
It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say “yes” in very large letters.
It is no longer theory.
“The questions Irvin asks are these:
“If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Qur’an?
“Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiel’s convenient visions?
“What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus? [BROWN ERROR: DISPROOF OF BROWN LUMPING TOGETHER FALSELY CLAIMING THAT IRVIN SAYS JESUS DIDN’T EXIST; afaik, Irvin always held position: agnostic about if Jesus existed]
What impact would this have on organized religion?”
These are bold questions.
This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth.
Detailed and wonderfully illustrated;
great bibliography.”
~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College”
Conclusions Section of Brown 2019: “Academically Irresponsible” Thug Bully Force Tactics to Deceive and to Try to Impede Scholarship – Take Note, Sleazy Huggins, DEFENDER of Panofsky-Wasson, the Bad Company You Hang With and Play Cover For: You Deniers Ain’t Lookin’ So Hot, Huggins
Conclusions Section of Brown 2019: “Academically Irresponsible” Wasson
Wasson’s Thug Bully Force Tactics to Deceive and to Try to Impede Scholarship
Wasson’s Thug Bully Force Tactics to Deceive and to Try to Impede Scholarship – Take Note, Sleazy Huggins, DEFENDER of Panofsky-Wasson, the Bad Company You Hang With and Play Cover For:
You Deniers Ain’t Lookin’ So Hot, Not Looking Very Credible, Huggins – and where did you find about the two Panofsky letters, Huggins?
and why didn’t you credit Brown 2019 for pub’g them?
and why didn’t you help ppl find the letter so that everyone -NOT JUST YOU w/ your twisted misuse of them?
Browns wrote:
“due to Wasson’s preeminent position as a leading authority on the study of entheogens and religion, this lack of disclosure was especially damaging to the nascent field of ethnomycology. In effect, Wasson’s lack of transparency combined with his relentless personal and professional attacks on Allegrostymied widespread scholarly inquiry into the study of entheogens and Christianity for nearly half a century.” OH BUT HUGGINS PLAYS DEFENSE FOR THIS SCOUNDREL!
MICA Deniers = DEFENSE OF IMPEDING SCHOLARSHIP; Huggins in Foraging in Wrong Forest gives EXCUSE, “Wasson didn’t prevent entheogen scholarship from asserting mushroom imagery in Christian art after Wasson.”
What a pathetic excuse, Huggins, defending the con artistry by Wasson. What kind of scumbags are MICA Deniers? They stoop to censorship, and then they excuse it:
“Wasson’s Attempt to Force MICA Denial, Which Irvin Complains About? This Is Fine” – Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article
“Yes, we MICA Deniers use deception and censorship, as Irvin claims, but that’s ok, b/c entheogen scholars asserted mushroom imagery in Christian art, after Wasson’s moves.”
Brown is correct: Wasson was ACADEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, and Huggins takes the side of Wasson, running cover for Wasson’s DUPLICITY?!
Shame on Huggins!
Wasson also insulted and attacked the leaading mycologist too, AND ALL MYCOLOGISTS, Dec. 1953, John Ramsbottom in person, via letter, which Ramsbottom retaliated rightly in defense of mycologists, by exposing Wasson’s committed skeptic stance of “Rightly or wrongly, we are going to reject the Plaincourault fresco as Amanita”
– credit: Irvin, circa Irvin contributing research to the article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Browns article has scathing coverage; read it all.
CONCLUSIONS
TODO: ADD TO MY DEMOLISHING OF the FRAUD Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson:
“Revisiting the epic Wasson– Allegro controversy [thank God they didn’t write “debate” here] in light of new evidence reveals that Wasson did behave in an academically irresponsible manner in not publishing the second letter from art historian Panofsky that favors [BROWN IS WRONG HERE — unless! we are talking about Wasson’s PRIVATE knowledge, his PRIVATE view, that (fkking OBVIOUSLY) mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, as leaked by Ruck writing “Wasson’s conclusion” in “Daturas for the Virgin”] Allegro’ s interpretation of the 13th century Plaincourault fresco as a psychoactive A. muscaria mushroom.
“During his 1952 visit to the Chapel of Plaincourault in Central France, Wasson mysteriously did not investigate the nearby Abbey of Saint Savin or the Church of Saint Martin de Vicq, which would have provided significant evidence of entheogens in medieval Christianity, thereby contradicting his [bullsh!t lying public fraudulent, deceptive, duplicitous, con-artist, scheming demon, designed to mislead ppl away from Brinck bk etc] claim in Soma that their remote role in Judeo-Christianity ended around 1000 BCE.
“Wasson’s function at J.P. Morgan as the “ Pope’ s banker” furnishes a [100% extreme CONFLICT OF INTEREST GREATER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD EVER] powerful financial motive for his refusal to pursue [and his alas successful effort to impede scholarship!] the thesis regarding the entheogenic origins of religion into Christian art and artifacts, as well as for his rejection and ridicule [yes, Wasson acted the rude, THUGGISH, insulting, bully, pr*ck, high-pressure tactics] of Allegro’ s writings in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
“While Wasson’ s [*lyingly proclaimed fake public PROPAGANDA funded by the Vatican] views* [his pretended public “view” != his actual, private view] stymied research on entheogens in Christianity for decades [until finally THE BIG BANG OF 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm): “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998; 96; 97)] after the publication of Soma in 1968, a new generation of 21st century researchers [Brown lists Michael Hoffman of Egodeath.com first] has documented growing evidence of psychedelic A. muscaria and a variety of species of psilocybin-containing mushrooms in Christian art, consistent with Samorini’ s typology of “ mushroom-trees.””
Samorini’ s so-so typology of mushroom-trees
I criticize Giorgio Samorini’s effort to typology, but ok.
Yes we must analyze forms of mushroom imagery in Christian art / mushroom-trees; branching form of mushroom-trees,
but Giorgio Samorini is merely an ATTEMPT and wrongly says the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree is Amanita, in his b/w article;
And, Giorgio Samorini badly tries to make our sacred the Plaincourault fresco — b/c its Amanita — the paradigm model for all typology effort.
DO NOT START WITH Amanita OR the Plaincourault fresco AS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP & TYPOLOGIES ANALYSIS.
“Creation of Plants” Branching Form Develops from III, IYI, YI, IY/YI
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman
“Conjuring Eden”
Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise (Hoffman, Ruck & Staples, Entheos 1, 2001) mh01 cr01
Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise Hoffman, Ruck & Staples Online gallery of ancillary illustrations 38 pages, 33 illustrations, 47 ancillary online illustrations cued to text.
at “dual dogmatic” quote brown, criticize brown:
Actually that looks more like Hanegraaff’s book, Hermetic Spirituality and Altered States after my review.
todo: upload a crop of the YI mushroom-trees of Lot window, and, the existing crop of the city burning b/c not finding in WordPress gallery.
New: YI Tree Branching Form Recognized in “Lot’s Wife Pillar of Salt Burning City” Stained Glass Window, March 25, 2025
I BET MY WordPress GALLERY HAS THIS IN MARCH 2023 FOLDER/GROUP – CONFIRMED, & has dup of the full pic.
Forcing Art to Fit My Theory
interp principle for contributing to Brown db of mushroom imagery in Christian art:
If the image that the “spot the mushroom” hunter contributed is YI tree, that’s correct.
If the image that the “spot the mushroom” hunter contributed is an IY tree, or, Jesus’ donkey stands on Left foot, that means the ignorant shlub screwed up and reversed the art.
not my photoPhoto: Michael Hoffman
lots-wife-turned-salt.jpg
lots-wife-turned-salt-collapse.jpg – crop of collapsing city – not finding in gallery, I am the one to contribute this YI mushroom-tree image to the Brown Gallery. Brown calls it what? see Brown 2019 article more than 2016. book, they call it: bad: they talk too much of Committee , which was a failure. Theres no committed. what there is is virtual body of shared images that I have contribute d to & j rush gallery & Irvin gallery &
Brown gallery etc. and
p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden”, Ruck et al, Entheos 1, 2001; & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”, Ruck et al, Entheos 2, 2001 – as galleries
“As a teenager, I joined the Dutch Mycological Society and became a devoted collector of mushrooms. I found myself instinctively attracted to those twilight realms of the natural world that tend to be overlooked by biologists concerned with daytime creatures such as animals and plants… But while I enjoyed their fairy-tale aura of mystery and magic, studying mushrooms in fact gave me an early training in empirical research, attention to detail, and systematic scientific thinking from which I have profited ever since.” https://www.wouterjhanegraaff.net/about
As a teenager, I joined the Dutch Mycological Society and became a devoted collector of mushrooms. I found myself instinctively attracted to those twilight realms of the natural world that tend to be overlooked by biologists concerned with daytime creatures such as animals and plants… But while I enjoyed their fairy-tale aura of mystery and magic, studying mushrooms in fact gave me an early training in empirical research, attention to detail, and systematic scientific thinking from which I have profited ever since.
https://www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk/wp-content/gallery/bible-window/4624377321.jpg – Don’t we need to add Browns’ missing word: for the SECRET instruction of monks? “The windows are called variously, the poor man’s bible, theological windows or typological windows as they were used as a [SECRET] teaching medium probably mainly for the [SECRET] monks.”
Per Ruck Committee, we need to correct the informational page: “The YI mushroom-tree indicates that this is a cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in heretical Christian members-only sect, alien infiltration into the very heart of the institutional Church.”
THE DEFEATIST NARRATIVE TAIL WAGGING THE ENTHEOGEN HISTORY EVIDENCE DOG
The mushroom-tree in this image of Lot is yet another example of cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in; heretical Christian members-only sect; alien infiltration into the very heart of the institutional Church.
Ruck Committee, hastening to wrap the mushroom imagery in Christian art in a barrier boundary jail to protect their driving, master, social drama narrative of “counterculture havers of The Mushroom, in perpetual defeat battling against the mainstream mass of organized Christian society” – music to the ears of Prohibition Profiteers – DEFEATIST NARRATIVE TAIL WAGGING THE ENTHEOGEN HISTORY EVIDENCE DOG
The Ruck Committee (1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)) hastens to quickly wrap every incoming instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art in THEIR narrative’s required barrier boundary jail, to protect their driving, master, social drama narrative of “counterculture havers of The Mushroom, in perpetual defeat battling against the mainstream mass of organized Christian society” – which is music to the ears of Prohibition Profiteers – the Ruck DEFEATIST NARRATIVE TAIL WAGGING THE ENTHEOGEN HISTORY EVIDENCE DOG. Which Andy Letcher demolished like David vs. Goliath using a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art that Ruck cannot possibly do his usual move on, of enwrapping one of Bern’s seven Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in a hermetically isolated barrier to protect the narrative of defeat, at all costs: gotta keep The Mushroom bounded-about, behind a protective barrier, to keep The Mushroom separated from the general population, BEHIND THE RUCK BARRIER WALL OF “HERETICAL CLOSED MEMBERS-ONLY CULTS/ SECTS/ GROUPS” and my God, even the releaatively good thinker Giorgio Samorini — FAILING to be a 2nd-generation entheogen scholar (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) — in 1997 wrote “certain Christian communities”.
Samorini, why not write simnply, “some Christians” or “some people in Christendom?”
Why do you have to fabricate “certain communities” – citation needed; on what basis, Samorini, failure of a 2nd-gen entheogen scholar, do you pull out of thin air YOUR construction, “communities”.
On what basis do you pull out your word, “communities”?
Samorini’s Fabricated, Concocted, Narrative-First Framing, “Certain Christian communities used The Mushroom”
The “Mushroom-Tree” of Plaincourault (Giorgio Samorini, 1997) gs97
“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998) gs98
Samorini, why do you have to attach your arbitrary word, your FABRICATED, CONCOCTED, NARRATIVE FRAMING, “certain Christian communities” used The Mushroom?
Where did you come up with “communities” instead of Christians, individuals mixed in with the entire community of Christendom?
What’s with your barrier wall, members-only, closed, exclusive boundary construction?
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) is Anti-“Communities” of Entheogen Users
ended up using the above 10 sections – drafted in Rise of the Psychonaut page – as a practice warmup run: Made new page Brown db of mushroom imagery in Christian art — and in that page, did some fresh write-up like the above.
March 25, 2025
Darth Hanegraaff’s Alderaanization of the Fixed Stars
The entheogen content & my sites: Wouter Hanegraaff is trying to push the edge within stodgy academia.
My sites are breath of fresh air for academia & light years ahead: I’ve been extending my 1988-1997 core theory by adding myth & esotericism since 1998-2025.
You probably told me already but what is the ego death theory?
Nutshell summary of the Egodeath theory:
Psilocybin or blotter loosens cognitive associations, causing mental model transformation about the personal control system, from steering among branching possibilities as a monolithic, autonomous control agent, to instead, future control-thoughts already exist as if frozen in rock, killing ego; reveals 2-level, dependent control
analogy: from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
You end up with qualified freewill thinking.
Nutshell summary of the Egodeath theory: Intro of my main article:
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death explains what is revealed in religious revelation and in enlightenment, including the nature of personal control agency.
The essence and origin of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose binding of cognitive associations.
This loose cognitive binding then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe eternalism (determinism) with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future.
Experiencing this model of control and time initially destabilizes self-control power, and amounts to the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent.
Self-control stability is restored upon transforming one’s mental model to take into account the dependence of personal control on a hidden, separate thought-source, such as Necessity or a divine level that transcends Necessity.
Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation.
Religious initiation teaches and causes this transformation of the self considered as a control-agent, through a series of visionary-plant sessions, interspersed with study of perennial philosophy.
Most modern-era religion has been a distortion of this standard initiation system, reducing these concepts to a weak interpretation that is based in the ordinary state of consciousness.
“As a teenager I joined the Dutch Mycological Society and became a devoted collector of mushrooms.
“I found myself instinctively attracted to those twilight realms of the natural world that tend to be overlooked by biologists concerned with daytime creatures such as animals and plants.
“But while I enjoyed their fairy-tale aura of mystery and magic, studying mushrooms in fact gave me an early training in empirical research, attention to detail, and systematic scientific thinking from which I have profited ever since.”
Can’t promise to spend time posting Amazon bk review: Tip/Strategy: give 5 stars + give Pros & Cons & chapters desc.
Done 1st pass reading, listened 2x to Rise of Psychonaut. I now have a few ideas. Beginning to write them up or do voice recordings, idea development for critique of your book.
My newest writings at site are roughest – ranges from published journal articles through rough mobile shorthand idea development.
I really appreciate your good pronunciation & vocalization.
Room for improvement: PROJECT more, do not sound like you are quietly reading.
For psychological reasons, back off the mic.
Stand up, 2′ back from the mic, and PROJECT, to sound like you are talking to an audience in the room, not like you are quietly reading into a mic.
One person in book club said you got worked up too much and were shouting – in early part of book, saying some point he disagreed with.
I’m baffled by his claim.
In fact you err in speaking too calmly, and need to PROJECT like you are talking in a room to someone, during loud daytime.
I’m very happy w/ your voice recording and the UI of Audible.
Paid full $24 yikes, as well as bought your book.
Bonus: I am stunned to discover that just before my huge breakthrough in Great Canterbury Psalter, in early November 2020, I purchased Thomas Hatsis’ audiobook of Psychedelic Mystery Traditions.
So after I re-listen your book a few times, I will hear the clownish banana on skates [Roller Derby banana-suit coach who does scholarship like roller derby high-impact fisticuffs] – he is almost on my Block list, because he is quite aggressive, while giving confused utterances like “you’re not allowed to cover Psilocybin, because you come from Amanita Allegro theory” [false] and famously, “The shape of the liberty cap is anachronistic”.
I will enjoy listening to Hatsis’ book read by him.
I bought his print book AND ebook AND voice recording!!
Amazon ought to sell all 3 for slightly more than price of print book.
Email from A. M. Houot (“Ooh-Oh”) Mar. 23, 2025
Houot wrote:
Dear Michael,
Thank you for taking the time to read my book, to really comb through it.
I appreciate it.
My aim was to make readers think differently about these visionary substances, and I hope that something was sparked within you.
Regarding the audiobook:
I followed their lead since they were the audio/sound professionals. I simply sat and read.
It was harder than I thought, especially managing my breathing in between sentences while not having the microphone pick up every possible sound apart from the spoken word.
I’ve visited your website a few times.
It appears that you have enough material to write a book.
I encourage you to do so.
It’s a wonderful and challenging experience.
Best, Alan
email to houot may 24 2025
I was impressed by the great vocalizing & result of audiobook. good content good vocalizing good tech usage
Thankful that the book club leader talked about your audiobk format in conjunction with printed bk. It’s a great supplement to printed book. the most $ , but UI & your execution is great.
I have ideas to rebalance my critiques / pros / cons to favor you, but my fingers need rest.
I think my book review template will work great, easy: Summarize pros cons. & key words for each chapter.
I wonder why you did not mention surrenderism 🤔🤔 except 4 hits, in Rise of the Psychonaut, given that you wrote a lot in dissertation & Psychonaut’s Ship article.
I am eager to read aloud, for Egodeath Mystery Show, your Psychonaut’s Ship article, which I have completely read on paper.
I scientifically identify the dynamics of surrender, the folk wisdom- compare your work to Michelle Janikian book that well expresses the folk crude wisdom of surrender to the experience – whatever that means– I specify in STEM terms.
You should’ve gone deep on the etymology of “cyber”, the most important thing, unstable self-control cybernetics leading to self-control climax & mental model transformation.
You halted at the wrong, mere Pop misusage of ‘cyber’; vs deep etymology myth history.
THE FATES DIRECT THE WORLD, ALL THINGS DEPEND ON A FIXED LAW
Multiple valences possible that resonant with eternalism:
The noun FATA, which I translated as “The Fates,” can also mean “death.”
The verb REGUNT, which I translated as “direct,” can also mean “rule.” Latin for “king” is REX.
The noun ORBEM, which I translated as “world,” can also mean “wheel.”
The verb STANT, which I translated as “depend on,” can also mean “stand still” or “are motionless.”
The adjective CERTA, which I translated as “fixed,” could also be translated “determined.” It generally refers to something that is unchanging.
end of Cyberdisciple’s email
reply to Cyberdisciple mar 23
Glad I finally quoted Wouter Hanegraaff’s index entries on “Ogdoad” to get a good look at his assertions.
I only made it 1/3 through them, but it is clear that he is high on non-drug entheogens.
“the Ogdoad above heimarmene”
Where are you getting this, Hanegraaff?? Citation needed!!
The fixed stars, you rightly say, are Fate; heimarmene (block-universe eternalism).
So where the heck do you put the fixed stars, including the zodiac constellations?
Into Hanegraaff’s Rejected wastebasket.
–>
Hanegraaff is definitely wrong , he maybe latched onto some deviant text saying “above Saturn = above Fate”.
I LOVE TO SIT IN JUDGEMENT OVER ANCIENT systems or art:
Any ancient text that says the highest Fate sphere is Saturn is INFERIOR.
Art that fails to support the Egodeath theory is BAD ART.
Modern-era Entry into Jerusalem paintings: Jesus’ donkey lifts the WRONG FOOT!
ART FAIL.
Clueless artists & ancient writers getting it wrong.
The Bible is WRONG overselling Amanita.
The ancients are WRONG when they say Amanita is better than any mere psychedelic, that it’s a mythic realm, super-psychedelic that’s far better than mere Psilocybin or reality.
After all, I’ve been saying since 1986: mystics are bad at writing, let me handle this, I have to do it myself, explaining usefully and clearly, since they are muddled thinkers and writers.
Myth that confirms to the correct standard of judgment — the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism — is superior myth.
If the data don’t support the theory, too bad for the data, THE THEORY IS CORRECT.
— Michael
My Oct. 1, 2018 Email to & from Erik Davis: Expanding Mind podcast: Eric Wargo discusses Block Universe “determinism” per the Egodeath theory
Erik Davis’ Expanding Mind podcast, episode September 27, 2018 with guest Eric Wargo, discusses Block Universe “determinism” per the Egodeath theory (around the final third).
“In part one of our conversation, author, blogger, and dreamer Eric Wargo talks about uncertainty, determinism, Zen, the evidence for “feeling the future,” and his brilliant and head-spinning book Time Loops: Precognition, Retrocausation, and the Unconscious.”
The discussion in the podcast comes close to comparing the “open future, branching possibilities” model to a *tree*, or a king steering in a tree, and to comparing the “block-universe with worldlines” model to a *snake*, or a snake embedded in rock.
The discussion comes close to mentioning the archetypal most-terrifying experience, of perceiving future control-thoughts as frozen in a pre-existing, snake-shaped rail embedded in spacetime with no change, or more exactly, no meta-change.
Typhon, the father of all monsters, refers to experientially perceiving one’s *Block-Universe Worldline* in the mystic altered state, removing the sense of personal control power: encountering the dragon that guards enlightenment.
The dragon (a serpent as *the* monster) demands prayer, reconciliation, and sacrifice, which means repudiation of the premise of relying on personal control power steering in a tree into the open future, relying instead, consciously, on pre-given personal control-thoughts that were established by the hidden, uncontrollable creator of the spacetime block.
The mind retains the original model of time and control, now qualified, and adds a new model of time and control, progressively revealed in the altered state in a series of purifying sessions of “mixed wine”, and eventually retained (conceptually, not experientially) in the ordinary state.
This model of psychedelics and mixed wine emphasizes the psycholytic, cognitive loosening effect of psychedelics.
The series of sacred meals given by the god leads to an overwhelming feeling and experience of “remembering” an epic, mythic-scale climactic peak experience of control-seizure realization, forcing a dramatic mental reconfiguration, with sacrifice and rescue, transforming the mental model of personal control power and time.
There are two models of time (and implicitly, of control) in Philosophy, which are contrasted in mythology, and are experienced in the two states of consciousness:
o First, the Tree model, called “Possibilism” in the Philosophy of Time, experienced and perceived in the ordinary state of consciousness, which has tight cognitive association binding. More fully, this model is described by analogy as a king steering in a tree.
o Second, the Snake model, called “Eternalism” in the Philosophy of Time, experienced and perceived in the altered state of consciousness, which has loose cognitive association binding. More fully, this model is described by analogy as a snake frozen embedded in rock.
The contrast between the initial tree view vs. the later snake view (after initiation into the sacred meals given by the gods), is depicted in Hellenistic and Biblical mythology as a rigid snake on a debranched tree, and other combinations of king or tree, vs. snake or rock, such as:
Hellenistic religious mythology:
o The staff of Aesclepius the healer (snake on debranched tree trunk).
o A snake on a debranched tree trunk (sculpted in rock) on ossuaries (stone coffin, depository for the bones of the dead).
o A snake on a debranched tree trunk (sculpted in rock) propping up statues.
Biblical religious mythology:
o Moses’ healing brass snake on a pole (a tree with the branches cut off), to prevent death by snake bite (that is, restabilizing mental control after ego death that results from perceiving Block-Universe Worldlines).
o The comparison of king Jesus fastened to wood (“hung on the tree”) to Moses’ brass snake lifted up on a pole, given as a “sign”.
Mythology describes psychedelics experientially revealing the block universe and no-free-will.
More generally, listing all the terms in the four key concept-categories:
{Eternalism, Fatedness, Heimarmene, the block universe, frozen time, determinism, no meta-change}
and
{non-control, Cybernetics, control cancellation, self-control seizure, rail of control-thoughts, worldline, no-free-will, no meta-control}.
‘Determinism’ is an ok, familiar term for the Minkowski/Parmenides *Block Universe* with embedded pre-existing *Worldlines* of personal control, but ‘determinism’ amounts to a particular narrow theory about *how* it is that the future is pre-set: through domino-chain causality acting from one moment to the next.
‘Eternalism’, a less familiar but more relevant term, doesn’t emphasize the supposed domino-chain causal mechanism acting through time, but instead emphasizes timeless pre-existence of the future, especially the most fearsome, destabilizing, and dis-empowering perception, the pre-existence of the future rail of personal control-thoughts, frozen, unavoidable, unchangeable, the snake dragon monster guarding the treasure of enlightenment and mental transformation.
The Possibilism (tree) and Eternalism (snake) models of time are depicted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though without recognition of the archaic mythology contrast {tree vs. snake}, or {king in tree vs. snake in rock}, which I recognized without the Philosophy terms ‘Possibilism’ vs. ‘Eternalism’ on November 23, 2011, and then with those terms on November 29, 2013 (announced December 1, 2013).
December 1, 2013, reporting the discovery of November 29, 2013
Announcement of fully decoding {tree vs. snake} in mythology, including the terms ‘Possibilism vs. Eternalism’. Confirmed by decoding various mythemes by mid-2014.
Expanding Mind podcast
Episode: Cybernetic Ego-death
January 28, 2016
“A talk with renegade religious philosopher Michael Hoffman about entheogens, determinism, and religious experience from an engineering point of view.”
Zep IV book is missing crucial concept from Late Antiquity, “transcend heimarmene”
Zep IV book is missing crucial concept from Late Antiquity, “transcend heimarmene“, and that was not well developed at Egodeath.com in 2003.
The book correctly represents Classical Antiquity, not Late Antiquity. p. 118 & 122.
Hard to pick just 1 year where I added that – in 2000, Coraxo was right, my 1997 2-level model doesn’t work for Late Antiquity Gnosticism, and I immediately started theorizing about idea “transcend heimarmene”, but your book proves that Egodeath.com didn’t fully develop or present that idea – it is in my 2007 main article:
Erik Davis applauds Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, therefore signs on board with proposing non-drug psychedelics
You egg-on Wouter Hanegraaff’s monstrosity “non-drug entheogens”, but you’d sing a different tune were someone to propose equivalently, non-drug psychedelics.
Yes, heavy breathing, active imagination, meditation “can/ could/ might/ may” give you AN altered state, but, that’s much too feeble to cause THE mental model transformation – the only one that counts.
Meditation makes you dizzy – not discover self-transcendence of personal control system; cybernetic seizure & mental model transformation.
Chemist David Nichols agrees: meditation must have come from Psilocybin, that’s the only thing strong enough to cause religious myth dynamics.
ONLY Psilocybin (or modern era: blotter) is sufficiently strong to cause THE mental model transformation: transformation from possibilism to eternalism; causing terrorizing egoic claim to be my own source of control-thoughts.
The latter goes unstable and discover vulnerability stairway to ascend, the control vortex, the gateway: the control-vulnerability is discovered in loose cognition state from Psilocybin, only — not sufficiently experienced via all these alleged, “the traditional methods of the mystics” other than Psilocybin.
Led Zep IV Adding a 3rd Phase (Transcending Heimarmene): Details
1. naive freewill thinking
2. eternalism-thinking
3. qualified possibilism-thinking
Rise above Fate-soaked the sphere of the fixed stars, lifted there by Mithras or equivalent in every Late Antiquity brand of Mystery Religion. Spirit portion of mind, only, rises above heimarmene/ block-universe eternalism.
When you read Egodeath.com in 2003, I was starting to confirm that:
Classical Antiquity equated Transcendent Knowledge (Psilocybin transformation) with mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism, terminating in heimarmene/ Fate/ no-free-will/ {king frozen in rock}; eternalism – sort of like “determinism” but future already exists.
Late Antiquity inverted the values to the extent possible given that they still affirmed that heimarmene is the case, yet just only the spirit portion can sort of “transcend heimarmene”, transcend Fate; transcend eternalism.
I call this a cultural shift from revering heimarmene to selling instead, transcending heimarmene. From a 2-phase model of Psilocybin transformation, to a 3-phase model.
Classical Antiquity:
1. naive freewill thinking; possibilism-thinking.
2. revelation of heimarmene; eternalism, valued positively.
Late Antiquity:
1. naive freewill thinking; possibilism-thinking.
2. revelation of heimarmene; eternalism, valued negatively.
3. transcend heimarmene; transcendent freewill.
per Ken Wilber’s Pre/Trans fallacy, this looks like freewill thinking, but, has a different basis – I do not control the source of my control thoughts.
Grow {beard}, {sacrifice child} (child-thinking), move through {guarded gate}, pay toll at rock/fire/blade {altar} to pass through the {gate} into land of — first, heimarmene, then – in Late Antiquity – proceed a little to sort of transcend heimarmene.
David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism: born out from the cosmic rock, above the sphere of the fixed stars, reaching level of precession of the equinoxes.
I re-checked Zep IV p. 118 (astral ascent mysticism) & 122 (the Egodeath theory) — you just missed my 2004-era beginnings of forming the 3-level, 3-phase model, including “transcend block-universe determinism” better called block-universe eternalism.
Actually around 2000, I started working on adding this level “higher than no-free-will”, or “higher than block-universe determinism” — NOT reflected in my 1997 outline summary of my 1988-discovered theory, which strictly terminates – like Zep IV book – at block-universe eternalism; heimarmene.
But in 2000, Coraxo in Gnosticism Yahoo Group, pointed out that my 1997 2-phase model (mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism) is unable to discuss Gnositicism’s goal of transcending heimarmene.
— which was the goal of every brand of religion in Late Antiquity – in contrast to Classical Antiquity, which Zep IV book covers and Egodeath.com 2003 mainly emphasizes.
— Michael Hoffman, the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism
Email 2 to Erik Davis, Mar. 24, 2025
Zep IV book accurately represents the emphasis on experiencing no-free-will, in Rock.
We have not yet built above that the idea also of in a way, transcending no-free-will.
Late 20th C, Psychedelic Rock lyrics terminate in block-universe eternalism / block-universe determinism, unless you count Rush song Freewill as asserting “transcending no-free-will”.
Typical blotter Rock expresses tragic amazement at no-free-will revelation – not emphasizing “transcend determinism”.
Song: Jump into the Fire:
You can climb a mountain, swim the sea You can jump into the fire But you’ll never be free, no, no
“On a 1997 radio show “The History of Classic Rock”, I heard the apocalypse of the early 1970s, the day the music died; some 26 years earlier, freewill thinking took a fatal spearing of the heart, leading inevitably to its death. Through bubbling audio distortion, the full album Led Zeppelin IV played, time stopped, this passing age had been speared and the end was inevitably near for collective freewill thinking.”
You can climb a mountain You can swim the sea You can jump into the fire But you’ll never be free
You can shake me up Or I can bring you down Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh
We can make each other happy Oh, we can make each other happy We can make each other happy We can make each other happy
You can climb a mountain, swim the sea You can jump into the fire But you’ll never be free, no, no
My god I heard that on the Classic Rock station Dec. 1997 during an EPIC album history festival, what a journey.
That song struck me with confirmation of my recent, Feb. 1997, outlined/ summarized, original, Core, Phase 1 theory.
Not covering the history of religious myth and entheogen scholarship yet – that started 1998, my Phase 2, Mytheme theory work.
By 2001, shown in the Egodeath Yahoo Group archive from Max Freakout, I was working on adding the concept of “transcend determinism”.
I didn’t find the word ‘eternalism’ until the day after I finalized my Phase 2, main article, 2007 – though that was still missing comprehension of the art motifs of {branching} & {handedness}, figured out in 2013, 2015, and especially Nov. 2020… continuing into 2025.
My Phase 2 theory, integrating religious myth, is summarized in my main article, September 2007 – the day before I switched from ‘determinism’ to ‘eternalism’.
That expanded outline of the Egodeath theory includes “transcend block-universe determinism”.
My 1997 Core theory terminates in block-universe eternalism, and lacks the idea of “transcend eternalism” – so that original-phase explanatory model (1988-1997) is “period-correct” — but is not adequate to discuss Late Antiquity’s project of “[in a slight sense] transcend Fate”.
If Coraxo hadn’t pointed out my theory’s limitation in 2000 (in the Gnosticism Yahoo Group), I certainly — inevitably; predestined — would have figured it out soon anyway, because in 1998 I started looking to religious myth to corroborate my 1988-1997 2-level, core theory.
I would have seen, as I did around 2003, that Late Antiquity emphasized in the Marketing dept. of every brand of religion: “Only OUR religion elevates you above Fate; all other brands make you a slave of Fate.”
They all reified Fate even while selling transcending Fate.
1998-2007, I was reading all books on myth and religion with a focus on “determinism”/ heimarmene, and experiencing it after sacred eating and drinking. If Coraxo hadn’t corrected me in 2000, something else would have, and did, anyway.
Coraxo’s point was a memorable explosion that started my differentiation between Classical Antiquity (terminating in heimarmene); aim for block-universe eternalism. Late Antiquity (terminating in transcending heimarmene); aim above block-universe eternalism (while yet affirming that block-universe eternalism is the case).
Coraxo was only one of many factors that corrected my 1997 2-level, 2-phase model, as soon as I in 1998 switched to scouring religious myth to corroborate my Core theory, 2-level theory.
Late Antiquity created a “2-1/2 level” or “2-1/2 phase” model.
Consider the title “Treatise on the 8th & 9th / Ogdoad & Enneand) cosmic spheres:
The initiate asks to be brought to the 8th & then 9th.
First bring me to no-free-will/ block-universe eternalism, then, teacher, bring me, right after that, to its companion sphere:
from the sphere of the fixed stars to above that, precession of the equinoxes (David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism).
The MAIN Psilocybin transformation trajectory is transformation from possibilism to eternalism; rebirth into {snake frozen in rock} — exactly like Classical Antiquity said, the Psilocybin revelation is transformation from possibilism to eternalism – that is 8/9 of the “complete initiation” effort.
It took me a lot of work, it has been requiring a lot of theorizing lately, to frame and sell and position my correct relation of
“reach eternalism” vs.
“end up kinda w/ same freewill as ever, transcending eternalism, sort of”.
I’s been a lot of work for me to move above the sphere of the fixed stars into sphere 9, precession of equinoxes, born from the cosmic, heimarmene-snake-wrapped cosmos to reach the Empyrean, dwelling place of all the Elect.
The Elect are sort of in the sphere of the fixed stars, but more, they as spirits dwell above the the sphere of the fixed stars, in the 9th sphere, outside the Fate-soaked cosmos.
— Michael Hoffman, the theorist of Egodeath
end of email 2 to Erik Davis
Read Aloud Voice Recording of Houot: The Psychonaut’s Ship
Yugler Exemplifies Characteristic Modern Corruption and Obscuring of Myth
Simon Yugler writes the myth accurately of Perseus vs. Medusa, and yet, he mixes in with it, his own, LUNATIC mythmaking that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE BASIC IDEA of that myth, directly contradicting the actual myth and his own accurate telling of the actual myth. https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=Yugler+medusa+invisible
Perseus Looks at Medusa’s Face
This is an attempt to destroy myth!
Jugler writes “Perseus looks at Medusa’s face.”
NO, NO NO!!
You are directly contradicting yourself and the basic, essential idea of the Medusa myth; this is madness, Yugler!
As you yourself wrote just 2 paragraphs / pages ago, you cannot look at Medusa’s face and live.
Medusa Is Invisible
This is an attempt to destroy myth!
Juller writes “Medusa is invisible.”
NO, NO NO!!
You are directly contradicting yourself and the basic, essential idea of the Medusa myth; this is madness, Yugler!
WTF!! Are you insane?!
As you yourself wrote just 2 paragraphs/ pages ago, Perseus, not Medusa, wears Hades’ magic cap of invisibility.
PERSEUS IS INVISIBLE.
The notion that “Medusa is invisible”) is modern baloney psychobabble REPLACING the sound, coherent myth.
Jungianism Sucks Because It Replaces, Not Clarifies, Myth
Jungianism sucks: It adds its own, wrong, clueless, modern-era overlay on top of the pre-Modern myth, thus destroying and obscuring and directly contradicting the basic idea that’s expressed by the actual ancient myth.
Correct Use of Analogy
Houot book DOES mention correctly, analogy, vs. metaphor. chapter 10 at 33:22, 80% through. Section: Analogical reasoning, p. 165, simile & metaphor too.
The Jungian approach is an abuse/ misuse of analogy.
“An analogy is a comparison between two things in order to explain and clarify.”
Perfect for the Egodeath theory! This is like a description of the Egodeath theory, Phase 2, which in 1998 went to Mr. Jesus/Paul and instantly realized
Instantly realized that LITERALISM HISTORICITY ASSUMP FAILS TO CONFIRM the Egodeath theory; BUT AT SAME TIME, INSTEAD, GOOD INTERP OF MYTH AS ANALOGY DESCRIBING Psilocybin Psilocybin transformation IS PERFECT APPRORPIATE APPROACH THAT WILL VERY LIKELY SUCCEED and then by 2003, I felt that it worked: inddedd, myth is analogy describing Psilocybin transformation.
Freke in another book asserts spiritual psychedelics. And no-free-will, like the advaita meditation guy – not Ken Wilber! – Ramesh Balsekar, who Andrew Cohen & Ken Wilber discussed in the magazine What Is Enlightenment?
Rubes Andrew Cohen & Ken Wilber were SHOCKED by Ramesh Balsekar saying (crudely) enlightenment = realizing no-free-will.
Like in 1995, all Christians rediscovered Calvinism / Reformed theology and were SHOCKED!
That was like 2 years after I discovered that confirmation of the Egodeath theory. I was a little ahead of that curve, the late late modern era rediscovery of Reformed theology. thus i say WE BADLY NEED BOOK: HISTORY OF *ALL* FORMS OF DETERMINISM.
Stop silo’ing that key, main, central topic!! Like Pagels badly silo’s in her 1st 3 books: “the topic of free will vs. determinism in no way is at all related to topic of predestination in theology“. “Don’t cross the streams.” says Pagels and everyone.
Ramesh Balsekar conjoins the interests of Kafei & the Egodeath theory.
Ramesh Balsekar is the common link that brought together Kafei & Michael Hoffman’s Egodeath theory.
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy’s book The Jesus Mysteries, 2001 https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986/ tjm Wow, awesome new type of keyboard shortcut! A refinement/ variant of the recent new type: keyboard shortcut for book/ article citation. Great idea: include my site’s link within the expansion! powerful! Can’t wait to try/use this approach!
Per the Egodeath theory,
metaphor is bad (literary, confusing writing).
analogy is good (comparisons for purpose of clearly explaining).
Like Wouter Hanegraaff says (per my reading of him) do not make myth-based pseudo-history the basis of academic scientific actual history of esoteric pseudo-history.
We are to write the actual scientific history of tales of esoteric pseudo-history. Don’t cross those two streams.
the Egodeath theory is not BASED IN myth. Previous explanatory frameworks failed b/c they were based in myth, hazy thinking & communication. the Egodeath theory utilizes myth as analogies for purpose of clearly explaining. the Egodeath theory is not based in myth.
The Egodeath theory explains and uses myth.
The Egodeath theory is based in clear STEM thinking & communication of explan fwk; a science-based (or, Engineering useful tech based) explanatory framework.
That’s related to my above point, that Elaine Pagels’ books 1-3 acts like the topic of free will vs. determinism has NOTHING to do w/ theology topic of predestination. I hate how the history of versions of determinism is silo’d, preventing people from realizing:
The Key Central Topic of Everything Is, Free Will vs. Determinism [Better: Possibilism vs. Eternalism]
Why don’t ppl realize that the topic of free will vs. determinism is the key to everything?
Because the topic of possibilism vs. eternalism is has been fragmented and silo’d into 10 different separate fields AS IF they were unrelated topics, but really it is manifestations of the same topic/ concern/ Psilocybin transformation revelation.
eg in theory of time, off-track blind contrast discussions are off base: “presentism vs. eternalism”. Same in YouTube vids about “eternalism” – they wrongly say “eternalism is constrasted w/ presentism”. No!
From the most relevant and terrifying (during Psilocybin) personal control system POV, it is actually possibilism that’s contrasted w/ eternalism. I am forced to admit, from a non-focused POV, we must consider – in the Phil classroom — Presentism. and,
From the Psilocybin loose cognition POV/ state, yes, we have hyper Presentism of awareness.
But in loose cognition, most relevant for control stabiltiy, is transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Not presentism, which is merely a Phil dept topic & also is one aspect of Psilocybin experience.
In the relevant, useful, exciting, non-boring Psilocybin state, the clash is not … the Psilocybin transformation is not from Presentism to Eternalism; it’s transformation from possibilism to eternalism. The mind is made to repudiate not presentism, in the sacriice for gate-passing-through, but rather, repudiate possibilism.
The first, childish, sacrificed, repudiated worldmodel, {king steering in tree}, is possibilism, NOT presentism. When that is repud’d, control cs results.
keyboard shortcuts not defined: control stability [CS] stable control [SC] stable personal control [SPC]
expect c s = “control system”? but already defined are: personal control system [PCS] the egoic personal control system [EPCS]
cybernetic self-control seizure [CSCS]
from {king steering in tree} [= possibilism; NOT presentism!] through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
The mind does NOT transform from presentism, presentism is nothing but a stupid Phil dept notion.
Irrelevant to Psilocybin transformation.
otoh, possibilism is extremely relevant to Psilocybin transformation.
that’s why discussions treatments of “eternalism” are stupid and irrel even including effectindex.com Josie Kins’ treatment of eternalism, and YouTube MISSING THE PERTINENT POINT:
They wrongly pit the Phil dept notion of “Presentism” against a kind of Eternalism that fails to focus on the personal control system PROBLEMATIZATION OF PERSONAL CONTROL GIVEN ETERNALISM.
Sure, Wm James’ domino-chain cuauslity article 1897 has some points about cancelling personal control system, but , fails to relevantly integrate.
James fails to grasp/consider eternalism; he tries to get to eternalism from freewill-soaked notion of domino-chain determinism that Kafei rejected when Kafei misread my main article Sep 2007 final draft b/c only the following day did I discover and announce the words ‘eternalism’ and ‘superdeterminism’ – as conventionally defined, neither “determinism” nor “eternalism” nor ” superdeterminism” grasp the important points: problematization of control during loose cognition experience of eternalism, forcing to repudiate relying on possibilism – NOT repudiate presentism, which is just a stupid Phil dept notion invented by half baked Chris Letheby.
Our childish initial worldmodel – which we keep, by the way; we preserve it like Isaac and per Ken Wilber – we ride consciously , after enlightenment , the lower, childish Possibilism worldmodel.
Not ride & use childish presentism
possibilism [PSM] <– that April 1987 notation doesn’t make sense as “acronym”.
that’s the diff’c between keyboard shortcut vs. 1987-type shorthand acronym.
By avoiding mixed case, it’s possible to all caps by typing the keyboard shortcut in allcaps.
Outdated Term in Egodeath Lexicon: ‘metaphor’ <– bad, say “analogy”
We’re not doing muddle-headed literary writing; we are doing clarifying explanation, so [by definition] say ‘analogy’, not ‘metaphor’.
egodeath ed
metaphorical psychedelic eternalism mpe
Presentism
“presentism”, a mis-focused, irrelevant, ordinary state-based term from armchair Philosophy department/ dorm room tripper, having nothing to do with & not useful in any way for the ego death experience prmj
“presentism”, a mis-focused, irrelevant, ordinary state-based term from armchair philosophy department (Chris “only mind exists” Letheby, late to class from tripping all night in his dorm room), having nothing to do with & not useful in any way for the ego death experience
Thomas Hatsis posted “Allegro is my fav author” in his blog, and then goes around attacking everyone by projecting his own #1 fanboiism of Allegro onto other entheogen scholars.
Hatsis projects his own personal childhood trajectory of folly onto everyone else, even me who is 0% influenced, in my intellectual trajectory, by Allegro.
I never heard of Allegro or his stupid Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory until AFTER my Feb. 1997 outline of my core theory.
Similarly:
Chris Letheby wrote (published) that when he’s tripping in his dorm room, he insists “only mind exists”.
He wrote that then, when he comes down, he flips and insists only “only material exists”.
Both are irrelevant positions. re the most important experience, control transformation.
The debate between whether “only mind exists” or “only material exists” is irrel to control transformation in Psilocybin state, & control instability that drives mental model transformation.
Max Freakout & I agree that the useful practical, relevant, useful model is:
We can’t know if the external world exists, beyond the wall of mental construct representations, but, it is useful to assume it does; useful for control transformation in the loose cognition state.
So, build a model on THAT foundation.
Pure distraction is Phil debate “only mind exists” vs. “only external material world exists”.
Irrel for control crisis; the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control
etcloc
Dittrich’s OAV questionnaire Angst/ Dread/ DED dimension item 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
Why did Griffiths obtain the Angst items from 11-Factors’ re-factoring of OAV’s Angst dim, isntead of directly copying the 21 Angst items directly from OAV’s Angst dim?
b/c that way, he can “accidentally” overlook & exclude the 8 items – incl item 54 – that were too broadly powerful to fit exclusvely into either one of the new, low-level factors, ANX or ICC.
But why didn’t the B-tier, lower-IQ ppl on Stud’s team put — obviously, item 54, “anxiety about control” GOES INTO HALF OF THEIR HALF BAKED “ICC” LO-LEV FACTOR, “Impaired Control and cognition”.
Questionnaire Authors 1) Conjoined Impaired Control + Impaired Cognition into single factor; 2) placed item 54 fear of loss of control into ANX anxiety factor, why?
Why not into ICC factor initially? 3) “dropped” 54 from ANX.
I would have expected them to put 54 in ICC – impaired control – where there’s no way in they could’ve dropped it, and they woulda known obviously WE GOT A BIG PROBLEM.
Thats’ a Thomas Hatsis quote, confused about the position of Brown & me; the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm:
Hatsis 2020 assumes he can attribute Irvin 2008’s view onto Brown & me.
You guys got a big problem.
Imagine an alt, better reality of how Stud group ought to have defined neg Factors in the 11-Factors questionnaire: so as to prevent Grift from missing 8 negative effects out of 21, when concocting the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ): What if this had happened:
Stud group’s b team, who was assigned to make-up some lo-lev factors within their renamed “Angest” hi lv … goddamnit i have to voice recording. can’t type , MUST REST FINGERS. true, at 1:34 pm March 22 2025 I am pulling out from editing the present page.
1) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Made a Single Factor Scoped as ICC; “Impaired Control and Cognition”
2) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Initially Placed OAV’s Item 54 “Fear of Loss of Control” into the ANX “Anxiety” Factor; Should Have Put It into ICC (or better, an IC) Factor Instead
3) 11-Factors Questionnaire Should Not Have Dropped OAV’s Item 54 “Fear of Loss of Control” into the ANX “Anxiety” Factor; Should Have Put It into ICC (or better, an IC) Factor Instead
4) Griffiths Should Not Have Gathered Initial Item Pool from 11-Factors’s low level factors; Ought to Have Copied from OAV’s Angst Dimension DIRECTLY, to not overlook 8 broad effects items of 21
4) Griffiths Should Not Have Gathered Initial Item Pool from 11-Factors’s low level factors (thus overlooking 8 too-broad items), but Should Have Instead Drawn Directly the Complete Set of All 21 Items from OAV’s Angst/Dread Dimension –
By using the ill-formed middleman questionnaire 11-Factors, which is an overlay on OAV that makes change 1 & change 2 , Grifty overlooked 8 of 21 neg Psilocybin effects [and went on to arb delete 10 more, leaving only 3 of 21 neg Psilocybin effects, deleting 84%, magically reaining 3/21 = 14% of neg Psilocybin effects, yet p. 1 “the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is awesome b/c it is BROADER collecion of neg Psilocybin fx than SOCQ/MEQ & HRS & OAV/5D-ASC Combined!
Change 1: 11F renames OAV’s Angst/Dread/ DED dim as “Unpl Exp” and that becomes a hi-lev dim in comparison to their added shiny Mktg dept “factors” they add.
Change 2: 11F adds to the Angst dim of OAV, relatively lo-lev “factors”, but, they unconsciously create what i call Shadow Factor 13, (vs its complement i cal “Virtual Factor 12” within “Pleasant Exp” hi-level dim which = OAV’s O + V dims = Ocean + Vision dims). When they “drop” 8 items from their lo lev factors ANX & ICC, that means, the 8 items still remain, within their non-Marketed, non-Advertised, hih level “Unpleasant” dim which exactly = OAV ‘s A Dread DIM. The 8 items ….
Alternatively, Grifty could have copied entire “Unpl Exp” hi-lev dim from 11F questionnaire, which includes the 8 “dropped from factors” items, as well as the 7-8 ANX items + 6-7 ICC items
11F’s hi-level “Unpleasant Experiences” dimension consists of 3 groups of items: Studerus team unconsciously ended up defining 3, not just 2, low-level Factors within their renamed “Unpleasant Experiences” high-level dimension:
‘S’ (Shadow Factor 13) – incl OAV’s item 54: Anxiety about Control
‘ANX’ (Anxiety)
‘ICC’ (Impaired Control and Cognition)
What a fkking mess! Studerus never explains:
Why we made 1 factor combining two different things: impaired control & impaired cognition.
Why we initially (temp’ly) placed item 54 (anxiety about control) into our Anxiety factor instead of into our Impaired Control factor.
Why we dropped 54 (anxiety about control) from any factor, either Anx or Imp Ctrl – they write “we dropped 54 b/c had too much cross-laoding across all of the 2 facotrs, ANX & ICC”). ie, kept in hi-level Unplease dim, but excluded from – LOST IN BAD MATH, THEY FORGOT WTF THEY ARE TRYING TO ACOCMPLICSH. IF 11-F SHINY NEW LO-LEV ADDED FACTORS, THAT THEY ADDED TO DITT’S WONDERFUL OAV A DIM, CANNOT FIT 54 “ANX ABOUT CTRL ” INTO ANY OF THEIR FABRICATED, MARKETED, NEW FACTORS, LO-LEV FACOTRS, WHAT IS THE FUCKKING POINT OF 111-FACTORS????? What is the purpose of 11-F questionnaire, i mean the purpose of its shiny new “factors”, if they cannot fit a major psychedelic effect, “anxiety about control”? What in the HELL is Stud team treying to accomp, w/ their shiny marketed lo-lev factors, if those factors FAIL to capture “anxiety about control”??????
What is Studerus Team Trying to Accomplish with their shiny new heavily marketed low-level “factors”, if those factors FAIL to capture “anxiety about control”??
What a COMPLETELY USELESS, POINTLESS SET OF FACTORS!!
🤦♂️🤦♂️😵💦🔫
The Studerus Low-IQ, C-Team, Retarded scientists assigned by Mktg Dept to fabricate some low-level factors, that exclude, after fumbling around
see their phase 1 outline where they fumbled around, then their next appendix where they fumbled around more moving item 54 here & there, then see final result in outline of only the factors item —
BUT NOT the “dropped” 8 negative items whcih now have gone off the radar b/c only remain within the Unpl Dim but not in any lo-lev “factor’,
so become invisible from marketing pOv that Grifty gets suckered into when he copies only the neg factorss –
instead of copying entire neg Unp Ex hi-level dim – which exactly = the full set of 21 OAV/Angst items — from 11F into “initial item pool” for the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
OAV Angst dim exists w 21 items
11F copies all 21 as “Unpl” hi-lev dim, and iniitally puts item 54 (anx about ctrl) in ANX, not in ICC (imparied control). see apx 1 outline.
11F then removes item 54 from ANX, so it’s in Unpl but not in either ANX or ICC factor (8 Neg items become “grayed out” this way, not included in any low-level Factor).
Along comes Grifty, gathering items for CEQ’s initial item pool, but he IGNORES THE NON-marketed hi-lev Unp dim w/ 21 items, (full set), and ONLY copies the low-lev factors items (21-8 = 13 items). we’re down to 13 of 21 Negative Psilocybin effects.
in final item pool, Grifty deletes 10 more of the OAV/Angst items, retaining only 3 of the 21 items that are in OAV’s Angst dim or – identailly – in 11F’s hi-levl Unpl Exp dim. Mission accomp: Grift has deleted 8 and then 10 items, of the full set of Ditt’s 21 Angst items, dleeted 18 of 21 = 84% of Psilocybin challengiing effects, retaining only 14%.
the LOL part: Grifty then writes the Hop marketing spiel on p 1 of the CEQ article, bragging: the reason CEQ exists is, we make a broader, more emcompassing list of negative psychedelic effects, than any other questionnaire;
indeed MORE COMPREHSIVE THAN THE NEG FX OF SOCQ & HRS & OAV questionnaires, COMBINED! LOL!
And no, the deleted 18 of 21 OAV items are NOT covered equivalently by the neg items that were drawn from the other questionnaire lineages, SOCQ or HRS;
predictably, the same type of folly was applied by Grifty team to SOCQ & HRS as well.
Subsets of Negative Psychedelic Effects that Make Up the 11F qair’s Unpleasant Experiences hi-level dimension (which = OAV’s Angst/ Dread/ DED/ Dread of Ego Death
Dittrich’s “DED” actually means “Dread of Ego Dissolution“, not Dread of Ego Death, , but my Marketing dept. told me to accidentally slip.
Plus, psychedelic dread is not of dissolution, it is fear of cybernetic {death} ie loss of control;
dread = the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control. you could say, DED = the experience of the threat of disastrous loss of control.
DED = Dread of Ego Disaster
11f; 11f-m; 11f-l – set of 3 verbosities of shortcut expansion
Define a set of 3 keyboard shortcuts, by using pattern: abbrv (a short expansion, as if abbrv-s but default to omit -s) abbrv-m (a medium-length expansion) abbrv-l (a long expansion)
short expansion: the 11-Factors questionnaire 11f
A good, needed summary of 11-F, showing how it’s a malformed addition to OAV questionnaire:
med expansion: the 11-Factors questionnaire, which is same positive & negative psychedelics effects items/questions as OAV questionnaire, but with incomplete low-level subset factors added 11fm
long expansion: the 11-Factors questionnaire from Studerus group, has a high-level dimension that’s identical set of negative psychedelic effects as Dittrich’s OAV questionnaire’s Angst/ Dread of Ego Dissolution dimension, but with two low-level “factors” added — and also, problematically, an unconscious “Shadow Factor 13” factor because the two factors omit 8 effects items 11fl
11F’s “factors” are incomplete subsets, so i had to add their unconscious factors: Virtual Factor 12 [items omitted from lo-lev factors in OAV’s Oceanic & Visionary dimensions]
Shadow Factor 13 [items omitted from lo-lev factors in OAV’s Angst/ Dread of Ego Dissolution/ DED dimension] –
includes item 54 “anxiety about control” which fit both the Stud malformed ill-designed factors, “ANX” Anxiety & ICC “Impaired Control”
and so their GENIUS solution 🤔💡was to simply “drop” item 54, “anxiety about control” from these badly formed lo-lev “factors” entirely, only retaining such 8 items within the shunned, anti-Marketing, hi-levl Unpl dim.
b/c marketing purpose was:
Our new improved questionnaire, 11F, improves OAV by adding some lo-lev factors to the combination of Ocean+Vision dims, and Angst dim which we rename as the “Unpleasant Experiences” high-level dimension.
the official expansion of ditt’s Angst/ Dread of Ego disosluion /DED acro per the Egodeath theory is “Dread of Ego Death” – a faux expansion, for my Marketing purposes; as we see from Grifty.
Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science
The Grifty Group & the Stud Group Are Marketing-Driven Psychedelic Pseudo Science
Similarly, the Egodeath Theory is driven by Marketing at the Expense of Science, so, I misstate:
OAV’s Angst/ Dread/ DED Dimension (Dread of Ego Death)
not dread “of Ego Dissolution”, per know-nothing, confused Adolph Dittrich listening to Acid Rush album Caress of Steel in 1975 when he formed v1 questionnaire, of his lineage, APZ.
Adolph Dittrich falsely claims that dread is of ego dissolution.
when he formed/ first id’d his in 1985 his 3 dim’s within APZ. these were v1 OAV sets of psychedelics fx items/questions, vs. v2 OAV in 1994.
psychedelics effects items/questions peiq when i say “items” i mean this.
The Dittrich lineage of questionnaires:
1975: APZ
1985: OAV dims (v1) of APZ
There’s also a stupidly named, irrelvant dimension or two — ie categs of a-s fx altered-state fx the altered state ychedelics about drug-specific non-psychedelic effects that is pointless and no one pays any attention to – that’s the other 2 dims of “5D” later.
1994: OAV dims (v2) of APZ
year: 5D-ASC
year: the 11-Factors questionnaire – same items as – same psychedelics effects items/questions as OAV 1994, but combines Ocean+Vision to form “Pleasant Exp” high-level dimension, and mainly exists for Marketing dept to add 11 low-level “factors” but, they are incomplete subsets within Please or Unplea dims, the Pleaseant dim omiting like 16 positive items, and the Unpl dim omitting 8 neg psychedelics effects items/questions. thus i trump them all,
2023: Cybermonk defines hidden in the 11-Factors questionnaire: Virtual Factor 12 [16 items?] Shadow Factor 13 [8 items]
SF13 includes – incl “control anxiety” which was dropped from Stud’s ANX factor & CTRL factor & ANX factor
The CTRL Factor – so to speak; actually it is named ICC, for “Impaired Control and Cognition”. God only knows why Stud combined Ctrl & Cog into a single Factor.
I am a dumb person on Stud team: hey i have great idea, lets divide Angst/Dread/ Unpleasent exp into Anxiety & Control. problem: where do we fit OAV’s item 54, “anxiety about control” then?
item 54, “anxiety about control” goes in both Factors: ANX & ICC.
since item 54 “anxiety about control” fits both in our “Anxiety” Factor and in our “Control” Factor, we need to “drop” item 54, from out incomplete set of low level Factors, bc it (& 7 other psychedelics effects items/questions) fails to fit our model.
we’ll hide item 54, “anxiety about control” in our unconscious SHAD Factor instead
my made-up Factor name acro “SHAD” works better than my joke about ‘S’ factor abbr that’s snake-shaped.
Real Factors from STud group: ANX, ICC. (note the 8 items they dropped from those, in Unpl dim)
Fake factors per the Egodeath theory: fake descriuptions of Stud’s factors: SHAD; for Shadow Factor 13 i id’d as the BLIND SPOT IN psychedelic pseudo science: {shadow dragon monster}.
my pretend factors:
ANX, CTRL, SHAD – all neg items are placed in some lo lev Factor this way.
The foolish Stud group, forming the 11-Factors questionnaire, said that Unpl exper divides into 2 (unconsciouly 3) Factors:
ANX
CTRL (actually named ICC)
[SHAD] <– unconscious
Given item 54: anxiety about control. Where put? Fits both ANX & CTRL factors. 🤔💡 i has idea: lets drop item 54, b/c it fails to fit only in ANX or only in CTRL. Item 54 is faulty b/c it fails to conform to our “ANX vs. CTRL” dichotomy, so we’ll simply drop it from any category — ie, place item … it in our unconscious SHAD factor, where Grifty group won’t see it when pickking items for initial item pool of teh questionnaire from Hell, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
🤔💡 Item 54, “anxiety about control”, Fails to Fit Only into Our “Anxiety” Factor or “Control” Factor — So, Simply Drop It! 🎉
😱🐉 –>🗑
That is exactly what happened, what was done by the B Team in Studerus group when fabricating the 11-Factors questionnaire.
The Griffiths group then came along, when crafting the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) as directed by the Grifty Marketing team, ignored the 11-Factors questionnaire’s “Unpleasant Experiences” high-level dimension (which has OAV’s entire set of 21 negative psychedelics effects items/questions), and instead ONLY copied the two, shiny, heavily marketed, low-level factors — ANX & ICC — ~= Anxiety factor & Control factor — from which item 54, “anxiety about control” had to be dropped b/c it spanned both factors.
That’s EXACTLY what happened; that’s how Grifty omitted 8 of 21– MAGICALLY DELETED 8 OF 21 NEGATIVE Psilocybin EFFECTS by accidentally being confused by the Studerus’ 11-Factors questionnaire made by the Studerus Marketing team.
Now just 10 more to go, omitting 10 more of the 21 negative psychedelics effects items/questions, so Grift can end up w/ only 3 of the feeblest negative psychedelics effects.
To achieve goal of selling ordinary state Grief therapy, foisted as “CEQ is the world’s most comprehensive questionnaire of all known negative psychedelics effects” —
A positive-balanced set of all negative psychedelics effects.
Which is to say, the nullification and cancellation of negative Psilocybin effects. PRESTO!
Has Anyone Seen the Buddha Statue?? Matt? What Have You Done with It?
I have a sudden urgent need for the photo of the Buddha statue of Hopkins over whichMatthew Johnson reported ethics violations complaints, and the FORMER team blew up to smithereens.
8 items that are too braod to fit ANX or ICC lo-lev factors b/c “too much cross-ladng” loading across these SHITTILY DEFINED low-level factors. These do not reside in any lo-lev factor, so I point out they in effect have unconsciously defined a hidden, 3rd factor, i call “Shadow Factor 13“, abbreviated as S b/c shaped as snake, containing {shadow dragon monster} , fear of loss of control.
7-8 items in ANX Anxiety factor. when you consider that FEAR of loss of CONTROL violates their bad categ schem b/c item 54 Fear of Loss of control fits both their ANX factor and their ICC “Impaired Control and Cognition” facotrs, they faced a question because of theeir stupid factors scopes: 54 fits both in ANX (because fear) and ICC (b/c re control), SO THEY SOLVED THE PAINTED INTO CORNER PLOB PROBLEM THEY CREATED, BY SIMPLY DROPPING ITEM 54 AND 7 OTHERS. which means, keeping those 8 items in the hi-lev Unpl dim, but exclusived excluding them from any low-level , highly Marketed, factor.
6-7 items in ICC factor. “Impaired Control and Cognition” factor. subset of hi lev dim “Unpl Exp”.
Then sucket for sucker for Marketing, Grifty, comes along, ignores 11F’s hii-leve Unplease dim, he only pays attention to shiny Marketing low level added factorrs,
DO VOICE RECORDING OF ALT REALITY, WHERE STUD GROUP DOES NOT JOIN IMPAIRED CONTROL W IMPAIRED COGNITION,
AND DOES NOT INIT PLACE 54 INTO ANX FACTOR, BUT PUTS IT INTO “IMPAIRED CONTROL [IC] FACTOR,
THEN THEY COULDN’T POSSIBLY HAVE “DROPPED” item 54 B/C OF “TOO MUCH COROSS-LOADING across MULTIPLE of our FACTORS”
The wording in Stud article: “dropped due to cross-loading”: ie, these 8 negaive psychedelics effects items were too broadly powerful to fit into our shiny new narrow low-level factors, lo-leve groups within “Unpleasant Experiences”, ANX or ICC.
Subtle you must und: to “drop” the 8 items/effects, means, have them in the negative high level category [same identical set of 21 items in OAV’s Angst/Dread dim & 11-F’s hi-level dim “Unpleaseant Experiences”.
Low-IQ Chris Letheby/ Philosophy Department False-Dilemma Debate: “Which One Exists: Mind, or Matter?” – Irrelevant for the All-Important Control Transformation Experience
control transformation = ???? shortcut cx? use that for now.
c x = control transformation
Might want phrase: the control transformation experience cte
test:
c t e = the control transformation experience
c y b e t m = cybernetic eternalism
c t = the cybernetic theory
m t = the Mytheme theory
not idiotic irrel. Phil dept debate “which one exists: external material world, or mind only??”
That debate is as DUMB as the low-IQ debate “Does God exist or not” — while it never even occurs to them to define; while NEVER defining their term ‘God’.
That doesn’t occur to them that we can define ‘God’ in different ways; instead, they take – thoughtlessly – for granted the most rank, crude, unreflective notion of ‘God’, taken silently for granted, and proceed to build their stupid debate on that irrelvant foundation basis. premise.
Houot does that kind of unthinking move, re: his assertion: “myth = stupidity = woo; reject it.”
Presentism IS relevant for “metaperception” in the Psilocybin state. Thus: THE PROPER USE OF PHIL DEPT CONCEPT OF “PRESENTISM” IS NOT FOR CONTRASTING TWO MODELS OF TIME, BUT FOR METAPERCEP IN THE ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
demo:
s m = critical rational scientific objective historiography methodology
whereas
S M = CRITICAL RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE HISTORIOGRAPHY METHODOLOGY
My keyboard shortcut sucks for e d t = … Since it’s a mixed-case expansion, that prevents allcapping it. Demo:
edt = the Egodeath theory
EDT = the Egodeath theory <– FAILS to allcap.
sm = [critical rational scientific objective historiography methodology] –0 Is that term against [Matthew Johnson & Chris Letheby’s hardcore materialism-only position in [the Moving Past Mysticism debate in Psychedelic Science aka the Mysticism Wars]]? No, that phrase is re: [Wouter Hanegraaff’s theory of historiography of esotericism].
the Moving Past Mysticism debate in Psychedelic Science aka the Mysticism Wars mpmd
keyboard shortcuts: kws: from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}
removed “puppet”, it is a net loss here.
kws
[KWS] <– my breakthrough notation of April 1987, for handwriting in binder sheets
I ditched blank books then, April 1987, because not expansive/ freeform / inviting open experimentation enough.
April 1987 when father died, I thus switched from a __ approach to a ___ approach, which i credit for my jan 1988 breakthrough. ultra fast figured out e-t ego transcendence b/c i had to. compare Ooh-Oh recounting the math grad student who solved impossible math problems because he didn’t know they were impossible/ unsolved.
I am the first to figure out ego transcendence , b/c i had to! EXTREME push by me, from phase 1 [relative phases defined only here}
Phase: Blank Books Self Help Cajoling, vs. Binder Sheets + Acronyms Definition Notation like [MCP] with Pentel P205 Mech Pencil
My minor, lesser sense of “my initial phases of dev’ing the Egodeath theory”.
sense 2: Phase 1 = create core the Egodeath theory; phase 2 = add myth analogies.
sense 1: Phase 1= Oct 26 1985 back to the future day through March 1987: the blank books self-help era. cajoling myself to stop thinking wrong and think correctly instead, stupid self! Gosh!; then, phase 2 = April 1987 binder sheets + acronyms for Loose Cognitive Science — loose cognitive binding [LCB], loose mental functioning binding , those sort of acro’s.
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake frozen in rock}
todo: find a Windows app that = Mac > Preferences > Keyboard > Text, but, will lose sync w/ mobile, darn.
MAJOR PHASE 1: DEVELOP the Egodeath theory
Subphases: *
1985/10/26-jun 86: the first approach/vector
jun 86-mar 87: 2nd
apr 87-dec 88
jan 88 – feb 97: now that i have the grand breakthru new paradigm, write up, and read what ahu humans have written in all related fields.
Phase: Create Core 2-level Egodeath Core Theory: Reach Eternalism; Phase: Add Myth Analogy, History of Religious Myth; 3-Phase/3-Level Model (Transcend Eternalism)
My main sense of “my two phases of dev’ing the Egodeath theory”.
4-Hour Productive Voice Recording Sat. Mar 15, 2025
I found errors in Jerry Brown Psychedelic Gospels 2016. Do not lump together scholars , or you lack precision.
Brown says Clark Heinrich asserts ahistoricity Jesus- False.
Hein never heard of tgat, Str Fruit says Allegro said Jesus was leader of mushroom cult.
Brown is smearing competitors, fakely exaggerating his distance to make them look bad, But Brown’s view is close to theirs.
Posturing, Brown misrepresents competitors to make them look bad and fabricate pretended distance between him & them.
Slow, Buggy, Drainy App
old bug – sluggish, then dups block – not fixed still!
SLUGGISH mobile JetPack APP WTF 🐌🐢 and is burning up battery
Breakthrough: Wasson’s Private View vs. Wasson’s Public View (They Differ; He Is a Liar)
Mar 15: Ruck half truth – Hoffman Uncertainty Principle regarding deniers of mushrooms in art:
We cannot know what a mushroom denier’s private view is, we only know what their stated public view is. Exception: If you are pals like Ruck, you can tell that Wasson believed mushroom art.
As a peer reviewer for Wink the Journal of Psychedelic Studies article about Wasson i was wrong to say Wasson dod NOT believe mushroom art– [shorthand here]– the mediocre writer was correct saying
Wasson must have believed mushroom art.
Correct, we are safe to assume Wasson believed mushroom imagery in Christian art PRIVATELY while Wasson PUBLICLY LIED and pretended reject mushroom imagery in Christian art
I should have told the draft journal article author:
You must contrast Wasson’s PRIVATE belief vs his PUBLIC LIE about his view.
Conflict of interest: Wasson was the banker forcthe Vatican.
Ramsbottom 1953 leaked Wasson’s private affirmative view, by printing Wasson’s Dec 1953 letter in 2nd printing of book Mushrooms & Toadstools.
Wasson didn’t figure that out he was caught lying about his view, until 1970+ when Allegro busted him in endnote quoting Wasson 1953 Dec to Ram: “Rightly of wrongly, we are going to publicly pretend to not believe mushroom-trees mean mushroom.”
Brown says Irvin asserts ahistoricity. False i think, in AstroSham – i think irvin is agnosrltic and flexible about ahistoricity.
I explained to friend after recording, in just 3-4 minutes, why Hanegraaff botches astral ascent mysticism and cannot place fixed stars in their usual sphere level 8: because the initiate asks teacher to take them to sphere 8 & 9.
In fact initiate asks teacher to take them to Fate sphere (8, Ogdoad), which is the highest level of the Fate-ruled cosmos, 100% Fate; and AFTER that, after going THROUGH Fate, then reach level 9, freewill, a little bit, with your head / soirit poking outside of the Fate-cosmos,
I wish I recorded teaching all the basic points in just 3 min. I used extremely common words, no tech jargon.
I need to write and record like beginner/ outsider utoob videos.
i didnt even mention Saturn, maybe. Only talk about where to put the stars, in sphere 8, which is Fate, NOT freewill.
I first prepped friend by explaining who Hanegraaff is: in 1995 when I asked bookseller what book studies the esoteric roots of Newage, he said I should write it.
1995, Hanegraaff was writing his book Newage Mirror of W Thot.
As if Hanegraaff wrote the book for me, to order.
Thx for writing the book I asked for in 1995, Hanegraaff.
Hanegraaff thinks wrongly sphere 8 ogdoad is above fate , and he thinks one would want to avoid fate, not reach fate..
He thinks Ogdoad is fe freewill . but it is actually Fate, . his root problem preventing placing fixed stars. in sphere 8 ogdoad. Chaos results in his broken sytem. but i got big confirm my astral ascent mysticism model in 2014 from 2013 book N D L Cosmology & Fate, then yesterday Justin Slegdge Chris B
Ogdoad is fate and that is where the fixed stars (which Hanegraaff knows are Fate)
book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022
WordPress Mobile App
This page is still short, yet app slow.
data sync notes: I deleted “WordPress” mobile app, using now “JetPack” (WordPress) mobile app.
Be careful to check result in Desktop browser to not lose data/ writings.
Pagels’ First 3 Books Compatible with the Egodeath Theory
Elaine Pagels’ first 3 books resonate with the Egodeath theory. She divides traits into two contrasting sets of views, like in the book The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy:
“Orthodox” (exoteric): literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control.
“Gnostic” (esoteric): analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control.
My Amazon book reviews of Pagels’ first 3 books at:
Egodeath.com
EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com
Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout archive.
todo: make a page gathering those 3 reviews.
Video: The Valentinians: Ancient Christian Gnostics? (ReligionForBreakfast, 2022)
“Valentinianism was a prominent variety of early Christianity starting in the 2nd century CE. Some call it a form of Gnosticism. But what is Valentinianism all about?”
960K subscribers 453,299 views
“Check out my favorite religious studies books by following this affiliate link to my Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/shop/religionforbreakfast – These books are Dr. Andrew M. Henry’s top recommendations. These are all scholarly books written by academics and experts in their respective fields.”
Further reading: [book info below]
Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, “Valentinus’ Legacy and Polyphony of Voices” [2022]
Geoffrey Smith, “Valentinian Christianity” [2020]
Ismo Dunderberg, “Beyond Gnosticism” [2008]
Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, Valentinus’ Legacy and Polyphony of Voices https://www.amazon.com/Valentinus-Polyphony-Routledge-Studies-Christian/dp/1032019352/ [2022] “This book challenges the popular use of ‘Valentinian’ to describe a Christian school of thought in the second century CE by analysing documents ascribed to ‘Valentinians’ by early Christian Apologists, and more recently by modern scholars after the discovery of codices near Nag Hammadi in Egypt.
To this end, Ashwin-Siejkowski highlights the great diversity of views among Christian theologians associated with the label ‘Valentinian’, demonstrating their attachment to the Scriptures and Apostolic traditions as well as their dialogue with Graeco-Roman philosophies of their time. Among the various themes explored are ‘myth’ and its role in early Christian theology, the familiarity of the Gospel of Truth with Alexandrian exegetical tradition, Ptolemy’s didactic in his letter to Flora, the image of the Saviour in the Interpretation of Knowledge, reception of the Johannine motifs in Heracleon’s commentary and the Tripartite Tractate, salvation in the Excerpts from Theodotus, Christian identity in the Gospel of Philip, and reception of selected Johannine motifs in ‘Valentinian’ documents.
Valentinus’ Legacy and Polyphony of Voices will be an invaluable and accessible resource to students, researchers, and scholars of Early Christian theologies, as well as trajectories of exegesis in New Testament sources and the emerging of different Christian identities based on various Christologies.”
Geoffrey Smith Valentinian Christianity [2020] https://www.amazon.com/Valentinian-Christianity-Translations-Geoffrey-Smith/dp/0520297466/ — “Valentinus, an Egyptian Christian who traveled to Rome to teach his unique brand of theology, and his followers, the Valentinians, formed one of the largest and most influential sects of Christianity in the second and third centuries. But by the fourth century, their writings had all but disappeared suddenly and mysteriously from the historical record, as the newly consolidated imperial Christian Church condemned as heretical all forms of what has come to be known as Gnosticism. Only in 1945 were their extensive original works finally rediscovered, and the resurrected “Gnostic Gospels” soon rooted themselves in both the scholarly and popular imagination.
Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations brings together for the first time all the extant texts composed by Valentinus and his followers. With accessible introductions and fresh translations based on new transcriptions of the original Greek and Coptic manuscripts on facing pages, Geoffrey S. Smith provides an illuminating, balanced overview of Valentinian Christianity and its formative place in Christian history.”
Ismo Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism [2008] https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Gnosticism-Lifestyle-Society-Valentinus/dp/0231141726/ – “Valentinus was a popular, influential, and controversial early Christian teacher. His school flourished in the second and third centuries C.E. Yet because his followers ascribed the creation of the visible world not to a supreme God but to an inferior and ignorant Creator-God, they were from early on accused of heresy, and rumors were spread of their immorality and sorcery.
Beyond Gnosticism suggests that scholars approach Valentinians as an early Christian group rather than as a representative of ancient “Gnosticism”-a term notoriously difficult to define. The study shows that Valentinian myths of origin are filled with references to lifestyle (such as the control of emotions), the Christian community, and society, providing students with ethical instruction and new insights into their position in the world. While scholars have mapped the religio-historical and philosophical backgrounds of Valentinian myth, they have yet to address the significance of these mythmaking practices or emphasize the practical consequences of Valentinians’ theological views. In this groundbreaking study, Ismo Dunderberg provides a comprehensive portrait of a group hounded by other Christians after Christianity gained a privileged position in the Roman Empire.
Valentinians displayed a keen interest in mythmaking and the interpretation of myths, spinning complex tales about the origin of humans and the world. As this book argues, however, Valentinian Christians did not teach “myth for myth’s sake.” Rather, myth and practice were closely intertwined. After a brief introduction to the members of the school of Valentinus and the texts they left behind, Dunderberg focuses on Valentinus’s interpretation of the biblical creation myth, in which the theologian affirmed humankind’s original immortality as a present, not lost quality and placed a special emphasis on the “frank speech” afforded to Adam by the supreme God. Much like ancient philosophers, Valentinus believed that the divine Spirit sustained the entire cosmic chain and saw evil as originating from conspicuous “matter.”
Dunderberg then turns to other instances of Valentinian mythmaking dominated by ethical concerns. For example, the analysis and therapy of emotions occupy a prominent place in different versions of the myth of Wisdom’s fall, proving that Valentinians, like other educated early Christians, saw Christ as the healer of emotions. Dunderberg also discusses the Tripartite Tractate, the most extensive account to date of Valentinian theology, and shows how Valentinians used cosmic myth to symbolize the persecution of the church in the Roman Empire and to create a separate Christian identity in opposition to the Greeks and the Jews.”
Beginner Perennialism & Esotericism: 10% Beginner Unity Glimpse + 1% Advanced Unity + 0% Control Transformation Though That’s 95% Bulk of Transformation
Reality:
initial glimpse of unity – 1% of the journey
series of freakout Psilocybin transformation sessions – 98% of the journey
final state of unity – 1% of the journey
How beginners mis-describe and mis-understand esotericism / perennialism:
unity = 100% of the transformation journey
Beginners are the ppl who say heavy breathing can produce Psilocybin effects.
There is only a little overlap between Pop esotericism / perennialism and the Egodeath theory.
Set of 3 Incoherent Assertions Made About Treatise on the 8th & 9th: Which Sphere # Contains the Fixed Stars (which are Fate), If Rising Above Sphere 7 Saturn = Rising Above Fate?
Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn (sphere 7)] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [(sphere 8)] remains an open question for me.
Wouter Hanegraaff, footnote 114, p. 294, Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, 2022
How in the hell can this be an “open question”?!
Ans: BECAUSE HE CONSIDERS OGDOAD GOOD IE ABOVE FATE, AND STARS BAD IE = FATE — SO HE IS STUCK. HE CANT PUT EM IN 7, HE CANT PUT EM IN 8 — so THROW UP ARMS, AVOID TALKING ABOUT THIS, <SHRUG>.
Can you not read the plain diagrams?
This is the most elementary given in the world!
Wouter Hanegraaff & Followers: “Whether the number 8 should be included with the number 7 or should instead be placed after 7 remains an open question for me.”
“Whether the number 8 should be included with the number 7 or should instead be placed after 7 remains an open question for me.” HOW SO? WTFF!!!
Whether the fixed stars should be included with Saturn or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me. [wtf r u talking about?! Saturn is a moving planet sphere!]
(infamous words by Wouter Hanegraaff, footnote 114, page 294, the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.
PD has no website. I am looking at Paul Davidson site instaad to see if I can copy transcript from there instead of finishing format it myself. search web Paul Davidson hermeticism https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Davidson+hermeticism might be his ch: “Over at his YouTube channel The Inquisitive Bible Reader, Paul Davidson …”
I am going to email Wouter Hanegraaff & Paul Davidson and point out INCOHERENT SELF-CONTRADICTION:
If you rise above Fate as soon as you rise above Planet 7 Saturn & reach sphere 8 = Ogdoad, and the fixed stars = Fate, then what level # contains fixed stars, which are Fate?
It can’t be sphere 7, b/c moving planet level 7 is Saturn, which is Fate.
It can’t be sphere 8, b/c that (the Ogdoad) is above Fate according to you, but the fixed stars = Fate, according to you.
What have you done w fixed stars (Fate)? What sphere # do you put the fixed stars in?
The correct answer every schoolchild before 1600 knows: fixed stars are level 8, Fate, Ogdoad.
What is the lowest sphere that’s above Fate? You say 8, incoherently. Ans is 9, Ennead.
You say Ogdoad and Ennead are both above Fate, no real difference between them. YOU ARE CONFUSED and unablle to count to 8.
Ogdoad = Fate = 8th sphere = — the THE PICTURES IN YOUR OWN VIDEO PLAINLY SHOW THIS!! CAN YOU NOT COUNT TO 8?!! IE T
This is ULTRA elementary, so much, your diagrams plainly show this.
dummy: point in your diagram, point to zodiac sphere, tell me what # is that? Obv 8. WTF do you think the word “Ogdoad” means? 8th sphere. How in the hell do you keep saying “rise above Saturn sphere 7 to rise higher than fate”? but where are the fixed stars? Higher than Saturn! How are you so plainly inconsistent? WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU NEVER JOIN THE TWO FACTS:
FIXED STARS = FATE
FIXED STARS = SPHERE 8
THEREFORE SPHERE 8 = FATE. <– YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SAYING THIS. YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN!
You are trying to “protect” level 8 Ogdoad from being Fate. In fact rising above Saturn (fate) puts you in Fate (fixed stars).
Reaching sphere 8 does NOT put you above Fate which you keep falsely, incoherently saying. ONLY sphere 9 (or higher) is above Fate. Level 8 is NOT above FAte.
quote Wouter Hanegraaff footnote “i cant figure out if fixed stars go in Saturn sphere or Ogdoad sphere”.
Are you incapable of looking at your own diagram and counting to 8 where zodiac are?
“Bibliography: Christian Bull, “The Tradition of Hermes Trismegistus,” 2014. [quoted very heavily by Wouter Hanegraaff i finally mem’d title, 4 parts: Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, 2023 ] M. David Litwa, “Hermetica II: The Excerpts of Stobaeus,” 2018. Wouter Hanegraaff, “Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism,” 2006.
00:00 Intro 1:39 Hermetica explained 6:01 Hermetic and Platonic Cosmogony 10:09 Fate and the Hermetic Human Condition 12:08 Ascension, the Way of Hermes, and Rebirth 19:30 Was Hermetism a Religion? 24:48 I included a bonus section about baboons in the Nebula version of this vid
I can’t summarize how page 25 turned out, that would take evaluation.
Also, I developed some ideas within loosely associated recent pages (3-level vs 2-level), and older pages. It would be nice to list those stray sections – but probably all those sections are linked from page 25. So see page 25. todo: update top of TOC in page 25.
Wiki block-universe determinism articles.
Josie Kins Effect Index article: Perception of Eternalism.
A big jump lately, solved a major framing/marketing problem: Stop framing the resulting product as “eternalism”, nor frame it as freewill possibilism; frame the product you get from the Egodeath theory as 2-Level Compatibilism, or Split-Level Compatibilism
You end up not fighting between free will vs. determinism – irrelevant and poorly formed – but rather, end up with two ways of thinking: practical way of thinking (possibilism-thinking) & the factual way of thinking (eternalism-thinking). There is no functional conflict.
Eternalism is the case (eg hidden uncontrollable source of control thoughts), and possibilism is the way the mind experiences and the personal control system is shaped.
You hafta believe in eternalism! = no-free-will puppet slave embedded prison.
The Egodeath theory reveals that you are no-free-will puppet slave embedded prison, on the underlying level, and at the practical, experienced level, you always use possibilism-thinking, now washed clean, and now able to endure the Psilocybin state; loose cognition.
The Pre/Trans Fallacy: After Learning the Egodeath Theory, Nothing Changes
Except Gained Beard, & Crowned by God, & Sacrificed Child-Thinking, & Gained Ability to Endure Eat from Tree of Life & Pass Through the Gate Guarded by {flame} and {blade} to Get the Golden Apple Treasure of Transcendent Knowledge
You can go ahead a believe in egoic freewill branching steering! <– the Pre/Trans fallacy. You are just like an enlightened person, by using efw egoic freewill thinking! DO NOTHING – SAME AS ENLIGHTENMENT. ie, the Egodeath theory gives you nothing, no change.
Justin Sledge ESOTERICA YouTube channel argues: enlightenment is not worth the bother.
Before the Egodeath theory, chop wood carry water. After the Egodeath theory, chop wood carry water. Therefore the Egodeath theory is nothing; learning the Egodeath theory is same as not learning the Egodeath theory. You gain nothing. You change nothing.
Actually:
Psychedelic Transformation Adds Eternalism-Compatibility to Possibilism-Thinking: Able to Stably Cope in the Altered State
Psychedelic Transformation Gives You Compatible Possibilism-Thinking & Eternalism-Thinking
Characterizing What You Gain from Enlightenment as “Compatibilism of vs. “Eternalism” vs. “Qualified Possibilism”
More accurate than “gives you compatible free will & determinism”.
psychedelic transformation p-t
Psychedelic Transformation Gives You Compatible Free Will & Determinism
The solution to free will vs. determinism is to shift the options, and instead deliver split-level compatibilism between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking.
When shifting from “freewill” and “determinism” to instead, “possibilism-thinking” and “eternalism-thinking”, notice the shift of attention away from “matter vs. mind”, or “materialism vs. mysticism”, and instead, express in terms of Cognitive Phenomy: thinking, & mental models.
The Losing Framing: A zero-sum fight between which is true: freewill, or causal-chain determinism
I hate irrelevant, causal-chain determinism! And freewill isn’t the case at the underlying level! A Lose/Lose Debate of Folly, Buffet of Folly
We have two mental models. There is no conflict there, when worded in terms of mental models, rather than zero-sum fight between which is true: freewill, or causal-chain determinism
cognitive phenomenology cp
DGAF what is the case in the ontological external world; irrelevant.
Neurosci is a losing concern.
Ontology is a losing concern.
Philosophy ruts bring nothing of value, just confusion and irrelevancy.
Neurofoo is entirely irrelevant.
Cognitive Neurobaloney is a ruse, to eliminate the cognitive by giving barest lip service.
Neuroscience Is the Enemy of the Cognitive Phenomenology-Based Explanatory Framework Realm
Cog Pheny is the winning realm of expression.
Gain Split-Level Compatibilism (Better Characterization of the Outcome than “Gain Eternalism” or “Gain Qualified Possibilism-Thinking Including Eternalism-Thinking”
the word ‘compatibilism’ is bad b/c implies combine domino-chain causality determinism, and freewill is real. It is more like compatibilism between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking.
Photo: Michael Hoffman, B.S.E.E., Egodeath Mystery Show, April 1, 2025. Recent voice rec’gs switched from EV 635A to 57 w/o windscreen; CAD E-100 shown on R; AT2020 on L. No rec’gs made yet w/ A2WS windscreen , it’s not even fastened on.
Justin Sledge just confirmed my biggest History theory! (except he forgot to list Mithraism too.)
When Chris Brennan said the usual idea “Christianity invented freewill”, I retorted “so did Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, & Hermeticism”. Then I laughed loudly, because Sledge repeated my exact words!
Sledge described in detail the late antiquity trend (150 AD) as a backlash against no-free-will — using the exact same language that I developed, such as “backlash”.
Good Voice Recordings 6321, 6322, 6320
VOX_TK_6321.wav – Mar 4 2025
but i f’d up stereo mike placement in long recording 6321.
I give my latest telling of Wasson’s fraud, I recall key stages in developing my narrative. incl 2006 the Plaincourault fresco article accusing Wasson of censoring citation, 2019 Brown publishing the censored Erwin Panofsky letters, and my sluggish reading Jan 2021 in start of Egodeath Mystery Show, of the Erwin Panofsky letters.
When did I realize ellipses in SOMA were where the censored cite of Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings?
Just the other day Nov 2024 i realized that in SAME PARAGRAPH where Wass smears and viciously attacks
Irvin’s calling out Ruck for inverting history and writing p. 56 of the article “Daturas for the Virgin” in Entheos 2 2001 by Carl Ruck where Ruck super-offensively writes “Wasson’s conclusion” – how dare Ruck credit(!) Wasson w/ affirming mushroom-trees, when Wasson in fact persecuted and attacked everyone for decades for that (while doing academic fraud, deceit, duplicity, and censorship, phony play-acting con artist put-on act re: “you ignorant blundering mycologists should have “consulted” the art authorities” [via feeble, abnormal, improper “pers. comm.”] while replacing and hiding the one single extant citation, the flimsy old “little” Brinckmann book, by ellipses . . . . in the same paragraph in SOMA, to prevent bona fide proper consulting of the publications of art historians [which is what I most wished to do in 2006 but I was then mad at Wasson for withholding the certainly-provided citation(s) from big-talking Erwin Panofsky), Wasson in fact denying mushroom imagery in Christian art.
But Irvin with forked tongue, falsely steals credit from Samorini and gives credit to Allegro for affirming Erwin Panofsky’s “hundreds of mushroom-trees”.
Allegro never wrote anything about mushroom-trees; only re-produced the incoherent, disconnected, self-contradictory inclusion of the Plaincourault fresco in some printings of Sacred Mushroom & The Cross. Which was 0% innovative, as Cyberdisciple points out.
Certainly if any one person deserves credit for finally troubling themselves to follow Pan’s lead in SOMA 1968, it’s clearly Samorini 1996-1998, especially his famous article “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998).
You couldn’t ask for a clearer generation-defining break in paradigms:
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) – citation: out of all the haze of entheogen scholarship publications, the given, star to steer by, is obviously Samorini 1998.
In 2006 when writing the Plaincourault fresco article, I started reading that article Samorini sent me, but it’s a poor formatting, hard to digest. Then 2001 “Conjuring Eden” article built on Samorini.
Then “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 issue 2. Then Ruck left Samo’s productive direction, and reverted to the self-defeating Secret Amanita paradigm, and I declared in 2002 the maximal entheogen theory of religion, against the direction of Ruck Committee / 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
I declared – you could say – Samorini 1998 to mark the start of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) which I committed to and which entirely continue to pay off as it did in 1998 Samorini, and 2001 conj eden.
In 2001, with Apples of Apollo book, Ruck Committee abandoned the productive model of Samorini 1998 and continued in his unproductive 1st-generation direction, of falsely elevating Amanita over Psilocybin, and falsely elevating Secret over psychedelics, for which Andy Letcher 2006 took Ruck to the cleaners (like Hatsis destroyed Ruck’s 2009 screwup claiming Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has red cap).
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) correctly elevates Psilocybin over Amanita, and elevates psychedelics (sheer plain use) over “secret”; over “cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) entirely abandons all such irrelevant, incoherent, & confusing social-realm drama narrative of “mainstream vs. counterculture”, and speaks instead in terms of hidden secret revealed in the mind; the secret mystery of the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.
“Hole in the Sky”: “the riddles that are built in my head” (Black Sabbath, 1975)
Letcher’s single Liberty Cap mushroom-tree treatment in Bern door demolished the false model of 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm). In April 2007 I posted an influential critical review of Shroom, from the basis of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Letcher at his site responded to my review by my name, stating a chain of 4 “but you can’t prove” assertions — a challenge, so I proved all 4 “unprovable” points, and proved 1 more to boot: PEAK religious experiencing.
A comparable clear break point: “Late Antiquity” starts 150 AD, and that happens to be same year I said, and Dr. Justin Sledge generally agrees, that at that time, every brand of religion invented freewill, or equivalent transcending of heimarmene. As a result of their complete belief in eternalism.
In the voice recording, I fume against Allegro.
As detailed by Cyberdisciple, Allegro is 0% entheogen scholarship, yet, everyone 100% equates Allegro (Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory) w/ entheogen scholarship, so much so that Letcher 2006 realizes all he has to to is merely pull the rug out from entheogen scholarship by simply proving that 1 instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art is not secret – thus demolishing entheogen scholarship (ie, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
I explain per Cyberdisciple, there is no innovation in Allegro’s presenting the the Plaincourault fresco , and in fact, the Plaincourault fresco DISPROVES Allegro’s flimsy tale of the “secret Amanita cult”. which is why, if Hatsis is to be believed, Allegro sometimes printed Sacred Mushroom & The Cross without that disconnected image. Allegro:
Only the very first Christians had The Mushroom, and hid it. Everyone else later forgot The Mushroom and mistook the concealing code-names as literal founder figures.
AND, also Allegro: The tradition of The Mushroom was still remembered in 1291*, as shown by the Plaincourault fresco.
[*Pl. Chapel actually 1184? per Samorini 1997 article about the Plaincourault fresco]
[*subtract 700 years from timeline per Chron’l Revisionism.]
I justified Late Antiquity rejecting venerating eternalism as the end-state, but shakey construction/ fabrication of a layer above that, qualified possibilism-thinking.
They so very very much fully entirely wholeheartedly believed in heimarmene, that HEIMARMENE WAS THE MAIN PROBLEM OF Late Antiquity.
In no way did they say “no-free-will isn’t the case”.
Late Antiquity said 100%, no-free-will is the case, to such a huge extent, that it is the #1 problem we must be saved from.
The reason Late Antiquity constructed a higher level of freewill, is BECAUSE they completely believed no-free-will is the case.
So Eric Davis’ 2005 summary of my simple 2-level model terminating TRAGICALLY — the tragedy of acid rock – remains correct and valuable, even though the later period, and my subsequent theory-construction after his book, went to to affirm eternalism, yet build higher than that scheme, adding a half-level higher. Only a half level, b/c:
Our lower self is trapped in heimarmene; our spirit, only, is lifted by savior out from cosmic rock.
Other voice recording good: the one i posted within past day eg 6320.wav.
I also plan to read aloud Josie Kins’ “Experience of eternalism” entry for this planned episode of Egodeath Mystery Show.
Periodization and Ancients’ Flip of Attitude & Narrative about Experiencing No-Free-Will on Psilocybin
For this purpose, I contrast “Early Antiquity” vs. “Late Antiquity”, divided at 150 AD. Early Antiquity includes Greek Antiquity & the Hellenistic era.
For the concerns of the Egodeath theory, I consider 500 BC-150 AD as a single era, the heimarmene-worship era: Psilocybin initiation reveals eternalism; Psilocybin (loose cognition) enlightenment is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Late Antiquity disliked that revealed fact of heimarmene, so they constructed (by advanced-level reengineering of myth) a tricky, confusing inversion level on top of that transformation, to present a narrative of transcending heimarmene. Now we go from possibilism, to eternalism, to qualified possibilism, escaping from the heimarmene prison of the cosmos – according to their reworked narrative description of mental model transformation.
Because it’s a reworking of the basic simple model, only an explanatory framework as sophisticated as the Egodeath theory as of 2005 can keep straight how myth works coherently to describe by analogy, the mental model transformation sequence.
Hellenistic era = 323 BC, Alexander the Great. Worship of heimarmene. Death of Alexander 323 BC & death of Cleopatra 30 BC.
Late Antiquity = 150 AD: affirmation but negative valuation of heimarmene; promise to transcend fate. Fate is the case, but our brand of religion [Lewis: “unlike the others”] saves you from fatedness.
Snake on rock altar: typical of 500 BC-150 AD reverence of fatedness/ heimarmene. Religion reconciles you with fatedness.
After 150 AD, religion is re-thought, thought of as giving you transcendence of fatedness, by:
Twisting and re-applying the conceptual language of transcendence (advanced-level, confusing mythmaking, that’s way over the head of eg Wouter Hanegraaff), an inversion of the previous narrative.
Emphasizes the fact that after full initiation (“completion”), we are left with the same old egoic possibilism-thinking, merely modified (“purified”) at an underlying level.
Per the shifted narrative after 150 AD, after the series of {fire} purification transformation sessions in Psilocybin loose cognition, the mind ends up with a state that can be called “qualified possibilism-thinking”, which is eternalism-thinking (awareness of puppethood & enslavement frozen in the heimarmene prison), but just with added emphasis on qualified possibilism-thinking.
Per Wouter Hanegraaff’s book Hermetic Spirituality, the body remains embedded in fatedness; only the soul or spirit is raised out above the serpent-wrapped cosmos (heimarmene snake wrapping the sphere of the fixed stars, at its outer boundary).
(Sledge doesn’t speak in terms of switching from a 2-level to 3-level model, or Psilocybin transformation to reveal and then incorporate eternalism.)
Then yesterday in the video interview of Sledge & Brennan, Sledge made my points exactly & directly, at length!
All brands of religion in 150 AD flipped their attitude & narrative against no-free-will (even while still affirming no-free-will).
This is a super solid, direct confirmation of my speculation since 2004. Adding to Lewis’ book, Luther Martin, & David Ulansey.
Brennan the professional astrologer stated a common half-truth: “Christianity invented freewill” – it was glorious & hilarious because I retorted “so did Mithraism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, & Gnosticism!” and then I laughed when Sledge repeated my words, setting Brennan straight (who then agreed).
Sledge omitted Mithraism, but included Jewish religion, which is covered in Lewis’ book.
Lewis and Sledge both give strong confirmation, from different angles, along with Martin & Ulansey.
Mapping of {branching} from Myth to Physics Was Added Later, in 2020
2005-2015, the Egodeath theory still lacked {branching} within myth interpretation; my core theory only had “branching” for contrasting the Minskowski spacetime block vs. manyworlds Quantum Physics.
In retrospect, it’s puzzling how around 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group in 2001, I posted about “branching” to contrast Physics brands of mysticism, yet it took until 2013 (w/ precursors in 2010 in myth) to perceive the {branching} motif in pre-Modernity art that depicts Psilocybin effects.
It took 2001-2013 to make that connection; I experienced the Nov 2013 art interpretation revelation of “branching” as a huge confirmation of my theory of psychedelic eternalism.
Art is simpler and halts at expressing the 2-level model: art shows eternalism as the result of Psilocybin transformation. Art avoids the confusing complexity of Late Antiquity’s 3-level model that affirms heimarmene but aspires to transcend heimarmene.
Around 2010 during hiatus, I walked a forest branching path every day observing mushrooms, among branching trees, and wondered: (regarding in myth, not yet in art motifs) Ancient Greeks understood this same contrast between branching vs. non-branching, and ivy vine leaf series = mental constructs along snake-shaped worldline; ancient equivalent of basic ideas in Physics & Loose Cognitive Science.
By Sep. 2011 after hiatus, every November, I had the breakthrough realization of the central theme of {branching} in myth, a breakthrough that was repeated more deeply each year, with more connections per Paul Thagard.
2000: Coraxo in Gnosticism Yahoo Group argues that my 1997 veneration of block-universe determinism/ no-free-will is NOT in alignment w/ the ultimate transcendent aspirations of Gnosticism. This set up the problem for me, leading to eventually adding a 3-level model to my 2-level model.
June 2001: Posted about branching QM vs. non-branching Minkowski spacetime in Physics. Two potential opposed versions of mysticism: Quantum Mysticism, after 19th-C four-dimensionalism mysticism (iron block universe).
2005: Erik Davis summarizes my 2-level model.
~2005: I formulate the 3-level model and assign it to Late Antiquity. [todo: find posts in the Egodeath Yahoo Group]
2010: Realized ancient Greeks understood contrast between branching vs. non-branching, and ivy vine leaf series = mental constructs along snake-shaped worldline
Nov 2011: the branching antlers breakthrough.
Nov 2012: the branching antlers breakthrough, deeper.
Xmas 2015: the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree.
Nov 2020: Leg-hanging mushroom tree image in Canterbury Psalter f134 row 1 L (uploaded by John Lash in 2008, per Archive).
2022& 2023: Recognized {cut right branch} in all my art images; branching-message mushroom trees & branching message vine-leaf trees.
William James Rejected the “Closed Iron Block Universe View” (The Dilemma of Determinism, 1897)
Finally Confirmed William James Wrote “the Closed Iron Block Universe View”
I SWEAR Wm James railed against “iron block universe”, but couldn’t confirm that, recently.
“The clearest distinction James makes between the two is in “The Dilemma of Determinism,” where he [James] argues that the “fatalistic mood of mind” is one possible response to the particular form of determinism with which he takes issue;25 or seen in another way, fatalism is a subspecies of the problematic form of determinism.
“The form of determinism that leads to fatalism is the form that:”
[Wm James wrote]:
“professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts shall be.
“The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb; the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality.
“Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible.
“The whole is in each and every part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.26“
8 hits on “iron block” in that article: quotes:
59: an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning
59: This passage gives us two features of the “iron block” view of the universe that James finds problematic.
60: James’s rejection of the iron block view has been noticed by James scholars; the very term is one of the rhetorical definitions about which Gale complains.
60: James’s hostility to the iron block view creates a tension in his thought.
60: Although James claims determinism precisely for the predictive ability that it affords, he rejects the iron block view, in part, due to its use of that predictive ability.
60: James believes that such an extrapolation will invariably lead to an iron block view of the universe, and as such, any claim to indeterminism is obviously false.
61: This suggests that despite laying out the iron block view in the manner previously described, James’s primary concern is not the claim that the universe progresses in a lawlike fashion, but rather that the progression of the universe is towards one necessary future state of affairs.
73: Here we see the same sort of argument as advanced by James: previous accounts of science (in this case, physics) had ignored the transformational effect of the act of observation*, and once that act is considered, the closed iron block universe presupposed by those previous accounts becomes untenable.
no-turning = non-branching = Balaam’s path along vine yard w/ no way to turn to the L or to the R, facing the angel of death.
*QUANTUM BULLSH!T! – it’s the act of physical measurement, not the act of mental “observation”.
Quantum Mysticism Is Stupid (Professor Dave)
There’s a special place in Hell for deceivers who shift from the word ‘measure’ to the word ‘observe’.
I’ve DONE the early 20th C experiments in university physics lab.
The results have NOTHING to do with mental observation; the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is purely because of physical measurement.
Mental observation has no more to do with this type of measurement than anything else that happens in the world.
We don’t say “observe the temperature”, we say “measure the temperature”.
It’s a scummy, dirty, manipulative, willfully lying move.
It’s a make that you know is illegitimate but you make it because you WANT to make it and you know your gullible readers will lap it up, deliberately, knowingly shunning and discarding all checks on legitimacy.
The entire Newage industry is based on this knowingly bunk move.
Everyone agrees to fudge this and make-believe that the word ‘measure’ is same as ‘observe’.
Everyone knows it’s wrong to LEAP from the word ‘measure’ to the word ‘observe’, but everyone has agreed to have poor moral character and make this move out of sheer egoic force:
“I have the power to lie and pretend ‘measure’ means ‘observe’, so I am going to play that dirty, fraudulent card, and no one can stop us from lying to each other, agreeing to lie.”
Professor Dave 100% confirmed my view here, in his vid against Quantum Mysticism:
I credit Coraxo, in the Gnosticism Yahoo Group, prior to starting the Egodeath Yahoo Group in 2001, for first pointing out the limitations in my 2-level model that terminates with affirming eternalism / heimarmene / no-free-will.
Limitations as far as mapping myth to my Core theory of psychedelic eternalism.
My theory cannot explain religious myth of 150 AD as long as my theory is only expressed in the basic 2-level model; I had to re-cast my theory (model) in terms of a 3-level model, IN ORDER TO explain religious myth after 150 AD (ie during Late Antiquity).
My model as formulated in 1997, through about 2004, was only able to explain religious myth before 150 AD; in the Classical Antiquity & Hellenistic era.
As I recall, Coraxo pointed out the contradiction of emphasis between my “enlightenment = block-universe determinism” model, vs. Gnosticism-era’s promise and aspiration to transcend heimarmene.
The Necromancer, album: Caress of Steel (Rush)
Rush lyrics, The Necromancer, album: Caress of Steel, lyrics by Neil Peart, who understands no-free-will & transcending it.
“Lead them to the dungeons. Spectres numb with fear, they bow defeated. [defeat of ego power during ego death]
III. Return of the Prince Enter the Champion. Prince By-Tor appears to battle for freedom from chains of long years. The spell has been broken…the Dark Lands are bright, the Wraith of the Necromancer soars away… in the night.
Stealthily attacking, By-Tor slays his foe. The men are free to run now from labyrinths below.” [altered-state navigation of the labyrinth of strange loop of egoic control and ego-agency]
Must Fully Understand the 2-Level Model (Giving Eternalism) Before Can Understand the 3-Level Model (Giving Qualified Possibilism-Thinking)
Dr. Justin Sledge (3 yrs ago) just confirmed my biggest History theory/ “bold hypothesis”!
First, I developed my core theory model, mental transformation to eternalism, during loose cognition, written up between 1988-1997.
Then, around 2003, when mapping myth to my core theory, I first used the simple 2-level model, re: 500BC, when Greek myth says Psilocybin transforms mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Then Erik Davis’ book about Led Zeppelin IV, in the chapter at climax of Stairway to Heaven, summarizes my Egodeath theory of 2005, as just the 2-level model at that point.
After that, it became clear to me that later, around 150 AD, antiquity switched to a hostile stance against no-free-will (heimarmene, fate), and they applied the established concepts of transcendence now to tell a reversed story, of transformation from no-free-will to freewill; from enslavement to fate, to emancipation from fate.
So I then had to formulate a 3-level model of mental model transformation, to map later antiquity (150 AD+) to my 1997 core theory.
Now we need to see my 1997 core theory in light of the 3-level model that came to me via religious myth. Probably my 1997 outline is a purely 2-level model, with no particular hooks for a 3-level model that points out that you are left with freewill-shaped experiencing, but with a modified foundation regarding the source of control-thoughts, and possibility-branching.
This is a GREAT example of how my later theorizing of interpreting religious myth (& art motifs) 1998-2025 has a significant impact on my expression of my 1988-1997 core theory, which is psychedelic eternalism.
My core theory is evolving to be cast as “psychedelic qualified possibilism”, per a 3-level model, in addition to the basic 2-level model of 1997.
Compare teaching the transistor response curve: first teach a rough, simple, basic 1st-order model; then teach students the more complex 2nd-order model. Or move from teaching Special Relativity and Minkowski spacetime, to teaching General Relativity.
Around 2004, I found later inversions (150 AD) of that narrative, talking about transcending no-free-will.
First (1998-2004), I had success mapping 500 BC eternalism-worship to my 1997 2-level core theory of mental model transformation. Then Erik Davis summarized my extreme, 2-level model.
Then around 2004, I encountered the 150 AD “transcend heimarmene” inversion-ideas, and I had to re-cast my core model in terms of 3 levels: freewill, to no-free-will, to qualified freewill.
I found that an adequate explanatory model to map the core Egodeath theory to both early and late antiquity, required flexibility to handle both 2- and 3-level models, around 2005, and summarized in my 2007 main article.
My Bold Hypothesis Since ~2005, Finally Confirmed as Official Historical Theory
Erik Davis’ book is evidence that as of Feb. 18, 2005, in religious myth interpretation (mapping myth to the 1997-summarized Egodeath theory), I had formulated the 2-level model, but had not yet seen the need to also formulate a 3-level model, extending the 2-level model.
todo: in the Egodeath Yahoo Group archive: find the date at which I realized the need to form a 3-level model, around 2004-2006.
Recently, I determined that Wouter Hanegraaff got tricked by the later phase, where Hermeticism puts emphasis on Transcendent Knowledge as taking you from eternalism to possibilism.
You cannot START with Late Antiquity, as Wouter Hanegraaff attempts, and fails so badly, his system cannot tolerate having the fixed stars, and so he omits that level!
I took me a year of critique of his new book to figure out how he screwed it up so cosmically bad.
You must start with the simple basic model from early Antiquity, and build on that by adding inversions of value, later.
When you skip the basic 2-level model, you have incomprehension of the complex, tricky, later-phase inversion of the earlier phase; the only possible understanding is per the Egodeath theory, you have to map, and differentiate, both the early, 2-level model, and the later, 3-level model.
To summarize the Egodeath theory, it is necessary – like my 2007 article – to start by explaining the simple basic 2-level model: transform mental model from possibilism to eternalism.
Glory to no-free-will, the eternalism prison, you awaken to Truth: you’re a helpless puppet, a snake-shaped worldline frozen in rock; the ruler turned to stone by seeing the attractive snake under the lifted lid. Exciting in 500 BC, tired by 150 AD, so they added another, inversion level.
Adding a 3rd level and redefining “Transcendent Knowledge” is justified & needed, because the egoic control system always is used, before, during, & after the altered state sessions that transform the mental model.
Transform from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking, and then transform from eternalism-thinking to qualified possibilism-thinking.
Late-Ancient Backlash Against Grandpa’s Eternalism-Worship
Sledge forgot to list Mithraism too.
I graduated from hypothesis/ proposal (maybe since 2005) to confirmed theory.
By “Late Antiquity”, here i mean the same years Sledge says, around 150 AD. Not Alexander 325 bc.
Like Sledge, my hypothesis had to scramble to state the year (~150 AD) when the switchover happened — the year when antiquity switched from revering no-free-will as the psychedelic revelation, to one-upping that and claiming to repeat the transcendence move and go on FURTHUR to transcend the evil no-free-will prison that is unfortunately revealed by Psilocybin initiation.
Early Antiquity said psychedelic enlightenment makes you end up with eternalism. Aware of being a snake frozen in rock prison; no-free-will. They formed the 2-level model of mental model transformation: from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Late Antiquity backlash against Grandpa’s religion said: no, let’s describe the result beyond that: go on to next, transcend eternalism that’s revealed by Psilocybin. They formed the 3-level model of mental model transformation: naive possibilism-thinking; eternalism-thinking; qualified possibilism-thinking.
When the other guy Chris Brennan wrongly said the usual idea “Christianity invented freewill”, i retorted “so did Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, & Hermeticism”. then laughed, bc Justin corrected him & repeated my exact words!
Competitive Marketing drove all brands – justin sledge includes Jewish religion in the backlash– all of them HAD to promise transcending the fatedness prison.
new conjecture: Christians always disparage gnosticism for hating the world- this is off base. ALL Brands of religion glorified transcending heimarmene / fatedness.
Christianity’s promise of free will is functionally equivalent to Gnostm transcending cosmic heimarmene. it’s a rejection of Fate/ fatedness, either way.
that “distinction without a difference” reminds me of my sales & marketing shift of strategy – instead of selling eternalism that incorps possibilism-thinking , i sell possibilism (“you have egoic freewill power”) that includes eternalism-thinking.
Dr Sledge described the late antiquity trend as a backlash against no-free-will — using the exact same language that i developed.
Dr. Justin Sledge Corrects Chris Brennan, Using Same Wording as the Egodeath Theory
https://youtu.be/ZR-paFQ76HY?t=3720s = 1:02:00 is the setup of the question, Early Antiquity asserted no-free-will; but today we are libertarian instead.
Then at 1:06:25, Justin Sledge corrects Chris Brennan for saying “only Christianity asserted freewill (transcending fatedness)”, & Sledge repeats my wording (he forgot to mention Mithraism though): https://youtu.be/ZR-paFQ76HY?t=3985s =1:06:25 – “and I think you see the same thing happening in other Christianity rivals, hermeticism … gnosticism as well, planets prison guards, escape, but also even in neopythagoreanism, and middel platm, and even in neoplaton: in sublunar, … theurgy, Iamblicus, one can at some level escape the power of fate”
Transcript
From YouTube video transcript, cleaned up by Michael Hoffman.
… using astrology to know your fate and know what you have to accept.
So I have this little like opening statement by in my book by Valens that is like one of his most famous philosophical digressions in his entire work from the middle of the second century and he says:
“Those who engage in the prediction of the future and the truth having acquired a soul that is free and not enslaved;
do not think highly of fortune and do not devote themselves to hope nor are they afraid of death but instead they live their lives undaunted by disturbance by training their souls to be confident and neither rejoice excessively in the case of good nor become depressed in the case of bad, but instead are content with whatever is present.
Those who do not desire the impossible are capable of bearing that which is preordained through their own self-mastery and being estranged from all pleasure or praise they become established as soldiers of fate.
So that’s the famous “soldiers of fate” passage that you’ll see like cited in a lot of historical and philosophical academic texts over the past few decades because it’s such a strikingly stoic sentiment that’s coming from an astrologer and where the explicit statement about the purpose of astrology is learning your fate so that you know what you have to accept.
But it’s it’s not necessarily done in a causal context but instead maybe in this more sign-based context where the astrology is acting like an omen of what will happen in your future uh from the moment of birth.
Do you find that, that, but
Do you find that that version of astrology proved popular through the middle ages, do you find that it’s popular now?
“When you talk to people interested in astrology the idea that that the task of astrology is basically sort of an adjunct to stoicism that
look you know i can’t change the fact you know what is the epicenter [name?] says right that:
“If you love a pot, don’t get too attached, because pots are meant to break; and if you love a wife don’t get too attached because wives are meant to die.”
And so the idea is if you understand the nature of a pot you understand nature of a wife well you’re not going to be upset when they do their nature;
and ditto if you understand the nature of fate when fate happens to you you’re not going to be terribly troubled by it because well that was the nature of what was going to happen
i don’t know
Do you find that those ideas resonate with people these days because it seems like we’re kind of liberty spiritual metaphysical libertarians; we like to believe that we’re free and nothing’s really going to hold us down and the idea that uh it’s that astrology is meant to aid in your achievement of apathea [acceptance of fatedness/ heimarmene] —
Do you find that that notion resonates at all these days?
Brennan:
No, and what’s funny about that is part of our western culture heritage over the past 2000 years and the reason for that the reason for that that that sentiment no longer appeals to us is i think
it was very popular for a few centuries for a period of time um from the third and fourth or from the third century bce onwards in the hellenistic period during the heyday of stoicism all the way into the first and second centuries and
that’s why you’ll see the astrologers repeating sentiments like this [accept fatedness] over and over again because there was a broader societal acceptance of stoicism [fatenness]; and notion that you the purpose of divination is to learn your future so that you know what to accept
but what’s funny is i think the widespread acceptance of that for several centuries which allowed astrology which is based on such a deterministic premise one way or another to flourish as it did in the first century bce in first century ce and second and third centuries before it started to decline
the popularity of that [fatedness, heimarmene] led to a backlash and part of that backlash was um came through like a little known like religious sect um which was the rise of christianity and
[Brennan, like others, wrongly singles out Christianity]
part of the rise of christianity this has been commented on and sort of debated amongst some philosophical and religious scholars over the past few decades or the past century
but the more and more i look into this and think about it the more i realize:
what was so appealing about christianity in the ancient world that we just simply cannot understand today is just how dominant astrology was and stoicism [fatedness, heimarmene, eternalism] was from a philosophical standpoint in the first and second century ce
and how for just a normal person who is not an enlightened stoic sage who’s just like ready to accept all events in the future even the most terrible ones with this steely stoic or cold stoic resolve in some sense for normal people who are not prepared for that to hear such negative things or any negative things coming up about your future that you have to accept due to fate
if there is any group that comes to you or comes about at that time that says you know what all you have to do is believe in or accept this one guy into your life and if you do that we will free you from heimarmene and you will no longer be subject to the planets and i i believe and i really think that that was actually one of the main appeals of christianity in the first few centuries was that um it gave you a way out and suddenly there was this new group that was saying that you could become free of fate and that
christians were no longer subject to fate or to the planets through their choice and through the act of their acceptance of of christ and things like that and that’s one of the reasons that led to it really taking off
[Sledge corrects Brennan using same language I’ve been using since ~2005, though omits Mithraism (search transcript for ‘mithra’)]
Sledge:
Yeah i think that’s i think that’s an excellent observation and i think you see the same thing actually happening in other christianity rivals um hermeticism medicine being another right where hermedicine puts a lot of emphasis on fate and says yeah but one can escape it through ritual purification and through spiritual purification that um the body might be bound to fate but the soul isn’t and so you one can escape
in a gnosticism as well um that you see this kind of idea that the planets are these evil prison guards almost and that that the soul can escape through and there’s lots of different mechanisms of escape and
gnosticism christian gnostic christianity being one but also even in neopythagoreanism and middle platonism and even in neoplatonism there are these ideas where
in the sublunar world there’s some degree of free will there’s chance free will and necessity and depending on the various kinds of things one does uh theurgical rights magical rites uh various kinds of purifications and the middle platonic and in the the neoplatonic world of theurgy and things like that Iamblicus and proclass les proclasses yamblicus really that one can at some level escape the power of fate through religious observance or through magical means and and things like that
so it’s interesting that at the time christianity was arising of course christianity became the dominant uh mode of this and eventually won out
but it seems like that backlash that cultural backlash against stoicism and againstthis hardcore determinism that you see that was sort of stoicism plus astrology and mutual harmony syncing up with one another
and even in stoicism they couldn’t you know posidonius and panittius went back and forth about whether or not astrology was uh was affecting things the way that that they they mutually disagreed about
it’s just interesting by the second and third centuries with the rise of hermeticism christianity gnosticism there’s a cultural backlash against this idea and everyone’s trying to escape fate
and i think that it’s interesting that you see the same thing happen not just in the hellenistic world but also for instance in the world of northern europe pagan northern europe where Wird right the concept of weird which is a fate like concept in the anglo-saxon world was clearly a very powerful idea in pre-christian pagan piety right
resignation to fate was a was a being a weird bith fool arad i think is what the uh wanderer says
and then these poems begin to change under the auspices of christianity where you say no wird is not actually all binding uh christ is all binding and i can escape wird through through christ
so it’s interesting that this may have played itself out not just in the hellenistic world but in other kinds of pagan milieus as well
and i wonder if in the neo pagan world fate is now playing a greater or lesser role
it’d be interesting to to talk to some neo-pagan folk and we can folk about the if if one of the reconstructed things is this heavy emphasis on fate or is fate still sort of sitting on the shelf because it’s kind of a bummer or whatever
i don’t know unless you’re really wealthy or something but i guess it’s going to get to you anyway no it doesn’t really matter how wealthy you are um and i yeah
i just find this interesting that that this this uh kickback uh with christianity and other forms of uh other forms of religiosity spirituality where fate is sort of something that they’re they have in their sights in astrology also something they’re going to have in their sights as well
and it’s not just the [ancient]academic skeptics who are taking on astrology, it’s also the neo-platonus it’s the christians it’s a hermeticist [AND MITHRAISM]
it’s it’s a it’s a wide range of people in this new religious uh milieu
do you see that playing itself out in other places
but yeah yeah that’s a really good point that it’s not just christianity it was reacting to it [fate] it was all of the differences a bunch of different philosophical and religious traditions that were reacting to the dominance of astrology at that point and to the overwhelming prevailing trend that astrology and fate were intertwined
and um so when you start to get after the first century and like the second and third and fourth century christian tracts that are attacks on astrology are attacks on the concept of fate and their attacks on the concept of fate are attacks on astrology because they were seen as so intertwined
but as a result of that you’re right it’s not just christianity but other schools like hermeticism and especially gnosticism or different gnostic schools that are talking about how to free yourself of fate and how to free yourself of the influence of the planets but also in the magical tradition there’s um you know magical fragments of one little passage of somebody who is um trying to get free of their fate and and has some sort of magical ritual where they’re explicitly asking to be freed of the influence of heimarmene
and freed of the fate that’s indicated by their birth chart in this really famous fragment that survives um then you have in like the neoplatonic tradition you have porphyry and yamblicus arguing about the idea that you can use astrology to identify your guardian spirit or guardian diamond and yamalakus criticizing porphyry and saying that how how absurd it is the notion that you can use astrology to identify your guardian’s spirit and then to ask your guardian spirit to free you of fate when the purpose of the guardian spirit in the first place is supposed to be to make you live out your fate and to somehow enforce that or enforce the decrees of the planets
so there’s this whole like rich philosophical and tradition and debates about different schools that are talking about how to get free of fate even as we talked about last month in the episode we did on jewish views on fate we have these discussions about whether either jewish peoples are exempt from fate as like an entire class of people due to their their beliefs or whether jewish people can become free of fate through certain acts of righteousness for example or whether the planets whether the stars or constellations the zodiacal signs have any control over um israel
what was that famous saying again yeah we have this famous uh right that there is no mazal in israel
right um uh low mazaba israel there’s no there’s no masal
uh and there’s you know like we talked about at length in that conversation right that and i think that’s part of this right because
those conversations are happening around this time, they’re happening exactly the same time
uh whereas we know that astrology you know there were jews writing technical astrological manuals a couple generations prior to that and then there’s this break in the talmud or at least the beginning of a debate in the talmud about whether maza bore on israel proper and could you escape fate through various kinds of things
and i think that conversation between yamblicus and and proclaim reamblocus and porphyry is really interesting because then
it introduces the idea that and this is a neoplatonic and again it has everything to do with the worldview these people accept
right where
whereas for the aristotelian worldview you have the prime mover and it’s just sort of it’s like a machine and you can’t do anything about it because that’s just you’re the cog in the machine and you you turn
whereas in the in the neoplatonic world yes the one is emanating out and eventually you’re there but also you have procession and
then recession and
the idea is you can sort of absorb some of this spiritual energy and by manipulating it in certain kinds of ways using theorgy or magic or other kinds of things you can kind of rebroadcast it up
and if you know your diamond diamon you might be able to focus that energy back up in a way that manipulates how it comes back down to you
and so there’s a sort of procession recession model that’s begins with platinus and you find it all the way down to the very all the way down to proclass and so
what’s interesting again is how one’s worldview affects how one views astrology affects how one views one’s interaction with fate because you might be able to do sacrifices to a you know burn incense and call down power into something to affect how your diamon works if you believe in a world where it’s coming down and going back up
but if you accept an israelite worldview well no the planets are either ruling over you or god ruling over you and you better be good because if you’re good maybe god will directly help you as opposed to the planets ruling over you
and so i think what’s for me so fascinating about this various uh these various ideas about what’s going on in astrology this time period are the various kinds of ways that people are dealing with fate either in the sense of having to accept it how to live with it how to alter it how to escape it
and how astrology at some level depending on how you structured your world allowed that or didn’t and how astrology no matter what worldview you accepted was the tool that you had to use
and i think that’s what’s interesting and i think this is the point you make in your your your really great book is it like
it doesn’t really matter what it doesn’t matter at some point what world view, this was the tool and the fact that that was a tool meant that in some level everyone had to deal with it and i find that whether you’re a stoic a jewish person a hermeticist [or Mithraist] , agnostic a neoplatinian whatever everyone had to to deal with this
what was taken to be a fundamental truth about reality [fatedness] and that is these celestial bodies are doing something, they matter and
it’s our task to figure out how they move why they move the way that they move and what that means for us
and i find that that’s that’s the unifying thing
and i find it’s really one could teach an entire class i’ve always made the joke that if i had my druthers
i would teach all of greek philosophy backwards i would start with the trinity like the the christian idea of the trinity as it’s found in the nicene creed and athanasius then i’d work my way back from that idea which is only possible using the entire apparatus of greek philosophy and
work my way all the way back through the history of greek philosophy starting with the trinity i think one could do the same thing with hollistic astrology you could take you could learn astrology and then learn greek the hellenistic greek world back through it and you would see all these different philosophical schools reflected in how they understood their relationship to the celestial bodies and and to fate more generally yeah definitely and what a greater context once you do start with that understanding it sheds on all of the different philosophical and religious state debates that are being had for centuries in the greco-roman world and it’s just hard
sometimes i think i think it’s hard for modern people because of um culturally in the west like what a dominant role those reactionary religions and philosophies have had on our culture in um really putting free will at the very center of our our western cultural understanding of the world and about our lives and about what’s important and and what’s valid in terms of choices and the fact that the idea that we can make free will choices being like a fundamental almost unspoken philosophical premise that was even heightened even more in like the modern times with ideas of humanism and things like that and how core that is to our western philosophy
to go back to a first century bce context where stoicism and astrologer [FATEDNESS] to the prevailing and dominant philosophical schools and to have just a world view where the acceptance of fate and the idea that everything is predetermined and that your future is indicated by your birth chart was just a given that was taken by taken for granted by so many people um even i mean it’s interesting even with the early the birth of christianity early on astrology was actually being used to justify that jesus was the messiah through stories like the star of bethlehem in the gospel of matthew and
the notion that there were these this group of foreign astrologers from mesopotamia who traveled to the birth of jesus by following some sort of celestial portent that indicated that the messiah had been born and therefore
that story has this sort of political context in that it’s it’s using astrology and saying that there was an astrological alignment that indicated that somebody really important was born at that time on that day and by implication therefore had a special birth chart in the same way that other politicians during that time period like some of the early roman emperors were like publishing their birth chart because they thought that it showed that they would accomplish great things and it justified their their reign
you sort of get a similar thing there in the gospel of matthew and it’s interesting how astrology initially is being used as something to justify uh the new religion justify christianity and then later becomes something that it’s explicitly pushing against or fighting against for theological reasons yeah and
it’s always interesting to me the double-edged sword of astrology because if it can if it can point out that your birth chart indicates you’re destined to great things it might be able to figure out when you’re going to die and it’s interesting that the meaning of
the roman emperors were really happy with uh with when the story was good and when they would cast you know charts about what might happen to them in a battle or when they might die they were like all right round them all up and
kick them all out right so they were more than happy to expel them all when the story wasn’t uh uh when the story wasn’t so good
and also it’s interesting ditto with the birth chart of jesus that that was one of the big capital crimes you see people being punished for in the middle ages astrologers trying to cast birth charts for jesus uh czecho descoli i think was one of these medieval people that attempted to do this and got in a great bit of trouble uh trying to sort out exactly when jesus was born through astrology because there was something about the idea that on the one hand of course they were the heavens aligned as a sign that something was very important right but if it’s the case that natal astrology is true and that jesus was born under a certain birth chart then he was destined to do what he did and that that that’s a mess that’s a theological mess because obviously god shouldn’t be destined to do stuff yeah
it’s a funny fundamental um incompatibility that’s burst built into western christianity which is
on the one hand this you know almost stoic belief that jesus was born with this auspicious astrological alignment that indicated he would that the son of god had just been born basically that the messiah had been born and and therefore justified that and what would happen and justified the new religion
but then on the other hand the especially growing later theological emphasis on free will as being a really important component of christianity that wasn’t just a minor thing but is actually one of the core components that made it really stand out from some of the other philosophical and religious schools of that time period
[NO! as you said, all brands marketed promise to transcend fate]
um yeah and you mentioned like the length of life that was one of the great preoccupations that the astrologers had and in many very early in many of their textbooks they had a specific technique that was outlined in one of the early foundational texts probably in the first century bce that was attributed to pedocyrus and this technique for determining the length of life was not just a preoccupation of the astrologers because they gave the rationale that you shouldn’t predict events like great events for somebody who will not live long enough to see them was like the classic rash now that ptolemy mentions and he alludes to or or i think attributes this the peta cyrus from the source text that he got this technique from and that most of the astrologers got this technique from but it’s interesting how that technique became sort of the bane of many of the emperors during that time period when the astrologers were running around predicting when different emperors would die and that was not something they were happy about and that was one of the biggest times when political backlash would happen against astrology and you would see it getting banned or see astrologers getting kicked out of rome was
when predictions like that were being made yeah yeah it’s fascinating again like it’s one of these things where same with magic uh many people in power happy to have magicians on their employ as long as there’s no suspicion at all they’re not using that that stuff against them and so it’s interesting that this is always a one is always a danger if you’re a court astrologer or a court uh a court magician that this can always cut against you in lots of ways yeah and and magic’s really important and there’s that’s something that’s very underexplored
it’s hard to explore because there’s not a lot that survives from the hellenistic tradition but there’s some sort of tie-in there with the egyptian tradition and some of the earlier egyptian practices as well as some of the mesopotamian practices which were propitiation rituals because in the older mesopotamian tradition from like let’s say the 7th century bce there were notions that the planets and the stars acted as heavenly writing indicating the will of the gods and things that they were expressing to humankind about the present or the future but they didn’t view that as it wasn’t within a deterministic or stoic context because they viewed some of those indications as being negotiable and that you could use certain rituals or sort of like magical practices in order to avert the things that were indicated, the decrees that were indicated by the stars
and we see some survival of that in the magical tradition in the hellenistic period and then especially in the medieval period through the use of things like talismans and amulets where you could um pick like an astrological moment that was auspicious uh when a certain planet was prominent in the sky and then create or consecrate like a talisman or or an object that would capture the the astrological or the magical astrological energies of that moment into an object that you could then carry around with you in order to sort of capture the energy of that moment and keep it with you in order to offset and influence your fate from that point forward so some of those magical traditions even in their survival into the medieval period through books like the pikatrix are an interesting again alternative legacy of trying to use astrology not to accept your fate but instead using that knowledge in order to free yourself from fate by learning how to manipulate um the the planetary energies or what have you yeah i mean of course the most famous example of that is it’s all kindies on the stellar rays where um you know omnistellar raves is often given the subtitle in the middle ages uh theory of magic because on the the first part of the stellar rays is his sort of neoplatonic vision of how the the stars radiate various kinds of causation and how one can use images to capture them i think of them like uh astral batteries where if there’s a certain conjunction with a certain kind of uh energy you can capture that energy and then deploy it later into doing things and you can amplify or de-amplify those energies using things like sacrifices and uh incense and things like that and al kindies on the stellar rays basically became one of the principal textbooks for what we consider astrological magic along with pika tricks into the the middle ages which was used uh and again this is also what’s also interesting is the survival of the idea that
the planets are living creatures but they’re entities that are alive we see that going back into the hellenistic period as well and because these entities are alive they can be manipulated
and the you see this idea developing in in the and the the traditions of astrological or astral necromancy where these intelligences these beings not only are they out there but by using various kinds of magical systems one can manipulate them and actually call them call their power down to do all kinds of various things
and this kind of astral necromancy was a very popular form of magic into the middle ages whether you have the commentaries of hortellanas and other kinds of people on these astrological textbooks which are very innocuous on their own they’re just astrological textbooks
but when what would end up happening is people like michael scott or hortillanis or czechoscoli would write these necromantic versions of them where not only are they describing how not only describing how the planets work but also describing what the planets are these living beings and how to manipulate them
and at that point you cross a line into criminality and you could be executed and many people were some people were executed for this kind of thing as well and we see
that idea of the planets being living beings going back i think even to plato and and his successors so it’s just interesting i think the what’s the right word the vicissitudes uh just think about fate again that astrology in the hellenistic world has has left us in the western world all these different tendrils all these different traditions all these different ways of relating to the celestial world
and it’s my experience and i wonder if it’s yours that those kinds of questions are only getting more popular that questions about astrology questions about our relationship to the celestial world at some level are are are actually only increasing in popularity uh over the course of the past 20 years both at the academic level thank you thank goodness but also at the practical level at the doing of astrology
and it seems like um this is kind of a period of renaissance for both the doing of astrology but also for the historical re-understanding of all of this stuff where
many of these texts are just now being published for the first time in in hundreds of years
do you is that your sense of it as well that
we’re living in a kind of astrological renaissance of a certain kind
yeah and um there’s been a huge resurgence of astrology recently in the past decade
[modern astrology sucks b/c oblivious to Psilocybin-revealed Heimarmene which was the CENTRAL concern -Michael Hoffman]
and also more broadly in the 20th century in that resurgence in the 60s and 70s as well as the broader which
i try to document a little of a resurgence of interest academic interest in astrology over the past century
and and the important role that’s played in our understanding by recovering some of these texts that survived in libraries and private collections and editing and printing them which you know
some of these many of these texts were just not accessible and scholars did not have the ability to read them until recently
and so that’s one of the reasons why academic interest in astrology has grown is just the availability of being able to study some of the original prime primary source texts
so that whole modern component is definitely something i’m interested in talking about
/ end of e-transcript
Video: Hellenistic Philosophy of Astrology – Conversation w/ Chris Brennan on Fate in the Ancient World – Aug. 23, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR-paFQ76HY&t=3720s — TheAstrologyPodcast – Chris Brennan. Discuss philosophical issues in Hellenistic philosophy especially the role of fate, free-will and the various theories of astrological causation in the ancient Hellenistic world.
etc; my heimarmene articles; fatedness; transcend no-free-will. probably find 2005 posts at the Egodeath Yahoo Group proposing this backlash & a switch from 2- to 3-level model. & my 2007 main article summarizes the proposal:
I had my university library order this book in hardcover and electronic form.
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.
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
Can’t Redefine ‘Determinism’ as Eternalism, though the “free will vs. determinism” debate ~= possibilism vs. eternalism
Lying Academic Liars Require No Substantiation for Their Claim “Many Non-Drug Methods Can Produce Psilocybin Effects” — But No Amount of Evidence Suffices, for Mushrooms in Christian Art
Stace 1960 = Fool.Studerus 2011 = Fool.Psychedelic Science from Griftiths = Fool — b/c with a straight face, these publications cite Stace 1960 as the Foundation of their “Science” (even though OAV 1994 got it right)
Recipe for Transcendent Knowledge: Immerse Mental model in threat potential of {fire} {blade} for 12 Hours or Until Completion of Initiation and {Phoenix} is produced
You agree that all religions have some overlap of mystical experience, right? Of course, I know you do.
I’m so glad you’re on board with the Egodeath theory, which holds that Perennialism is a union experience for the purpose of spiritual and political liberation of humanity, with me as benevolent dictator.
The Egodeath Theory, Which Is “Common Core Mystical Perennialism“, Which You Agreed to, Will Save the World, with Me as Universe Dictator
The Egodeath theory’s Definition of ‘Perennialism’ to Enslave Mankind to Do My Bidding
Baggage Claim 🛬
No baggage is attached by my shifting definition of ‘perennialism’ you have signed on board with.
Are you sure you still agree about common core perennialism?
Bromhall
interesting: Bromhall aticle begins by questions what TYPE of determinism James asserted. I too, immed when reading James article, DoD, immediately saw James trying to construct an argument for domino-chain determinism that would – instead – try to produce eternalism, which is a contradictory system. determinism (always defined as domino-chain determinism, per Kafei) just as ‘entheogen’ is always drug and never (contra Wouter Hanegraaff ) non-drug) —
determinism and eternalism are COMPARABLE BUT VERY DIFFERENT.
Obvisously freewill ~= possibilism, and determinism ~= eternalism. but, unformatulately, the KIND of “determinism ” that the stupid Phil dept created, is stupidly always domino-chain determinism, which I always rejected. I believe in causality, but, don’t like arguing for a preset future of the type that’s preset due to domino-chain determinism causality. The future is rpresent preset b/c it already exists, NOT because it’s open but inevidatbly will domino-into existence per “predictionism”.
predicting is irrelevant
domino-chain determinism causality is irrelevant, for experiecing 4D Spacetime Mysticism.
mushroom-trees artists couldn’t care less about domino-chain determinism causality, it’s irrelavnt to the Psilocybin expeirence.
On Psilocybin what the mind sees, what’s revealed, has nothing do d to do w/ domino-chain determinism. domino causality is not why (or, the sensed sense in which) the future is frighteningly “closed”.
Awareness sees that the future already exists; you feel you have no arms to steer, and the possibilities branching are illusions except the one, already-existing path, “nowhere to turn L or R on the vine yard path” (Balaam).
When mind meets the angel of death, holding {blade}, and your lower self halts on the path.
Your lower self, the egoic personal control system; {donkey}. All its thoughts are, hiddenly, pre-set/ pre-existing; pre-given.
All the words I speak, to Israel, are put in my mouth by God. not by the evil king who sent me to curse Israel.
Rise of the Arrogant Psychonaut (Houot 2025)
I have only read 30% of the pages (and his dissertation & two articles) so I don’t know, I guess I would give it 4 out of 5 stars b/c the topic is good, but the treatment seems to be mixed-quality of execution.
My mission is to explain mental transformation to cognitive scientists, as my main audience that I relate to, which is exactly along the lines of the book’s concept.
I feel obliged to read all pages of the book since I recommended the book to the church book club, and yet I am echoing the book club’s rather negative verdict about the tone, and lack of respect for & credit to forebears.
But I criticize the other suggested book, Badiner’s Zig Zag Zen, too, because (as far as I can tell, re: the 1st Ed.), all of the contributors share the false, prejudiced presupposition that adding the sacrament to meditation is an innovation.
Chemist David Nichols agrees with me: we both strongly believe meditation came from none other than the sacrament.
ZZZ 😴 is disrespectful, in that sense, toward the sacrament, and I can’t stand reading it (I got the hardcover in 2002).
LOL someone’s trying to sell it for $2000, & $750!
Maybe Houot just got off to a poor start in the intro, a misstep, “don’t read this book if you like other approaches”.
Some readers assessed that Houot is young, immature, arrogant, needs an editor.
Houot wrote 3 publications for academia, but he evidences a disrespect for a popular audience, really underestimating, it seems.
Houot should take Popular writing lessons from Michael Pollan – the field-invader, who is overly well-funded & networked, who is a top-notch writer, teaching writing at UC Berkeley.
Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism
4D Mysticism fdm
Good contrast-pair. Say them aloud together.
quan tum
four dee
Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Mysticism
4D Spacetime Mysticism fdsm
4D is much more pertinent or narrowly specific, than broad term “spacetime”. 4D h
4D has a specific meaning, in the context of being placed in opposition / contrast against “quantum”, as “what type of mysticism”.
Quantum Mysticism vs. __ Mysticism
Quantum Mysticism vs. Spacetime Mysticism
Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism
pretty similar; ok to switch between. then add ‘branching’.
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. Spacetime Non-Branching Mysticism
Quantum Branching Many-Worlds Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Spacetime Mysticism
“Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, were interested in Eastern mysticism, but are not known to have directly associated one with the other.
“In fact [wtf do you mean “in fact”??], both endorsed the Copenhagen [BOO!] interpretation of quantum mechanics.”
🤢 I hate the Copenhagen interp, people gush and fawn after it exactly as they do Amanita; for all the wrong reasons, worship of anti-rationality; egoic freewill gleeful pursuit project.
Wiki: Superdeterminism
James T. Cushing against the hasty egoic rush to worship the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics: why didn’t we take the other fork in the road, or even consider it? ie , hidden variables; Superdeterminism.
“In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell’s theorem. [like a vulnerability hole in the right side, blade inserted] {thorn} is a form of {blade}
“By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled.
“A hidden variables theory which is superdeterministic can thus fulfill Bell’s notion of local causality and still violate the inequalities derived from Bell’s theorem.
“This makes it possible to construct a local hidden-variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics, for which a few toy models have been proposed.
“In addition to being deterministic, superdeterministic models also postulate correlations between the state that is measured and the measurement setting.”
i’m really glad to see other people puncturing the dirty willful conflation of “measure” & “consciously observe” – that wiki page gives me hope.
Wiki: Spacetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime — “In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.
—
Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its description in terms of locations, shapes, distances, and directions) was distinct from time (the measurement of when events occur within the universe).
However, space and time took on new meanings with the Lorentz transformation and special theory of relativity.”
“In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.
“This interpretation proved vital to the general theory of relativity, wherein spacetime is curved by mass and energy.”
There’s no reason for you to run You can’t escape the fate of the chosen one Black moon rising, in a blood red sky [astral ascent mysticism] This time you realise that you’re gonna die
When darkness has taken over your mind And you think you’re on your own Don’t believe you are the only one here Look around, you’re not alone [the higher controller reveals itself]
Feel the forces from another world Ghostly shadows fill your mind Evil power hanging over you As you freeze, your life in time [psychedelic q’air effect items]
Look behind you Somebody’s calling Someone is near Feel yourself falling Falling with fear
You tell yourself that it just can’t be true [your personal control thoughts don’t come from you; they were given to you from outside time] But there is nothing you can do
Ghostly shadows from the other world Evil forces in your mind Trapped between the worlds of life and death Frozen in the realms of time [eternalism]
Look behind you
[Abraham turned, looked up, looked behind him, saw ram caught in a ticket] [Mithras turn right look up & behind while blade in bull right side]
Eternalism: see Michael Pollan: How to Change Your Mind – his terrible experience of timelessness, then he sees the blithering mis-framed Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ-POS) item:
“Did you feel timelessness, which is super nifty?
Pollan was forced to reply “N/A” to this BROKEN INSTRUMENT from Tim Leary 1963 based on Stace-the-Clown’s 1960, positive-balanced model of mystical experience.
🦄💨🌈 😊👍 🤯😵🐍
The Overlooked, Forgotten, Original Version of Physics Mysticism (Eternalism-Based): 4D Spacetime Mysticism
Quantum Mysticism is possibilism-based. The battle between Relativity vs Quantum Mysticism ~= is parallel to the THE BATTLE THAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
Instead, Quantum Mysticism (which is possibilism-based) simply REPLACED nascent 1875-1908 Physics Mysticism, which is 4D Spacetime Mysticism (eternalism-based).
I’m identifying the opposite, forgotten, overlooked brand of Physics Mysticism from 1875-1908: I might call it “4D Spacetime Mysticism” or “4D Mysticism”, based on Minkowski’s math model of time as a 4th Dimension, competing against later, 1920’s Quantum Mysticism.
I am defining short, med, & long forms of concept-labels for the two opposite brands.
bad thing about term 4D Mysticism — it omits the Physics term that is ocntrasteted contraste d vs the PHysics term “quantum”.
Quantum Mysticism vs 4D Mysticism – SAY IT ALOUD, IT SOUNDS GOOD. THEREFORE these two are a good pair of terms.
Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism qmv4m
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Non-Branching Mysticism latter: too many syllables
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism
Quantum (Branching) Mysticism vs. 4D (Non-Branching) Mysticism
Nice! 😊👍🏆
quantum many-worlds vs. 4D single-world
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (Ego Inflation Times Infinity): “Time as a Many-Branched Tree”
“The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many parallel, non-interacting worlds.
“It is one of a number of multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.
“MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized.
“This is intended to resolve the measurement problem and thus some paradoxes of quantum theory, such as Wigner’s friend, the EPR paradox, and Schrödinger’s cat, since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own world.”
Quantum (Possibilism) Mysticism vs. 4D (Eternalism) Mysticism
Branching Mysticism vs. Non-Branching Mysticism
Wiki: “Block Universe” redir’s to Eternalism (philosophy of time)
“Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are “already there” in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.
—
“It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”, as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.”
Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism
My 2001 posts about Physics two opposite branching models in the Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout archive:
Quantum Branching Mysticism vs. 4D Non-Branching Mysticism qbmv4nm qv4 A good pair!
Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Spacetime Mysticism
OTOH both have 2 syllables: quan tum; four dee
The future already exists.
4D Mysticism & Minkowski’s view is actually eternalism, not “determinism”; eternalism is NOT like domino-chain determinism. As my miscommunication with Kafei highlighted.
4D eternalism & Mink “absolute four-dimensional spacetime” is more like the opposite of “determinism” (which is always defined as domino-chain determinism), re: whether the future “now exists”.
Especially, most pointedly to kill ego, determinism contradicts eternalism re: whether your future control-thoughts already exist, in a single, pre-created , pre-existing future, timelessly entire 4D block created all at once –
Minkowski mink
domino-chain determinism cannot kill and threten and frighten egoic control.
eternalism pointedly does so. eternalism is a blade killing ego, determinism (domino-chain determinism) is not.
4D eternalism per Mink; per eternalism – mediocre explanation by Josie Kins, a jumble of domino-chain determinism mixed with eternalism, oil and water conflating two different worldmodels in the Effect Index .com entry “Perception of Eternalism”.
The Egodeath theory combines 4D Spacetime w/ the altered state.
4D Non-Branching Spacetime Mysticism fnsm
New concept-label: New lexicon term: 4D Spacetime Mysticism; 4D Mysticism (vs. Quantum Mysticism); or “Spacetime Mysticism”?
For a two-word term for the Minkowski-based mysticism view that can go head-to-head against “Quantum Mysticism”, the term “Spacetime Mysticism” doesn’t work; it’s way too vague.
All of Physics connotes “spacetime”, including Relativity and Quantum, both – tho spacetime is much closer to Rel. than to Quan.
That proves that the key word is ‘4D’, not ‘spacetime’.
“4D Mysticism” works, “Spacetime Mysticism” doesn’t work – as far as short terms that based in Physics to compete against the opposite view, “Quantum Mysticism”.
The key concept that makes the term “4D” effectively work: “4D” means: time is like a space dimension. space dimensions exist whether you are at that location or not; so 4D connotes that the time dimension exists, likewise. Europe exists tho i am not there. My future thoughts exist tho i am not there.
That’s what “4D Mysticism” means in this context of fighting against / contrasting against the term / view, “Quantum Mysticism”.
per book Flatland 1884 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland – “After the Square’s mind is opened to new dimensions, he tries to convince the Sphere of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a fourth dimension and higher spatial dimensions. Still, the Sphere returns his student to Flatland in disgrace.”
mid 1880s was more a 4th spatial dimension.
Minkowski = time as a 4th dimension.
A year ago, I posted wiki links about different versions of 4 dims, as I was tracing the history of what should have been , like Quantum Mysticism , a pop eternalism Physics-based mysticism prior to 1920-era Quantum Mysticism.
If Minkowski hadn’t died 1908, he would have become a Newage guru of 4D Spacetime Mysticism, battling against Quantum Mysticism.
James 1897 seems close to discovering psychedelic eternalism — if he could abandon reasoning in terms of domino-chain determinism, which cannot produce bona fide eternalism.
Mescaline identified 1896 Arthur Heffter, synthesized 1919 Ernst Späth.
‘spacetime’ is too vauge. 4D is highly specific (Petkov book about Minkowski w/ 4 Mink articles 1908) – book front intro chapters usu says like “absolute four-dimensional spacetime“.
i think ‘absolute’ is to contrast hero Mink vs villain Ein’s ‘relativity’, b/c antonyms: absolute vs. releative.
like against the Secret Amanita paradigm is the Explicit Cubensis paradigm. tho friend advsis: advises: no one heard of the word ‘Cubensis’. “I never heard the word ‘Cubensis’. Use normal common word: Psilocybin. if so, phrase would be:
the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm epp
Lexicon Design: Pairs of Opposite Terms: the Secret Amanita paradigm, the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm
Antonym terms: free will vs. determinism; possibilism vs. eternalism
Opposites: Quantum Mysticism vs. 4D Mysticism [2]
possibilism vs. eternalism pve
the altered state
2-level control 2lc
free will vs. determinism fwd
p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin” 14&56
At one time, the word ‘paradigm’ was new jargon. Thomas Kuhn 1960s:
Time travel to 1950: hey guys i have a new paradigm! “wtf?? spk English!”
{rock} vs. “iron”
“iron block” – iron fails to be ancient myth. they say rock, stone, sculpture, statue:
king & rulers turned to stone upon seeing snake.
girls leaped off rock mountain upon lift lid & see father snake, to their death.
giant throw rocks at Odysseus escaping.
Mithras born from cosmic rock (heimarmene boundary at top of onion layer 8, fixed stars, Ogdoad, moving into 9 Ennead = precession of equinoxes per David Ulansey)
What’s the opposite, competing brand from 1875-1908 in Pop Physics Mysticism, before everyone took a wrong turn to many-worlds Quantum Mysticism?
12:55 Mar 12 2025 i think i have my term i was developing: candidate: “4D Spacetime Mysticism” vs my other existing term “Quantum Mysticism”
VOX_TK_6431.wav – the too-gated, leaf blower, Mar 11, 2025: list all terms on both sides:
I am looking to form good short labels of the two opposed competing brands of Physics Mysticism that should have been defined in 1920 brands
A Y fork in the road: we took the wronge turn like books by Cushing say, against Copen’ism. Bohm took the correct turn, vs. THE MINORITY TURN.
The stupid majority mass of stupid pop cult went running after Quantum Mysticism – they ought to be have taken the other, ORIGINAL version of Physics Mysticism, which was 4D block time.
Not domino-chain determinism though, that’s the worst; it is merely possibilism -premised iron block is a garbled mess on egoic foundation.
I rejected domino-chain determinism from the start (Summer 1988, reading read pamphlet book A Conversation: free will vs. determinism : clifford stole? ), like November 1987 when I started to figure out the Way of Zen by Alan Watts better than his hazy poetic desc that failed to say “determinism”.
I wrote in Nov Dec 1987 binder, the Way of Zen by Alan Watts.
Watts, why the hell didn’t you write ‘determinism”?! [more precisely, eternalism]
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts is not a muddy expression of assertion of “determinism”, actually, of eternalism ! 4D spacetime, block-universe eternalism.
Not really block-universe determinism, which is a poor, oil-and-water construction, polluted with the egoic freewill premise of essentially open future that does not exist.
block-universe determinism – future doesn’t exist. “Closed” because/ in the sense that, domino causality.
block-universe eternalism – future exists. The future is closed because/ in the sense of, the future already exists.
Your future control thoughts are cast in stone b/c they already exist.
Your future control thoughts are not merely” inevitable” — far more strongly, your future control thoughts ALREADY EXIST, so is a DONE DEAL, as in, the creation of your thoughts was done in the timeless past.
Your future control thoughts were already created and are already sitting cast in stone.
Domino-chain determinism is the exact opposite sense of “closed future”. Entirely different foundation and way of thinking!
Eternalism has NOTHING to do w/ domino-chain determinism, they are practically opposite ways of thinking! Differently based worldviews.
Letheby’s “fate” discussions are all mis-founded on domino-chain determinism. He is ignorant of 4D spacetime eternalism.
Not in his impoverished starve-to-death buffet of bunk options.
In Chris Letheby’s writings, Find: eternalism, 4D spacetime block-universe eternalism.
He writes “fatalism”, wtf is even that. A sign of ignorance & impoverishment.
What the Way of Zen by Alan Watts is struggling to assert, by hitting student w/ stick, is eternalism – not determinism, technically, though I said “oh u mean ‘determinism'”, b/c like everyone, I didn’t know of the term ‘eternalism’.
Watts fails to use either term, bizarrely.
Eternalism totally explains Satori and mental model transformation, I realized in Dec. 1987, then a huge block-universe determinism altered state breakthrough in Jan. 1988 by using Minkowski 4D spacetime.
4D block time – “the crystalline ground of being” — solves and explains and makes sense for satori:
Watts, why didn’t you simply say “Satori is determinism”, like spirituality meditation guy against Ken Wilber — Ramesh Balsekar: “enlightenment = no-free-will”.
But trashcan domino-chain determinism , it sucks and is not at all same as eternalism b/c 4D future ALREADY EXISTS (and is single – an important contrast against branching many-worlds).
1875-1908, was v1 of Physics Mysticism: 4D mysticism of the late 1800s.
The occult style of 1895, vs. later modern studpid Quantum Mysticism worship of many-worlds ego mega inflation:
I AM THE CREATOR OF INFINITE WORLDS AT EVERY MOMENT, B/C I WORSHIP Quantum Mysticism infinitely ultra-branching many-worlds.
What did Physics find? Physics has proved that observation causes reality, and that by my power of conscious observing, at every moment, I am creating infinite worlds.
[mic comedy skit potential clown emoji mic emoji]
Below, I transcribed that recording, mostly brainstorming a list of key terms on two sides, grouped.
List of All Key Terms for Possibilism vs Eternalism: The Two Opposite Brands of Physics Mysticism
All Key Terms, Grouped, for 4D Mysticism vs. Quantum Mysticism
Brand 1: 4D Mysticism (All Associated Terms)
Brand 1 of Physics Mysticism: eternalism, 1875-1908
They ought to have thought of that mystic system this way: __
They should have been grasping and pursuing 4D Spacetime Mysticism.
Contrast against the other later brand, Physics Mysticism brand 2:
Quantum Mysticism
Do NOT call one “freewill” and the other “determinism”; rather, truly the two well-contrasted brands actually are eternalism vs. possibilism.
The backlash response type of Physics Mysticism: Quantum Mysticism.
Many-worlds is opposite of 4D block single-world.
The complement of ‘quantum’ in pop lingo is pop jargon… how they ought to have used labels / lexicon that’s better?
The opposite of quantum would be “4D” or block, relativity/invarienten
Draw a line boundary, group all of the key terms into two groups.
The Forgotten, Original Version of Physics Mysticism: 4D Block Time, Flatland, 1875 – “Iron Block View” Is a Misnomer for “Domino-Chain Determinism Causality”
James mis-calles domino-chain determinism “the iron block view” – latter is actually eternalism, which has entirely diff’t basis foundation than domino-chain determinism. domino-chain determinism is worst, bad, confusion, halfway between freewill and eternalism.
You can’t do what James does, get from domino-chain determinism to eternalism – he hates “iron block univsere” – but he mixed that up w/ very diff’t, domino-chain determinism.
In 1897 article “The Dilemma of Determinism”, which i only started reading, and searching within, James has to jump a big gap from domino-chain determinism to reach eternalism – that doesn’t work. You can’t get from domino-chain determinism to eternalism aka iron block determinism. domino-chain determinism != iron block.
iron block means eternalism, not domino-chain determinism! James has a confused mix, 90% domino-chain determinism, only 10% actual iron block block-universe eternalism.
a half baked term: block-universe determinism that i used a long time 1988-2007. more proper is block-universe eternalism.
block-universe determinism ~= block-universe determinism, but different foundation! the future is “closed” in two very different senses per block-universe determinism vs block-universe eternalism.
The future is “closed” in two very different senses (for different reasons/ due to different mechanisms) in block-universe determinism vs. block-universe eternalism
the term block-universe determinism does not even cohere! domino-chain determinism does not produce “block-universe determinism”, does not produce a block universe.
Mink would not agree that the domino-chain determinism described by James is same as 4D spacetime block – very very different! I always rejected domino-chain determinism: smear it disparage it as domino-chain determinism
Incoherent “Open-Future Domino-chain determinism”, says the future does not exist and is ‘open’ in that sense – but 4D says the future exists
So, are VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS/ fundamentally different ways of Thinking about how (in what way/ sense, by what mechanism) the future is “closed”!
All times were created at once; the entire 4D block was crewated all at once – THAT is the true reason & sense the future is “closed”, and “cast in stone”.
The future is cast in stone in that it already exists, NOT because of later outcome of domino-chain determinism!
Kafei knows this,
Josie Kins only half gets it,
Wm James barely understands. properly understood.
Vetkov arg’s that EINSTEIN DID NOT COMPREHEND BLOCK TIME, mink did.
Minkowski clearly understood fully, except for 2-level, dependent control, preexisting control-thoughts causing king ego to die.
James and Kins don’t grok 4D.
Josie Kins is 70% eternalism, but POLLUTED with IMPURE, 30% domino-chain determinism which is dirty possibilism-thinking.
Contaminated.
Unwashed.
Vetkov, Minkowski, Michael Hoffman, and Kafei grok 4D spacetime.
I am complaining that no one pays any attention to my brand of Physics Mysticism: 4D Spacetime Mysticism.
Everyone is in love with Quantum Mysticism many-worlds branching , I am sad about that, why don’t they pick the earlier, 4D 1875-1908 style of Physics Mysticism that was only partially formed, inchoate.
First, in the 1800s, people partly started forming a version of mysticism eg the novel Flatland, and 1980s Rucker book Time as a 4th Dimension.
For a short brief period, 1875-1908, thinkers the culture of the day created v1 of Physics Mysticism, originally based on time as 4th dimension; block-universe determinism/ block-universe eternalism.
But then, around 1920, everyone rebelled and rejected that, and ran toward instead, many-worlds egoic steering power Quantum Mysticism.
The mechanical reason in whci, because of which, the reason why / the sense in which future is “closed”: because the FUTURE ALREADY EXISTS – NOT b/c of DOMINO-CHAIN DETERMINISM!
I have always disliked and rejected domino-chain determinism argumentation, since mid-1988 when I first read about to confirm my eternalism block-universe determinism model of mental model transformation in loose cognition.
My Driving Motivation Now: Give Cognitive Scientists a Useful Scientific Explanatory Model to Equip Them to Explore and Research Psilocybin Transformation
Email to Rick March 12, 2025
Below is my history of changing motivations for studying the altered state.
Now my driving mission is to appropriately equip cognitive scientists to endure the Psilocybin state in order to explore that state for scientific research and discovery, by providing a USEFUL, clear (STEM-expressed), most-relevant explanatory framework of Psilocybin transformation:
mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control,
including religious myth as clarifying analogy, & art motifs. Give them expert understanding of how mythemes & motifs describe by analogy, Psilocybin transformation “to eternalism*” —
Transformation to a combination of possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking, per split-level compatibilism.
Translate from “free will vs. determinism” to “possibilism vs. eternalism” which is more well-formed. Not presentism (Josie Kins’ mis-contrast). Not domino-chain determinism (James 1897 mis-contrast).
You can see James struggling to construct eternalism, which has a fundamentally different basis than domino-chain determinism. He is trying hard — in vain? — to get from the domino-chain determinism argumentation done really well, to produce an outcome of eternalism instead – doesn’t really work, as Kafei & I found.
Wouter Hanegraaff is wrong to say, in “Entheogenic Esotericism keynote article chapter in Chris Partridge book-pair (at academia .edu),
“Although this redefines the word ‘entheogen’, argument from etymology [which everyone knows is invalid] supports my redefinition to: non-drug entheogens.”
Me 2007: “Although this redefines the word ‘determinism’, I don’t mean domino-chain determinism, but eternalism.”
Kafei: “the Egodeath theory is stupid domino-chain determinism. Proved by not using the term ‘absolute’.”
By semi-coincidence, Minkowski book about emphatic eternalism in Physics, very strongly uses the word ‘absolute’, to rebut ‘relative’. Book argues that Einstein’s use of ‘relativ’ shows he doesn’t comprehend 4D ramifications, like Mink does: “absolute four-dimensional spacetime”. I don’t think the word ‘absolute’ means anything clearly in myst’m or in relativity Physics, unless contrasted against “Relativity”. german: ‘theory of invariance” – IDK why Petkov doesn’t give the gernam German title of theory of relevaitity, “invarienten”:
In 1988, as I recall, I saw a German article by Einstein titled like Theory of Invariantentheorie.
“It is occasionally remarked that Einstein was unhappy that SR became referred to as a ‘theory of relativity’, when in his eyes it was, much more importantly, a theory of invariants (Invariantentheorie). I’m trying to find a quotable source for this, but can’t. Can anyone point me in the right direction?”
“I believe that part of his disquiet was to do with the mischief (potential or actual?) caused by linking SR with philosophical or ethical relativism (which it of course has nothing to do with), but probably more significantly that calling it ‘relativity’ muddles the problem (the frame dependence of coordinates) with the solution (the invariance of the interval).”
“I can find an essay (see p.270) which says:
“We know from his biographies that Einstein was not content with associations which his expression “Principle of Relativity” (or “Theory of Relativity”) had provoked, so he would prefer that his theory was named die Invariantentheorie (Theory of Invariance), following Felix Klein’s term, but it was already too late to rename it.”
“As well, I’ve found a rather hand-waving remark that ‘The historian of science Gerald Holton reports that Einstein was unhappy with the label ‘relativity theory’ and in his correspondence referred to it as Invariantentheorie…’. Neither of these authors, however, seems to quote an actual source (grr).”
Not proved: “..he did not use the term relativity. In fact, he did not use the term until 1911, years after other physicists had referred to his work in that way. Einstein referred to the theoretical basis of his work as Invarianten Theorie until social pressure forced him in 1911 to change”.
I remember around 1988 I took great note that the original, German title or name was “invarienten”, and I wondered why English mis-translated it as “relativity”, completely inverting the meaning.
Glad to see Stack page interest in this point, in detail, appreciate the research & fairly detailed confirmation of my 1988 observation.
I wish to see what I saw in 1988: I thought it was the German title of a 1905 Einstein article, I just might be getting the details slightly wrong but I am certain I saw essentially that.
The Stack page implies that ‘invariant’ merely refers to the perceived constant speed of light, which merely describes Ein’s thought experiment way that he thought of the theory, not a description of the theory itself:
“‘Invariance Theory’ is not very precise; it only describes the research method of the theory, not the content of the theory.” (Specifically the Special Theory of Relativity, not the motion-focused General Theory of Relativity.)
I feel sure am completely certain that I saw an Einstein article titled like “Invarianten Theorie” – Michael Hoffman. Maybe in 1988. I took great note of the word! Around when I was in a university Modern Physics course. During library research when I got a book of the 1905 Einstein articles.
Can’t Redefine ‘Determinism’ as Eternalism, though the “free will vs. determinism” debate ~= possibilism vs. eternalism
obviously determinism maps to eternalism, and freewill maps to possibilism
determinism ~= eternalism, but see the confusion between Kafei & me b/c … the prob.. this is a sympotom of a huge problem for centuries forever: everyone in the world debates about determinism, but, they all define it literally and specifically as domino-chain determinism – as Kafei pointed out. In effect, Kafei told me “You CANNOT redefine ‘determinism’ to mean eternalism aka “the absolute” (that seems to be Kafei’s term instead) – determinism BY DEFINITION
Reminds me of ‘entheogen’ means, by definition, psychedelic chemicals.
You CANNOT do what Wouter Hanegraaff did, “although this totally changes the word to mean the exact opposite of what it means…”
The word “up”, in the broad sense, means “down”.
The word “true”, in the broad sense, means “false.
The word “entheogen”, in the broad sense, means non-drug methods that can/ could/ might / may [ie, that do not] cause the exact same effect as 12g of dried Cubensis.
Heavy breathing can cause the exact same effect as 12g of dried Psilocybin mushrooms. <- HEY ACADEMICS: YOU ARE *LIARS* AND IT IS NOT COOL WHAT YOU ARE DOING: AGREEING TO LIE TO EACH OTHER AND PLAY-ACT AS IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN B.S. Ndmm the traditional methods of the mystics is BULL and you know it but you agree to lie and pretend.
It’s a DOGMATIC LIE, THAT non-drug methods “can” produce same as Psilocybin; NO THEY CANNOT, LIAR. GTFO, liars!
The academic community of liars.
Never in a million years did heavy breathting EVER cause transformation from possibilism to eternalism, which is THE ultimate, definitive, main effect of Psilocybin.
Even if heavy breathing, active imagination, and other bull sh!t fabrications do cause AN altered state, they do not and cannot produce THE altered state; transformation from possibilism to eternalism – ie, WHETHER FAKE METHODS LIKE BREATHING CAUSE AN ALTERED STATE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTERS, Wouter Hanegraaff, IS: DO THESE ALLEGED “MANY OTHER METHODS” CAUSE TRANSFORMATION FROM POSSIBILISM TO ETERNALISM?
What do the liar-academics claim? “Drugs are not the only way to ___; we know that there are many, many other methods that also ___.”
If the liar-academics are merely saying non-drug meditation causes AN altered state, ok, true – an altered state that’s feeble, ineffectual, wimpy, wussy, avoidance-method, neutered, impotent, fake ersatz slight dizziness – entirely irrelevant.
If the liar-academics are
THE LYING ACADEMIC LIARS HAVE NOT ONE SHRED OF *EVIDENCE* THAT ALLEGED OTHER METHODS PRODUCE Psilocybin EFFECTS ESPECIALLY TRANSFORMATION FROM POSSIBILISM TO ETERNALISM.
Lying Academic Liars Require No Substantiation for Their Claim “Many Non-Drug Methods Can Produce Psilocybin Effects” — But No Amount of Evidence Suffices, for Mushrooms in Christian Art
If you assert “There’s mushroom imagery in Christian art”, the lying academic liars say: “We demand evidence!“
If you assert “Non-drug meditation or heavy breathing can cause the same effect as 12g of Psilocybin mushrooms”, the lying academic liars say: “Ok, no evidence needed!“
🎓🤥👖🔥🤞–>🤑💰
per voice recording Mar 11 yesterday 2025:
I was wrong to attempt to redefine the word ‘determinism’ to mean eternalism, but, I didn’t find ‘eternalism’ or ‘superdeterminism’ until the day after I finalized my main article Sep. 2007 (per Egodeath Yahoo Group archive posts).
per voice recording Mar 11 2025. near 6348.wav mixed w mic tests. Much of these new ideas in this email are from those voice recordings where I started reading aloud the James 1897 article The Dilemma of Determinism.
I’m now working out this idea studying 1897-1908 Minkowski spacetime block 4D universe (non-branching, eternalism) — against Quantum Mysticism, which = many-worlds branching freewill power.
I give you eternalism, which is kind of like dread/rejected “iron block determinism” — but per William James 1897 article, where he tries really hard to make domino-chain determinism/ causality produce a fundamentally differently based thing, the real treasure, eternalism.
I do not take away your precious possibilism-thinking / freewill thinking! It is washed, and used, not destroyed.
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”
William James is correct that we practically have and must revere and use freewill thinking – even at the same time as — per Jonathan Bricklin’s 2015 book about psychedelic eternalism(!) & Wm James:
The Egodeath Theory Gives You Split-Level Compatibilism; You End Up with Both Possibilism-Thinking & Eternalism-Thinking
We actually have underlying eternalism. I combine those two realities – we end up with possibilism and eternalism BOTH:
Split-level Compatibilism; you end up with:
* Eternalism-thinking re: underlying level +
* Redeemed/ justified / purified / cleansed possibilism-thinking at the practical level of personal control system;
* Practical-level possibilism: You always love and retain and depend on using child-thinking; child Isaac: the egoic personal control system, shaped as possibilism / freewill thinking: ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control . . .
* Underlying-level eternalism: . . . while telling God – your higher thinking – you acknowledge the reality of underlying block-universe eternalism w/ 2-level, dependent control.
You might start with literalist thinking; but, you end up with understanding/ comprehending/ recognizing religious myth as analogies, instead.
Thus you {paid the sacrifice toll} at the {rock, fire, branches, blade) altar} to {pass through the guarded gate to get the treasure}.
After Psilocybin transformation / satori/ enlightenment, after mental model transformation, you end up with BOTH POSSIBILISM AND ETERNALISM in this way & sense.
> The perfect harmony of approaches: loyal to science, AND, love the psychedelic divine and experiencing the highest levels of spiritual bliss.
> When in the realm of the gods, play by the state-suitable rules. > When in the real world, play by the state-suitable rules.
That’s equivalent to my “split-level Compatibilism”, and 2-state model, and William James 1897 (“The Dilemma of Determinism”, which I started reading) can relate.
The other article I’m reading, about James’ article, is by Kyle Bromhall: AN INCHOATE UNIVERSE: JAMES’S PROBABILISTIC UNDERDETERMINISM Kyle Bromhall, 2013
Per Bricklin’s 2015 psychedelic eternalism book about William James (The Illusion of Time, Self, & Will…), James was torn between trying to believe in both:
* practical freewill (possibilism) in the ordinary state, and
* Nitrous mystic-state altered state eternalism (“iron block universe determinism”).
The Ultimate Paradigm of Science: The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism
> Loose cognition takes the mind to some places outside of Science.
The mind has a drive or hunger to voyage and seek the divine and enlightenment, which is accessed through cognitive loosening agents, specifically none other than psychedelics, certainly not meaning Amanita any more than Datura, but specifically as the gold standard reference, Psilocybin.
The ultimate purpose of Science is to form a useful explanatory model of Psilocybin transformation. the Egodeath theory is the ultimate paradigmatic instance of Science.
Science Is Nothing, if not an Explanation of Psychedelic Eternalism
Science is nothing, if not an explanation of psychedelic eternalism.
The Egodeath Theory Is the Highest Achievement of STEM
The Egodeath theory is the highest achievement of STEM. 1985-2025.
Egodeath.com, EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com
My Current Driving Mission & Central Target Audience/ User Persona: Equip Cognitive Scientists for the Psilocybin State
Now, my driving mission, most of all, is to equip Cognitive Scientists to endure and use the altered state, so that they can explore it for Science.
That is my defined target audience. If I can provide for their needs, that covers everyone’s needs.
That’s my strategic audience focus, who I can most relate to & provide for, in terms that they relate to.
Funny thing, I criticize the book we’re reading, Rise of the Psychonauts, even though my official focused mission — equip Cog Sci for scientific exploration — exactly aligns with (Houot) the author’s concept.
History of my previous driving motivations
Seeking the divine or pursuing Transcendent Knowledge was never my driving motivation.
Figuring out Transcendent Knowledge was a means to an end, of fixing my malfunctioning personal control. I reasoned that the first thing to do for self help, is rationally comprehend ego transcendence (in order to fix my malfunctioning personal control).
* 1985 Oct. 26 (Back to the Future day): My original, 1985-1987 motive was to figure out ego transcendence and satori in a clearly explained way per STEM, to fix my malfunctioning personal control.
* 1988 Jan.: In my Jan. 1988 breakthrough, my motivation changed to: Explain to others what satori mental model transformation is really about [vs. what Ken Wilber claims it’s about].
* 1998 a: Then in 1998 my motive was initially to get Jesus and Paul to confirm my theory of mental model transformation — but, I immediately found that religious founder figures are mythical.
* 1998 b: So, I changed my motive to: get religious myth to confirm my theory of mental model transformation, by assuming that religious myth is a garbled, overgrown-with-bushes, description or reflection of Psilocybin-induced experience of eternalism.
Details about success at that driving goal (myth confirms theory of mental model transformation):
* 2003: Success (finding {ingesting producing eternalism} in every brand of myth/ esotericism) was indicated in 2003 (showing that I was on the right track that would pan out).
eg, in astral ascent mysticism in Western Esotericism, I found {eating/drinking/food/drink}, and {eternalism} motifs/themes (heimarmene & then transcending fate).
* 2007 September: That theory of myth was then summarized in 2007 — though still missing recognition of the {branching} and {handedness} art motifs in the art that I included.
* 2013 Thanksgiving: Shook me for weeks: huge confirmation of key importance of {branching} motif/mytheme.
Our church library has that Joseph Campbell book, THE POWER OF MYTH(!!)
️
Nice version of the tree emoji, on my screen: has trident branches holding up crown, like eg the Plaincourault fresco, and almost {cut right branch}. Its branching form is YI, the ideal form.
Branching mapped to Left; non-branching mental worldmodel mapped to Right. Like Eve Left hand hold branch, and right hand holding apple of enlightenment is near non-branching snake.
Finally found color of Lucas Cranach “Eve Tempted by the Serpent” from Campbell Power of Myth! Adam and Eve 1533 “Adam und Eva”
That hypothesis was massively confirmed later in Nov. 2020 by Eadwine’s “leg-hanging mushroom tree” image in the Great Canterbury Psalter (image crop uploaded to web by John Lash May 2008, per archive.org).
* 2020 Nov: {branching} and {handedness} art motifs were added starting in 2020, especially via Great Canterbury Psalter; details:
* Nov 2020: folio f134: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom-tree image:
* 2024 Nov: I was brought out of hiatus by recognizing from SPLENDOR SOLIS key mythemes on cover of book signed to me by Jan Irvin in April 2007: AstroSham 1 (2005/2006): {cut right branch}, {stand on right foot}, {hold cut branch}, and soon after, in other version, {Amanitas under tree}, and {bathe in river flowing from tree} & {gateway}:
* 2025 Jan: folio f11 (the famous one): Creation Day 4 mushrooms point to Creation Day 1 {balance scale} pans] – in conjunction with success at the weeks-long project/ pursuit of analyzing left-to-right progressive branching form of mushroom-trees in Creation Day 3: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI:
I am happy and satisfied to “cap” and terminate my art motif breakthrough period w/ that pair of art decodings, in famous folio f11.
Of all the many entheogen scholars looking at this main folio comic page, I am the first to see the rather obvious & explicit ({open book} is included) “mushrooms pointing to balance scale pans”:
And, in 2025, I finally for first time ever, showcased all 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in Bernard Door & Column, plus, discovered {mushroom hem} & {floating mushroom hem} motifs there, and I assert {Lib Cap roofs} & {mushroom roof toppers} in Bernward metalwork including chandelier. Only the 7 mushroom-trees:
I continue deepening my ability to read mythemes & art motifs as {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs expressing the experience of psychedelic eternalism.
My summary of eternalism, written w/ Jerry Brown in mind in support of
my “compelling evidence & criteria of proof for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art” article for him Nov 2020:
* 2025: Now, my driving mission, most of all, is to equip Cognitive Scientists to endure and use the altered state, so that they can explore it for Science. That is my defined target audience. If I can provide for their needs, that covers everyone’s needs.
Funny thing, I criticize the book that our church book club is reading, Rise of the Psychonauts, even though my official focused mission — equip Cog Sci for scientific exploration — exactly aligns with (Houot) the author’s concept.
/ end of email to Rick Mar. 12, 2025
Confirmed Minkowski Spacetime Is Emphatically Principled Eternalism – “Absolute 4D Spacetime”, future exists, all times exist, flow of time is illusion
Not stated:
single future; non-branching possibilities
2-level, dependent control
against the word “relativity”, Minkowski retorted “absolute”.
The world is an absolute 4D spacetime block containing worldlines. d/k if he uses the word “block”. Ideally I’d quote the book.
A real four-dimensional world.
Changeless.
Time does not flow. The future exists. All times exist, non-branching.
2021 2nd edition with 2020 content: intro section “march 19, 2020”, less than 5 years ago.
the absolute world – compare Kafei, “the absolute”. d/k if Kafei meant “the absolute” in the exact same sense as the word’s heavy use in this book intro by Vesselin Petkov. But … just as the “coincidence” of:
2001 i posted that block-universe eternalism = non-branching, Quantum Mysticism = branching
2020 i discovered that non-branching = eternalism, branching imagery in mushroom-trees art = possibilism
that is, my mapping of Physics branching vs non-branching models (spacetime vs. Quantum Mysticism) to the equivalent contrast in art motifs, is not a coincidence – as Josie Kins comment about Effects Index entry “The Perception of Eternalism” wrote that it’s impressive how closely our altered state experiencing matches famous philosophy positions.
It’s impressive how much the contrast between branching vs. non-branching in mushroom-trees art maps exactly to the contrast between non-branching 4D absolute spacetime [i wound not normally employ the word ‘absolute’, it reminds me too much of Kafei’s study of mysticism – but, this book intro absolutely uses the term ‘absolute’ — in some way heavily affirming Kafei —
Per Kafei, 5 g Golden Teacher Is Not High-Dose; 12.5 g Is High Dose
I was off by order of magnitude, in saying that Kafei advocated unnecessarily excessive dosage levels.
Tent. calcs. I am open to 20 g being actual high dose – if 40 g doesn’t give a stronger experience than 20 g.
I will not confidently accuse an advocate of 20 g of overshooting, b/c I am just GUESSING, guesstimating. I might wonder if it’s overshooting, or suspect it is, but, not assert that it is.
I had thought that 5g was “high dose” or “full dose”.
5g is not high dose. 12.5g is high dose.
Def. of hi dose: if you double the amount, little increase in effect. eg:
is 1st-gen entheogen scholarship of
Is 1 g
Golden Teacher gt
Is 1g Golden Teacher high dose? test: if instead 2g, is there increase in effect? Yes. Therefore 1g is not high dose.
Is 2g Golden Teacher high dose? test: if instead 4g, is there increase in effect? Yes. Therefore 2g is not high dose.
Is 4g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 8g, is there increase in effect? Does 8g give much stronger effect than 4g? Yes. Therefore 4g is not high dose.
Is 8g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 16g, is there increase in effect? Does 16g give much stronger effect than 8g? Yes. Therefore 8g is not high dose.
Is 16g Cubensis high dose? test: if instead, 32g, is there increase in effect? Does 32g give much stronger effect than 16g? No. Therefore 16g is high dose.
That is the template shape of the calculations. Can try different numbers. That’s how to define “high dose”, the criteria. eg,
Suppose 32 g gives MUCH stronger loose cognition than 16 g. If so, there’s no way you can defend calling 16g “high dose”.
Cubensis cube
Below I calc / estimate that 500 ug = high dose blotter = 12.5 g Golden Teacher. Do the calc test:
Is 25 g much stronger than 12.5 g? No. 25 g is only slightly stronger than 12.5 g. Therefore, 12.5 g is high-dose.
Template calc; can replace numbers.
Affirming Kafei: CONFIRMED: 5 g dried cubensis is NOT a high dose.
Somewhere in the range 10g-20g is probably high dose, IF doubling to 20 -40 g doesn’t give stronger effect.
subjective characterization: 5 g dried cubensis is like maybe 150 ug blotter. maybe 200.
5g Dried Cubensis ~= 200 ug Blotter
High dose of blotter is 500 ug. Uncertain. That is true if 1000 ug is no stronger than 500 ug.
If 1000 ug is stronger than 500 ug, then 500 ug is not high dose, by this criteria/ definition/ method.
How many grams dried cube Golden Teacher is like 500 ug blotter?
500 ug blotter * (5g dried cubensis / 200 ug blotter) = 500 * 5 / 200 = 12.5 g dried cubensis
500 ug Blotter (high dose) ~= 12.5 g dried cubensis
200 ug blotter is a casual, respectable but modest moderate, safe, non-risky amount, avoiding pushing it.
A little on the wimpy/ conservative side.
200 mics is just enough to almost be a serious amount. That’s not a good reference.
A better fuller experience is 300 ug. Very agreessive is 500 ug.
“250 ug” is not convenient. Blotter unit of 100 mic, 250 is unnatural.
100 mic <– casual party background dose, or scholarly focused work.
200 mic <– one foot in strong experience, not really pushing at all; fully safe, DABBLING with strong amount. Rock Concert fulfilling amount: strong, but little risk of excessive.
300 mic <– pretty strong; fully respectable, but not extreme. A useful amount: in the realm of control instability capability accessed, but not entirely overwhelming. Able to do some things here that not possible w/ merely 200 mic.
400 mic <– a relaxed extreme, distinctly less than max.
500 mic <– extreme, full, max experience
If we assume the speculative “5 g cube = … for … good enough for a starting point estimate.
Converting Blotter Dosage to Cubensis Dosage
Based on the estimate that 5 g dried Cubensis Golden Teacher = 200 ug blotter. Not re: duration; re: intensity of loose cognition at peak window.
100 ug = 2.5 g
200 ug = 5 g
300 ug = 7.5 g <– useful point of reference: far enough in, to access all the dynamics to some extent; not shortchanged on the higher dynamics.
400 ug = 10 g
500 ug = 12.5 g
McKenna – I’ve not …. i seems to picture 5g as “high dose”. I believe 5g dried cube (typical obviously; of course a batch can be 10x stronger) – and I do not mean superstrains of cube; I mean
The Egodeath Theory Replaces Perennialism, which Is Confusion and a Failure
The Egodeath theory is a rebuttal of perennialism. Anti mysticism, anti perennialism.
If I thought those approaches had much to offer, I wouldn’t have bothered making my own custom theory of Transcendent Knowledge in 1985, deliberately from the Engineering/STEM department instead of those failed garbled approaches that don’t even try for clear useful explanation.
The Egodeath theory is more like the opposite of perennialism or esotericism.
I read the characteristics of esotericism per Antoine Faivre, and I reject and dislike all of their goals and traits.
Per Jewish mysticism history scholar Moshe Idel, the word ‘perennialism’ is unusable, b/c everyone redefines it.
Perennialism means confusion and is a dead end, failed approach that brings more confusion than clarity.
The Egodeath theory was created because perennialism is a failed approach to explaining providing a useful effective explanatory model of Psilocybin transformation.
I only care about garbled myth to some extent validating the Egodeath theory – the theory of psychedelic eternalism.
Perennialism cannot be validated, because it is an invalid mass of confusion and irrelevance.
I might agree with one or two perennialist assertions by some people, but I reject Perennialism.
Perennialism is a fundamentally broken, failed approach, a problem to be fixed by wholesale replacement of the Perennialist framework by the Egodeath theory instead; the theory of psychedelic eternalism.
Matthew Johnson’s Ethics Violations Complaints Filed Against His Hopkins Team Blocking the 2016 Religious Professionals Study
Email to Rick Mar 11 2025
Travis Kitchens describes Matthew Johnson’s ethics violations accusations against his Hopkins team.
“Hopkins/NYU Griffiths’ experiment gave psilocybin to 24 religious professionals 2 times —Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim clergy.
What happened is a mystery, as the paper has yet to be released.
A controversy was growing in Griffiths’ lab that threatened to derail the psychedelic renaissance.
The accusations centered on alleged misconduct involving the religious professionals study.
March 2024, New York Times published an exposé that called the study’s integrity into question.
The article drew on two ethics complaints filed by a former protégé, psychologist Matthew Johnson whom Griffiths had groomed to be his replacement.
Griffiths, Johnson said, had been running his research lab less like a laboratory and more like a new-age retreat center, recommending spiritual literature to volunteers and allowing politically aligned funders to work directly on studies.
Funders were also paying for projects aimed at introducing various religious communities to hallucinogens.
The line between research and advocacyhad disappeared.
Johnson accused Griffiths of infusing his research with his own spiritual beliefs and agenda of spreading the use of psychedelics.
This created a cult-like atmosphere.
Publishing the religious professionals study was put on permanent hiatus.
Information emerged about Griffiths and other researchers, a plan to revitalize Christianity by incorporating a psychedelic sacrament.
The renaissance of psychedelic studies: Are the researchers guided by science, religion, or a combination?”
“Perennialism appeals to psychedelic enthusiasts.
Perennialism says one can tap into the same universal Truth known to mystics of all ages, by taking a drug, with no need for institutional religion.
Not everyone involved with the study holds such beliefs.
Johnson, the former protégé who filed the ethics complaints, thinks the findings have been exaggerated and taken out of context.
Some people want to see the results as validating the Perennial Philosophy, but it can’t.”
Moving Past Mysticism AND Materialism: Psychedelic Eternalism
The Psychedelic Renaissance[TM] is DEAD, done, died, imploded.
Griffiths died of cancer. The famous core people left the Hopkins team. It’s history/toast.
I inspected their Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – verdict: garbage, junk science, b/c based on a totally fantasy-based imagining of the scope of mystical experience:
Stace 1960, unicorns farting rainbows – as real as the Amanita fantasy, bad [in some ways] entheogen scholarship v1 (1st Gen) from John Allegro and from Carl Ruck Committee, which puts 100x as much emphasis on Secret/ Suppressed (so exciting and titillating!) as on actual psychedelics.
Citations about the “Moving Past Mysticism” fight/debate within Psychedelic Science; the Mysticism Wars within Psychedelic Science:
Moving Past Mysticism: Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides Scientific Basis, Superseding “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
Matthew Johnson and Chris Letheby lean way too far to hardcore materialist naturalism, and the alternative is as bad: the flakiest possible mysticism woo that you can possibly imagine.
Bifurcated into two entirely irrelevant false dilemma options.
I reject the whole buffet of all their options.
“Salvation” = “Save me from Heimarmene” & “Save me from Control Instability” yet Still Give Me Full Grasp and Satisfaction of Demonstrating Non-control/ the Vulnerability that Gives New Life
Proof/Further Corroboration of my 2001 post saying “Quantum Mysticism = branching freewill model; block-universe determinism = non-branching, no-free-will model”
todo: gather passages that associate:
block-universe determinism of the iron block view of 1800s-era either a 4th spatial dim or time as a 4th dim, as a kind of mysticism POV that is characterized by non-branching.
Quantum Mysticism = worship of branching + egoic control autonomy.
broaden the idea of paralysis to include the deep energy-drained feeling of loose cognition; ASC lethargy & paralysis.
todo for lazy starting point when you’d rather be lying in bed: list all folios that include a bed.
fn
f(n)
woman in bed giving birth = Bern Door right door = you with WLP thinking of new model of personal control system
= New Testament verses about {paralyzed} guy who Christ makes walk.
tweaking the title of the 2nd article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies : “2nd-gen entheogen scholarship” — 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship , 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
darn it, i can’t even find a measly MENTION of the todo task of gathering the Great Canterbury Psalter images of the frequent motif {sage|king sitting upright in bed holding scroll from God|Jesus}
I’ve been putting off gathering those images , a list of them, for a couple years — with a weak record of even wanting to / needing to gather that motif.
10:10 pm mar 10 2025 enjoying p 74 Lundborg book – Dee, two sides of esoterica:
Magic Is the Opposite of Mysticism
Scholars claim that magic = active control; mysticism = passive reception.
My editor view has great 1970-era font for headings… really the body text too. Magic font in WordPress editing mode.
MAGIC: occult magic manipulation I AM THE PUPPETMASTER emoji muscle arm, i am the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts vs.
MYSTIC – passive receptive female MYSTIC – I am the the helpless thought-receiver
I was surprised that my church library is so astute as to have Lundborg book 2012 albeit MERELY IN PAPERBACK – weak lack of commitment, you are a bad person, a poser at Transcendent Knowledge.
What kind of b.s. phony amateur hack “library” is this, paperback? that’s like Stang, Dean of Harvard, writing a paper that gives dollar price & Kindle references! oh the folly! what an embarrassment Stang is signing his name to that BAD WRITING
The hardcover printing of Lund book is pretty huge. 520 pages. The trick is: his lame TOC only gives hcater chapter page #s but he does give sections of ch’s – you MUST —
TIP: IN Lundborg’s TOC, NUMBER THE SECTION HEADINGS, THEN FIND THAT NUMBER AS HEADING WITHIN THE CHAPTER’S PAGEs.
I posted the best archive url for the best Index of the Patrick Lundborg 2012 book.
I have that printed.
I have to give my inferior printing of Index to the poser paperback book in my church library.
the earlier inferior index has sequence: numbers then alpha letters.
the superior later index: spell out the names of the numbers entreis, then move those into the letter section.
quote p 75: DEE REPRESENTS THE ESOTERIC, NON-MYSTIC [!] SIDE OF LATE RENAISSANCE SPIRITUALITY [that SO reminds be o me of the bogus a.f. contrast made by Studerus in the 11-factors article, “NON PLEASANT = NON MYSTICAL” –
exercises in fool assertion “non pleasant = non mystical”, with Studerus & Walter …. come on end-of-day brain stretched — Stace 1960.
Citation: Studerus 11-Factors article, p. 1: “non pleasant, therefore non mystical”
Stace 1960 = Fool. Studerus 2011 = Fool. Psychedelic Science from Griftiths = Fool — b/c with a straight face, these publications cite Stace 1960 as the Foundation of their “Science” 🤦♂️ (even though OAV 1994 got it right)
The essence of mystical experience is stand outside the egoic personal control system and make it fail; observe the external mystery source of control thoughts. Marriage from higher POV.
all of this is entirely over the head of Stace 1960, and so Leary/Pahnke 1963, and so on., TERMINATING in the 2016 UNPUBLISHABLE STUDY from Hopkins. Folly.
Phil dept, Letheby, to the rescue, offering 1 options of bunk buffet consisting of 8 brands of irrelevant materialism or irrelevant mystic fantasy.
Academic Philosophy Dept. Chris Letheby to the Rescue (got up late after dorm room trip), offering his Bunk Buffet of 8 brands of irrelevant materialism or irrelevant mystic fantasy
OAV is perfect, compared to MEQ+CEQ. OAV is not based on Stace 1960 AFAIK. MEQ claims Stace as its Science foundation. OAV does not.
I am unfair: I assign the malformed CEQ to the MEQ lineage. the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) claims to be a superset of neg items from the 3 pop q’airs, HRS, SOCQ aka MEQ; & OAV
In CEQ or 11F article, they keep saying “5DASC”, but they draw from 11F version of that, which is warmed-over unneeded version of OAV.
Oops , Griftiths misread 11F, accidentally omitted 8 of 21 Angst effects, oh well — better get rid of 10 more psychedelic Dread/Angst effects, so only 3 of 21 are left.
I’m sure that the article about CEQ explains WHY SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY IN PLAIN ENGLISH NOT HIDING BEHIND FAKE MATH, DID WE OMIT 18 OF 21 CHALLENGING EFFECTS?
We got rid of nearly all of the psychedelic-type challenging effects, because they didn’t fit our narrow categories; those effects were too broad, too powerful, so we had to omit them “for precision” to fit our fabricated VALIDATED FACTORS that the Marketing dept directed, when they took over in Phase 2 of concocting the q’air from Hell, CEQ. Good job boys, keep cutting away and sculpting! Good Grief! 🤑💰
I am pro moneymaking, anti make-sh!t-up. Selling a NEUTERED PSYCHEDELIC EFFECTS map. Houot awesome dissertation point: 39% freakouts in hihgh dose 30mg subjects. Magically gamed down to 30% (silently) in the later article i had analyzed. i confirmed his citation. Math = Magic.
HOW DID GRIFFITHS GET FROM 39% FREAKOUTS TO 30%? Crickets.
Its validated! Like gas “validates” beans.
Forget 5D-ASC; forget 11-Factors; I go directly to OAV 1994; skip 5D’s added JUNK dimensions no one cares about, and skip 11F which ADDS CONFUSION – oops forgot 8 Angst effects, hidden in neither of the sparkly “factors” Impaired Control & Cognition [why is that 1 factor, not two????] or the Anx anxiety factor. stick them in Shadow Factor 13.
too powerful and broad to fit into our factors, so, demote them to “ignore” neverland, no mans land outside of any “factor”, they are high level effects that can thus be overllooked; too big to perceive, Q 54, I WAS AFRAID TO LOSE MY SELF CONTROL –
i don’t see 54, its not in ANX factor, its not in ICC factor, so, ignore. forget. overlook. omit. delete. nix. nevermind.
Thus is the birth Phase 1 of fabricating the CEQ q’air from Hell — and then the Marketing dept got ahold of it:
“Good job boys getting rid of, domesticating, neutering, keep it up, just keep the wimpiest 3 of the 21, good to go 👍” CUT, CUT, DISCARD, DISCARD, CHOP, get rid, omit…
How to Train Your Dragon: Ignore 18 of 21 Teeth
We didn’t get rid of ALL of the psychedelic Dread effects; we kept 3 of 21! That’s why our q-air is way more comprehensive than OAV & HRS & SOCQ put together! [citation: bragging in p. 1 of CEQ article]
Studerus the fool cites Stace the fool as “the science foundation”
but Erik Davis quips w/ key word “vouchsafed”: over half a century OUTDATED, ie, Disproved B S: Disproved B S,
like I have disproved 1st-gen entheogen scholarship as B S FOOLISHNESS – “We care so much about safety protocols, that we make Walter Stace 1960 the Clown our “foundation” of our “science”.
We care so much about safety protocols in our Psychedelic Science, that we make Walter “Unicorns Farting Rainbows” Stace 1960 the foundation of our esteemed Science. You’re in good fantasy hands with the Griffiths team: Science on a solid basis of fantasy and wish-projection.
Daily reminder & reality check: CEQ omits 18 of 21 items from the DED dimension — while somehow at the same time, bragging about being more comprehensive than the existing q’airs.
Now the team cannot publish their long-awaited synth Psilocybin religious professionals 2016 study in 2025.
McPriest’s article dismissing AND REFUSING TO ENGAGE THE TOPIC OF HISTORY OF PSYCHEDELICS IN Christianity. They mock it as “Allegro’s been debunked!”
Journal of Psychedelic Studies editor Michael Winkelman editor and Brown yell repeatedly at McPriest to pay attention of history of psychedelic in Europe Christendom, and McPriest just replies lamely: “Allegro’s been debunked.”
McPriest and MICA Deniers draw all attention to the most ridiculous errors and backwards (tail wagging the dog) HYPE by Allegro & Ruck “Dancing Man mushroom has a red cap”, who care about SECRET, above all, and merely abuse psychedelics to support their social drama incoherent narrative of “secret” barrier construction project.
Ruck Committee makes it so easy to dismiss entheogen scholarship , by their misplaced upside-down emphasis on Ruck’s hyped, all-driving narrative of “secret, that Letcher ridicules on p. 35 of 2006 Shroom:
“Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in. But Ruck cannot possibly neutralize, as he ALWAYS rushes to do, Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree as secret. So, Ruck’s entire entheogen scholarship is disproved.”
Bernward is actually a set of 7 mushroom-trees, along with {mushroom hem} , {floating mushroom hem}, etc, but who’s counting?
Not Letcher, b/c he only needs a single instance that Ruck CANNOT neutralize and frame as “secret heretical cults”, to blow up the whole fkkiong malformed field of entheogen scholarship per 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
The Secret tail wags the Psychedelics dog.
Letcher actually only needs to count to 1! Then watch 1st-gen entheogen scholarship come crashing down.
The secret scholarship, disproved by a single instance b/c that’s all it takes.
Don’t criticize Letcher for failing to treat more than a single instance; applaud Letcher for correctly realizing that he only needs a single instance, of non-secret mushroom imagery in Christian art , to disprove entheogen scholarship — that is, v1 of entheogen scholarship, which was based on the “Secret/ Suppressed social group” fundamental premise as its very basis and core theory.
Ruck Committee: The “Secret” Tail Wags the Psychedelics Dog, as Letcher Attacked Successfully and Efficiently
Except Letcher colossally botched the fake endnote 31 on p. 35.
Letcher did not demolish entheogen scholarship; he demolished 1st-gen entheogen scholarship, efficiently w single slingshot he downed Goliath of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.
1g = The “secrecy first, psychedelics last” approach.
Such a flimsy incohernet scenario, Ruck can’t even handle a heretic individual; Ruck has to always fabricate out of thin air: the moment a person ingested Amanita, that person became, according to Pope Ruck (hiding behind his phrase ‘so called’ in all 3 print issues of Entheos) a “member of a heretical cult”.
bc Ruck has to prevent Amanita from being used by individuals mixing in w/ the great mass group of all of christendom.
Ruck’s narrative DEPENDS on reifying perpetual Prohibition. If we remove Prohibition, Ruck’s entire cobbled social drama narrative comes crashing down.
The Ruck model cannot handle a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art that is not cordoned off, that’s not secret and hidden, but is in the great mass of Christendom.
All of Ruck’s effort is consumed in a frame-attaching project, hasten to wrap and imprison every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art, within a barrier called “heretical sects”. Or 1-2 elites.
Their values-backwards construction: “our passion is Secret; our end is Secret; our means is Psychedelic.”
“The topic of psychedelics is merely to serve the purpose of our agenda: ritual telling of our social drama narrative about ‘secret’ and ‘suppressed’.”
Ruck Committee’s model cannot permit “The Mushroom” (a corny b/c confusion-soaked construction) to freely be used by individuals who are mixed in throughout the great mass of society in Christendom.
Ruck Committee’s model cannot permit mushrooms to freely be used by individuals who are mixed in throughout the great mass of society in Christendom.
Drug Warriors have a poster of Carl Accommodate Prohibition Ruck, their best supporter, bard of perpetual prohibition of The Mushroom; our holy sacred Amanita, which is FAR better than any mere psychedelic.
Amanita is a SUPER PSYCHEDELIC, it is the UBER psychedelic — on the dream fantasy myth plane.
Letcher holds up for ridicule entheogen scholarship (1st-gen version): “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in – such as Gartz & Samorini.”
[sic; actually Allegro & Ruck, based on Graves & Wasson’s tabu theory confusions.]
The ancients do in fact overhype ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ – that does not make it ok for Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck to overhype ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’; and so Letcher cashed in on their folly.
Letcher in 2006 revealed their folly; their narrative cannot stand up, and desperate Ruck cannot possibly frame Bernward Door as secret and hidden, try as he might.
Letcher demolished Ruck’s whole incoherent social drama narrative that’s the tail wagging the dog of psychedelic history.
Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Psychedelics, Not by “Secret”
Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Psilocybin, not by Amanita
Despite the ancients over-hyping Amanita — which is the supreme symbol of Psilocybin.
Against Heinrich book, Rev 10 eating scroll does not give vision of tree of life as 13 Amanitas; Rev 22 gives tree of life as 13 different manners of fruits crops each month.
Or per Bennett, 12 different uses of Hemp – please ignore what Rev 22 says, while Bennett quotes it, and says 12 different manners of fruits crops means 12 uses of Hemp/Cannabis. fruits = uses.
12 plants thus becomes 12 uses of 1 plant — that’s truly the single-plant fallacy.
Psychedelic History Must Be Driven by Concern with Psychedelics, No Longer Driven by Concern with “Secret”
Psychedelic history must be driven by psychedelics, not by “secret”.
Ancients overplayed “secret”. Allegro and Ruck (& Graves & Wasson) are in error for focusing on ‘secret’.
Ancients overplayed “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”, which is a strained, forced, unnatural, reversal of the truth of how the mind works when immersed in Psilocybin loose cognition.
Wouter Hanegraaff is in error for letting himself be played by ancient hermeticists, he so badly wants to say that Psilocybin transformation is mainly from eternalism to possibilism – which is FALSE.
Psilocybin transformation is mainly from possibilism to eternalism. And the ancient hermeticists KNEW that; they crafted their inverted-valuation myth within that boundary of constraint.
They did not exceed the limits of telling a tale of transformation from eternalism to possibilism.
Wouter Hanegraaff cites them, but on next page, mis-states what he just quoted.
As Wouter Hanegraaff says (by my reading), scientific academic historiography must not be based in myth. It is a study OF myth, not based IN myth.
Psychedelic History must be Driven by Psychedelics, not Driven by the “Secret, Suppression” Social Drama Narrative that Letcher Rightly Holds up for Ridicule
Ruck Has It Exactly Backwards, and as a Result, Was Disproved; Discard 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship & Salvage from Its Post-Letcher Wreckage
FFS, psychedelic history must be driven by psychedelics, NOT “secret”; actualpsychedelics, meaning Psilocybin, not Datura, not cannabis, not Amanita —
world-ubiq Psilocybin that grew all over Europe and England and was used by our ancestors in peak full potential in heyday Medieval as we have received the proof that the mushroom-tree artists Eadwine carefully crafted their unambiguous emphatic explicit message of psychedelic eternalism.
The mushroom-tree artists, especially Eadwine, especially via the {branching} motif in Great Canterbury Psalter, carefully crafted their unambiguous, emphatic, explicit message of psychedelic eternalism.
Irvin 2008 chastises Ruck Committee along same lines, in The Holy Mushroom: Irvin emphasizes that Ruck Committee cannot possibly frame the Plaincourault fresco as “heretical sects”.
Ruck Committee cannot get away with TRYING TO RESTRICT psychedelics to just “heretical sects and Christian mysticism”, or, per Ruck’s other incoherent kettle-logic tale, trying to restrict The Mushroom to only 1-2 elites.
“So titillating, so exciting, the word ‘secret'” – GTFO, immature, peurile: Ruck Committee sells as titillating and exciting, this protagonist cults fantasy framing.
The ancients pushed this “secret” motif way too much, and Ruck plays right into it to the MAX.
LOVES ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ – and Letcher 2006 and Irvin 2008 called out Ruck on this.
Tail wagging the dog.
WE are here for psychedelics, but Ruck Committee is here for SECRET, instead.
Ruck Committee’s narrative that drives & motivates their entheogen scholarship DOES NOT WORK.
Carl Accomodate Prohibition Ruck
Samorini – who he falsely cites as “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in ” — in 1998 and then Conj Eden 2001 and then me in 2002, flourished 2007 (my main article, w/ art w/ great branching motif not yet recog’d), are 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Entheogen scholarship abused as barrier construction prject to perpetuate Psilocybin Prohibition.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Their puerile social drama narrative is the tail wagging the Psilocybin dog.
Psychedelic Pseudo Science Cannot Publish their 2016 Religious Professionals Study
(and Deletes 18 of 21 Dread Effects without Explanation)
Psychedelic Pseudo Science is such a joke, that they cannot publish their 2016 findings about religious professionals, and their q-air from Hell, CEQ, omits 18 of 21 Angst effects — while bragging about most comprehensive. Who’s laughing now 😐
Our sign has smooth rounded corners for your safety.
Neutered Psychedelic “Science” = Do Not Color Outside the Lines of Stace 1960 “Positive-Balanced” Model of “mystical experience” [Beware of Dragon, gate guard]
Safe-for-Hopkins, neutered Pyschedelic “Science” = Do Not Color Outside the Lines of Stace Positive-Balanced Model of “mystical experience” – moot after the ethics complaints, by Matt “Lose the Budda Statue” Johnson.
Tim Leary’s MEQ & CEQ have crashed and burned as the 1-sided junk that they are. Citation: Pollan HOw chang emind: he was unable to answer the M E Q items, b/c they are framed the opposite of his horriying expewrince of timeless embeddeness.
Pollan reports that the M E Q (based on Staceanism, while claiming to be based on Mysticism) wildly contradicts his experience.
Dittrich’s OAV 1994 is an actual, serious instrument.
I have to talk make voice recording – the great IRONY — the entire purpose of the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is to catch the mystic failures of MEQ –
Cosmic irony: The CEQ has the same gigantic blind spot of the MEQ! it’s just the same 1-sided blindness, repeated in regress!
Repeat the same error: omit the sort of “unpleasant”, shocking, amazing, TERRIFIC AWE of mind’s potential to step outside of the egoic personal control system and trip it up from Dionysus’ higher vantage point above King Pentheus steering in tree disguised as a woman (that’s YOU). Get rid of all that, and sell it as “Science” – Non-P De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science
the sort of “unpleasant”, shocking, amazing, TERRIFIC AWE of mind’s potential to step outside of the egoic personal control system and trip it up from Dionysus’ higher vantage point above King Pentheus steering in tree
Hopkins’ De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science
Hopkins Sells Bunk Product, De-Psychedelicized Psychedelic Science: Grief Therapy, with the Psychedelic-Specific Character Omitted [same club of clowns who cannot publish the “long awaited” 2016 study of religious professionals on synth Psilocybin, b/c the ethics complaints – THE BETRAYAL FROM WITHIN THE COURT OF JESTERS!]
more manic lol from me
I typed B S, but got {balance scale}, — darn keyboard shortcut, I meant to cuss. DRATS! FOILED AGAIN by the mytheme motif.
The Fool’s Ballad of psychedelic pseudo science: Stace the Clown
you think Hatsis is notorious for insults? I call upon the spirit / genius of Hatsis, greatest historian EVAR, to insult and ridicule:
100% Ridicule of Walter Stace BUNK Model of “mystical experience”; Stace the Clown = “Psychedelic Science“
We Scientists at Griffiths Inc. are SO concerned with safety, that we make 1960 Stace-the-Clown’s theory of “mystical experience” the basis of our “Scientific” model of the Psychedelic Effects, and Seriously Cite Stace as Our Solid Authority on the Nature & Character of Mystical Experience
Our MEQ from Leary — foisted as if from Walter __ is B S but don’t worry, says Grifteths to Stang, we made-up the CEQ as Our Fallback Trashcan to catch the mystic failures; our backup scheme is provided by the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) — whoops but never mind, b/c IT TOO, has the SAME GIANT GAP: the {shadow dragon monster} blind spot.
How come both our positive, Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and our negative, Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) both have the same gigagtic faliure gap?
ie, the {shadow dragon monster} chronic panic mystic-failure response of 39% of our high-dose 30mg test subjects?? — then he looks w/ suspicion at culprit: Hopkins Marketing Dept.
Erik Davis quips: safety-first psychedelic “Science” — that’s “vouchsafed on research that’s half a century out of date.“
Cue Alan Watts’ Buddha zen enlightenment satori laugh eruption: laughing at the foolishness of Studerus citing Stace as the foundation of the science of psychedelics, when Stace is entirely wrong about his Pollyanna bunk model misconception of mystical experience.
Griffiths tells Stang w/ a straight face, on video at Harvard & YouTube: “Our Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is positive-balanced“
just like “non-drug entheogens”
Good: I need MATERIAL FOR MY STAND UP COMEDY show routine, which is all motivated by my ultimate motivation: to test microphones & mic techniques.
{shadow dragon monster} sdm
the {shadow dragon monster} blind spot, a CHRONIC HABITUAL BLIND SPOT OF EGOIC THINKING demostrated not by OAV model, but by inferior, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) model / lineage which TIMOTHY LEARY made up.
I blame Leary as the author of the the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and its ridiculous offshoots, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)) , pretending that Walter Pahhnke made it up.
Leary made it up, but even Leary has a more negative-balanced model of mystical experience than Stace or Hopkins Corp. or Griftiths.
OAV is 99% good model of Angst, dread of ego diss.
The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) & its broken patch, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) , is 1% valid.
The CEQ is the broken wastebasket to catch the failures of the MEQ.
OAV blows away the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
OAV 1994 is a way better model than the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) … the ever- vanishing, MEQ143 begat MEQ42 begat MEQ30 or whatever the counts – Yaldaboath, all of them, a MONSTROSITY/ travesty OF “SCIENCE”!
The biggest danger in Psychedelic Science is its false basis of Stace 1960’s LUDICROUS “positive balanced” 1-sided model of mystical experience, Pollyanna
The advocates (who are the Enterprise called out by Forte Robert] — the phony top-down fake Psych Renaiss astroturf overly well funded: “we want Psychedelic Science to be SAFETY-FIRST.
YET, they make the bunk Stace model , “positive-balanced”, of their much-ballyhooed Psychedelic RenaissanceTM, the basis of their Science.
The Egodeath theory GIVES you what Stace ROBS you of: the amazing potential to stand OU STAND OUTSIDE THE EGOIC PERSONAL CONTROL SYSTEM AND MAKE IT FAIL.
See youtube vids: game models of train explosions, yay!
Celebrate like Abraham hwo has discovered how to make his Isaac childish personal control system fail, and thereby show his grasp of Transcendent Knowledge ie psychedelic eternalism.
The Egodeath theory = the theory of psychedelic eternalism April 1987 I would have written on binder sheet: [TOPE]
The theory of psychedelic eternalism = learning how to demonstrate failure gap vulneratbility of child Issac thinking.
The lower, donkey following the path (look down, perceiving the egoic personal control system from outside), vs. the higher, rider, Psilocybin awareness. image: Golden Psalter: Entry into Jerusalem.
God Help Me; Save Me; Heaven Forfend = I Beg to Avert the Profound Attractive Threat that I Cannot Avoid Seeing
GOD HELP US! SAVE US [“heaven forfend” = “i beg you to avert the profound attractictive [rush mp3 ‘addict of subtraction’] threat that I cannot avoid seeing”] FROM PHONY “SCIENCE”, PSYCHEDELIC PSEUDO SCIENCE BASED ON FOOL STACE’s 1960 MODEL OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE
Odysseus lashed to the mast attracted by the sirens song please demonstrate the control vulnerabiity sacred gateway to Heaven realm to eat from tree of life
Rev 22 Gets the Last Word, but angel thinking says, nah, you need to have a future, to give honor to the higher controller to give .. to express Transcendent Knowledge you must think about demonstrating {blade}ing of, {fire}ing of, Isaac child thinking.
Recipe for Transcendent Knowledge: Immerse Mental model in threat potential of {fire} {blade} for 12 Hours or Until Completion of Initiation and {Phoenix} is produced
After you violate God’s prohibition of going threre 10 times, 10 times using mushroom , then after that, you have washed robe, so NOW it’s ok to have eat from the tree that you did ten times in order to wash your robe [a circuar ironic injunction, is Rev 22:14].
You need both NIV & KJB to comprehend the joke that is the last word, BIBLE HAS THE LAST LAUGH.
Esotericism is a joke.
I posted such books since 2001. amazon, and the comic strip the Witt Door. Wittenburg Door comic strip Bible eso esotericism = Alan Watt’s laugh: the result of satori is Buddha belly laugh at your folly of no-free-will based freewill thinking
The folly of “the #1 concern of Psychedelic Science is Safety, so we build our Science on the foundation of Stace’s positive-balanced model of mystical experience.
DO NOT WORRY, HAVE NO FEARE, if you are a mystic-experience failure, we have the C E Q to catch you – which has the SAME gigantic monster-shaped hole as our M E Q from JOKER TIMOTHY LEARY pretending to be Walter Pahnke who made the MEQ143.
1964: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 163 – numbers are more reliable in my Ref page about q-airs.
1990: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 43
2006: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 30
2016 the year Matt Johnson sues — the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 16 [i am joking about bizarrely shrinking # of “items”] –
EVERY YEAR, Psilocybin HAS FEWER EFFECTS, SO HAVE WE HAVE TO SHRINK OUR LEARY-INHERITED Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) EVEN MORE.
2020: the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 8
2025: PERFECTION IS REACHED: MEQ0; just hand over your wallet to Hopkins dammit, this is a stick-up by psychedelic pseudo science
Announcing the MEQ0 — Perfection Has Been Reached, the Perfect Questionnaire: Shut Up and Have a Mystical Experience[TM] per Stace “Positive-Balanced” Mysticism Model
In the grocery yesterday Sunday mar 9 2025 after church, super enjoyable trip to church (which i told host) & also back – i have to bug my host and exclaim again afterwards to him.
Bicycle Ride from Heaven
in grocery yesterday mar 9 2025, a manic Dionysiac guy obv drugged, overenthusaistic came blasting thru the store, they had to throw him out. He begged them … i am try to recall…. to … what was his plea?
I was equally hyper enthusiastic, I have to have head checked for so enjoying the day beforehand. MANIC MENTAL ILLNESS.
TOO HAPPY = MENTALLY SICK, NEEDS REPAIR.
What a pleasant bicycle ride there & back yesterday!!!
The technology gear really came together. It was so pleasant! Blew me away. I had purchased and tested, but not yet used, this combination of tech equipment.
Symptom: Enthusiasm. Prescription: Sedate
My bike mechanic: joyous combination of his gear.
A friend finally showed me movie where bike guy has girl mechanic. actor died. Stupid movies. I never care — Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.
My autism superpower: IDGAF about social drama narrative, so I am better at spot the mushroom game.
The Autism Army chant: “Give us back our Aspergers, DSM! We Never Forget”
My ride back from church: noisy wind blowing rain toward me, but not really rain til much later. cloud, wind, super pleasant.
Then after talking about athletics and bike gear w/ my DJ gear sales engineer in warm shelter, I went back to the grocery w/ proper shopping gear.
Then they had to evict the manic street drug guy, too happy. He was God in disguise, but we kicked him out for being too loud in his enthusiasm.
😄🔬🔍🧐🤨💉
Let me explain my three jokes. My laughter in this paragraph is not about the joke in the previous WordPress “block” ; do not mix up which of my LOLs is re: which of my jokes in this vicinity.
Wouter Hanegraaff cannot & Ronald Huggins cannot figure out “wha happened to my imperishable Salamander??”
in the peak window, not act out “loss of control”. rather, have comprehension of the vulnerabliity. = picture, “sacr of isaac but angel holds blade back” — cook for 12 hours or until done, the salamander recipe {fire} {blade} = cooking time to transformation from possibilism to eternalism
[ i am just cycling through my jokes / insults that i previously posted)
the {shadow dragon monster} gigantic blind spot vulnerability in so-called “Psychedelic Science” sdmbs
the pre-Science phase of psychedelic pseudo science
the pre-paradigm phase per Kuhn’s model ie there is no “old theory” that my “new theory” replaces. the Egodeath theory is the first THEORY, properly speaking. the theory of psychedelic eternalism tope
image: Hatsis in banana suit photo cover of his Roller Derby handbook. get from “Brown Publications” my page.
clown emoji [pollyanna’s model of mystical experience] meets hungry dragon emoji
Griffiths: “Our #1 Concern is Psychedelic safety.” Yet, also Griffiths: “So, we make Stace 1960 the cited foundation of our Science.”
My citation: see LUDICROUS citation by Studerus, p 1 of the 11 Factors article.
The foolishness of citing Stace as the foundation basis of our “science”.
Stace, who says “mystical experience = unicorns farting rainbows”.
“non-mystical because non-pleasant.”
The Foundation of Our Safety-First Psychedelic Science: The “Unicorns Farting Rainbows” Model of Mystical Experience – approved by Hopkins Marketing Dept.
How come a queue has already formed, of hungry dragons eager for the result?
Meanwhile, Ethics Violations Complaints from Matthew “Lose the Buddha Statue AND I AM NOT CLOWNING!” Johnson
wonder why the delay on the 2016 study of religious professionals??trouble in Psychedelic Pseudoscienceland.
Trouble in Psychedelic Pseudoscienceland
Pick a Side: The Mysticism of a Fool, or the Scientistic Materialism of a Fool.
See dorm room Phil dept rep, Chris Letheby for a guide to 8 flavors of trash materialism + 8 flavors of trash “mystm” – his buffet of folly , his single wrong option straight from the OSC academic Phil dept and attached dorm room trippers Letheby who by night, trips and fervently asserts “only mind exists”, and then by day publishes papers in LEARNED, LEARNED journals ridiculing, saying instead, “only matter exists”.
Motifs Yet to Inventory in Great Canterbury Psalter: {bed}
king/sage in bed; {sage|king sitting upright in bed holding scroll from God|Jesus}
Miking Notes: Mic Change: From Center Mic e-v 653A “omni” ie no proxy mud, to Shure SM57
Mar 9 2025 I switched from 635A to SM57. pm of Mar 9, I moved 57 to be 45-60 deg. turned, b/c fav orientation/position has max buzz. 635A has no buzz at any angle.
To get familiar w/ resp curve 57 given my more recent expertise of miking, I’m – for a change – doing 8″ not 2″ (when noise envir) or 24″ (when quiet envir).
And, two forms of 8″:
mic stand 45 deg. 8″
handheld lazy arm 8″ moving around doing entheogen scholarship standup comedy routine b/c 1st-gen entheogen scholarship is a joke as the MICA Deniers say and ridicule.
MISSION: START SAMO’S 1998 2ND-GEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP, TO NOT DESERVE RIGHTFUL RIDICULE LIKE 1ST-GEN ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP FELL TO & FAILED.
Mean Andy Letcher killed off 1st-gen entheogen scholarship with a single blow of his slingshot, Bern Door 1 isolated instance of Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.
He mocked to death, 1st-gen entheogen scholarship.
Letcher held up for ridicule, like Ruck “the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree is red cap”.
Letcher p. 35 endnote 31 bizarrely and sloppily mis-attributed Bern Door “secret” assertions to Gartz 1996 & Samorini 1996 – Samorini who gave him the photo! The main guilty entheogen scholars are Allegro & Ruck & their pop reception. This section / genrerl topic came up now b/c reading Lundborg book, I keep seeing “SECRET” and “HIDDEN” way overused.
Ancients way-overused ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’.
Historians commit
Wouter Hanegraaff warns about making mythic tales the foundation for historiography.
Historians over-employ as if explanation, the “hidden” construct and the “secret” construct.
Transcendent Knowledge involves revealing a hidden occluded secret, underlying level of the mind that awareness sees only during loose cognition.
Bad, uncomprehending entheogen scholars mistakenly project the mind’s hidden/revealed aspect onto the social plane.
Samorini in 1998’s b/w picture of the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree, set up 1st-gen entheogen scholarship’s folly and faceplant. HIs article doesn’t show blue cap, but gray. A projection-fest, CHILDISH WISHFUL FANTASY PROJECTION inkblot resulted.
“If there are spots on a mushroom drawing’s cap, then we know the gray cap is red.”
Hatsis AFAIK gets the medal for ridiculing and pointing that out.
Ronald Huggins credits his fellow MICA Denier Hatsis.
mushroom imagery in Christian art (MICA)
“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998)
Thomas Hatsis, the historian of medieval psychedelics use (scopolamine)
Thomas Hatsis th
Thomas Hatsis wrote a book on mid-20th C ergot too. It looks like it’s probably a good book.
4 Answers for Social Drama Narrative of 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship: Who Was Fantasy Amanita Restricted To? Heretical Sects; 1-2 Initiates; 1-2 Elites; All Elites
The essence of kettle logic is: putting forth multiple arguments with no thought of coordinating them. Some of the result is self-contradiction.
Kettle logic is not the same as self-contradiction.
Ruck: restricts the fantasy myth-realm Mushroom (not “kiddie Amanita”; rather, Fantasy Amanita Better than Mere Psychedelic, mythic-realm fantasy magic Amanita super-psychedelic.
Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to heretical (closed) underground sects. (Never to individual heretics, b/c they might mix in with the common mass, and Ruck’s social drama narrative cannot permit that.)
With no thought of the above, Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to 1-2 initiates.
With no thought of the above, Ruck restricts fantasy Amanita to 1-2 elites.
Irvin AstroSham 1 2005 Conclusion 1st sentence tries to restrict the fantasy Amanita to all elites, who always kept The Mushroom secret from the masses.
Idea produced by this recording:
Andrew Rutajit:
Amanita is one of the most potent psychedelic mushrooms ever discovered.
Andrew Rutajit, The Vestibule
He understates.
Amanita is far better than any mere psychedelic, such as Psilocybin.
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship never cares about actual Amanita; it cares about fantasy Amanita super-psychedelic, better than any psychedelic.
Dale Pendell:
“Amanita is the most famous entheogen that nobody uses. It is the SUPREME SYMBOL of all entheogenic religion.”
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship disrespects mere psychedelic Psilocybin; it reserves all enthusiasm for far better: fantasy mythic-realm The Mushroom, The Holy Sacred Mushroom, Amanita.
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) 1ges
1st-gen entheogen scholarship 1g
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) 2ges
2nd-gen entheogen scholarship 2g
In characteristic 1st-gen entheogen scholarship fashion, Clark Heinrich reluctantly, sadly recounts when users of The Mushroom, fantasy Amanita, had to stoop and reduce themselves to a mere psychedelic, Psilocybin, instead, unfortunately – a huge downgrade.
from Voice Recording pm March 8, 2025, 6328, 1:50:00, good recording for Egodeath Mystery Show
… levels / grades of increasing grasp of heimarmene.
Sphere 7: Saturn = 7/8 heimarmene.
Sphere 8: fixed stars = full heimarmene.
Sphere 9: precession = transcendent freewill.
astral ascent model aamd
Psilocybin esotericism pe
My Theorizing Routinely Integrates Psilocybin Transformation, Like Ruck’s Myth Textbook Routinely Integrates Entheogens
What a feeble, weakling, ineffectual theorist or new-paradigm- constructing scientist, I would be, if I did NOT routinely integrate conjectures.
Imagine a person who couches weakly all the time, “I am not certain of any of my ideas, but maybe perhaps…”
Such a person will get NOWHERE.
Unproductive hesitation and weakness of putting forth theory, like digging w a shovel while holding back, HOLDING BACK, working harder to hold yourslef back
“I HOPE Ronald Huggins APPROVES OF MY CONJECTURES”
, right? please validate me (whiny voice)
My Use of Key Terms Notation & Acronyms for Concept-Labels, Like Ruck’s Myth Textbook Uses KEY-TERM Notation
I am following in Ruck’s Footsteps (His Entheogen-Integrating Myth Textbook) by Integrating “Psilocybin Transformation” So Routinely in Workaday Theorizing, also Modelling His Encyclopedia-type KEY-TERM Notation, like my April 1987 development of [ACRO] Technique of Concept-Labels
Key Dispute: Does Psilocybin Transform Mainly from Possibilism to Eternalism, or Mainly from Eternalism to Possibilism?
Early Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation is from possibilism to eternalism.
Late Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation can be re-framed as if from eternalism to possibilism.
Hanegraaff crudely says: Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.
THAT IS A GREAT SUMMARY OF HOURS OF THEORIZING/ STORYTELLING! 3:12 pm March 8, 2025.
Here’s how Wouter Hanegraaff got untethered, and we can blame the over-clever, too-tricky, irresponsible, & reckless advanced-level mythmaking of his Hermeticists in Late Antiquity:
Early Antiquity said, correctly & helpfully: Psilocybin transformation is from possibilism to eternalism.
Late Antiquity said Psilocybin transformation can possibly be re-framed AS-IF from eternalism to possibilism, as a rebellious marketing backlash, insincerely or aspirationally. They had nuance & restraint while stretching the truth: they only merely claim that only our highest, spirit aspect goes above heimarmene.
Hanegraaff crudely says: Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.
Wouter Hanegraaff writes that only the spirit aspect transcends heimarmene. I have to give him credit.
Still, the picture he paints, exaggerates the focus on “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.
Wouter Hanegraaff eagerly misquotes the ancients, and takes-up where ancients assign Fate to the starting point and all planets.
ie he quotes their qualified statements, and then he repeats but w/o the qualifying, on the next page, contradicting his previous page. I posted specifics here in 2022; the book is marked up there.
transformation from eternalism to possibilism tep
Early Antiquity: transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Late Antiquity: transformation from eternalism to possibilism (per our competitive marketing, wink 🤥👖🔥🤞🤑💰)
Metal bands, Erik Davis ed05 the book Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, by Erik Davis, 2005; p. 118: astral ascent mysticism; p. 122: the Egodeath theory : Tragedy: transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
But Wouter Hanegraaff the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022 : transformation from eternalism to possibilism
Beyond Fixed Stars (Level 8) is Precession of Equinoxes (Level 9) & Trepidation of Precession (Level 10) – Finally a Useful Mapping of 2 or 3 Levels Above Heimarmene (Fixed Stars)
Paul Thagard’s theory of explanatory models explains why I FEEL/experience that this wiki article paragraph is a confirmation that is not provided by David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres — “In more detailed models the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them. The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars; other scholars added a ninth sphere to account for the precession of the equinoxes, [I WAS NEEDING THIS DISTINCTION PLACEMENT!] a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes, [needed such accounting] and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic.[28]
28: Francis R. Johnson, “Marlowe’s “Imperiall Heaven,” ELH, 12 (1945): 35–44, p. 39 – agghh dogsh!t useless, where the F is the Biblio entry??? WTF is ELH???
“Marlowes-Imperial-Heaven.jpg” 177 KB, 11:55 am Mar. 8, 2025
In the above passage, THE HIGHEST MOVING SPHERE IS PRIMUM MOBILE, which in a red/yellow diagram map below, is level 9, just above fixed stars 8 which i equate w/ full heimarmene.
The sphere which doesn’t move, here, is the Empyreum.
This literary model achieves affirming that Transcendent Knowledge = no motion, and says “achieving no motion = above heimarmene / fixed stars”, which implies that the fixed stars move, which the idea of prescession sort of confirms.
First, hsitorically, they mapped “no motion” to level 8 fixed stars = heimarmene, and that is your final destination.
Psilocybin gives you no-free-will / eternalism, end of story. According to our grandpas back in Early Antiquity, who bequeathed us, in 150 AD Late Antiquity, their HORRIBLE WORSHIP OF HEIMARMENE ENSLAVEMENT/ puppethood. HARD PASS! We agree that fate rules the cosmos, grampa is right. BUT, our job is to roll up our sleves and leverage mythmaking Marketing narrative, leveraging precession discovered [memory don’t let me down] Hipparchus 150 BC??? discovery of precession of equivnoxes, and later we can hallucinate “trepidation of precession” (oscillation).
These are MOVING levels that are AOBER ABOVE fixed stars/ heimarmene.
Waffle, waffle… as bad as Ruck “The Mushroom was everywhere but no one knew about it”
Thank god for Mithraism the best useful point of reference, for talking about in what way we can have transcendent freewill.
I was wrong the other day saying “art = good b/c too simple to show mental errors”.
Then I remembered Mithraism is ALL ABOUT depicting “transcend heimarmene”. Mithraism says the highest level of Psilocybin transformation is motion; freewill – but not naive possibilism-thinking.
It’s a motion a freewill that affirms cosmic no-free-will. The Mithraism model says only PART of you is above the no-free-will prison rock block universe, snake-bounded by the heimarmene snake.
That’s actually agreed to by the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.
But now we have problem re: the Renaissance cosmos model, that says the ultimate final destination is non-moving, where God & elect are, several levels higher than mere fixed stars/ heimarmene.
I fervently hold that fixed stars = heimarmene, based on arg from usefulness, & b/c most systems assert that. Contradicts Renaissance model which says God level doesn’t move, but all levels lower move.
SOLUTION: separate the idea of movement from the idea of heimarmene & transcending it.
My Defining 2- AND 3-Level Models is like mystic cosmos models that have variable # of spheres 7-11
But my strategy to keep clarity and usefulness of entire set of all cosmos mappings, is 3-fold:
fixed stars mapped EASILY to heimarmene – yet Wouter Hanegraaff manages to cosmically botch this elementary given that everyone else agrees, the stars are level 8 = heimarmene, DUH.
Every child knows that, but Wouter Hanegraaff can’t handle that b/c it forces him to move from Saturn to no-free-will.
Blame ancient Hermeticists who did poor job of using myth as clarifying analogy.
His ancient Hermeticists try too hard to assign demonized Fate to all levels from Earth 0 to Stars 8, so how can Wouter Hanegraaff avoid multiplying their confusion/ their anti-clarifying, insane-level hatred of heimarmene?
Like I said in favor of MICA Deniers Letcher and Hatsis:
It’s not Wouter Hanegraaff’s fault he’s confused; he did not invent this confusion where Fate is mis-assigned to starting point Earth 0 prior to Psilocybin, and then Fate is ALSO assigend to spheres 1-7, then he calls sphere 8 freedom above heimarmene – unlike everyone else. Hermeticists are to blame for over-assigning fate to too many levels, below 8th/9th/10th spheres. We should only assign fate to level 8, and reserve 9+ for transcendent freewill.
There ARE early cosmos models that focus only on … There ARE early astral ascent models that only use 7 planets, and are silent re: fixed stars level 8 (heimarmene), and act like level 8 = transcendent freewill, and what THEY do is, assign heimarmene to Saturn sphere 7:
0 earth, no Psilocybin
1 moon – 1st Psilocybin
2
3
4
5
6
7 – Saturn = heimarmene. (that assignment is not very problematic, b/c all models effectively assign heimarmene to Saturn, even if formally assign heimarmene to level 8 fixed stars; ie, Saturn is TANTAMOUNT TO heimarmene.) The slowest moving planetary wanderer (unless later per Hipparchus’ discovery of precession, you say that the fixed stars wander, over 30K years)
8. fixed stars. IF your culture values heimarmene as the ultimate mental transformation state, then call this sphere “heimarmene”, same as level 7 Saturn. IF your culture values transcending heimarmene as the ultimate mental transformation state, then call this sphere “transcending heimarmene”, contrasting w/ level 7 Saturn. Wouter Hanegraaff does this, except he feels he has to delete the stars entirely, & ends up sneaking them into level 7 Saturn.
I am not mad at Wouter Hanegraaff for valuing moving from heimarmene to freewill. I’m mad at him and/or Hermeticists for assigning heimarmene to every level from 0 through 7, or 0 through 8. Not helpful, fails to clarify, which is the purpose of analogy / religious myth. Rank Hane’s errors, & the Hermetcists poor way of over-assigning Fate to every sphere 1-8.
Wouter Hanegraaff assignes fate to earth 0 & planet 1-7, and assigns freewill to sphere 8 (which has no stars, somehow). He assigns stars to Saturn 7 (he expresses or manifests confusion and uncertainty about that, in footnote & throughout book eg garbled heading “BEYOND THE [7] STARS”).
Ancient Hermeticists are only a little better.
They over-assign Fate to earth 0 and to moon 1- Saturn sphere 7 AND – unlike Wouter Hanegraaff – they also assign Fate to sphere 8 which they (unlike Wouter Hanegraaff ) say = fixed stars
the Egodeath theory EMPHASIZES that our starting delusion prior to Psilocybin transformation is naive possibilism-thinking; untransformed freewill thinking. Were I to say the mind starts w/ eternalism… false. Underlying mind is always eternalism, but, child thinks in terms of monolithic, autonomous control/ naive possibilism-thinking; naive freewill thinking.
If we in our loathing of Fate, in our frothing hatred of heimarmene prison, we describe and disparage a child’s mental model as “Fate-enslaved”, that is NOT clarifying and helpful, it is a wrong description of child vs adult, immature vs. Psilocybin transformed- “beard” adult thinking.
The problem w/ immature mental model is NOT that it is heimarmene-enslaved; if you tell that story, in Late Antiquity, that reflects your late POV, where you are all-concerned to solve prob of heimarmene. see my book review summ of Nicola Lewis Cosmology & Fate: Pitiless. it’s in
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 [in its decadent, unhelpful, irresponsible mode] conflates and disparages stage 1 (ignorant freewill thinking) and stage 2 (realization of fatedness and personal noncontrol).
Stage 2 was first positively valued, and then later was negatively valued.
/ end review excerpt
Be very cautious about hating eternalism – lest you lose the revelation transformative revealtion of eternalism which is 99% of enlightenment!
IF YOU HATE ETERNALISM THAT FKKING BAD, THEN DO NOT GET ENLIGHTENED, DO NOT USE Psilocybin; REJECT Psilocybin transformation —
The main thing Psilocybin transformation gives is eternalism; wake up to heimarmene prison enslavement helpless puppet w/o branching, freedom, autonomy, or open future.
We can call (sell & market; frame) the result “transcendent freewill”, or “qualified possibilism-thinking” — but underneath that is adult, mature, awareness of eternalism (prison slave puppet etc) – so, even if you market enlightenment as “transcendent freewill” or “qualified possibilism-thinking”, the Big Change that … theology: we move from slave of fate, to slave of Christ/God.
When I was a freewill-deluded child, unknowingly I was a slave of fate. [that’s not a helpful framing; too clever; too advanced myth-usage; not a clarifying use of analogy to explain] Now that I’ve been saved, I’m a slave of God.
surrounding sections: March 8, 2025
Justin Sledge asks “Is enlightenment worth the bother? Doesn’t seem so, b/c chop wood carry water”; see the Pre/Trans fallacy;
The only thing accomplished by Psilocybin transformation is, we move from naive possibilism-thinking to qualified possibilism-thinking.
So kinda nothing much changes, by the vision of eternalism that pulls the rug out from under King Ego steering in tree.
Hating heimarmene and disparaging all early stages of Psilocybin transformation as “evil heimarmene”, might be understandable from Late Antiquity POV, where Grandpa Eternalism always pressed the heimarmene prison upon them as the goal of Psilocybin transformation, and told them “be happy in your heimarmene prison!” (Stoic phil.) — but it’s a non-helpful narrative.
“Grandpa heimarmene” means the cultural/psychological values held by Early Antiquity who discovered basic, relatively simple Psilocybin transformation; Late Antiquity lost all comprehension of Psilocybin transformation, because they too much loathed heimarmene / eternalism which is the true product, re: mental model, of Psilocybin transformation.
Basically and simply, and helpfully: The essential product or result of Psilocybin transformation is eternalism/ heimarmene , tragedy of awareness of — you can hear this cry in acid-inspired Rock:
Metallica lyrics about the tragic puppethood prison enslavement revelation:
flash before my eye, now its time to die who made you god to say, I’ll take your life from you in the electric chair if this is true then let it be
Ride the Lightning album
In fact, the child, starting from naive possibilism-thinking, must struggle to REACH heimarmene -awareness; that’s the MAIN MISSION:
The MAIN CHALLENGE over the course of 10 Psilocybin sessions is to finally manage to retain & hang onto the treasure, the Psilocybin vision of no-free-will.
The merely small treasure booby prize after that is, let us call the result, “qualified possibilism-thinking” or “transcendent freewill” in our brand’s marketing brochures.
Only after mythic analogy has done its proper helpful work of giving you heimarmene imprisonment, should we then fume and despise heimarmene and ACT AS IF THE ONLY CONCERN & responsibility of RELIGION TO DELIVER IS: MOVING US FROM HEIMARMENE TO FREEWILL.
The MAIN job of Psilocybin transformation is to give you heimarmene awareness.
The minor, later job of Psilocybin transformation is to reframe heimarmene as qualified possibilism-thinking; transcendent freewill. Transcend eternalism, a little — even Wouter Hanegraaff’s overly heimarmene-hating Hermeticists said, only a small, spiritual part of us transcends heimarmene! Yet Wouter Hanegraaff tries to twist their views to the max, unbridled, he follows them all the way, off a cliff, and HEREMETICISTS DO NOT AGREE WITH Wouter Hanegraaff’S EXAGERRATION of their exagerrated hatred of heimarmene.
So we have historically this sequence of attitudes/ emphases/ aspirations:
Early Antiquity says Psilocybin transformation gives you enslavement to heimarmene, if you work hard and successfully retain the vision of eternalism. They worship eternalism.
Late Antiquity says it’s a tragedy, that Psilocybin transformation gives you eternalism; let us invent a narrative built above that, selling “our brand gives you a little freewill.”
Wouter Hanegraaff studies Late Antiquity, and misrepresents them as completely untethered from reality of Psilocybin transformation: he wrongly thinks Psilocybin transformation changes you from initial heimarmene enslavement, to emancipation into egoic freewill, which is a backwards emphasis.
Psilocybin transformation is MOSTLY from possibilism to eternalism.
Late Antiquity knew that, bc Early Antiquity taught them that, but they leaned toward reverse emph via trickery of advanced, “plausible deniability”, trying to get away w/ what they know is less than true: “Let us try to take the fact, and apply a reverse, as-if framing, through clever advanced myth:
🤥👖🔥🤞
Our competitive Marketing Dept sells you:
Psilocybin transformation is MOSTLY from eternalism to possibilism.
Wouter Hanegraaff lapped that slop up. His book tells that narrative, supported by so-garbled astral ascent model, he cannot even place the stars (which he correctly equates w/ evil heimarmene) anywhere.
How Hanegraaff Reached the Misunderstanding “Psilocybin Transformation Is from Eternalism to Possibilism”
“Psilocybin transformation is from eternalism to possibilism.”
The decadent vector (begun by ancient Hermeticists, eventually gone fully decadent) is complete: we now entirely lose all comprehension of mythic analogy, of Psilocybin transformation, of everything, and are left with non-drug entheogens, incomprehension of myth, and a totally wrong model of mental model transformation that is the opposite of the truth about the main direction of development.
Per the Egodeath theory, there are aspects of “starting from eternalism”: The child’s eternalism-thinking is unknowingly produced by hidden underlying eternalism.
Per the Egodeath theory, there are aspects of “ending at possibilism”: personal control system always uses egoic possibilism mental worldmodel, even in the peak state, although awareness becomes elevated and moves outside the personal control system to be able to observe it (and trip it up) from outside of itself.
per the Egodeath theory, there are weak aspects of the Psilocybin transformation tracjectory “moving from eternalism to possibilism”.
But, by far the main direction is starting from possibilism-thinking, ending w/ eternalism-thinking.
Wouter Hanegraaff naturally puts undue focus, lapping up the insincere marketing message of 150 AD, that “our brand is superior: it saves you from Fate prison enslavement puppethood.”
That’s what Wouter Hanegraaff wants to hear, and he’s so willing to be conned by this deceptive marketing, he even deletes all the evil hated heimarmene-stars from the sky’s 8th level, to clear the way for the fabricated phony product, “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.
Phony marketing always has a GRAIN OF TRUTH, but worthless.
150 AD marketers like Hermeticists, know that there is only a grain of truth to their sales pitch, “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”.
The Late Antiquity marketers, freewill snake oil salesmen, FREEWILL SALVATION SALESMEN, count on Wouter Hanegraaff to hear their nuanced pitch that has plausible deniability, if they’re accused of over-selling “we free you from fate”.
In moments of nuance, Wouter Hanegraaff accurately writes that Hermeticists only claim to free only the spirit part of you from fate.
But the song he sings & emphasizes, with only feeble qualification of this assertion, is simply, un-qualified: “transformation from eternalism to possibilism“. 🎉 😍 🙌
150 AD: Join Our Religion, Which Gives Transformation from Eternalism to Possibilism* (*sort of, a little, figuratively speaking, in a way)
6:10 pm Mar. 8, 2025
Wouter Hanegraaff omits & downplays the fine print, which says this product is PRETEND-ONLY and is not a serious claim to escape Fate enslavement.
Hermeticists know that the MAIN direction is transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Meditation hucksters’ sales pitch is not entirely a lie against Psilocybin, just MOSTLY a lie, to compete against Psilocybin.
By the time confused Wouter Hanegraaff is done, he says something making the hermeticists say WHOAH, WHOAH!
YOU gone too far Hane!
Wouter Hanegraaff says crudely, when leaving the Hermeticists’ 150 AD sales pitch and then trying to sell his followers on “Hermeticism frees you from Fate enslavement”, he claims & sings, & emphasizes “transformation from eternalism to possibilism”, throwing nuance to the wind.
Per the Egodeath theory, the truth of mental model transformation from Psilocybin transformation:
Psilocybin transformation is about changing you from POSSIBILISM delusion to ETERNALISM revelation (w/ a little qualified possibilism-thinking after).
Late Antiquity knew that, and tried to emphasize the latter part.
They were anchored in Psilocybin reality, even while re-marketing to hype freewill.
Wouter Hanegraaff’s grotesque mis-telling, where he takes their Marketing promises to heart too crudely, and ends up failing to understand what Psilocybin transformation mainly does:
Psilocybin transformation is about changing you from HEIMARMENE SLAVE, to FREEDOM.
Ancient Hermeticists understand Wouter Hanegraaff’s sentiment and poorly proportioned reading of their mythic analogies, but they do NOT share that view, that lopsided, mis-balanced narrative, mis-emphasis.
This is the horrible disaster of Christianity inventing freewill and 150 AD Marketing departments all inventing freewill: they over-sell freewill and misrepresent the mind’s struggle trajectory.
In fact the mind’s Psilocybin transformation struggle trajectory is to start w/ naive freewill thinking, finally secure comprehension of underlying eternalism, and then, A LITTLE, move from eternalism to transcendent possibilism.
Late Antiquity screws these proporations all up, and we are left w NOTHING, we lose EVERYTHING, lose ALL comprehension of myth & alnalogy & trajectoery of mental model development, a la wilber Ken Wilber “catastrophic disintegration” due to failure to retain child thinking while transcending it.
The “hate fate” astral ascent model of Late Antiquity is dysfunctional and decadent and is OVERCORRECTION. They went way too far in selling freewill in 150 AD, and so they lost all comprehension …. they embraced anti-rational Quantum Mysticism and they failed to help children start from freewill delusion, discover truth of eternalism, and then a little bit transcend eternalism.
todo ~~ copy review main part, NDL Pitiless book.
The best cosmos-analogy model should use analogy to clarify and help immature non-initiates to start from freewill delusion, discover truth of eternalism (we are heimarmene prison enslavement puppets) (a difficult struggle and great achievement, for which we need clarity and assistance), and then a little bit transcend eternalism.
Late Antiquity is grotesque & decadent. They FAIL to help children start from freewill & reach developmental level of full retainment of grasp of no-free-will, b/c the ONLY thing Late Antiquity values, is the later, very advanced move, of sort of moving from eternalism to transcendent freewill.
Decadent, fate-hating Late Antiquity then re-cast the nature of Psilocybin transformation, AS IF you start from eternalism-thinking, and as if the only job & concern & RESPONSBILITY of religion is to bring you to possibilism-thinking.
Late Antiquity is IRRESPONSIBLE, pushing misleading analogy, that misrepresents child-thinking as if it is eternalism-thinking – and so is of NO HELP in the real main challenge for the mind: to move from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
(see Ken Wilber’s Pre/Trans fallacy)
Ken Wilber kw
It is a little bad that Wouter Hanegraaff screws up assigning fate or freewill to levels 8 & 9. Hermeticists don’t make that poor move.
It is very bad of Wouter Hanegraaff & very bad of hermeticists that they assign fate to Earth level 0 and all planet spheres Moon 1 – Saturn 7.
In fact as we move from naive possibilism-thinking (Earth 0) to Saturn 7, underlying is always Fate, but concsiously we move from mental worldmodel of freewill , then increating awareness of fate, reaching full 100% awareness of Fate at level 8 fixed stars – after (above) that, transcendent freewill, at sphere 9 (precession per Mithraism), & 10 (alleged “trepidation of precession”), & 11 if you have that level
But later, Renaiss model says 10 or 11 final state is heimarmene — or rather, is non-motion (so, must separate heimarmene from non-motion).
Early Antiquity ignored “transcendent freewill”; they say you end up w/ final state = heimarmene prison.
How the hell do Early Antiquity have astral ascent model that … not a conflict.
SOLUTION: Early Antiquity has 7-sphere model, final state at level 7 is heimarmene, and 8 stars – if they have that level – is still heimarmene.
astral ascent models aamd
astral ascent mysticism models aamm
Consider the stunted “stars”[sic] system of Wouter Hanegraaff: the highest “star” is Saturn = heimarmene.
Wouter Hanegraaff puts above that, the freedom levels 8-and-9 (so conflated, there’s no func’l diff’c).
Wouter Hanegraaff cannot place fixed stars zodiac anywhere, so when no one’s looking, he puts constellations in fate level 7 = Saturn planetary moving level.
This way, his precious level 8 is free from heimarmene / stars.
He says: You graduate from 7 Saturn heimarmene, which somehow(??) includes fixed stars zodiac in his garbled book, to freedom level 8, above the “stars”(!!)
He says level 8 — above the stars, somehow — is identical with level 9, tehere’s no functional difference. [my way better & more standard model says, 8 = full grasp of heimarmene; 9 = transcend heimarmene].
Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens transform us from fate [prior to initiation] then fate, then more fate, then more fate, then Saturn sphere 7 (new! now includes fixed stars, somehow!) which is still Fate; then move above Saturn to reach freedom, above fate, at level 8 above fate, which he has made star-free via his confusion.
10-sphere map:
sphere 8 fixed stars = heimarmene prison, and it moves.
sphere 9: transcend heimarmene = prime mover (in some maps) and it moves.
That is THE most useful principle in mapping astral ascent mysticism models to the actual sequence of Psilocybin transformation from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking to qualified possibilism-thinking.
I would object a lot if you say God & elect are at the heimarmene level.
That’s the sort of model that Early Antiquity asserted: you end up {snake frozen in rock}. which Late Antiquity totally rejected in their mythic narrative Marketing promises.
Waffle, waffle.
Does precession itself waffle?
For a long time scientists were full of baloney and imagined that precession oscillates, because that follows the pattern of meta-motion, that the discovery of precession established.
The Waffling “Precession” or “Trepidation” of Models of Psilocybin Transformation Over the Eras, Flipping Back and Forth Between “Destination = Heimarmene” vs. “Destination = Transcendent Possibilism”
The waffling debate, over the eras: IS NON-MOTION (ETERNALISM) THE FINAL DESTINATION, OR NOT??
The fixed stars sphere doesn’t move.
Hyparchus & Mithraism – yes it does: bc precession. Spiritual liberty achieved!
Oh yeah? well precession oscillates, HAH! (“Trepidation of Precession”)
Well then only the God-level is non-motion.
Objection: but non motion means heimarmene prison! you suck
That’s ok, theres angels outside that, they have transcendent freewill.
…
…
Angels wringing their hands debating free will vs. determinism for eternity.
Late Antiquity said, Grandpa your story sucks, I hate your eternalism prison, so I say above fixed stars is transcendent freewill / precession / level 9, which DOES MOVE.
The Renaissance cosmos model then waffled and said, heimarmene moves per precession, and precession moves, too, per “trepidation of precession” (their scientific error), and the Prime Mover level – 9 or 10, waffling – moves.
I clarify and map these contradictory, evolving conversation systems clearly, below.
Waffling Cosmologies About Whether the Highest Destination Level that Psilocybin Transformation Gives You Is Moving or Non-Moving
Early Antiquity Model: Focus on Non-Moving Fixed Stars as Final State
Early Antiquity model: ultimate final level is fixed stars, which do not move. above that is divine transcendent freewill.
Late Antiquity Model: Focus on Moving Precession as Final State (per Mithraism)
Late Antiquity model: ultimate final level is precession, whcih is transcendent freewill. fixed stars don’t move.
Renaissance Model: Focus on Non-Moving Empyrean as Final State
Renaiss model: ultimate final level is emperian, whch doesn’t move. fixed stars move; precession moves b/c of “trepidation of precession”.
Even the Prime Mover level (9 or 10) moves. full enlightenment = reaching several levels higher than the MOVING level of fixed stars, above the MOVING level “precession”, above the MOVING level “Prime Mover”, FINALLY you reach God level/ elect level, where you DO NOT MOVE.
Odd b/c that implies worship of — like Early Antiquity — simple heimarmene.
Talk about “oscillation of precession”!
Task: Assign “Prime Mover” Sphere to Level 9 or 10 in Best [= most clarifying explanatory analogy] General Model of astral ascent mysticism
todo: place phrase “primum mobile” in my levels – 10? 11? lower than Empyrean, higher than fixed stars 8, higher than precession level 9 – probably level 10.
I don’t know how much I wrote this proposal (map precession of equinoxes to cosmos level 9 in astral ascent mysticism) or said it in voice recordings the past year(?) or when exactly the question has been crossing my mind & coming up.
This idea is pretty much directly stated by David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism that I read in ~2001, isn’t it?
Any idea I ever have, is never new.
1:05:15 brennan gives all credit to Christianity for inventing freewill, to do this a dirty move of comparing pre-Christian pagan fate, vs. 150 AD Christianity. Illegit unfair comparison.
Brennan needs to – as sort of pointed out by Sledge — fairly compare 150 AD Christianity vs 150 AD paganism, not compare 150 AD Christianity vs. 150 BC paganism!
In this version of the vid (w/ diff. intro), which is on Brennans ch vs Sledge ESOTERICA ch, it’s at 1:05:58 where I yell out other religions, and then Sledge repeats my exact words I yelled against Brennan, correcting Brennan:
Never completely new: ask Paul Thagard’s theory of theory-development how an idea of mine in 2001 is new for me in 2025.
Doesn’t Ulansey already say that precession is the level higher than fixed stars? Definitely of course.
Yet, this confirmation found in wiki article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres because the article paragraph also names the several other high levels that are higher than heimarmene/ fixed stars along same line – eg the level of fake “oscillation of precession” (mistaken ancient science) is higher than level 9 Ennead “precession”, both above fixed stars/ heimarmene.
[March 7, pm, 2025] CELEBRATION, FITS PERFECTLY INTO A GAP/opportunity that I had identified, of:
What level to place precession at? I asked recently: cannot we, shouldn’t we, place Preceession higher than fixed stars level?
David Ulansey’s solution explaining Mithraism
Michael Hoffman ~1991
Sphere 10 = Trepidation of Precession = Further Transcendence of Eternalism ~= Prime Mover Sphere, or Empyrean of the Elect
Sphere 11 = Empyrean = Dwelling Place of God and Elect; Outside of Transcending Eternalism = Transcendent Possibilism = the Changing Obliquity of the Ecliptic (obviously) 🤷♂️
But beware the Wilber Monster: the Pre/Trans fallacy; ie this is NOT naive possibilism-thinking!
Transcendent possibilism LOOKS like naive possibilism-thinking, but has a different und’g; recog of the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.
I am not my own source of autonomous control power, and branching steering is all pre-existing and illusory in a way.
March 8, 2025, based on important Wikip finding p.m. Mar 7 2025: that level 9 was mapped to precession.
I had realized recently, the need for such mapping, and here it is spelled out EXACTLY how I need!
“In more detailed models the seven planetary spheres contained other secondary spheres within them. The planetary spheres were followed by the stellar sphere containing the fixed stars; [ie eighth; the Ogdoad – fate; heimarmene; eternalism; no-free-will] other scholars added a ninth sphere [the Ennead] to account for the precession of the equinoxes, [transcend eternalism/ transcendent freewill] a tenth to account for the supposed trepidation of the equinoxes, and even an eleventh to account for the changing obliquity of the ecliptic. 🤷♂️
As a further reward of reading this wiki article, solves problem what is the difference between the 9 10 11 levels all higher than no-free-will level 8 fixed stars? this furht er reward is: level above my much-needed/ now fulfilled “precession” level per Mithraism — is level 9 = precession 10 = trepidation oscilallation of precession (their science mistake, but epxlains a purpose of higher layer) 11 =
Apparently on this other YouTube channel is the same AWESOME conversation between Justin Sledge & Chris Brennan re: ancient Fate/ free will vs. determinism.
Brennan starts by saying how extremely pleased he was with this interview-become-conversation.
I have to agree. Towering above other videos in importance.
1:02:15 in this vid (vs the vid copy on Sledge ch. w/ diff intro, i posted), Sledge points out that modern era assumes freewill, in contrast to antiquity that in 150 AD was busy inventing freewill but affirmed fate.
At 1:03:20, Chris Brennan wrongly singles out Christianity, giving it all credit for inventing freewill (a common fallacy among scholars) — but then Justin Sledge strongly corrects him, repeating what I yelled, “also Gnost, Neopl, Mithraism, & Hermeticism invented freewill!”
— even though they believe fate/ heimarmene prison is the case, as their main, given problem they sought to solve.
I am still correcting the misstatement “Gnostics hate the world”
NO! Off-base.
The point actually is, Gnostics hate heimarmene prison, equated w/ the cosmos bounded by level 8 fixed stars = heimarmene.
Gnostics said the Old Testament God is creator of heimarmene prison, and the New Testament God rescues us from that heimarmene prison.
THAT is the actual dynamic of their handling or revision or inversion of the myth of the day about that era’s belief in heimarmene — the same era that has 10 Psilocybin initiations to reveal and perceive heimarmene & illusory nature of our monolithic, autonomous control, and illusory branching possibilities.
branching possibilities bp
In 2005, Erik Davis and I Were Both Fumbling Between 2-Level vs. 3-Level Model: Enlightenment = Determinism vs. Transcending Determinism
p. 118, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, annotations by Michael Hoffman
Error in Davis p. 118: “Beyond these seven heavens lay the empyrean [sic], the eighth “rung” of the fixed stars.”
NO! If any system says empyrean = eighth (fixed stars), it’s a bad system & a failed use of analogy.
‘Empyrean’ needs to be reserved for the 9th level, higher than 8th/ fixed stars.
Empyrean is per Ulansey hypercosmic which should mean beyond fixed stars boundary of fate-ruled cosmos. ‘pyre’ means hypercosmic fires above fixed stars zodiac constellations.
“This model was interpreted in different ways [yeah some shtty failed bad harmful ways], but for many gnostics, the planetary [1-7] rulers were essentially demonic: they imprisoned the soul through the machinery of fate, an oppressive system of astral control …”
That is bad to equate level 1-7 = fate.
Yes, fate underlies all Psilocybin-driven developmental levels, but we need to be discussing mental models and their transformation, from possibilism-thinking to finally, after great effort, retaining grasp of eternalism-thinking, then transcending the revealed fact of eternalism.
Not simply saying “every level less than 9 = 100% fate” – that is not helpful & is a WASTE, a failure to helpfully explain mental model transformation starting from, in fact, possibilism-thinking – never mind that naive possibilism-thinking has hidden, not-yet-revealed fate underlying it under the hood.
What are we trying to accomplish via analogy?
Just complaining about fate?
Or helping map the move from thinking in terms of childish possibilism-thinking, to reveal fate, and then t’d fate in some way?
The latter is sensible and valuable.
Just complaining about fate is not effective for achieving anything, and YOU LOSE *EVERYTHING*: all comprehension, all transformation, all grasp of myth, and finally, lose Psilocybin transformation entirely.
p. 122, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, annotations by Michael Hoffman
I surely wrote this error from Davis on the page about astral ascent mysticism before his page about the Egodeath theory. I noted his error about astral ascent mysticism in my markup of the book which I think I uploaded recently here, the two pages.
Davis’ error is similar to Wouter Hanegraaff’s confusion – GET CLEAR EVERYONE
i think i photo’d page 118 & 122 of davis then failed to upload them. i may have just trancribed; SEARCH SITE.
GET CLEAR EVERYONE, Including ANCIENT HERMETICISTS:
The 8TH SPHERE = FIXED STARS = 100% HEIMARMENE.
BELOW/BEFORE THAT (LEVELS 1-7) IS NAIVE POSSIBILISM-THINKING, MOVING by stages (Psilocybin sessions) TOWARD finally LATCHING ONTO ETERNALISM.
ABOVE THAT – IN 9TH sphere – = transcend heimarmene.
First, here is the only model that is good and matches the true way Psilocybin transforms the mental model: Blame April D DeConick’s radical gnostic mythmakers going too far in their inversions.
Mithraism is way better, coherent, matches actual mental development.
Ancients are WRONG and BAD when they equate ALL levels that are lower than “transcend heimarmene” as being simply heimarmene.
The penalty is severe for that lie about how the mind starts & transforms: you lose everything: comprehension of fate, of Psilocybin revelation; lose comprehension of myth.
You ruin & wreck, insanely, myth, & comprehension.
You lose everything, in overzealous flipping from a simple 2-level model (transformation from possibilism to eternalism) to an oversimple opposite inverted 2-level model, the lie of “transformation from eternalism to possibilism.
The true way the mind transforms is 1) naive possibilism-thinking 2) eternalism-thinking 3) qualified possibilism-thinking incl. eternalism-thinking.
Myth is only good and legit if is describes by analogy that.
Myth sucks and is failing to be analogy when it willfully lies and makes sht up falsely claiming that the mind moves from child-mode eternalism to possibilism.
The child mode is in fact naive possibilism-thinking – NOT eternalism-thinking!
How Sophisticated 3-Level Transcending of Heimarmene Became Decadent Failure to Transcend or Have Psilocybin Transformation or Comprehend Myth-Analogy at All
By pretending that children start with eternalism-thinking, you (Hermeticism in its bad form, maybe Gnosticism same) lose EVERYTHING, and religious myth becomes sheer egoic willful confusion and not analogy.
It is per Ken Wilber, failure, psychological disaster, failure of development, destructive regression… which gave not enlightenment or transcending eternalism, but fell into the Pre/Trans fallacy; mistaking advanced adult revelation of eternalism and then transcending of eternalism, for awful, rank, childish naive freewill thinking.
Rank untransformed naive possibilism-thinking becomes confused with advanced qualified possibilism-thinking, when you tell the lie that children begin with eternalism-thinking and then Psilocybin transforms from that to possibilism-thinking.
The result is nothing but failed myth & perpetual non-initiation; perpetual child-mode unenlightened thinking, untransformed.
It’s the total cancellation of what started as a 2-level maturation, then well-formed viable 3-level maturation model, then disaster:
when you remove child-stage possibilism-thinking and falsely claim it is eternalism-thinking, the whole sequence of Psilocybin transformation collapses, leaving nothing but STUNTED NAIVE POSSIBILISM-THINKING falsely posing as transcendent qualified possibilism-thinking, and you lose comprehension of even the basic 2-level model of mental model transformation.
Your frothing hatred of revealed eternalism makes you end up with no mental model transformation at all, yet mythic confusion and the advanced 3-level mythmaking analogy system crashes down into a heap of rubble.
You end up not transcending heimarmene, but rather, failing to engage at all with heimarmene, and the result is a denial of eternalism, and the rejection of any Psilocybin experincing of eternalism, and the rejection of Psilocybin.
Religious myth becomes degenerate and completely decadent.
0. Earth = sublunar = naive possibilism-thinking.
Wouter Hanegraaff screws it up:
Lacks fixed stars entirely at any level!
He is wrong to not place fixed stars in level 8.
He is wrong to place fixed stars / zodiac/ constallations, in effect, into Saturn planetary moving sphere #7.
He is wrong to say level 8 & 9 are functionally same.
He is wrong to say level 8 = transcend fate.
He, like hermeticts, is wrong to say level 0 Earth sublunar = fate & that the moving planetary levels 1-7 all = fate.
Ancient Hermeticists screw it up:
They are wrong to say level 0 Earth sublunar = fate,
1 moon = fate,
2 mercury = fate
3 venus = fate
4 sun = fate
5 mars = fate
6 jupiter = fate
7 saturn = fate.
Erik Davis 2005 screws it up, he wrongly says level 8 fixed stars = empyean.
Davis p .118 = astral ascent mysticism – his error is there.
Davis p. 122 = the Egodeath theory.
aug 6 2022 uploaded, one of Wouter Hanegraaff errors:
the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022. markup by Michael Hoffman.
His heading is confused and confusing: he means BEYOND THE PLANETARY SPHERES, and he numbers the two levels beyond Saturn as “8 and 9” – where 8 is star-free, and transcends heimarmene, and he says — when he rarely admits stars exist – he says the fixed stars/ zodiac/ constellations = fate – yet refuses to allow them into level 8, which he says transcends fate. Train wreck.
Wouter Hanegraaff builds on ancients’ confusion, adds his own confusion, then confuses the reader.
Wouter Hanegraaff’s garbled model of astral ascent mysticism, driven by sheer hatred of fate, and only valuing transcending fate (not at all striving to grasp & retain the vision of fatedness, as the mind actually does), paints the false picture/model: “Psilocybin transforms you from eternalism to possibilism.”
By “BEYOND THE STARS”, p. 297, Wouter Hanegraaff wrongly means above the moving planetary levels Moon (1) through Saturn (7).
Actually, the fixed stars are level 8 (the 8th Psilocybin session), where heimarmene (eternalism) is fully manifest/ mentally grasped and secured.
The planets are ordered by fastest (moon) through slowest (Saturn) – given that movement = possibilism, this proves that the essential proper use of astral ascent mysticism is, you transform from movement (possibilism) to timeless eternalism.
Proof I’m right; proof that the basic, heimarmene-pursuing model of astral ascent mysticism makes sense:
Saturn is slow, and the fixed stars are non-moving.
Moon is fastest-moving, thus is most possibilism-looking.
Saturn is the least-moving of the moving planetary stars.
The fixed stars don’t move.
The empyrean fires burn above the fixed, non-moving, non-planetary stars.
My system is coherent.
Wouter Hanegraaff states that the zodiac constellations = heimarmene – yet, he says he can’t figure out whether to place the fixed stars in Saturn moving-plantary level 7, or in level 8 ogdoad. Total incomprehension. Fixed stars (= heimarmene) are obviously — a plain given — higher than moving planetary level 7, thus level 8, ogdoad. But he screws up claiming that ogdoad = above heimarmene. So, he can’t put fixed stars in moving planet level 7, and he can’t put them in level 8 b/c he thinks 8 is functionally same as 9 ie above heimarmene.
SO HE PUTS THE FIXED STARS/ ZODIAC/ CONSTELLATIONS …. NOWHERE!! WHAT A TOTAL DISASTER OF ANALOGY. A FAILED COSMOS MODEL, CAN’T HANDLE PLACING FIXED STARS ANYWHERE.
That’s how insane, confused, irrational, & unhelpful the perversely inverted narrative is, “Psilocybin makes you switch from eternalism to possibilism”.
A failed, garbled, incoherent analogy system is almost inevitable, starting from such a false representation of the referent (how the mind transforms by Psilocybin) that’s to be described by the analogy-system.
Standard astral ascent mysticism is coherent and consistent, not a CHILDISH and REGRESSIVE railing temper tantrum against fate, that smears level 0-8 all equally as “evil fate”, with no meaningful progress through stages.
Just: evil fate 0, then evil fate 1, then evil fate 2, then evil fate 3, then evil fate 4, then evil fate 5, then evil fate 6, then evil fate 7, then evil fate 8 … then freedom!
Or in Wouter Hanegraaff’s even more garbled, senseless model of astral ascent mysticism:
Just: evil fate 0, then evil fate 1, then evil fate 2, then evil fate 3, then evil fate 4, then evil fate 5, then evil fate 6, then evil fate 7 … then freedom level 8 along with freedom level 9!
The correct, well-formed actual legit system of astral ascent mysticism:
naive possibilism-thinking (0), then 1/8 eternalism-thinking (moon); then 2/8; 3/8; 4/8; 5/8; 6/8; 7/8 ie Saturn, reaching the main pursuit: 8/8 fixed stars (heimarmene as main destination)… then, bonus: transcend eternalism (9; the empyrean; transcendent freewill).
which reduces to the false, unhelpful, 2-level model: “Psilocybin transforms the mental model from the starting-state of eternalism to the end-state of possibilism.”
Per the legit, real, original, Early Antiquity 2-level model — per the correct use of analogy to help clarify and explain a thing — Psilocybin transforms the mental model from possibilism to eternalism; possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking (where “eternalism-thinking” is defined in a broad sense, in the 2-level scheme, as including qualified possibilism-thinking).
“Beyond the stars”, used correctly and helpfully, actually means above level 8, the sphere of the fixed stars (Heimarmene).
ie what we arrive at, after 8 Psilocybin sessions, is eternalism; we begin w/ possibilism.
And in a way, we can move on past eternalism to qualified possibilism-thinking.
Wouter Hanegraaff is awful model b/c he never has us pursue and strive to reach eternalism.
He acts like we are given eternalism as our starting point, and the whole stage-by-stage journey is eternalism every step of the way, never as a goal, and our effort during every stage is to move from eternalism to possibilism.
That broken down, DECADENT model from ancient Hermeticists is nothing but unhelpful MAKING SH!T UP, clever inversions of the truth.
The penalty is, lose all comprehension and lose all transformation, and make a god out of rank egoic childish untransformed naive possibilism-thinking.
Revel in egoic thinking, by ingesting Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens and studying ancients in order to demonize heimarmene, never to pursue mental grasp & retaining of revealed heimarmene/ eternalism.
In the worst way, Wouter Hanegraaff delivers nothing but unproductive & unenlightening “interesting myth used to disparage fate”.
Astral ascent mysticism instead SHOULD be an analogy system that helps explain & clarify the mental model transformation that actually happens via a series of Psilocybin immersion sessions.
THE FIRST GOAL OF Transcendent Knowledge IS TO ARRIVE AT ETERNALISM.
The starting point is not eternalism. The starting point is possibilism, and the hardest mission is to retain the Psilocybin revelation of eternalism.
What he means, wrongly & unhelpfully, is that fate = level 0 (earth) & the MOVING stars level 1 (moon) through 7, [ignore fixed stars bc he says he can’t figure out where they go!], then when reach 8th which he says is functionally same as 9th, = transcend fate; reach possibilism-thinking.
Wouter Hanegraaff’s malformed and confused system of astral ascent mysticism lacks fixed stars in level 8. So, he confusedly thinks of level 8 & 9 as outside the (moving) “stars” — that is, outside/above the planets.
If that’s an ancient scheme, it’s a horrible scheme, terrible mis-use of analogy, garbage compared to the rightly standard scheme.
Such out-of-control myth is a failure to do analogy, given that ‘analogy’ is the clarifying explanation of something.
It’s analogy mis-used (& underutilized) just to smear fate, instead of clarifying and explaining to assist the full course of mental model transformation.
In the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022, Wouter Hanegraaff is so confused, he says the highest star is Saturn, and that is 100% heimarmene, and that level 8 above it doesn’t contain fixed stars, and is transcendeing heimarmene and also level 9 exactly same, is also transcendening heimarmene.
Total confusion: Wouter Hanegraaff starts with the confusion that the terrible Hermeticists fabricated when they claimed falsely that every PLANETARY level 0-8 = 100% eternalism / heimarmene, as well as (this part is correct) level 8 fixed stars = 100% heimarmene.
Then Wouter Hanegraaff starts with their falsehood & confusion, and he does much worse, silently jamming the fixed stars into planetary moving sphere 8 saturn (with extreme confusion throughout his book), and then claims level 8 = freewill / transcending heimarmene.
what a fkking wreck!!
Jesus, ppl, it’s simple:
THE MOST IMPORTANT STARTING POINT IS: LEVEL 8 IS FIXED STARS IS 100% HEIMARMENE.
Get clear on that!
Then, after you are clear on that, then relate the lower, previous, planetary levels in relation to that:
Given that a child begins with possibilism-thinking, and the actual effect of Psilocybin is transformation from possibilism to eternalism, in stages, Psilocybin session 1-8 = … exact %’s:
level 0 = 100% possibilism.
level 8 = 100% eternalism
Then elaborate from that firm, true, correct use of analogy to expalin, NOT TO CONFUSE AND KICK AGAINST REALITY! Of how the mind transforms via Psilocybin.
Should I be more mad at ancient Hermeticism decadents, or Hanegraff for adding his confusion to their hyper-heimarmene desparaging lies?
Just as Neoplatonism railed against Gnosticism, I rail against Hermeticism insofar as Hermeticism has the terrible, awful idea of applying 100% “heimarmene” to all planet levels 1-7.
As you go lower 3, 2, 1, 0 earth = child, we reach the real starting point, of naive possibilism-thinking – NOT eternalism-thinking!
It is true, that underneath all levels is hidden eternalism / heimarmene.
But, the mental model starts as naive possibilism-thinking, despite the truth of hidden underlying engine-level is heimarmene/ eternalism.
The correct use of analogy (astral ascent mysticism) is to describe development of the mental model – NOT to highlight the hidden underlying heimarmene / eternalism which underlies all levels of mental development via Psilocybin.
The latter is stupid & useless, pretending that “levels 0-8 = eternalism / heimarmene, then level 9 = transcending heimarmene”.
What a garbage system the latter is, it fails to do the job that an analogy needs to do: help explain something.
The proper use of astral ascent mysticism as analogy to explain and clarify the actual mental trajectory of Psilocybin initiation stages
The proper use of astral ascent mysticism is to explain and CLARIFY how mental model starts from naive possibilism-thinking , then eventually reaches & retains by stages 100% eternalism-thinking; and after that greatest achievement, then finally can transcend heimarmene/ eternalism in some important, useful, meaningful way, to reach qualified possibilism-thinking including eternalism-thinking.
Levels: / spheres of cosmos per Ptolemaic astral ascent mysticism:
0 – Earth = 0% eternalism. Do not say heimarmene/ eternalism is here, for child-thinking, as the starting point of mental development!
per this mapping: 8 firmament = fixed stars 9 = PRIMO MOBILE ORAS REVOLUCAO D O 10 = CELUM EMPIREUM – HABITACULUM DEI ET OMNIUM ELECTORUM OUTSIDE = 11 = ANGELS, HYPERCOSMIC LIGHT, CRUCIFIXION, GOD
per this image’s mapping: 8 = firmament = fixed stars – I already established that. Do we have a feeble mapping of “transcendent freewill” that is restricted to 1 flimsy level? Or 3 levels, in which case, what is the difference between the 3 levels that are above heimarmene? compare: what’s the difference between moon level 1 vs satur level 7 vs. stars level 8? ans: increasing grasp of eternalism during series of 8 Psilocybin sessions, then the 9th Psilocybin session puts you above heimarmene. 9 = PRIMO MOBILE ORAS REVOLUCAO D O – others say “precession of equinoxes” is here. 10 = CELUM EMPIREUM – HABITACULUM DEI ET OMNIUM ELECTORUM 11 = OUTSIDE = ANGELS, HYPERCOSMIC LIGHT, CRUCIFIXION, GOD Other maps have 1 (or 2?) higher levels above fixed stars. This map has 2 spheres above fixed stars (+ the “regress” region outside all spheres). 3 levels, if include outside region.
Earth – 0
Water
Air
Fire
🌙 Moon – 1
☿ Mercury – 2
Venus – 3
☀️ Sun – 4
Mars – 5
♃ Jupiter – 6
♄ Saturn – 7
🌌 Firmament of fixed stars – 8 – the Ogdoad — 36,000 years per revolution
Prime mover – 9 – the Ennead
🔥🔥🔥 Empireum – 10 – Here resides God and all the elect
The number of the sphere is the number of Psilocybin immersions:
To reach eternalism = 8th = 8 Psilocybin sessions.
To transcend heimarmene = reaching the Ogdoad = 9th sphere = 9 Psilocybin sessions.
The right & worthwhile use of astral ascent mysticism (not harmfully, confusingly clever) should be to explain and CLARIFY Psilocybin transformation.
Mythic analogy when used for good, to clarify and explain and model how the mind transforms by Psilocybin, must state clearly and unambiguously that the immature youth’s initial starting point, the starting state or stage prior to any initiation is initial possibilism-thinking that’s initially oblivious to the reality of later-revealed, re-revealed-by-stages, eternalism, each session retaining and mentally modelling the hidden and increasingly revealed fatedness a little more.
Fatedness is always the case, but there is no development at that underlying, normally hidden level.
Myth that’s focused only on the underlying level (fate) because you are out to disrespect & insult fate, is “not wrong, but not helpful” — in fact is very harmful, by a misplaced focus on wrong level.
Focusing all during levels 0-8 on the lower level, of fate, is the mis-use of analogy to smear fate, instead of using analogy to clarify & explain how the mind first struggles to achieve perceiving hidden fatedeness, and finally manages to maintain and retain that vision — requiring dedicated pursuit at length, the grandest achievement — and then in some way can “transcend” fatedness.
The cost of that funny, clever, advanced-level myth inversion to present an ironically inverted model, “Psilocybin transforms the mind from eternalism to possibilism [wink]” is that we lose the comprehensibility of myth.
Thanks to the cute and clever, impressive advanced-level play with myth, we lose & forfeit Psilocybin transformation.
Analogy (religious myth) should be used to CLARIFY, not to confuse and obscure under ironic confusing inversion.
Other schemes are bunk and disaster. perverse. degenerate. DECADENT.
False analogies mis-describing mental model transformation out of overzealous hatred for heimarmene / eternalism.
Systems like ancient Hermeticism that screw with this scheme suck and are failure and inferior.
Mithraism is the greatest model of Late Antiquity – see David Ulansey
I don’t know if Mithraism starts with naive possibilism-thinking (freewill) prior to initiation.
Does Mithraism tell the non-development story: we start w/ fate, then 1st Psilocybin session gives fate.
Then fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate, then salvation into transcendent freewill.
Which is the worthless story per the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022.
Mithraism correctly represents the Psilocybin transformation of mental model — assuming that children in society have a decent chance to develop naive possibilism-thinking and are not immediately debauched/ violated by being raised within eternalism-thinking.
If Hellenistic culture was TOO eternalism-saturated, then we never undergo transformation, b/c child is never allowed to develop natural naive possibilism-thinking but is immediately programmed with eternalism-thinking unnaturally and prematurely.
Today [March 5, 2025] voice recording discusses variants of astral ascent mysticism — decadent psychotic dysfunctional (however Ken Wilber describes the psychological developmental collapse and disintegration, regression, disintegrative collapse and regression, failure; vs. healthy well-formed that affirm eternalism-thinking and preserve it and respect heimarmene and build above heimarmene.
That bad awful Late Antiquity direction is when like the bad Hermeticists who confuse Wouter Hanegraaff, when they claim falsely and unhelpfully that EVERY level 1-8 = heimarmene.
That narrative (fate sucks, fate sucks, etc.) unhelpfully overemphasizes the wrong thing, that doesn’t even progress at all during Psilocybin session 1 (moon) through 8 (fixed stars).
Should be: mental model is naive possibilism-thinking; then 1/8 eternalism, then 2/8… 7/8, 8/8 eternalism … then transcend eternalism.
Make a model that shows and explains progress – can’t do that if level 0-8 are all “evil fate”; that is not a model of Psilocybin transformation sesssions series using {fire} to bake the mind in purgatory for a while.
The bad result is the model: mental model transformation starts with fate, and ends with transcending fate; a simple, FALSE and unhlepful 2-level model of transformation from possibilism to eternalism possibilism.
THE WORST MODEL OF ALL IS THE 2-LEVEL MODEL OF TRANSFORMATION FROM ETERNALISM TO POSSIBILISM.
Like some in Late Antiquity, in their immature, frothing zeal to radically oppose their grandparents’ revering of heimarmene.
They simply took their forebears’ simple basic true 2-level model “transformation from possibilism to eternalism” and simply inverted it, with their excuse being,
Heimarmene/ eternalism is always (secretly, hiddenly) the case during transformation from possibilism to eternalism, and,
You end up w/ practical possibilism-thinking, as Wm James argues,
so, it’s fine to do mythmaking, of a 2-level model that’s simply inverted from Early Antiquity’s 2-level model.
Grampa says Psilocybin transforms you from possibilism to eternalism; so we clever rebels say “F You, grampa!! Psilocybin transforms you from eternalism to possibilism!“
“Instead of transformation from possibilism to eternalism, re: how the mind transforms, our tale is transformation from child/immature eternalism, to adult/mature possibilism – what’s wrong w/ that? It’s a clever inversion!”
“The important thing is to give the finger to heimarmene/ eternalism/ fate! That’s what religious myth is best used for.”
Reminds me of awful 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), where they ruin the field by thinking that the most important thing is not psychedelics, but rather, telling their social-drama narrative of the mushroom-having counterculture vs. the mushroom-oppressing mainstream.
Thomas Hatsis the psychedelic medieval historian says, against the runaway Allegro/ Ruck narrative, there is no evidence that Christianity prohibited or suppressed mushrooms.
Bad Late Antiquity mythmaking falsely and wrongly claims that Psilocybin transforms the mental model from initial child-mode eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking, that we start as children w/ eternalism-thinking, and maturation is the Psilocybin transforming to transcendent possibilism-thinking.
As if the child’s mind starts with fate-awareness at earth/sub-lunar level 0, then starts initiation sessions, ingesting Psilocybin in a series of sessions causing the following phases of (non-) transformation:
As if every developmental phase is fate, then suddenly and finally, Possibilism that transcends fate. That’s the model of Hermeticism according to Wouter Hanegraaff — but I caught him quoting someone, and then saying what the passage said — except the passage does not say what he says it says! His book is a mix of valid coherent statements, and a FORCED SKEW TRYING TO MAKE UP A STORY OF FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FATE FREEWILL Not even a developmental sequence! The mind’s ACTUAL development is:
100% eternalism – fixed stars (Ogdoad/8) (ALL-IMPORTANT POINT OF REF.)
transcend eternalism – March 7 2025: precession of equinoxes, level 9
March 7 2025: alleged oscillation (imagined incorrectly) of precession – the TREPIDATION OF PRECESSION sphere, level 10 – probably put primum mobile here
Empyrean: dwelling God & elect, level 11
Such an abuse of analogy [corrupting the above model — which is a CLARIFYING model — by switching your attention to the hidden underlying level, in which fate is a non-developing constant] has lost any utility to help move from the actual starting point to revelation of fate and beyond, and becomes nothing but complaining 9 times (levels 0-8) about underlying fate, and then putting ALL attention exclusively on the move from fate to transcendent possibilism.
What a stupid waste of a system/model, a waste of potential analogy that could be helpful to explain actual mental model transformation.
Another Good Voice Recording in the Series – “Perception of Eternalism” Entry in Effects Index, Josie Kins
Another good voice recording in the series of about 6 tracks so far; today Mar 5 2025 did read-through of Effects Index article not yet read aloud Josie Kins commentary. Yesterday the article short entry seemed good.
Today’s reading, I wished to halt at each sentence and critique it; the page isn’t that good.
VOX_TX_6323.wav
Status Mar 8 2025: I have yet to read aloud & record, Josie Kins’ commentary about the entry. All recent voice recordings are good and I want to hear them as episodes of Egodeath Mystery Show, now at 6324 not started.
But, my recent writings here are sufficiently equivalent, so no huge need to listen to the recordings.
I like – i think i wrote up – my voice recording discovery , devmt of the idea:
Biased argumentation. It doesn’t matter which args a MICA Deniers puts forth, the strategy underlying all of them is: put forth many directions of argn, none of them valid, but, count on the audience to be predudiced in favor of any pseduo-argument that’s negative.
Present any mediocre or weird argument – that’s not really even an argument, like Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” — Conclusion paragraph says “we can use Erwin Panofsky’s ‘branches” arg – image has branches therefore not mushroom — to “articulate criteria to deicde if image of mushroom-trees is a mushroom or if it is a tree. summary: no mushroom-trees is ever mushroom , because it has tree features.
obviously the ONLY ppl who consider that to even be an “argument”is ppl who are prejudiced MICA Deniers, because the ultra obvious screeamingly obvious counter arg is:
Every mushroom-tree has to be mushroom and can’t possibly be tree, b/c the mushroom imagery elements “RULE OUT” [say it w/ the confidence of a con artist, to cover the total illegitimacy] the image being a tree. That is the garbatge quality of teh “arg’n”(??) – sheer biased assertion — in the Concl of Foraging in Wrong Forest.
IS THIS EVEN A FALLACY? IT’S A BLUFF, A PRETENDING TO ARGUE.
Now put forward ten more weird, arbitrary, strange-direction, illegit arguments, that aren’t even arguments, and COUNT ON THE PREJUDICED AUDIENCE TO AGREE THIS IS COMPELLING ARG’N.
Erwin Panofsky “argues” the Plaincourault fresco can’t be mushroom, because [you are ignorant and blundering, and] there are hundreds of other mushroom-trees.
ie he and Wasson insert “argument by personal insult”, main “arg” is:
Any given mushroom image can’t mean mushroom, because there are [you are ignorant]
part of me wants to treat the inserted insult as a distinct move – BUT – Wasson so integrates this insult, this jab, as if to distract you from noticing that his arg is completely fallacious and non sequtur; Does Not Follow.
Wasson’s strategy:
My argument Does Not Follow, but pay no attention: look here: YOU MYCOLOGISTS ARE BLUNDERING IGNORAMUSES. <– pay attwention to that insult, not to my bunk non-argument that no mushroom image can mean mushroom, “BECAUSE” there are hundreds of equivalent images. The Erwin Panofsky arg, quote: __ https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-4 – Erwin Panofsky wrote to Wasson in 1952:
“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example — and, since the style is very provincial, a particularly deceptive one — of a conventionalized [compare Hug RHETORIC “completely formulaic” – which his prejudiced audience hears as “so, not mushroom”, but I hear as: “the formula = mushroom“] tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” [the bluff here, the pseudo-argument that’s crafted to rely on depending on prejudiced audience: “We made the term, so, not mushroom“; “we are boringly familar w/ our pilzbaum, so, not mushroom] or, in German writing, Pilzbaum.
“It comes about by the gradual schematization [yeah, you mean the sustained emphatic mushroomization] of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”
There are many, many, many; therefore, we are very very very certain that this one mushroom-tree cannot mean mushroom. Because YOU are IGNORANT of the fact that there are so many.
Which fallacies are those?
argument from distracting personal insult, mixed with:
argument from quantity, which is really, argument from prejudiced presupposition, or silent covert circular reasoning, also:
argument from silent proxy: it’s just a given that we all agree that our verdict on the Plaincourault fresco is our verdict on the hundreds of mushroom-trees, such that we can leverage the prejudiced assumption that the hundreds of mushroom-trees are not mushroom, to conclude that the Plaincourault fresco is not mushroom either.
BUT what if the biased interpretation tilts the other way? Then I say; MICA Affirmers say: Yes, we know, all the thousands of mushroom-trees are all mushroom, which “proves”, therefore, the Plaincourault fresco is mushroom too.
That is, illegit non sequiturs & circular reasoning cuts both ways, MICA Deniers.
it’s also argument from authority mixed in.
Which one of the 28 known fallacies, that are mixed together here, is the driving one?
For over 2000 years of human history, a cultural practice was held near Athens to commune with death, to honour the great journey of life, and to ‘die’ before you die.
—
It was known as the Eleusinian Mysteries and most of Greece and Rome’s top philosophers, poets and leaders were initiates.
It is widely believed that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Cicero, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius experienced the Mysteries.
However women, slaves and children were also initiated.
—
Based around the story of Persephone’s abduction by Hades and her mother Demeter’s wild search to bring her back to the land of the living, the Mysteries honour the cycle of life and death, the wondrous unknowing of the afterlife.
—
Through the lens of modern science, especially through the fields of archaeology, philology, theology, anthropology, art history and classics, we have pieced together some information about the Mysteries.
However, we don’t know much- reverence for the Mysteries compelled initiates to observe the mandatory law of silence about what happened in the Telesterion and so testimonies over those 2,000 years are scant.
—
We do know that initiates were guaranteed happiness in the afterlife and the initiations were physically, mentally and emotionally demanding.
They involved mind-altering performances, substancesand revelations.
Participants emerged with a profound sense of peace which altered the rest of their lives.
—
“Happy are those among mortals who have seen these mysteries; but whoever is uninitiate, will never have the same (good) fortune once in the darkness of Hades.” — Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 7th–6th century BCE”
Book about Reintroducing Psychedelics in Western Religion (Fontaine 2025), & TheReveries.org (Email from Fontaine May 4, 2025)
T. Fontaine wrote:
Hello Michael,
“I’m researching the Eleunisian Mysteries, and found your website, Egodeath.com & EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com.
“I’m writing a book about the reintroduction of psychedelic use in the occidental world.
“We should connect because we are getting people involved in the project of rebuilding the Mysteries of Eleusis; the Eleusinian Mysteries.
“The group was started by Psychiatrists, and then expanded to a larger range of expert psychonauts.
“I’m gathering feedback about the book draft.”
Thanks, T. Fontaine
Eleusis = 2-level Revere Heimarmene; Mithraism = 3-level Transcend Heimarmene (Email 1 to Fontaine May 5, 2025)
I have a sure-footed, simple model of mental transformation in 500 BC psychedelic mystery initiations, including how Greek myth describes that.
But, caveat: that model becomes inadequate in 150 AD, when the next cultural move was to build another transformation above that resulting state, and add more sophisticated complex level of religious myth above that.
The success of explaining 500 BC psychedelic mystery transformation & myth, should not be mistaken as a fully adequate explanation for subsequent developments (& failures or losses & forgettings).
i have to check if thick 2012 book by Paul Lundborg matches this. He covers ancient psychedelia & psychedelics-inspired Rock.
2013 book Cosmology & Fate by Nicola Denzy Lewis ( i posted a helpful review in 2014), matches my story of complication in 150 AD, the era of rejecting Greek reverence for psychedelic heimarmene (yet preserving – for a short time – comprehension of Psilocybin transformation & revealed heimarmene).
Luther Martin’s two books were suggestive about this being the key contrast between Early Antiquity vs Late Antiquity: both were based on psychedelic revelation of heimarmene (no-free-will ; fatedness; pre-existing control thoughts lying unavoidably on one’s future worldline) but Late Antiquity flipped their attitude against revealed heimarmene.
500 BC Mystery Religions revered Psilocybin-revealed heimarmene. But Late Antiquity resented it & built a higher layer of myth/ religion/ narrative to make up a strory of “transcending heimarmene / fate”.
Our successful but limited explanation of Mystery Religions must take that 150 AD developmental elaboration into account.
Yesterday I thought I was bored of all videos about esotericism (& even boreder of dead-end “mythicist” channels repeating – in a superficial way – my work in such scholarship in 2005).
But I woke up when Esoterica channel’s Dr. Justin Sledge spoke at length confirming that all brands of religion flipped against fatedness (while still (for a while) strongly affirming fatedness) – it confirmed Coraxo’s astute correction of me, or Coraxo’s helpful tip & heads-up for me in 2000:
A simple basic 2-level model explains 500 bc Greek Mystery Religions psychedelic/ Psilocybin transformation (transformation from possibilism to eternalism).
BUT, that simple successful explanatory model cannot explain the twist and complication of religious myth that was done in 150 AD, in all greco roman Christian jewish religions eg Mithraism, Christianity, Neoplatonism, gnosticism, Hermeticism.
con’t below
—
Glad to see you write “reintroduced”.
I wish meditation advocates (book Zig Zag Zen) would think in terms of re-adding psychedelics, instead of assuming it’s an innovation.
I thought Ralph Metzner or someone wrote that the 1960s made a huge misstep there, acting as if psychedelics are a new thing, but the Meditation hucksters can’t learn that lesson.
Meditation’s ok, but trashcan the lies told by meditation hucksters to diminish instead of glorify Psilocybin, which is the origin of meditation.
I finally got The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020.
I was asked to review it mid-2020 before it was published.
I’ve read a few pages of TIK.
I like it more than Cyberdisciple does – Cyberdisciple did the in-depth review that I was supposed to do. https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/?s=muraresku [such Search link can be good b/c does not cause a “comment” posted from me at Cyberdisciple site]
Maybe a good aspect is because Muraresku is Catholic – im extremely tired of ppl fixating on telling anti-Christian narrative.
I applaud Muraresku proposing we RE-add & RESTORE psychedelics to Christianity.
Many naysayers – Harvard dean Chs Stang – have criticisms of Muraresku, on various points – but I love this proposal from Mura, even tho I doubt ergot & I am committed to proposing Psilocybin instead, as the main psychedelic in Hellenistic & Christian origins.
I’m surprised I’m not critical of the book The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020. I’m seeing it as glass half full, not empty.
Cyberdisciple’s critical review set my expectations so low, that I feel positive about the book so far.
I like Brian Muraresku’s bold, assertive speculations. I used to be anti-ergot theories, and the book is too focused on ergot, not Psilocybin, but I don’t pay too much attention to that distinction lately.
I’m more fighting against the extreme overemphasis on Secret Amanita at the expense of straightforward Psilocybin use in European religious history (a shocking, unthinkable phrase according to entrenched 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship dogma).
i HATE 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
i am out to DESTROY the placing of more emph on “secret” than on psychedelics.
i LOATHE the elevation of Amanita over Psilocybin, in 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship.
i KICK OUT John Allegro, & Carl Dr. Secret Ruck [Allegro & Ruck in certain respects].
Cyberdisciple makes the case that Allegro is not even an entheogen scholar at all , and should be totally removed from entheogen scholarship – yet, pop culture (per outdated 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)) has 100% equated Allegro w/ the proposal of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
—
I plan to look at that page from you – this view doesn’t show me your email content while composing.
—
I suddenly find myself juggling 3 degrees of precision of models of how the mind transforms due to psychedelics.
If 500 BC Greece was 100% influenced by psychedelics, my model of mental transformation might not apply, if children were raised in a culture that was saturated with psychedelic enlightenment.
I’m considering some 4 variant models of how Psilocybin transforms the mind, in eras:
500 BC: a child has weak egoic thinking, quickly transforms to intitiates’ type of thinking, bc the culture was extremely attuned to the psychedelic revelation perspective.
150 AD: everyone still believed in fatedness (heimarmene), but now took a negative attitude toward fatedness, and they added a layer of transcendent freewill on top of that in a valid, healthy, helpful way.
500(?) AD: everyone forgets the disparaged fatedness revelation.
Instead of enlightenment & transcendent freewill, we’re left with confused version of advanced religious myth, & mere naive, untransformed childlike freewill thinking. Stung by the Pre/Trans Fallacy.
The cost of so hating the revelation of fatedness, is that we lost understanding of myth, of psychedelic transformation, & we lost Psilocybin.
Modern era: Newton 1687; 20th C: 1980s psychedelics: & 1960s: We start to rediscover the basic model of 500 BC Mystery Religions culture/ society, in which a child initially, briefly (fleeting & delicate) has naive freewill thinking , then undergoes psychedelic transformation to reveal fatedness.
In the Modern era, I form in 1988 & write up a basic 2-level model of that in 1997.
Then Erik Davis summarizes my simple model in his 2005 book Led Zeppelin IV p. 118 & 122. BUT!:
In 2000, Coraxo in the Gnosticism Yahoo Group points out to me that Gnosticism aimed to transcend my simple basic 2-level model.
1998-2004, building on Gnosis magazine of 1990s, I had to, around 2004, add a more precise & nuanced, 3-level model including “transcending fate/ determinism”.
— Michael
In 150 AD, Eleusis Added “Transcend Eternalism” Theme (Email 2 to Fontaine May 5, 2025)
A super interesting question discovered below: After 150 AD, doesn’t the Eleusinian Mystery Religion have to add the promise of “transcending heimarmene” theme, to compete w all other brands at that time?
My first email was good, but omitted my main recent study/ era, Medieval-era fully developed use of Psilocybin, to fill in my previous timeline in that email.
The Medieval heyday, i discovered, of fully developed Psilocybin use.
That discovery was especially based on a godsend for me, high-res Great Canterbury Psalter, awesomer proof than i couldve imagined possible, of my theory of psychedelic mental model transformation.
A huge discovery that was an offshoot of writing an article requested by Dr Jerry Brown who asked if Cyberdisciple & i had wriiten up compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art.
In the first email, i mentioned Newton 1687 because that is when Western Esotericism (& Psilocybin as part of that), was forgotten.
I dream of writing a book that’s a history of determinism (no-free-will).
Offhand, I don’t know how cultural belief in freewill changed when Western Esotericism was forgotten around 1687.
I haven’t theorized about that point, as I recall.
Against everyone, ie against 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), I proved that 1000-1400 AD was a heyday of fully developed use of Psilocybin, depicted in mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Art is nicer than text, because art’s limitations forces you to stay basic & simple: 2-level model; Psilocybin simply transforms the mental model of control from possibilism to eternalism.
That’s an overgeneralization. Counterexample:
In 150 AD, Mithraism uses art/ sculpture to specifically emphasize/ depict transcending determinism/ heimarmene.
So art CAN depict transcending eternalism, especially by using the geocentric cosmos model: Above the sphere of the fixed stars = transcend fate.
Depictions of the cosmos, Earth-centered – especially my anchor point, sure-footed, is: fixed stars = heimarmene.
Start by locking that idea down (fixed stars = full grasp of eternalism, as in the 8th Psilocybin initiation session), and then relate the lower & higher levels/ spheres / Psilocybin initiation phases — to that.
As Erik Davis says [Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, p. 118], there are variants of astral ascent mysticism.
The best variant of astral ascent mysticism is that which starts by assigning fixed stars = heimarmene.
If Late Antiquity switches that mapping all up (as in Hermeticism per the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022), I resent and reject that perversion and destruction of astral ascent mysticism.
A parasitic, destructive revision of astral ascent mysticism in 150 AD to change it to “fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate then transcend fate”, divorces astral ascent mysticism from its proper helpful useful role as analogy helping to clarify and explain how the mind transforms from Psilocybin.
History of the earth-centered cosmos model: 310 BC Greek guy, then another guy, then latecomer Ptolemy who is given too much credit for inventing scientific (not mystical) astral ascent mysticism model.
310–230 BC Aristarchus – spheres cosmos model – no precession of equinoxes.
162-127 BC Hipparchus – adds precession.
150 AD Ptolemy — adds precision.
Early systems enable astral ascent mysticism – they had the simple concept “beyond the stars”, which IMPLIES they, at such early time, WAY before Ptolemy, had concept “stars = heimarmene, you can go higher than that/ outside boundary of cosmos”.
We don’t have to have “precession” to already have the MOST important key concept, “going above the stars = transcending eternalism”.
As soon as we have planet spheres in 310 BC, we ALREADY have concept “higher than stars” ie [when we use cosmos model for mystic level mapping] transcend heimarmene.
todo: Confirm that Aristarchus knows “fixed stars, level 8 past Saturn, & “higher than fixed stars” / “outside the cosmos” – highly worthwhile question.
Way back in 310 BC [ie the year Aristarchus formed the spheres model], we already had a mental picture supporting the idea “transcend heimarmene”.
The geocentric cosmos model in astronomy science INHERENTLY presents us with the picture depiction of “past/ above/ higher than / outside of the sphere of fixed stars” = transcend heimarmene.
This Medieval mushroom-trees art motif genre is like 500 BC Greek Mystery Religions’ model of Psilocybin transformation/ initiation & myth describing that, in that:
Both ancient/classical (500-300 BC) Greek Mystery Religion & the Medieval mushroom-tree genre (1000-1400 AD) are mainly a 2-level model that terminates in revering fatedness, not the 150 AD-era, mainly 3-level model that affirms & resents enslavement to fate & describes & constructs, in some way, “transcending fatedness”.
In 150 AD they did that by advanced-level, adept mythmaking — or myth revision — that we must differentiate from earlier, basic Psilocybin transformation 2-level myth.
I here have set up a GREAT Historiography research programme to trace these ideas across eras:
In each era: what cosmos model? what attitude about heimarmene? what evidence of Psilocybin transformation? what use of myth as analogy?
500 BC-300 BC – Classical Antiquity (part of my period “Early Antiquity”)
323 BC- 30 BC – Hellenistic (part of my period “Early Antiquity”)
150 AD – 750 AD – Late Antiquity
1000 AD – 1400 AD – Medieval heyday of mushroom-trees genre; fully developed use of Psilocybin.
1400 AD- 1687 AD – proto-modern(?) era; late Medieval(?) — a distinct phase relative to my concerns. Western Esotericism/ Psilocybin/ mushroom-trees comprehension was present but fading. todo: give the year of each art image that I study, in mushroom-trees genre.
1687 AD – 2000 AD – Early Modern
I tentatively believe there were only 1,300 revolutions of the Earth around the sun, between the year we call 1 and the year we call 2000.
ie subtract 700 years from the timeline per Edwin Johnson 1895, Fomenko, Chronology Revisionism. See Egodeath.com.
Eleusis = Early Antiquity = 2-level model giving heimarmene. = Medieval mushroom-tree art.
/ end of my later writings Mar 6 2025
My email continues below:
Mithraism [the best, clearest example/ model, imo] [note we only have art, not text of Mith] = Late Antiquity = 3-level model, giving transcending of heimarmene ; “salvation/ rescue/ redemptive purchase from enslavement to fate”.
re Late Antiquity Mystery Religion, religious historians, Luther Martin etc, add: *personal* savior religion, vs Eleusis , as if Eleusis is not personal religion/ transformation. later = allegedly: “savior religions” & “personal salvation”.
i dont recall if scholars describe Hellenistic era that way (personal savior religion), and also in later Late Antiquity era, or if they say “personal salvation” was only added late, in 150 AD Late Antiquity, after the Hellenistic era 323 BC – 30 BC.
My idea recent like yesterday: the word “salvation” means from heimarmene. That is a Late Antiquity (or Hellenistic era??) sentiment/ attitude, not an Eleusis / Early Antiquity sentiment attitude.
Also my eras need checking bc Eleusis spans Early Antiquity & Late Antiquity — which raises the GREAT question:
if per Dr Justin Sledge, & Nicola Lewis, ALL brands of relig in Late Antiquity added a new aspiration to not merely reveal heimarmene but to go further & transcend heimarmene –
Did the Eleusinian Mystery Religion , starting in 150 AD , add the theme of “transcend heimarmene & receive rescue / redemption/ salvation from heimarmene”??
“The closing of the Eleusinian Mysteries in 392 AD”
Save redeem rescue redeem us from heimarmene/ enslavement to Fatedness/ determinism / no-free-will/ eternalism.
as if Early Antiquity Mystery Religion is not personal – i fear the scholars here are carried away w their anthopology theory constructs.
Ulansey , who i started reading in 2000 (check my Amazon order & the Egodeath Yahoo Group posts) was CRUCIAL to develop from my 1997 2-level model which fit Greek Mystery Religion , to my 2004-era 3-level model tgat was required for explainkng 150 AD equiv of Mystery Religions.
As Coraxo’s (i was profitably crestfallen when he corrected my perfect awesome inadequate 2-level model) 2000 correction of me… in Gnostm yahoo group.
HUGE TAKEAWAY FOR YOU & ME:
We must have two distinct models of “Mystery Religion”! Early Antiquity vs Late Antiquity type of Mystery Religion “completion of psychedelic initiation/ transformation.” eg Eleusis 500 BC vs Mithraism 150 AD.
We can probably find a little bit of “transcend heimarmene” equivalent motifs in Eleusis-era Mystery Religions – including the 323 BC – 30 BC Hellenistic era. eg “what is outside/ above the sphere of fixed stars?” But the emphasis of Eleusis type Early Antiquity Mystery Religions is: terminate in conforming to heimarmene.
Citations: See books: Luther H Martin, Nicola Denzy Lewis; David Ulansey; Justin Sledge video interviewing Chris Brennan re astrology & fate; Esoterica youtube channel.
500 BC – you should not make the common error of singling out Eleusis from other Greek Mystery Religions & ignoring Symposium mixed-wine religious parties.
See Cyberdisciple WordPress he will correct you if you wrongly treat Eleusis as “unique”.
otoh, tho we should group Eleusis w/ all Hennenistic Mystery Religions + symposia, however, realize that Late Antiquity added a 3rd level sitting above “completed initiates” of Eleusis/Greek Mystery Religions:
Mithraism and all Mystery Religions of 150 AD added something that Eleusis [and you should not dishonor the other gods & brands of that earlier era by ignoring them] did not have.
What does Eleusis-type Mystery Religions lack that Mithraism-type Mystery Religions have? A virtual 3rd level; a SECOND transformation.
April D Deconick describes gnostics as actually religious-myth rebels/ revolutionaries. But not only that brand; her point would apply to Late Antiquity all brands.
All Mystery Religion brands in 150 AD rebelled against their grandparents’ revering of Psilocybin- revealed heimarmene – but wouldn’t that include a major shift within the Eleusinian Mystery Religion?(!!) Something to look for!
the Late Antiquity narrative goes:
Our grandparents’ Eleusis-type Mystery Religion merely gave us heimarmene (boo! we resent the reality of revealed bad truth of heimarmene/ fate).
OUR, better, new technology of 150 AD-era Mystery Religions are superior: better than Eleusis, [at least until 150 AD] which makes you a slave of Fate, OUR new-tech Mystery Religions save you and lift you ABOVE heimarmene/ fate.
Some current religious history commentators claim that everyone in Late Antiquity wished for afterlife. No, more relevant is: they wished for a Mystery Religion transformation that’s higher than enslavement to heimarmene/ fate.
Ulansey book & articles on Mithraism – a Mystery Religion NOT like 500 BC, bc Greek Mystery Religion terminated in simple heimarmene (2-level model) whereas the later, 150 AD type of Mystery Religions added virtually a higher level of transcendence:
above heimarmene (while continuing to affirm that heimarmene is the case), they added a mythic narrative of “transcending heimarmene / fate/ no-free-will/ determinism).
— Michael
March 6, 2025 email from T. Fontaine
Do you have sources for early psilocybin use ? (Hellenistic & middle age period)
Do you have sources about the Eleusis Mysteries rites that would consists in a shift from believing in free-will to understanding determinism ?
[the easy part is show that 2) antiquity = heimarmene = determinism – see every scholar, every book. incl those i listed, and Nietzsche re: dionysus as i recall –
1) what’s hard is to show that the ancients ever believed in freewill (prior to initiation; during childhood only)
3) show that the main change produced by initiation was from child freewill to adult no-free-will.]
How and why would they do this at this time?
[clarify if “this time” = 500 BC or 150 AD;
address the claimed change across eras & the assumed starting point,
in what way did initiates begin with freewill thinking?
children start w/ freewill thinking – is that true in antiquity too? to some major extent, yes.]
I have more a Nietzschean view of the world (the passive nihilism of religious and the active nihilism of the creators of new morality) and know about Mormonism.
People need to do something for their anxiety, their dread of death [more than that, their dislike of fate/ heimarmene -Michael Hoffman] ; that religion answers. This world is driving ppl/ancients crazy, and that was Nietzsche’s biggest concern : “God is dead, now what do we do ?”
[Nietzschewrote about Fate in antiquity]
Capitalism offered a postponed reprieve for our late-Modern nihilist world: eg, money is made out of creating distraction for people that are anxious, and destroys culture.
Our group includes heavy psychonauts.
People need to reconnect with nature — this bridge between human mind and nature is made, historically, by psychedelics.
The most recent proof of occidental psychedelic roots is the Eleunisian Mysteries.
[Dr/Dean Chs Stang main critiqicusm of The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020 is that Brian Muraresku acts like there’s proof of that, but never gets around to deliveraging that proof]
Correct me if I’m wrong and that you have evidences of more recent use of psychedelics.
/ Font. email continues below where indicated
The Main Source of Evidence Is Commitment to There Being Evidence
The main source of evidence is commitment to there being evidence
In effect, given that there is in fact evidence and argumentation available, the main source of evidence for psychedelics in religious history is vigorous wholehearted assertive commitment to there being evidence.
Those who lack commitment are guaranteed failures to contribute evidence.
[there is evidence for psychedelics in every era, religion, region esp if include non psychedelics: deliriants: scopalamine nightshades & Amanita: they cannot produce THE transformation — transformation from possibilism to eternalism — but they can — like cannabis — supplement that as a fallback fill-in]
image: Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2 & 3: blue vase collecting Psilocybin behind oxen, looking at Cubensis dispensary.
I failed to believe and have faith or would have seen this proof quicker, proof of my initial claim “I know what’s in the blue vase”, yet failed (for part of a year) to even look at all at the grain bin.
I didn’t attempt at all to look for direct evidence, because blinded by defeatist presupposition that there isn’t direct evidence.
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025. f11, Great Canterbury Psalter
[any scholar who doesn’t operate from that framework commitment should immediately stop doing entheogen scholarship; give up, cannot contribute.
for productive successful entheogen scholarship, it is a GIVEN that all eras/regions used psychedelics and there is evidence.
Apply the diamond hammer of interpretation.
if it seems like no evidence, it is our blindness and fault, as poor scholars who ought to be committed to building this paradigm.
to hell with defeatist lack of confidence – this is how science actually progresses: not “disconfirmation” but rather, commitment to the new paradigm despite the flaws of EVERY paradigm old & new.
there is no “certainty” and perfect paradigm, it’s all about commitment. COMMITMENT PRODUCES RESULTS;
If you allegedly “don’t have evidence”, then really, it’s your fault for not having commitment – Great Canterbury Psalter taught me that.
If “no evidence”, this just means you’re too feeble, weakling, defeatist, unimaginative, & ineffectual; you lack the requisite can-do attitude.
We effective entheogen scholars must be committed anti-skeptics; committed believers.
The main source of evidence is commitment to there being evidence.
eg Hatsis wrongly says no text about The Mushroom. false: there is TONS of text about mushrooms; discussed in terms of eucharist effects]
T. Fontaine’s email continues:
I take a nature-daîmon related point of view.
Bringing back a general use of psychedelics – eg through Eleusis Mysteries – would be a healing for this world.
Recommended:
The Message of the Eleusinian Mysteries for Today’s World Albert Hofmann (from Robert “Who is The Enterprise that’s funding Muraresku?” Forte, grassroots not astroturf, authentic entheogen scholar, member of the Ruck Committee of the Secret Amanita paradigm, w/ some ergot thrown in for spice; 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)) https://cac45ab95b3277b3fdfd-31778daf558bdd39a1732c0a6dfa8bd4.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/10_hofmann.pdf
That letter motivated me to work on this project. You might know that letter.
I recommend this book about culture disruption and the current civilization issue of our century:
“Half a century ago Adorno and Horkheimer argued, with great prescience, that our increasingly rationalized world was witnessing the emergence of a new kind of barbarism, thanks in part to the stultifying effects of the culture industries.
What they could not foresee was that, with the digital revolution and the pervasive automation associated with it, the developments they had discerned would be greatly accentuated, giving rise to the loss of reason and to the loss of the reason for living.
Individuals are now overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of digital information and the speed of digital flows, resulting in a kind of technological Wild West in which they find themselves increasingly powerless, driven by their lack of agency to the point of madness.
—
“How can we find a way out of this situation?
In this major new [2019] book, Bernard Stiegler argues that we must first acknowledge our era as one of fundamental disruption and detachment.
[reminds me of narrative “the main value of Psilocybin therapy is to fix the problem of depression, grief & meaninglessness”.
I don’t buy that narrative/ selling-point: trying to sell the main value of Psilocybin as a cure for depression in today’s world; too much Big Pharma Marketing Dept.
See Houot’s book instead, Rise of the Psychonaut.]
We are living in an absence of epokhē in the philosophical sense, by which Stiegler means that we have lost our path of thinking and being.
Weaving in powerful accounts from his own life story, including struggles with depression and time spent in prison, Stiegler calls for a new epokhē based on public power.
We must forge new circuits of meaning outside of the established algorithmic routes.
For only then will forms of thinking and life be able to arise that restore meaning and aspiration to the individual.
—
“Concluding with a dialogue between Stiegler and Jean-Luc Nancy, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars in social and cultural theory, media and cultural studies, philosophy and the humanities generally.”
/ end blurb
I’m not a devout occultist nerd.
I’m attached to evidence-based facts, cited sources, & rationality.
I am interested in religion or prospectivist theories, though that’s not my main use of time.
‘prospective’ is not a bad description of my can-do attitude that has produced tons of evidence & sound, successful explanatory theory.
Many people claim that Science = Predictionism.
I don’t fully agree w/ overemphasis of “prediction” as the alleged essence of doing science.
It’s arbitrary to frame things — theory development & confirmation, how to measure merit – in terms of “making predictions and then confirming them”.
That description is “not wrong, but not very helpful”, and it shuts out other angles.]
A great thank you for your message and the share of your theories,
T. Fontaine
Are Neopagans Focused on the Problem of Transcending Fatedness/ No-free-will/ Determinism/ Heimarmene/ Eternalism/ the Snake-Wrapped Iron Rock Block Universe? (3rd email to Fontaine)
email sent Mar 6 2025:
Dr. Justin Sledge of Esoterica youtube channel has a question for you, for neopagans:
Arent you super interested in fate? he says you should be. i agree.
The ancients were extremely interested in heimarmene , & in Late Antiquity, ancient religion was all about promising to transcend heimarmene/ fate.
Suppose you are hieropnant promoting Eleusianian Mysteries in 150 AD.
All brands of religion are claiming they are better than Eleusis because THEY save you from enslavement to fate.
Eleusis is bad bc it makes you a slave of heimarmene.
What is your use of myth to competively claim that the best brand of religion is Eleusinian which more than other brands, rescues and redeems you from enslavement to heimarmene?
Example answer: 6 months of the year, Persephone is released from the underworld.
It is a great, focused, relevant, researchable question:
Didn’t the Eleusinian Mysteries have to add a claim in 150 AD that this brand of Mystery Religion saves you from Fatedness?
/ end of email
earlier writeup, not included in the email:
Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica ch.) has a question for you/ for Neopagans:
Are you highly interested in the topic of Fate?
The Modern era is 100% soaked in assumption of freewill.
The driving main theme of 150 AD Late Antiquity was, given the revealed fact of fate, the purpose of late Mystery Religions & all the brands of religion of that era is to transcend fate.
Late Antiquity didn’t solve the problem of fatedness by denying that fate is thee case.
The main, driving religious project of Late Antiquity was to solve the problem problem that, given that fate is the case, we need to transcend fate in some way.
Read Updated Final Version of idea development page 24 (has content through Feb. 2028)
I updated the table of contents – skim it. Not linked.
Shows tons of info / ideas added recently.
Just b/c I’m starting this new page, don’t avoid the old page – rather, the old page is now ready to look at, except not linked the Contents.
Confirmed First Use of “branching-message mushroom trees” March 21, 2022
Gmail has a confusing UI. I am not insane; I correctly memorized March 21, 2022. I kept considering Sept. and said no way, no way, it was always “March”. Proof below.
The Subject line of the email thread is “Parasol Panaeolus Graves“. cc’d Brown & Cyberdisciple. Sent March 21, 2022.
“branching-message mushroom trees email.png” 203 KB 8:45 pm Feb. 25, 2025 My email sent March 21, 2022, with first mention of “branching-message mushroom trees”.
Monday, March 21, 2022: Prof. Brown sent me the 2019 article’s Kupfer passage about youths in trees, and,
Monday, March 21, 2022, 10:14 AM: I first wrote the phrase “branching-message mushroom trees“, in email to Brown & Cyberdisciple.
Lay not hand on the young man nor do any harm. Because you have done this thing, live into the future.
use but don’t rely on, the Left foot model of control; branching possibilities steering with monolithic, autonomous control gives unstable control during loose cognition. immature form {king steering in tree}
through {mixed wine at banquet}
rely on the Right foot model of personal control: non-branching; frozen line of steering; 2-level, dependent control gives stable control mature form {snake frozen in rock}
The mature form after Psilocybin transformation; during loose cognition; during loose cognitive association binding.
Loose cognition transforms the personal control system from possibilism to eternalism.
Psilocybin transformation
{altar at guarded gate temple entryway sacrifice, cleaned curtains}, {sacrificial altar = fire blade rock wood-branches}
turning to look to the right, looking behind you and above you at angel messenger of God
Sacrifice of Isaac (Canterbury Psalter)
Features: [8:56 pm Feb. 26, 2025]
embarrassing, did i ever notice or mention the {gate/ doorway/ passageway}? The past 1-2 weeks, I developed especially the vision of/ the motif of, {altar as tollbooth attached to gate}. To pass through the gate/ doorway, must pay the price of passage, which is, repudiate taking as real, the egoic personal control system – see it now as virtual-only auto monolithic, autonomous control.
from Great Canterbury Psalter, instance of {rock altar of sacrifice at the doorway temple passage gateway boundary crossing}
{mushroom gate}; topped by liberty cap cap that has a L and R arm for the two mental models.
virtual-only monolithic autonomous control-agency steering in virtual-only branching possibilities
Look behind you, look above you.
virtual-only monolithic autonomous control-agency steering in virtual-only branching possibilities vmac
Sacrifice of Isaac (Golden Psalter)
Features:
Look behind you, look above you.
{mushroom hem} x3.
{floating mushroom hem} over tree trunk.
trident-O: trident = L + stem + R.
On L tree, 4 branches under crown. mushroom-trees feature: 4 limbs (= arms + legs).
Liberty cap left shoulder Abraham.
Sacrifice of Isaac (Van der Borch): Branches on Rock Altar with Blade and Child
Features:
Atypical: Not looking back at angel. Looking forward and down, not behind & up.
Rock branches fire altar child is on R side of tree; {cut right branch}; YI tree.
{right foot down} for Abraham & ram.
Angel: splayed left fingers, non-branching R index finger.
New Art
Motivation for this Page
Focusing on myth vision of myths / mythemes/ motifs:
{turn right, look up, look behind you, while blade the sacrifice child / animal; Isaac | bull | ram}
{maturation} from {child} to {adult}
Declaration of Independence of MICA Affirmers from Ignorant Art Authorities Who Earn Disrespect by Publishing Nothing
Huggins has not published nothing. He writes as art historian and published article about Great Canterbury Psalter, and mushroom-trees. He deserves engagement.
Independent Mentality Attitude: MICA Affirmers Must Think Essentially Independently from Art Authorities & Other MICA Deniers, and Especially Reject Argument from Authority by Phony Authorities Who Published Nothing about Trees
For the most part, largely, art authorities have failed to earn any credibility, because they reduce themselves to fallacious arguments from authority.
Huggins doesn’t do that too badly; on the topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Huggins is more engaged than Letcher 2006, and higher quality than Hatsis 2013.
Huggins is the least bad MICA Denier so far.
MICA Deniers have some valid points.
Letcher’s good point: only a single mushroom-tree is needed, to demolish 1st-generation entheogen scholarship, which falsely claims “cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
1952-1998: 1st-Gen entheogen scholars claim that mushroom imagery in Christian art is “cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
2006: Andy Letcher points to Bernward Door’s Blame panel, arguing that this specific instance of mushroom imagery cannot possibly be cult, secretly, oppression, slipped into, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, thus shattering and disproving that 1st-Gen version of the psychedelic gospels theory, or of the proposal of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
2002: Cybermonk announces contra Ruck Committee, the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I declared a rejection of 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship aka the the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion, in order to sustain the vector from “Mushroom-Trees” (Samorini 1998) to “Conjuring Eden” (Hoffman/ Ruck 2001) & beyond – instead of what Hoffman/Ruck did, which was back away from that direction, retreating back into their Secret Amanita paradigm.
I announced in 2003 that by applying the Egodeath theory to that direction from “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998) to “Conjuring Eden”, I will CONTINUE that direction, instead of retreating into the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion.
Giorgio Samorini 1998 article is the obvious milestone for the start of 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
“Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Samorini 1998) mtca samo98
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) 1g
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) 2g
the Moderate (= Minimal) entheogen theory of religion mmetr
{turn right, look up, look behind you, while blade the sacrifice child / animal; Isaac | bull | ram}
{maturation} from {child} to {adult}
Change of Deceptive Marketing of Egodeath: Sell People Freewill Power, Hide the No-free-will Fine Print
🤥👖🔥🤞->🤑💰
Transcendent Knowledge Doesn’t Give You Eternalism; It Gives You Possibilism-Power*
*qualified
Emphasize positive framing of Transcendent Knowledge as affirming (qualified) possibilism-thinking.
I considered doing before, instead of ‘eternalism’, but I feared that saying “you end up with possibilism-thinking” would be mis-taken as simple affirmation of untransformed, egoic freewill thinking.
Cleaned Dirtiness; Forgiven Sin that Continues, no longer Considered Your Real Foundation/ Source of Control
Pushing eternalism-thinking is not viable; it won’t fly, and it misrepresents. You don’t kill the child; you keep the child, and add a beard. It’s the same old possibilism-thinking, except transformed; you use freewill thinking all the time, though it is sanctified; justified; qualified, it is impurity that is considered as pure; “clean dirtiness”.
I HAVE to frame in a positive way to be well received. I must promise freewill power, and then after they take the bait for my Wasson-like duplicity, then I will say HA! GOT YOU, SUCKER, IT’S NOT REALLY FREEWILL, DESPITE MY MISLEADING MARKETING PLOY!
Idea development page 24 (started 2025/01/28) reached 140 sheets; recently , set record of 200+ sheets.
That page spawned new pages, that I have to create the TOC for.
Houot at Church Book Club: Rise of the Psychonaut
ZZZ (tired, Zig Zag Zen – ultra conventional, awful treatment, totally unimaginative re: their biased, prejudiced, unconscious presuppositions)
The author of Rise, A. M. Houot, who I conversed with, will join in our book club.
I responded to the question of what book we should cover next, by suggesting this book. At first ppl voted for ZZZ but then my suggestion won.
“GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! ENLIGHTENMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THERE’S NO FREE WILL; YOU’RE STUCK POWERLESSLY AND HELPLESSLY IN A FATEDNESS PRISON FROZEN BLOCK UNIVERSE!”
3-phase equivalent name for essence of Egodeath: psychedelic eternalism, the theory of psychedelic pre-existence; psychedelic qualified possibilism-thinking
I now bring my egoic possibilism-thinking into/ through the guarded gate doorway requiring passage sacrifice payment, into city palace garden kingdom, inherently dirty yet now pure, without pollution, my egoic false possibilism-thinking
Mytheme Notation: {nested braces}
3 horses with {right foot down}
The revealed alternative to mental constructs is eternalism, not “matter”
God-Fearers Circumcised per Paul: We Are Grafted into the Vine of the Promise to Abraham We are spiritual children analogous to Abraham Christians are Jewish by cirm of heart by transformation from possibilism to eternalism
Sacrifice = Repudiate treating the illusion of monolithic, autonomous control as anything more than virtual experience
Christians Seen as Atheists because no temple, no worship, no blood sacrifice, no sermons, no service, no priest, no rock altar with snake carved
NIV: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering
freewill shaped and no-free-will based: purification = revelation of the no-free-will basis of freewill, and freewill expeirencing is the personal control system ;
Page status: This page is “complete” in that it contains my recent writings on this topic. Need to re-organize.
Conclusion
Instead of selling “eternalism” and “no-free-will/monopossibility”, it’s clearer and more successful to sell/frame what you get, and what you have to believe in.
Wilber: Don’t Dissociated from egoic control thinking; embrace, include & extend mental model to embrace and include egoic control thinking
Transcendent use of egoic thinking {rider above donkey on path, right foot down}
cut mushroom trees with right hand, branch held left hand
splayed/together fingers
splayed/together sticks and feathers
Images: Entry into Jerusalem
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown why diamond important
10:54 pm Feb. 25, 2025 – i need fresh up to date analysis of Entry into Jerusalem – Saint Martin’s.
Awareness has risen up to the level of the God-aware rider above the donkey. Ego thinking is a given frozen in rock.
Awareness perceives that the loosecog-revealed level has revealed a different model underlying the surface garment cloak cleaned outer shell control agency egoic locus of control not yet perceived as virtual-only virtual monolithic, autonomous control transcendent egoic thinking: you do egoic thinking and you see that the egoic personal control system, snake-basket lid has been lifted snake in rock snake frozen in rock your worldline snake frozen in rock the egoic thinking shell the egoic control system egoic control thinking the egoic personal control system
king above donkey on path
guy behind king: L hand forms IY
epiphany of the ruler from outside the gates open the gates to the incoming ruler welcome.
pass through the {gate} of {city walls}
Garment: egoic thinking, now seen from aside up above behind you POV; remove a garment. clean right foot of donkey / jesus = cleaned garment mental model. rectified
Diamond frond dud mushroom-tree. No mushroom features, so increase interpretation of {branching} form & {L vs. R}.
Psilocybin mushroom-tree.
Right foot forward.
Cleaning impure lips w/ heaven coal burning from angel {fire}.
dud mushroom-tree, diamond tree: IY.
R hand holds the lone I branch of diamond frond. Right = non-branching.
L hand holds the branching branch of diamond fronds. Left = branching.
Non-branching is favored.
right hand on I of YI tree.
Egoic thinking is always used, incl peak window, though now see it from outside of it from Wilberian POV employing child thinking but distanced perceiving the egoic control system and its suppositions/ model that is always expereienced except during loosecog and evne then you totally use your egoic thinking donkey.
During peak window we above donkey see the child thinking following its path; we see that from the remembered and modelled vantage POV outside “look up, look behind you, see ram substitute instead of the young man, the efficacious analogy idea of sacrifice your child thinking.
Did I not write all of these points a couple years ago?
I see it differently now – I am experiencing reading the above image from a greater level of facillty
Immediately see branching form of diamond frond {branching tree}. IY or I-trident.
Apply the latest BRANCHING-FORM theory model lens.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Copy of the set of images from below in this page, on Feb 25 2025 copied.
The rider has a point of view being able to now perceive the egoic control system and see its virtual-only nature and its interesting control-climax death birth transformation
Good news: enlightenment is simple. Enlightenment or Transcendent Knowledge is merely transcendent possibilism; possibilism qualified by/ informed by/ modified by factoring-in no-free-will/monopossibility as a momentary, transformative revelation of the underlying level, under the personal control system.
Beard = qualified possibilism-thinking. [= eternalism with factoring-in possibilism-thinking]
If there were only figures 1 & 2 (a 2-phase depiction), there would be a different analysis/ meaning of each figure:
Fool = possibilism-thinking, of a type that’s wholly unaware of eternalism.
Wise = eternalism-thinking, including factoring-in possibilism-thinking. Possibilism-thinking that includes the revelation of eternalism.
You can divide-up the progression to enlightenment into 3 phases, or differently, into 2 phases.
In the group of 3 figures, figure 1 & 2 are obvious. The puzzling figure is figure 3, Beard. f134 is a puzzle game set-up.
Eadwine the artist, sets up puzzle: given that Fool = possibilism-thinking; and Youth = eternalism-thinking; what then does the Mature guy mean?
It’s a 3-phase image, not framed as 2-phase. A 2-phase version of this image would omit Beard guy.
The question of this article is: Should we name {the mental model that you end up with} after Red Youth, or Beard?
Should we label Beard figure as “possibilism (w/ eternalism)”, or “eternalism (w/ possibilism)”?
Imagine 2 versions of this image.
The image we have is 3-phase; group of 3 figures.
Imagine alt version of this panel that omits Beard guy.
Image would simply mean: move from possibilism to eternalism. Story: the Egodeath theory gives you eternalism – sort of saying, gives you fatedness / heimarmene/ block-universe eternalism, helpless puppethood, seems to be what we end up with.
That’s a poor representation of what we end up with. 2-phase is crude, confusing; IT IS SO VERY ABBREVIATED, IT IS CONFUSING and implies we end up w the way of thinking that strikes us down during peak window intense mystic altered state.
Such 2-phase model is only partly accurate & helpful.
The Egodeath theory or Transcendent Knowledge gives you: eternalism-thinking. That seems to say “no free will is all-important and the final view you end up with“.
That is true in a way, but crude and lacks nuance.
Confusing. Oversimplified; misrep’ve.
Beard, Figure #3, is eternalism-thinking in the broad, inclusive sense — we can call this either “possibilism (w/ eternalism)” or “eternalism (w/ possibilism)”.
idea for all pages:
I wish to explain or comment on the image at top of article, but cannot clutter that spot.
Like front matter of book, explain the book cover.
This is Great Canterbury Psalter f134 row 2 Right.
On the left is cubensis dispensary, not of central interest here; I am not discussing the LEFT-HAND GUY (Jesus the dispensary clerk), he is not part of the key group of 3 figures.
I’m only focusing on/ defining “the 3 guys” to be: fool, youth, beard bearded floating guy is the unclear part.
Ever since I finished analysis of Row 1 in Nov 2020, and started finally looking at row 2 & 3 after that, I immediately knew Left foot fool = possibilism-thinking; Right foot youth = eternalism-thinking – and I puzzled over Floating Beard guy; the meaning (or really, ramification) of the floating pair of feet.
I was more puzzled over his floating feet, than the idea of expressing the Egodeath theory / Transcendent Knowledge as 3 phases. See my Nov 2020 writings/pages. Recently I figured: “floating feet” does not have meaning; but rather, ramifications: it serves to prevent you from easily assessing his stability.
The Genre Question: Folio Image f134 is an instructional game puzzle (of highest order)
floating feet means you are prevented from simply reading which foot down, during assessing the control stability of every figure in f134.
Also floating feet connects him to leg hanging guy in tree.
And to the Row 1 L class of 4 guys, you cannot see feet of 2 of them, who he looks toward.
Floating feet serves as factor in game puzzle solving that the artist/ teacher set up for us to study handedness motifs.
Intro/Motivation for this Page
This page contains some new idea development, and contains sections moved out from yesterday’s article explaining the meaning of 2 or 3 branches/beams holding up the crown of some mushroom-trees.
Over the past couple of days, I went back & forth re: whether 1 page or 2:
1 page clearly is too long, and the two topics are not THAT closely associated/ interconnected. Resuming orig. plan: 2 sep. pages.
I moved the content about describing Transcendent Knowledge as yielding/ ending up giving you “a form of possibilism” instead of simply extremist pure “eternalism”, from that page to this page.
Titles of this page
This is a standard section for all new pages.
3-Phase “Transcendent Possibilism” vs. 2-Phase “Eternalism”, as a clear, non-confusing description of what we believe in
The transcendent ego remains after enlightenment; after loose-cognitive mental model transformation.
I am NOT telling people to believe in eternalism – because that word has both a narrow & a broad meaning, ambiguous.
‘eternalism’ might mean extreme exclusive eternalism w/o factoring-in possibilism-thinking; OR, might mean eternalism including factoring-in possibilism-thinking.
The great name/phrase/ concept-label “transcendent possibilism” solves such problems pretty well. The name “eternalism” SEEMS TO IMPRISON YOU IN NO-FREE-WILL/MONOPOSSIBILITY which is a poor description of the mental model we end up with.
Learned from Kafei – it is DEATH/failure for the Egodeath theory, to rely on a word (concept-label) that is confusing & misleading. Not an option!
Even Josie Kins f’d up the def’n of ‘eternalism’ and degrades it to mere egoic-soaked domino-chain determinism, which is how Kafei (mis-)read my custom-redefined term “determinism” in 2007 main article. [that expeirence inventory site was down]
The image above represents how a person under the influence of this component would view themselves as an organism.
This is often described as being a singular structure which stretches through the physical dimension of time alongside of all other identically behaving structures which the universe as a whole is entirely comprised of.
—
Perception of eternalism can be described as the experience of a major alteration of one’s perspective of the fundamental mechanics behind the linear continuity of time moving from the past to the present to the future.
During this state of mind, it feels as if all points across the timeline of existence are equally “real” and are occurring simultaneously alongside each other.
Every point in time is felt to exist regardless of the person’s current position within the overall timeline, much as all points in physical space persist regardless of the observer’s location.
—
While all moments are felt to be equally real, the directional flow of time is felt to be maintained, with the present always being the moment which is currently experienced.
All moments in time are still felt to be linked together by causality, the past necessitating the present, which necessitates the future, and so forth.
—
A common conclusion that is reached during the experience of this state is that although one’s life inevitably will end, it will apparently persist forever within its own timeframe and is therefore perpetual despite not being infinite in its length.
Birth and death are therefore seen as merely the start and end points of the range of time that a person exists in eternally, if not experiences eternally.
—
This sudden change in perspective starkly contrasts with the standard perception of time in which only the present is felt to exist, while the past no longer is and the future is yet to be.
—
Perception of eternalism is often accompanied by other coinciding transpersonal effects such as unity and interconnectedness and feelings of interdependent opposites.
It is most commonly induced under the influence of heavy dosages of psychedelic compounds, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline.
Kins’ commentary
Perception of eternalism is one of a handful of subjective effect components that has had a substantial impact on how I view myself and the universe around me.
I first experienced this effect during a state of level 4 unity and interconnectedness while under the influence of a heavy dose of Ayahuasca.
It was one of the most profound experiences of my entire life.
I truly felt that not only was I the entirety of existence experiencing itself through this body, but that this moment and all other moments would continue to exist eternally within their specific time frames.
Although I am acutely aware of how it is impossible for me to genuinely know if this is true or not, I have found it to be a perspective that is very difficult to shake off after having this experience a number of times.
—
Before experiencing this effect, I had never considered or even heard of the various similar metaphysical schools of thought that exist as relatively mainstream concepts within the field of philosophy.
However, after having had experienced this state of mind numerous times, I happened upon a large number of relevant concepts that include ideas such as eternalism, four dimensionalism, growing block universe, perdurantism, and the b-theory of time.
Each of these concepts have their Wikipedia articles linked to within the See Also section of this page.
—
As an intellectual concept, the B-theory of time is especially interesting to me as it is relatively well supported by the physics community.
In summary, B-theory posits that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present, and future are equally real and that time is tenseless.
Its support is seemingly due to its apparent compatibility with theoretical physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology are considered to point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.
However, I feel that it is important to note that I do not have a remotely in-depth understanding of theoretical physics and that although these theories are in support of notions similar to this experience, I am not entirely sure that their ontological implications can be asserted within science and outside the realm of philosophy or metaphysics.
—
Regardless of whether or not the nature of time is genuinely illusory, it is truly fascinating to me that without any prior knowledge, myself and many other psychedelic users can experience incredibly specific states of mind that seem to line up with entire philosophical theories.
This holds true for a number of transpersonal effects and is something that I’m deeply passionate about doing my absolute best to both document and discuss without descending into any degree of pseudoscience or hippy babble.
/ end of paste from fx index
Cybermonk commentary
The above includes discussion of DOMINO-CHAIN DETERMINISM – as least as an experience, if not as a metaphystical/ ontological assertion definition by Kins.
Carefully assessing/disputing what Kins is asserting here, is relevant for my present article.
During & after enlightenment, the mind’s experience is shaped in the form of egoic domino-chain causality– well, actually, it’s shaped as branching into open future ie possibilism branching.
RELYING on that model & its personal control model of virtually monolithic, autonomous control, is unstable.
Does relying on domino-chain determinism produce loss of control?
Board of Egodeath can’t agree on title wording except a few key words, so use those as the title
Since the article-naming committee cannot agree on any terms except these, make the title short that way.
This site (prior to this page) does not contain the phrase “Board of Egodeath”. I probably said that phrase in a voice recording; Egodeath Mystery Show.
Origin of the Board of Egodeath: Egodeath Mystery Show early episode(s). The show template page has a segment about the meeting agenda for the Board of Egodeath, titled “Esoteric Agenda”.
Highlighting 3-Phase Model Ending with “Transcendent Possibilism” Better than 2-Phase Model Ending with “Eternalism”
The basic problem: Should the Egodeath Theory be labelled as a kind of eternalism, or a kind of possibilism?
The basic problem: Should the Egodeath Theory be labelled as a kind of eternalism, or a kind of possibilism? pros & cons – IN ANY CASE, FORM THE BEST POSSIBLE label in terms of 2-phase eternalism.
What’s the best possible label in terms of 2-phase eternalism?
It may be that throughout my writings, I have been developing this wording.
What’s the best possible label in terms of 3-phase possibilism?
It may be that throughout my writings, I have not been developing this wording enough, and should favor this wording over wording in terms of “you end up with eternalism-thinking” and “you gotta agree there’s no-free-will/monopossibility”. — “you gotta agree there is eternalism, of a certain type that takes into account possibilism“
Wrong to Overemphasize Eternalism and Underemphasize Possibilism
Must Balance and Put forth the cominbation of Both
The Egodeath theory gives you a combination of possibilism & eternalism; gives you a kind of compatibilism. (Not to imply, though, that you end up with a kind of domino-chain determinism.) the Egodeath theory as a system of mental model transformation does NOT include domino-chain determinism.
Psychedelic mental model transformation does not produce a kind of domino-chain determinism, as from the Phil dept armchair spec’n.
Moving beyond a 1-word name of the Egodeath theory, 1-word name of what you end up with, YOU END UP WITH ETERNALISM AND POSSIBILISM BOTH.
What kind of possibilism and eternalism combination do we end up with?
What kind of “compatibilism” do we end up with?
My error was hyping / overemph / overselling eternalism, and underselling possibilism.
I am lately proposing that it’s better to push “you gotta agree there is possibilism, of a certain type that takes into account eternalism / no-free-will/monopossibility”.
If we describe the Egodeath theory as a kind of eternalism, it seems as if YOU GOTTA AGREE WITH ME THERE’S NO-FREE-WILL; TRAPPED IN HEIMARMENE PRISON HELPLESSLY.
That is the criticism that Late Antiquity had of Early Antiquity.
Early Antiquity framed Transcendent Knowledge as giving you a kind of eternalism, emphasizing fatedness, no-free-will, puppethood enslaved by the gods.
Late Antiquity made a project of instead framing Transcendent Knowledge as liberating you from the prison of eternalism.
Our grandfathers gave us religion that emphasized no-free-will; heimarmene. But we want religion that emphasizes a kind of freewill end-result.
Periodization: The Year When These Were Formed: Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christianity, Mithraism
The era of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christianity, & Mithraism.
Each Competitive Marketing Dept. Promising to Lift You Above Fatedness; Selling the Transcending of Heimarmene
Late Antiquity lant
Early Antiquity eant
The concept-label problem that I’m solving by this analysis
Concept-labels are more important than anything else. Connotation networks; lexicon, framing, positioning, marketing; of predominant importance.
Kafei was misled by my abnormal use of ‘determinism’ in 2007 main article — that shows how predominant the theory’s lexicon is.
CONCEPT-LABELS ARE OF TOPMOST IMPORTANCE.
There are basically two options for framing the resulting mental model:
Call the resulting mental model “eternalism-thinking” and explain how that’s modified by including possibilism-thinking.
Call the resulting mental model “possibilism-thinking” and explain how that’s modified by including eternalism-thinking.
Briefer wording:
Call the result “eternalism” and explain how that’s modified by possibilism.
Call the result “possibilism” and explain how that’s modified by eternalism.
The disadvantage of summarizing the Egodeath theory in terms of the 2-level model is, it SOUNDS like you end up with pure, simple, extreme eternalism.
In this approach for summarizing, the word ‘eternalism’ is forced to have two scopes: narrow, pure, extreme eternalism; and, broad, nuanced eternalism that includes possibilism-thinking. Confusing.
Pros & cons of 2-level framing, saying you end up with a type of eternalism
Expressing as 2-level model is thus simple, and confusing.
If you only draw from 2 levels, the 2nd level is forced to highlight the word ‘eternalism’ But in reality, you end up using possibilism-thinking all the time, so it’s confusing to label that as ‘eternalism’.
Pros & cons of 3-level framing, saying you end up with a type of possibilism
The most basic question: “described” here means picking a 1-word or 2-word label for the Egodeath theory. Favor which term: eternalism, or possibilism?
In a 1- or 2-word description or name or characterizing of the Egodeath theory, should it be presented as giving you “eternalism” (eg: “qualified eternalism”; eternalism modified by possibilism), or giving you a kind of possibilism? eg “qualified possibilism; possibilism qualified by eternalism)?
In a 1- or 2-word description or name or characterizing of the Egodeath theory, should it be presented as giving you “eternalism” (eg: “qualified eternalism”; eternalism modified by possibilism), or giving you a kind of possibilism? eg “qualified possibilism; possibilism qualified by eternalism)?
Should the Egodeath theory be described – in briefest summary or naming — as
Expressing as 3-level model is more verbose and complex, but less confusing.
This way, the middle phase can highlight ‘eternalism’ and the 3rd, final phase can be described as highlighting ‘possibilism’, modified by eternalism-thinking.
Should we summarize (as a label for the Theory) in terms of the important, middle phase – the peak window of intense mystic altered state; the moment of ego-sacrifice?
Or, should we summarize theory in terms of the practical daily mental model you end up with, which appears as if possibilism-thinking?
3-Phase Model Ending with “Transcendent Possibilism” Better than 2-Phase Model Ending with “Eternalism”
The 3-Phase Model of Transcendent Knowledge Transformation, Ending with a Kind of Possibilism, Not Emphasizing Eternalism
3-phase; do not sell “eternalism”; sell “transcendent possibilism”; transcendent freewill.
2-phase sells poorly: 2 problems:
you push no-free-will; block universe prison – and,
it’s not useful, b/c in practice, we HAVE to use freewill thinking.
In the 2-phase model, the final phase is no free will; helpless dependent control.
The 3-phase model is better: its final phase is freewill of a qualified type, and that is how we always have to practically conduct ourselves even when eternalism is revealed in the peak window of the intense mystic altered state.
Qualified possibilism/ transcendent possibilism
more colloq’ly: familiarly: transcendent freewill….
Every Term is of Limited Usefulness
“eternalism”, “possibilism”, “egoic”, “transcendent”, “freewill”, “determinism”; “branching”, “non-branching”, “psychedelic”, “entheogen” – all are tech terms w/ special usage, and with some greater or lesser degree of familiarity in popular standard common language usage.
Moderately technical terms – PROS AS well as CONS, like always.
The term “transcendent freewill” feels too limited/ too narrowly focused on old entrenched ruts, “the debate in Philosophy about free will vs. determinism”. I do not want to trigger that connotation network.
Rebranding/ Selling/ Marketing the Egodeath Theory as “Compatibilism” instead of Eternalism/ No-Free-Will Is a Breakthrough Solution: How to Have Possibilism and Eternalism Both
as if emphasizing possibilism-thinking at the same time as emphasizing eternalism-thinking
yesterday feb 15 2025 was a breakthrough –
far from “new” topic in all respects
that’s how it goes with annual breakthrough on the exact same new-not-new , new-old breakthrough again for 1st time.
The concepts succesfully usefully came together to solve a problem of “hard sell no-free-will/monopossibility/ heimar prison – GOOD NEWS! —
“GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! ENLIGHTENMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THERE’S NO FREE WILL; YOU’RE STUCK POWERLESSLY AND HELPLESSLY IN A FATEDNESS PRISON FROZEN BLOCK UNIVERSE!”
Buy my book!
I FIGURED OUT Transcendent Knowledge: IT’S NO-FREE-WILL, YOU’RE FROZEN IN BLOCK UNIVERSE HELPLESSLY, THAT’S WHAT Transcendent Knowledge IS ABOUT! SIMPLE AND EASY! BUY MY BOOK!
🤑💰
Like I reject “only mind exists” vs “only matter exists”, I also reject extremist eternalism-thinking — posting title: 3-PHASE BEATS 2 PHASE like late anti’y beat early antiqy which is 2-phase and worships eternalism-thinking. the Egodeath theory does not – in my mature phase now – solely push eternalism-thinking.
Studying Psilocybin mushrooms was often unprofiable BUT one time I was rendered speechless b/c my lips are impure; cannot say to myself “Self, you should think thus & sucxh way” — b/c that cajoling is egoic thinking – so how can I think, my thinking is inherently egoic! even during enlight of eternalism-thinking!
Strictly eternalism-thinking is not an option! And I cannot presnt my theory to my church by pushing extremeist unbalanced eternalism-thinking.
3 phase beats 2-phase. eternalism-thinking is NOT the end. fixed stars fatedness hiem snake is NOT the end.
Christianity — but ASLO late phase Hellenism , all the competing brands — rejected 2-phase worship of trict strict eternalism-thinking , and everyone in late Ant’y switched to 3-phase model where snake sfr {sr snake frozen in rock is NOT the final phase of maturation. In mushroom imagery in Christian art, expresses 3-phase:
We late-phase msystics have a hard nuanced job, the angels anxiously debating no-free-will/monopossibility til end of time: we must not only figure out eternalism-thinking — we must go BEYOND THE [fixed stars, Hanegraaff! not the 5 planets!!] STARS, to BOTH AFFIRM ETERNALISM-THINKING AND (QUALIFIED) POSSIBILISM-THINKING.
a big change, i solved a huge roadblock problem to teach my church. months ago, hiatus, a few months ago, nov 2024, I was stuck.
As if: I must force my church to agree no-free-will/monopossibility.
Before that, I wrote here I was afriad to approve possibilism-thinking bc/ pre/trans fallacy, ppl would think i approve of freewill thinking and they fail to transform.
Solution, today feb 17: assert qualified possibilism-thinking .
Not an entirely brand new solution but i feel it now, Wm James is right; the 3-phase model is right; eternalism-thinking / fixed stars level 8 is not the end.
My 3-phase read is superior to Bricklin’s good 2-phase book on Wm James.
Bricklin is wrong or insuff clear: enlightenment is NOT eternalism-thinking.
James (transformed by the Egodeath theory) is correct, “practical” philosophy; we end with enlightened eternalism-thinking, ie qualified possibilism-thinking.
In a way, we, the completed purified initiates, emphasize eternalism-thinking AND in a way, we emphasize practical, qualified possibilism-thinking.
But we do not push naive freewill thinking. we reject THAT. pre trans fallacy (not that that term is part of my offiial lexicon…
Pre/Trans Fallacy: The Egodeath Theory Gives You Egoic Freewill Empowerment*
👑🤴💪☸️🌳 🚫🐍
*qualified possibilism-thinking
“Pre/trans fallacy” is an approved guest phrase — unlike “neuroplasticity” which is evil b/c replaces/ eliminates an actual Cog Phen approach.
Pre/Trans Fallacy concept does not delete the theory of psychedelic eternalism — but now at this time i need better, I need a 3-phase term that is equivalent to “psychedelic eternalism” — for my shyster deception scheme con game pretext marketing sales dept scam.
I need to fool the Egodeath community into thinking the Egodeath theory affirms possibilism-thinking: Egodeath Huckster Cybermonk.
As duplicitous as Wasson re “consult” art authorities; I am even triplicitous.
The Theory of Qualified Possibilism; Psychedelic Qualified Possibilism Psychedelic Virtual Possibilism 😇💪☸️
Psychedelic possibilism; the theory of psychedelic possibilism
psychedelic possibilism pp
the theory of psychedelic possibilism tpsm
transpersonal psychology tp
the theory of qualified possibilism tqp
I went to market to sell eternalism — no sale. I went to market to sell virtual possibilism — many sale.
🤑💰 🤥👖🔥🤞
Egoic Free Will Power Is . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤨 the Answer and the Truth!
The Egodeath theory will make your ego’s steering power more powerful than God
virtual possibilism vp
virtual possibilism thinking vpt
the theory of virtual possibilism tvp
psychedelic virtual possibilism pvp
Qualified Eternalism
3-phase equivalent name for essence of Egodeath: psychedelic eternalism, the theory of psychedelic pre-existence; psychedelic qualified possibilism-thinking
New idea: qualified eternalism!
2025/2/17 9:37
qualified possibilism-thinking
the theory of qualified eternalism
psychedelic eternalism
psychedelic possibilism – wont do [note from Sales dept.: we’re going w/ that, anyway – IF BROWN CAN ADD “SECRET” TO SUBTITLE, AND DOUBLE-POSITION ON WALBUWALBURGA, WE CAN LIE TO the Egodeath community ], but:
psychedelic qualified possibilism – 3-12 months ago I feared ego would leap upon this and conclude ego freewill power, un-transformed (I wrote 1-2 years ago here, of that worry]
Wasson is merely duplicitous; Cybermonk is triplicitous, snake oil “qualified possibilism-thinking”- don’t give money to Zen Master Brad, I am the true light of egoic freewill empowerment
Buy My Book to get ego power freewill God power of (qualified) possibilism-thinking; end up with [joke] “naive qualified possibilism-thinking”
Christianity is right – late antiquity is correct — the 3 phase model beats the 2-phase model: beyond the stars, as Hanegraaff clumsily wrote re: in recent book Hermeticism.
He’s wrong that we go from eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking – insuff. model.
We actually go from naive possibilism-thinking, to eternalism-thinking, to QUALIFIED possibilism-thinking.
“Balance” Depicted as Both Feet on Ground
wrmspirit wrote Feb 17, 2025
“Your post on “perceptual dualism”:
“What I love about the Egodeath Theory is allowing minds to live with both feet on the ground where balance is vitally important.”
[Per 2-phase model, only have {right foot down}. Per 3-phase model, end up with balance = both feet down.]
“If I live with just my right foot on the ground I will eventually fall over.
“If I live with just my left foot on the ground I will eventually fall over.
“With both feet on the ground I can live within balance through the essence of both worlds alive in my heart.”
People not defining their terms
“I don’t have to define God. Definitions are boundaries placed around words where meaning has been decided upon.
“So instead I can feel God through my beating heart and breath which moves through a spatial flow between and within both worlds with thankfulness for the Egodeath Theory.”
/ end email
Which Foot Down, in Tree of Knowledge
email 1: feb 17 2025
While eating from tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter f11 (the main folio) row 3 right, Eve & Adam’s feet are definitely, pointedly together, compared to definite Right Foot Down prior to that.
They went from having Transcendent Knowledge while with God saying Do Not Eat, to having instead, both feet on the ground, smiling looking up at the grid of Lib Cap trees in the crown.
Eadwine the artist tells us to make of that what we will.
By using a 3-phase/ 3-level model (late antiquity) instead of simple 2-level/ 2-phase model, gives us much flexibility in interpretation.
Also if Eden is a reversal of our actual sequence (emphasize that Eden is reversed by Rev 22), gives flexibility of interpretation.
naive possibilism-thinking. egoic the personal control system; egoic thinking.
extremist hardcore eternalism-thinking, only; repudiation of freewill thinking. sacr. of Isaac. “do not eat”. The moment you realize truth of eternalism and rely on it to survive and get the treasure. but that’s not the end!
balanced, realistic, truly mature: qualified possibilism-thinking also with, by the way, eternalism-thinking. “eat from tree of knowledge”.
Right Mode of Interpretation, with Flexibility
email 2
The right mode of interpretation is more important than the particular details of interpretation.
This principle enables profitable side-by-side comparison of the panels around tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter vs. Bern. door.
The which-foot-down changes, from panel to panel, differ, by Eadwine vs. Bernward — but, same mode of interp applies.
The purpose of entheogen scholarship — it seems, alas, is to fixate on crybabying about “God took away entheogens”
— that’s too simplistic, need nuance (for starters, entheogen scholars, stop ignoring Rev 22 just bc fixated on bellyaching about God forbidding entheogens. There’s more opportunity for interp than simply “do not eat”.
If God and his forbidding = extremist no-free-will/monopossibility makes adam & eve not happy, in f11 row 3 middle, “do not eat” — they are Right foto {right foot down} and they are with God and they are not happy. row 3 R tree of knowledge they are happy, and BOTH feet down. — like red guy f134 row 2 right where you have [below list of 3 phases]
Crop by Michael Hoffman
1. At the dispensary case, the foolish youth (young Eadwine enthusiast) receiving filling bag with Cubensis = naive possibilism-thinking.
2. Red youth = extreme simple eternalism-thinking.
3. The mature bearded 3rd guy, to the right, both feet floating, = realistic, sophisticated.
Phase 2 is insufficient; we can’t simply exclusively rely on “pure”, “purist”, “too pure for the world” — the red youth = dogmatic simplistic “YOU MUST AGREE WITH HARDCORE NO-FREE-WILL/MONOPOSSIBILITY!”
Eternalism is a hard sell, because it doesn’t describe our experience as control agents.
William James refused to accept purist eternalism-thinking. He argued from *practical*; = balanced, like smiling Adam Eve in “eat tree of knowledge” panel of Great Canterbury Psalter.
Unblocked by Framing Transcendent Knowledge as More Experiencing Possibilism than Eternalism
Interaction w/ the Egodeath community has been helpful as always.
As of today, I am unblocked and solved (sufficiently deeply) some blockages.
Now I am able to lead / teach a group at my church the Egodeath theory, no longer overemphasize eternalism/ no-free-will/monopossibility.
It Took from 1985-2025 to Form an Adequate Model
I feel bad that it took me from 1985 to 2025 to develop the Egodeath theory to this well-balanced form. But, it was really hard to work out these recent nuanced points.
Marry freewill thinking & no-free-will/ eternalism-thinking: 3-level Model of Transformation
email 3: Feb. 15, 2025, 9:15 pm [3-level]
marriage of freewill thinking & no-free-will/ eternalism-thinking – interesting framing.
______________
The decision has been already made, sitting frozen in spacetime on the worldline ahead, merely waiting to be discovered – not created by the local control agent (the personal control agent) from among branching possibilities.
However, my focus today is, like Wm James tried to emphasize as “common sense” — the shape of our experience remains “effortful” as if carrying a load/burden; we experience the hard work of making a decision.
Even during the peak window of the mystic altered state, egoic freewill type thinking is used (practically).
Even during the peak window of the mystic altered state, when lid is lifted and hidden snake is revealed/ made perceptible [so that the maidens recoil in terror upon seeing their father with snake leg and fling selves down rocky mountain to their death], even then, egoic freewill type thinking is used (practically) (“I speak with impure lips”), even while experiencing no-free-will/ eternalism.
______________
Mystic esoteric ironic reversals or twists in Eden tree story: Bernward Door & Eadwine Great Canterbury Psalter folio f11 might both show that before “disobedient eating of fruit”, Adam & Eve were enlightened, then they gained non-enlightenment by eating the fruit, which cast the out of Eden.
Rev 22, last 2 pages of Bible, shows the actual, non-reversed… well that chapter is a twist, too [first noted now]: you are not allowed access to the fruit of tree of life / immortality until AFTER you wash robes, which requires ingesting fruit of tree of life / immortality.
So both Gen 2-3 & Rev 22 have an ironic twist compared to the actual sequence. [the following is expressed as myth, not literal/direct]:
Actual sequence, ironically tweaked in Gen 2-3 & Rev 22:
1. First, be predestined by snake to ingest fruit.
2. Repeat til robe washed, so that:
3. You are granted the right to go through gates to eat from tree of life.
Other example: Romans? Famous, Bible says it contradicts itself:
“You have free will, even though is God omnipotent, and even though those two are contradictory.
If you don’t like that, who are you, the clay/puppet, to argue against the potter/puppetmaster?”
Bible has that type of ironic twists of contrast between possibilism vs. eternalism, b/c both are true in some way/sense.
Affirming freewill thinking, in a way [transcendent freewill; 3-level]
Interesting, winning possibilities for a kind of “compatibilism” (eternalism + using, but not “relying on”, possibilism-thinking). Latter part = “qualified possibilism-thinking”.
One might profitably ask: “What kind of compatibilism does the Egodeath theory assert?”
It’s as if we move from Possibilism (egoic thinking) to Possibilism — with Eternalism also added, so that even if – in practice – we end up with seemingly 100% possibilism all the time, nevertheless that qualified possibilism-thinking is profoundly qualified and different, fundamentally not the same foundation as naive possibilism-thinking.
There’s a subtle pre/trans fallacy; a significant, major (even though subtle) distinction between the type of autonomous freewill thinking that we start with, vs. the adult-type virtual, qualified freewill thinking that we end up with.
I’d be a liar misleading people, were I to just say “The Egodeath theory repairs your freewill thinking, to make it work successfully”; “Adopt the Egodeath theory, because it gives you freewill thinking.”
But is seems maybe the truth comes surprisingly close to that or looking like that.
This is good, solves a problem:
If the Egodeath theory = rejecting freewill thinking and committing to eternalism (no-free-will) instead, many people will reject the Egodeath theory.
And that rigid conceptualization of the Egodeath theory clashes with the actual experience – like when I criticize a scholar (or criticize myself), that wrongly implies possibilism-thinking/ freewill thinking.
Inconsistent! Giving more attention to affirming freewill thinking (but in a qualified way) resolves that inconsistency.
My Marketing department can instead sell the tune, “You want the Egodeath theory, because it gives you a simple, great kind of Compatbilism.”
Have cake & eat it too.
Why be enlightened? Birds celebrate you? Liberated from labor? No. More subtle.
In a way, practically, the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism) gives you freewill thinking like always — like we instinctively desire — yet also affirms and gives access to, and usably provides as a tool – eternalism-thinking; no-free-will/monopossibility.
The Egodeath theory teaches you to USE freewill thinking but not RELY on freewill thinking during the mystic altered state.
Rely on eternalism-thinking instead – even while, in either state, “using” freewill thinking; “harm not the child” b/c you use child-thinking all the time, before & after & during enlightenment transformation.
We learn to – you could say — “use” freewill thinking and yet at the same time, when in the peak window of intense mystic altered state, we learn to “rely” on eternalism-thinking and repudiate (relying on as a foundation) freewill thinking.
/ end of email 2
Thinking About Controllership Uses Mostly Egoic Thinking [3-level]
Seemingly “little” transcendent experiences or puzzle revelations that are profound: for example:
I was rendered “speechless” in the mystic altered state, “speaking w/ impure lips”, I realized, when I first thought:
“Here’s how you need to think about control” and then I retorted “Who is this ‘you’ — an egoic control agent — I’m presuming to talk about and give advice to?”
There’s no escape from child-thinking; the egoic personal control system – even while the mind adds mature, more developed thinking.
Ken Wilber says we retain child developmental structures (that would be the egoic personal control system) but dis-identify from them (bible: Abraham angel: “harm not the child”) and always continue to use freewill thinking.
Deny and Affirm Egoic Freewill Branching-Steering Control Power
Transcendent Knowledge empowers Your Free Will; Revelation
You Are the Freewill-Powered Creator of Infinite Universes [freewill; 3-level]
Is freewill the case? Yes and no, in some specific way.
Very much yes, freewill is the case; the egoic personal control system is what we always use – chop wood/ carry water/ use egoic thinking, after just like before enlightenment; even after the enlightenment/ revelation that egoic thinking is kind of false in a way.
I can, sort of insincerely, leverage the popular love of freewill thinking, by emphasizing how we are always experiencing in the form of freewill model, even when no-free-will/monopossibility is revealed.
It feels insincere like I’m promising ppl egoic freeewill power – but there’s much practical truth or reality or presence of freewill local control agency.
Eventually we employ that way of thinking yet – in Ken Wilber “transcendence” fashion – we disidentify from that lower way of thinking.
I retort to Ken Wilber, “who is this ‘we’ that dis-identifies with childish developmental structures?” (a 1986-1987 era question of mine).
I instead speak in terms of “the mind models x” rather than “we think thus & such way” or “you learn x” or “you revise your model”.
My main point about freewill: I can – with a little bit of insincere motive? – leverage & take advantage of ppl’s love of freewill thinking, by emphasizing or hyping the fact that after revelation experience of block universe no-free-will/monopossibility, we ALWAYS rely on childish thinking, like a donkey; there simply is no other practical alternative.
That’s the shape of experience, that we’re given; that is not going to change, not even during peak mystic state.
Thus my phrase — nuanced & complex: “qualified possibilism-thinking”.
I give you — grand delivery — QUALIFIED freewill, which we use after, during, & before revelation of eternalism; revelation of the cosmic heimarmene-prison, fatedness, no-free-will/monopossibility; block-universe eternalism.
We end up w/ both legs/foundations/ world models.
Even in the altered state/ loose cognition, even in the midst of lifting lid of basket to reveal snake engine level underneath, the cista mystica basket of the Mysteries, even then, practically we HAVE to say to ourselves “I need to think of the world this way”, which is saturated with “unclean lips”, egoic assumption network; our experiencing is always in the form of an egoic, autonomous, freewill based controller – even during revelation of 2-level control & no-free-will/ block-universe eternalism ({snake frozen in rock}).
freewill: quantum mysticism is folk magic. Some hilarious slides in video, showing that QUANTUM = MAGIC [= naive freewill thinking, = branching possibilities w/ autonomous control though the reality is 2-level control & monopossibility non-branching]
Key question: WHY do people make a religion out of Quantum Physics? What is the MOTIVATION for the popularity of Quantum Manyworlds Branching? Ans: freewill empowerment/ reification. as if: “THE GRAND MYSTIC REVELATION OF FREE WILL EGOIC EMPOWERMENT”; AT EVERY MOMENT, YOU ARE CREATOR OF INFINITE UNIVERSES”.
I’m pretty sure critics have exclaimed & pointed out: quantum manyworlds is the insane extreme of egoic inflation!
Take the untransformed egoic personal control system (naive freewill thinking) and tell it “you have the power to create infinite [ie branching] universes at every moment”.
I’m glad when I hear the word ‘branching’ used during a critique of Quantum Manyworlds.
I recently finally got Minkowski’s book, and his 1908 spacetime model (that developed a math formalism for Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity aka theory of invariance), and it is striking how the iron block universe model has no trace of manyworlds branching; Minkowski spacetime = non-branching.
It is remarkable how perfectly/ cleanly:
* Minkowski spacetime = nonbranching eternalism. I suspect 4D ideas from late 1800s = same; non-branching.
*note, though, in a qualified way, after enlightenment, we end up with VIRTUAL egoic branching-steering power, egoic personal control system — but now consciously recognized as virtual-only.
After mental model transformation, our thinking remains “thoroughly” egoic; branching; autonomous control re: how it’s shaped, how we subjectively experience – yet, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
See Wilber concept “pre/trans fallacy”.
After enlightenment, and during enlightenment transformation in the peak window of very very very loose cognition, the mind always uses the egoic personal control system — but, now qualified by the revelation of cista mystica snake hidden in basket, the SECRET MYSTERY REVELATION of the uncontrollable higher controller / the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts/ the control-thought inserter.
The mind’s fountain in a rock cave in the mind, wellspring of thoughts observed during authentic meditation which is none other than Psil. meditation, is “mystery”.
The challenging thought, leading to the treasure of maturation: What control-thought will emerge from the wellspring source of thoughts? A terrifying dragon guard gate keeper?
It’s a mystery; THE SOURCE OF OUR CONTROL THOUGHTS IS THE REAL SECRET MYSTERY.
What year the seminal book The Dancing Wu Li Masters?
I was surprised Prof. Dave said Quantum Mystm took off in 1990s – wrong, Ken Wilber was separating pychospiritual development from Physics (quantum or otherwise) way back in 1980s – Wilber’s books cautioning about Physics vs. spirituality.
Few years ago was looking at book in store, kind of wish i got it, about the Pop reception of QM; the history of Pop Quantum Mysticism, and how some Physicists resented co-optation of Physics by Pop Spir’y.
Egoic freewill vs. transcendent freewill
The 3-level Model beats 2-level Model — in which respect?
re: describing the reesulting mental model? even that’s an overgeneralization.
When I picture advocating 2-level / “eternalism”, i envision advocating no-free-will.
instead: best: (?): advocate “eternalism and possibilism“. –> “compatibilism”
On one level (we consciously come to know), eternalism is the case. On one level (the shape of our experience), our experience is shaped in the form of possibilism. Teh eternalism part of the mind is revealed , underlying the mind. there are THREE things: matter; eternalism; consciuosness.
Boring Philosophy says there are 2 levels/ layers/ planes/ options:
matter
consciousness
Tauroctony-Related Images
Cautes: {right foot down}, torch up he is making fatedness visible; pointing flame to fixed stars. Cautopates: {left foot down}, torch down making percepitble egoic thinking left foot down. able to perceive egoic thinking, from transcendent vantage point.
Cautes: {right foot down}, torch down– that is bad but i can force it to be up by other tauroctonies, and he’s making visible right foot. Cautopates: {left foot down}, torch down
nobody ever notes that “crossed legs” = bent legs! 8:54 pm Feb. 18, 2025
I can use these correlections of which leg corssed and torch up vs down, to force other images to be what i want:
cista mystica snake basket engine under the hood, kills “you” when see it yet “you” fully remain
Ken Wilber writes “When you reach the next level of psychospiritual development, you no longer identify with your previous-level mental structure” / psychospiritual structure.
psychospiritual development psd
“you” “no longer identify with” that “you” as foundation.
HARD TO DESCRIBE! how egoic thinking dies and yet lives… resurrects, and no longer dies. [good roll there – right vector]
MY EGOIC THINKING DIED AND DISPROVED AND REPUDICATED AND YET MY EGOIC THINKING LIVES ON. i have been redeemed, purified, waashed clean – i still have my dirty child thinking as if possibilism –
i am no longer in my sin and yet my thinking is same egoic as ever, yet qualified; guilt is there but not there, we are fallen sinful yet we are forgiven … i forgive my still using egoic thinking.
I get full enlightenment including the realizztion that i inherently always think in terms of egoic, just must REALIZE that you are alaways using false egoic thinking, but that is now ok – wasn’t before, but is now —
i have changed my relationship to my sinful nature; my sinful nature remains, now without pollution.
I now bring my egoic possibilism-thinking into/ through the guarded gate doorway requiring passage sacrifice payment, into city palace garden kingdom, inherently dirty yet now pure, without pollution, my egoic false possibilism-thinking
I was dirty and dirty, but now i am dirty and cleansed.
I had egoic thinking and was not aware of that, but now I have egoic thinking and am aware of that. Therefore I am pure. You never get rid of egoic thinking! You merely qualify it. I try remembver theology terms….
I spoke with impure lips. Now I speak purely because I am aware that I speak with impure lips, thus my lips are pure and I speak only the words that God puts in my mouth.
Balaam Image
Features:
{right foot down} , = donkey rear feet down
bad, L foot of angel not down; donkey front legs not down.
blade in R hand
donkey turn look right = remember
donkey is made by angel to look / see higher self riding it
{mushroom hem} in balaam, 3 in angel
R wing/limb touches L side of Bal’s head
Bal perceives riding donkey
vine yard path no way to turn L or R, cannot steer away from fated encounter w angel of death
Psalters have Balaam.
Mytheme Notation: {nested braces}
9:47 pm Feb. 18, 2025 world’s first first-time use of {nested braces {nested mushrooms 9:48: 0 sec world’s first exact-second timestamp — bird nest Eadwine folio# which is used in Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.
a short form: Foraging in Wrong Forest fwf
long form: Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” hug2024
short form (best): Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article hfwa
WHEN CHOOSING BETWEEN TYPING VS. VOICE RECORDER to do idea development, BEST of all IS VOICE RECORDER READING ALOUD WHAT I TYPED.
The revealed alternative to mental constructs is eternalism, not “matter”
I say 3 things / levels / layers/ realms are at play, and what is shockingly alternative to mental constructs is not matter, but rather, revealed eternalism:
The contrast of import is NOT mind vs. matter, but mind vs. underlying level producing mind; by which don’t mean “matter”, but rather, source of control thoughts, lift lid of cista mystica to see {snake frozen in rock}.
What’s revealed by loose cognition is not “matter”, but rather, eternalism. todo insert image: Mithras dining with
Use Egoic Thinking but Repudiate it as the Source of Thoughts
Voice Recording
Feb. 18, 2025: good voice recording today, file “VOX_TK_6305.wav” (short): we totally repudiate possibilism, and yet, our thinking remains, at the main level, thoroughly, totally completely possibilism-premised.
{altar temple sacrifice priest clean hands child ram ox at the door guard payment price of entry}
The price of passage through the maturation/transformation gate: your first childish self; the personal control system model, which YOU NOW USE AND CONTINUE TO USE AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT.
CHILD THINKING – Ken Wilber: Transcend and include very centrally the lower child-self egoic thinking.
EGOIC THINKING is NOW SEEN FROM ABOVE:
YOU CAN SEE YOUR PLEADING CHILD MODEL from a higher than usual vantage point.
RIDING THE DONKEY
now made to stand [??eg f177 row 1 middle?]
You make your lower child self work while realizing aware of the helpless thought-receiver.
We always have to use personal child mode of thinking, yet matured too, YOU HAVE BEEN FORGED IN THE FIRE.
You have been purified in the flames.
The salamander/ mind ENDURES FIRE BY TRANSFORMING into PHOENIX.
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”: Huggins argues: The man is trying to kill the salamander by roasting it in the flames.
The salamander endures fire by dying and transforming into a phoenix.
The phoenix is the salamander: child-thinking continues always, but transformed to account for eternalism; the helpless thought-receiver, a conduit for the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts: the control-thought inserter.
Now you are SAME OLD YOU; you are a control agent as always, in a kind of autonomous virtual agent, now recognized consciously to be virtual-only.
kind of mode.
Afterward, the mind also knows that revealed, the hidden secret level underlying under the hood, is eternalism-based. Our the personal control system is eternalism-powered possibilism-thinking.
The way in which 2-level beats 3-level: it’s simpler: gnosis = enlightenment = satori = Transcendent Knowledge = transformation from “possibilism to eternalism”.
How to fully repudiate child thinking, repudiated relying on it in a certain way.
2-level, dependent control 2ldc
monolithic, autonomous control mcac
CHANGE THE WAY I RELY ON 2-level control autonomous changed to conscious of virtual only local power underneath is now known the snake engine frozen in rock.
You that THE SNAKE carved IN ROCK; a rock-carved CISTA MYSTICA SNAKE BASKET, representing YOUR LIFE WORLD LINE OF CONTROL THOUGHTS REVEALED TO BE HIDDEN IN the fountain in the rock cave
Transformed, qualified MENTAL MODEL
The LOWER CHILD control SYSTEM IS PERCEIVED AND causes A CERTAIN TRANSFORMATION OF CHILD THINKING.
Retain and use, but transcend, the egoic personal control system.
The more the Mystery Religions reveal no-free-will, fatedness, the more they obsess on way to transcend fatedness.
How to sacrifice the lower child temporary via the holy deep capability potential that the mind has inbuilt , the main effect of Psilocybin mushrooms transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Always you rely on egoic control , cut off stab bull cut off, repudiate, cut branches, cut off the child way of thinking.
That way of thinking GROWS a BEARD; you are the same guy, but now have grown a beard; the boy matures into man, it’s the same person.
Puberty transformation: Ganymede = you on your way to Psilocybin maturation transformation to a mature Psilocybinized, Psilocybin-transformed.
I’ve been psychedelicized; experienced; loosecog’d.
Cognition loosened, awareness lifted and moved back, to see your lower, PLEADING CHILD SACRIFICED SELF, WILLING CIHLD MADE OVERPOWERED.
image: Saturn with scythe over child in quadriga.
Ganymede beautiful youth being now brought to climax altar control formal demonstration of child power ending revealing adult eternalism-thinking.
Adult thinking retains and uses egoic childish thinking, but add beard now and always, riding RIDING EGO DONKEY originally, above the donkey.
Mind wasn’t perceiving king Jesus riding the egoic childish thinking donkey spread through time along rock snake.
NIV Isaac: “Do not lay a hand on the boy”
KJB Isaac: “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him”
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: [The Lord Will Provide] as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.
15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
What is involved in repudiating something while entirely relying on it?
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
{king hung from branch} more specific than {king hung from tree}
Prince Absalom Hung from a Tree/ BRANCH, not tree, branch IF [11:04 Feb. 18, 2025] forget “king hung from tree”; it’s king hung from branch [11:04 Feb. 18, 2025]
[11:49 pm Feb. 18, 2025] blade is pre – spear Jesus’ side focus on {blade}, & especially EXPECT blade somewhere in piciture; CAN U FIND THE CEREAL BOX PUZZLE: IN THIS IMAGE CAN YOU FIND:
{branch}:
{blade}:
[YI}:
L vs R:
stability:
The “Motif Inventory” POV: Count the Key Motifs, eg {blade}
= {blade} is present? you Y or N?
checklist: the checklist POV game technique view
has a {blade}? __ Y
has a {fire}? __ Y
has a {king|prince}? __ Y
has a {snake}? __ Y
has {wood}? __ Y
has {YI}? __ Y new usage type. similar to earlier tonight {foo {bar}} nested nested mythemes; implies mytheme chain like
kts from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}
good one: king wine snake means what?
king wine snake k…w…s
from {king steering in tree} through {mixed wine at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock} kws
Next, add nested braces:
from {king {steering} in tree} through {mixed {wine} at banquet} to {snake-puppet frozen in rock}
11:54 pm Feb. 18, 2025 – notation.
{rock child ram altar priest clean temple}
YES we have a {clean} motif: white sheet at temple walls door – IT MEANS CLEAN! Pure, not polluted.
FROM “motif collection” POV!
That’s really what I now discovered: the motif inventory POV, like done in the branching-message mushroom trees article for each picture.
We Must Assume Medieval Artists Have Complete Understanding of Psilocybin Transformation
Medieval Artists Fully Understood Psilocybin Transformation, and Mytheme Motif Analogies Describing It
I won’t use ‘pilzbaum’; use common words; mushroom-trees.
Mushroom-tree artists fully understood Psilocybin transformation and {mushroom hem}
but true hallmark is mushroom-trees they are a sure constant guide unlike walburga 1-off themes healing motif is present yes or no?
In what way is the {healing} motif present?
In what way is the {branch|wood|tree} motif present?
In what way is the {blade} motif present?
{fire} motif is present yes or no?
{child of ruler} motif is present yes or no?
{branch} motif is present yes or no?
{cut branch} motif is present yes or no?
{tree} motif is present yes or no?
Is the compound motif {king hung on branching tree while {right {foot} down} present?
[compound, nested braces, etc] – & pov, is motif x present in a list and a group
king
child
blade
fire
tree
branch
rock
dead
sacrifice
altar
doorway gate guarded gate
The list of every motif & combination & chained & nested subsets in total mental construct m-c myc myh To what extent mushrooms in Christianity? the egodeath lexicon haha ok b/c only claims KEY motifs, not ALL: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/15/mytheme-list/ and the name i am looking for is
the Key Mythemes catalog kmc
so:
list every motif that’s in the Key Mythemes catalog then POV checklist is each motif present in this art image?
Is mushroom-tree present yes or no? __
Is branch cut YI present yes or no? __
Expect {fire}, is {fire} motif present in any form yes or no? __ yes naturally ype yep, found it in the form of __
Also along with that I expect {blade}, is {blade} motif present in any form yes or no? __ yes of course In what form? __
more extreme framing of qQ Q
The Egodeath Motif Lens for Viewing Mushroom Art
Great Format POV: The Egodeath Motif Lens for Viewing Mushroom Art.
12:12 am Feb. 19, 2025
What form does the {fire} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {blade} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {dead} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {kill} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {ruler} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {ruler} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {ride donkey|horse} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {king’s son} motif employ in this image? __
[ah! why not say prince very much? b/c king’s son is superior myth – what make… ruler prince king’s son riding donkey.
take Psilocybin in order to sacrifice the child on the rock altar disprove its foundation source, disempower yourself by revealing eternalism to yourself lift the lid YOUR CHILD DIES BECAUSE YOU LIFTED THE SIDE. LID.
He is described in the Hebrew Bible as being exceptionally beautiful, as is his sister.[2] I
Ideal Prompting checklist for top-10 mythemes to expect / anticipate & inventory in Crucifixion art
Checklist for top-10 mythemes to expect in Crucifixion art
How is the {see} motif present? ___________
How is the {mushroom} motif present? ___________
How is the {branching} motif present? ___________
How is the {handedness} motif present? ___________
How is the {stability} motif present? ___________
How is the {rock} motif present? ___________
How is the {stand on right foot} motif present? ___________
How is the {stand on right leg} motif present? ___________
How is the {snake} motif present? ___________
How is the {non-branching} motif present? ___________
How is the {ram} motif present? ___________
How is the {lamb} motif present? ___________
How is the {son} motif present? ___________
How is the {wood} motif present? ___________
How is the {fire} motif present? ___________
How is the {branching} motif present? ___________
How is the {king} motif present? ___________
How is the {{key mythemes}} motif present? ___________
condensed form once you get the damn point:
Redefine “Features means the list of expe
Features:
{see}:
{mushroom}:
{branching}:
{handedness}:
{stability}:
{rock}:
{stand on right foot}:
{stand on right leg}:
{snake}:
{non-branching}:
{ram}:
{lamb}:
{son}:
{wood}:
{fire}:
{branching}:
{king}:
{key mythemes}}:
: they are key, therefore, hafta have em all b/c they are “key” i thought you wantsed “i only n I ONLY NEED TO LIST THE KEY [MOST KEY OF KEY OF KEY, OP a top-10 mytheme a top-10 mytheme t t m
What form does the {immature} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {child} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {ram} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {snake} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {cut, repudiate} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {son|ram} motif employ in this image? __
branch caught power horns of ram helpless CAUGHT no power because of its power
that’s differnt grammar in brace ever used. {cut, repudiate}
What form does the {branch} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {cut branch} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {cut right branch} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {left vs. right} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {handedness} motif employ in this image? __
What form does the {tree} motif employ in this image? __
offering: ram, ox, first child
Psilocybin transformation
Psilocybin transformation px
possibilism-thinking
{mushrooms}
{branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
How to hang your prince ruler king on a tree on branch, king hung from a BRANCH
king, youths, cut branch, sacrifice lamb ram child king on tree branch branching cross trident L beam of wood cross R beam eternalism balance is center King of the Jews the metaphysical jews by interpreting correctly the motifs all are
Psilocybin transformation analogy-land
As my Dec. 2, 2013 chalkboard video: being analogically Jewish in your heart is a state of mind.
To say I am Jewish: Paul’s circumcision of the heart in analogy-land.
I my spirit body circumcised broad general populace in hellenism wanted God fearer.
God-Fearers Circumcised per Paul: We Are Grafted into the Vine of the Promise to Abraham We are spiritual children analogous to Abraham Christians are Jewish by cirm of heart by transformation from possibilism to eternalism
Late dating of Jewish writings like 400 BC. Not 1000 BC; 400 BC.
We assert to be Jewish is to read mythic analogy of correctly interpret Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, that’s the thing that matters to be analogically children of Abraham, to be in the promise.
Bodily circcumcision does not matter.
Literal bloodline doesn’t matter.
Esoteric interpreters who comprehend analogy for Psilocybin transformation are {children of Abraham}.
That is the only {law} and we {sacrifice our son} Isaac.
We are in Isaac we are in Jesus the son lamb of God will be provided for us
God will provide the sacrifice.
The IDEA OF / correct interpretation, grasp conceptual analogy, grasp {rock altar w/ snake carved in it} (with {fire branches} & {knife blade}), snake on a T cross.
Those who believe that being jewish is state of mind = Christianity , no temple, no worship, no service, no altar, no priest, no sacrifice other than:
Sacrifice = Repudiate treating the illusion of monolithic, autonomous control as anything more than virtual experience
Repudiate treating the illusion of monolithic, autonomous control as anything more than virtual experience.
Christians Seen as Atheists because no temple, no worship, no blood sacrifice, no sermons, no service, no priest, no rock altar with snake carved
FLAMES AND BLADE + FLAME + BLADE CUT BRANCHING CLEAN HANDS blade cuts brandhcing {blade} {fire} {cut} {branch} king hung from branch:
given that key motifs are:
king
death
tree
branch
outcome: dead king hung on a branch
TREE IS KEY MOTIF.
BRANCH IS KEY MOTIF KING IS KEY MOTIF. DEATH IS KEY MOTIF.
HOW TO JOIN?
Jesus did way once for all analogical psychedelic eternalismis it’s js just a tale those who know it is a tale about transformation from possibilism to eternalism Jesus we are in Jesus’ analogical sacrifice.
… servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”
Below, I’m not serious that all these motifs are present; the point is this mentality/ POV:
{donkey}: CHECK.
{blade}: CHECK.
{lamb}: CHECK.
{child}: CHECK.
{doorway|gate}: CHECK.
{doorway|gate guarded}: CHECK.
{gate guarded monster}: CHECK.
{treasure}: CHECK.
{branch}: CHECK.
{doorway}: CHECK.
{worship}: CHECK.
{phallic garment}: CHECK.
{mushroom hem}: CHECK.
Need to cut off the child thinking fully to be clean thinking, consistent, perceptive, coherent thinking on a new basis source of control thoughts power overpowered by the creator of my control thoughts infinite years outside of time
Sanctification, justification of egoic thinking cleans; THE RIGHTEOUS EGO.
The Righteous Ego: Gain righteous justified sanctified purified ego power possibilism-thinking, virtual freewill, via Psilocybin transformation
VIRTUAL FREEWILL POWER AUTONOMY CONTROL egoic steeering among branching possibilities virtually justified.
BECOME JUSTIFIED IN USING EGOIC THINKING.
{worship}: CHECK.
{rock}: CHECK.
{rock altar}: CHECK.
{fire}: CHECK.
{clean pure no pollution}: CHECK.
{snake}: CHECK.
{mushroom}: CHECK.
{YI}: CHECK.
{YI}: CHECK.
How is the {circumcision cut branch branch tree phass phallus as branch tree coming from phallus branching from cut the to cut the branch is to I as God declar swear by myself I see your child thinking I see your giving being made
“I see that YOU DID THIS THING”
I see that YOU DID THIS THING OF WILLING TO DESTROY
You accessed the capability of climax to perceive and disrupt/disprove the CHILD — THE PERSONAL CONTROL SYSTEM — ON THE {FIRE ALTAR BLADE CHILD RAM CAUGHT IN BRANCHING THICKET}; dead power.
{gate, pay the price of passage, offer the child = lamb on altar as payment at the temple clean curtains doorway to be in stable structure of rock } motif present: CHECK.
Bible con’t: Isaac
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it.
He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. WOOD SPOTTED! FIRE AND BLADE! 11:24 pm Feb. 18, 2025
{fire, wood/branches, blade, child, rock}
Isaac
Skull of Adam at Base of the Cross
Piling Up Major Bible Motifs & Figures at the Cross
Lamb motifs tie-in Isaac theme. Moses sign brass serpent lifted up: PILING UP MAJOR MOTIFS:
Adam: skull at cross.
Isaac: Jesus = lamb of God.
Jesus = God’s son, sacrificed, giving life like ram caught in thicket gave life and enlightenment co-existing, for Isaac.
Moses: Jesus must be lifted up like Moses’ brass serpent on a pole.
Sacrifice the Son: Is there a rock at the cross? [yes in some diagrammatic art]
Where was base of cross Jesus where was Jesus crucified at Calvary (calvaria; latin for ‘skull’); Golgotha, which means {place of the skull}
calvaria latin skull – the word {skull} in latin
the latin word that means skull is Calvary whicvh is English for calvaria which means skull.
How does the {fire} motif appear? lantern, field of flames into the sky
How does the {lantern with square liberty cap top with mushroom topper} motif appear? It appears in the form of a lantern with square liberty cap top with mushroom topper.
How does the {Amanita} motif appear? apple
How does the {snake} motif appear? snake bringing apple
How does the {rock} motif appear? obelisk / stone whipping post
How does the {clean} motif appear? shroud –
How does the {ladder step phases climibing to stars} motif appear? ladder sky
How does the {blade} motif appear? sword, spear
How does the {right foot forward} motif appear? _________
How does the {foo} motif appear? _________
How does the {obscure fatedness} motif appear? dice
“There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:
“The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve [jusify, make ego righteous, make ego absoolved, the egoic personal control system.
Make the the egoic personal control system righteous/ justified/ absolved of childhood branching autonmoouy thinking] us of our sins through His death.
f177 row 2 – clean cloth shroud OSSUARY DEAD CHILD RAM LEFT FOOT OPPOSITE ARM CROSSED FROM TREE, contradicting teh good ctb. cut right branch row 1 L and in row 2 so let’s trashcan the row 1
Crop by Michael Hoffman – sop carsophagus stone ossuary clean cloth shroud corspe. DEAD: CHECK. COUNTERING CORRECT BRANCHING? CHECK. LEFT ARM OCCULDED, OPPOSITE OF right visually cut branch row 1 L row 2 L.
Conjoined motifs: {mushroom} {secure building stable}
store your mushroom Cubensis locked in stable building tower take weigh 2 bowls of Cubensis to finish being completely cut off dead coffin
ossuary clean cloth shroud corpse arms signalling opposite of tree YI tree row 2 L by fire monster ram stand left foot connected opposite/ inverse to standing stand on right foot held up by God.
Lay not thine hand upon the lad – Do not lay a hand on the boy
NIV Isaac
10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
Do not lay a hand on the boy
Do not do anything to him You have not withheld from God your only son
Now I know that you fear God
KJB Isaac: “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him”
NIV Isaac: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him.”
NIV: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns.
He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offeringinstead of his son.
14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. [VS SKULL THE PLACE OF THE SKULL GOLGOTHA CALVARIA SKULL and cross bones of Adam, and the apple and snake.
CALVARY ] [THIS PLACE IS CALLED “THE LORD WILL PROVIDE” IN Psilocybin LOOSE COGNITION TO SHORT CUT OFF CHILD THINKING CUT BRANCH FUTURE TREE CONTROL STEERING CIRCUMCISE BRANCH OF FUTURE CUT OFF CHILD HARM NOT…
And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that becauseyou have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have
God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Do not lay your hand upon the boy. the donkey
Do not to anything to your child thinking. your donkey
because now I God know that you fear God, seeing you did not withhold your only son –
and theres a ram lamb caught in thicket boy child steersman foundation king hung from tree prince ruler steersman hung FROM BRANCH on branch of tree
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Lay not thine hand upon the lad,
Neither do thou any thing unto him:
for now I know that thou fearest God,
seeing thou hast not withheld thy son.
seeing you
{seeing}
{father sees son}
awareness high elevated to see from a different, higher vantage point, the lower, child thinking, and its capability of hang dead sacr king in on branch tree rock fire blade tree ruler child ram ox rock altar temple priest
{clean, pure, not polluted}
{see, look, perceive, revealed, revelation, not occulded} {lift lid} {look inside} and because of what is seen, {die} involving {snake, rock, fire, blade}
egoic possibilism-thinking — ram caught in thicket; child thinking caught in branching steering tree; sacrificed on the altar of wood fire rock blade.
{rock altar at temple door clean hands clean cloth curtains drape walls cut branch {ride donkey|horse}, looking
the donkey is looking rider looking angel of message-entity agent angel being of death the message of death of child thinking and message of continued always thinking in child terms now & future harm no– NIV ANGEL : HARM NOT:
NIV: Harm not the lad:
KJB: Harm not the lad:
thine only son from me.
(Thou hast not withheld thy son from me.)
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.
15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
What Is “done this thing” such that BECAUSE you have — i promise by me — done this thing [done to you by me]
because you did this thing and did not withhold your only son — solve for “this thing” done to you that you did
this thing that you were made to want to do
what is this thing you did, you willing to kill your son to control integrity upon being be abel to see son as lower seen from vanta SEEING CHILD THINKING FROM ADULT RIDING VANTAGE POINT seeing
savior figure lifting his chosen up out from rock cosmos
that you were made to want to doas maturation control climaxtic death of child self as foundation and ?WIL b wil kw ken vil ken wilber covers??
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
The Personal Control System’s Thinking Is freewill-shaped and eternalism based; no-free-will based
freewill shaped and no-free-will based: purification = revelation of the no-free-will basis of freewill, and freewill expeirencing is the personal control system ;
the personal control system is freewill shaped, and no-free-will based — whether you are …
Summary
In the enlightened mind, the mind is aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.
In the unenlightened mind, the mind is not aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.
the donkey ridden = the freewill-shaped personal control system based on no-free-will
the {rider} = the part or aspect of the mind that becomes aware that the freewill-shaped personal control system is based on no-free-will.
Images: Entry into Jerusalem [1]
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown Crop by Michael Hoffman
Entry into Jerusalem eij
In the unenlightened mind, the freewill-shaped personal control system is not conscious of being based on no-free-will.
freewill experiencing based on no-free-will
quite good egodeath theory lexicon 👍 7:56 pm Feb. 17, 2025: egoic freewill, transcendent freewill — the day i invented “transcendent freewill”
A 2-phase model:
egoic freewill
transcendent freewill
A 3-phase model:
possibilism
eternalism
qualified possibilism
conceptual vocabulary / lexicon: ‘lexicon’ is a tech term. ‘vocab’ is better, usually.
egodeath theory lexicon
control vortex
explanatory framework
quickly efficiently juggling shortcut assignments [keep for historical record – my devmt of such technique has been crucial]
Qualified Possibilism; Transcendent Possibilism
Transcendent Possibilism transpersonal psychology transpersonal psychology the theory of psychedelic possibilism
psychedelic transcendent possibilism
Amazing: I entered 20 terms today, but not this one?! This term is it! qualified possibilism
transformed possibilism
psychedelic possibilism
the most direct and speciiific : transcendent possibilism — b/c “qualified / modified/ transformed” is vague.
even “psychedelic” is vague.
transpersonal psychology = t p BAD, REASSIGN trps [keep, historical record; don’t clean up or delete]
give priority to egodeath theory lexicon conceptual lexicon, not external terms.
“Mushroom-tree features” include deer & snake; cut branch; handedness; balance, fruit, 4 fruits, 4 limbs, cross-behind; {cut right trunk}, heel of foot, etc.
Multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree is essential – Classifying Whole Trees Based on Branches Under Crown is Not Key Relevance – Must Use More Granular Feature-Analysis than Samorini & Huggins Crude First Attempts at Classification Schemes to Produce Comprehension
6320 good voice recording on this topic of arg from prej + Letcher defeats not mushroom imagery in Christian art, but, defeats instead, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Magic Dirty Use of “completely formulaic” is a Strategy of hitting every angle, relying on them all being soaked with Prejudice: “Formulaic/ multiple/ mainstream, therefore not mushroom”
“Completely Formulaic” Is the “Argument from Prejudice” Fallacy, relying on gullible audience’s unconscious prejudice
Non-Sequitur-Fest Gallery: <Any Fact You Can Think of>”, therefore, not mushroom”
Non Sequitur: Variations in Branching Form, “Therefore”, Not Purposeful Mushroom Imagery
Browns’ Misrepresentation: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms (like the ones shown here in Day 3) are found in the first 100 pages” of the Psalter
Huggins’ “Criteria for Deciding” Is a Tautology & Fake Put-On: “If” a Mushroom-Tree Has any Tree Features? The “If” Is Nonsensical, Because by Definition, All Mushroom-Trees Have Tree Features
Summary: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree
A tree in art has L & R sides. Two sides. There are two mental models of control and possibilities.
Map:
{L foot/ L branch} = possibilism-thinking (branching possibilities), with monolithic, autonomous control. Unstable during loose cognition.
{R foot/ R branch} = eternalism-thinking (non-branching possibilities), with 2-level, dependent control.
Eternalism-thinking is stable during Psilocybin-induced loose cognition.
Get through gate immortality fruit tree.
I have died yet I live, virtual vs. actual source of control thoughts, & possibilities steering, recognized consciously even though always continue to rely on the egoic developmental phase-adjusted / phase-transformed VERSION OF EGOIC CHILD THINKING.
We now have childthinking v2 = adult thinking, MATURE EGOIC THINKING.
Intro/Motivation for this Page: Explain Branching in Mushroom-Trees, Examine Huggins’ Arguments
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”: Section 3: Schematized Trees.
Section 3: Schematized Trees is about branching forms in mushroom-trees.
He heavily uses Panofsky; he channels Panofsky and treats him ludicrously in the Conclusion section, the w the weak point of the article, the “because Panosfky would say so” fallacy.
Original titles of this page
Y Branches Under Mushroom-Tree Cap, Two Legs for Psychedelic Virtual Freewill
Trident or Y Branches Under Mushroom-Tree Cap, 3-Phase Beats 2-Phase Model
Ronald Huggins asks MICA Affirmers: Explain both types of branching in mushroom-trees holding up the cap:
YO or trident-O: two or three beams holding up the crown.
A tangle of branches.
I see mushroom-trees as a free-form combining of tree features and mushroom features. It would be biased to read the combination as simply tree or simply mushroom.
The Egodeath theory, including the mytheme theory, provides the perfect, correct interpretation: what is being communicated is not simply tree or simply mushroom, but rather, peak altered state experience of branching vs. non-branching effects of Psilocybin.
Panofsky as mouthpiece for Huggins in the Conclusion section of Foraging in Wrong Forest offers a false dilemma; both options are wrong.
All of the “criteria” that are “articulated” by Hug using Erwin Panofsky as a “starting point”, are wrong and clueless.
If the mushroom-tree has any tree features — which IT ALWAYS DOES BY DEFINITION — then (by this “articulation of criteria”, which means nothing but “LET ME EXPRESS MY PREJUDICED, IGNORANT, BIASED READING, USING Erwin Panofsky AS MY MOUTHPIECE”, every mushroom-tree is always “a tree” and never “a mushroom”.
Pilzbaum artists do not mean “tree”, and they do not mean “mushroom”, so both of Panofsky-Huggins’ bunk options are bunk.
A mushroom-tree means psychedelic eternalism; transformation of the mental model of control from possibilism (branching) to eternalism (non-branching).
Entheogen scholars attempt classification of branching forms: Giorgio Samorini, Ronald Huggins
[Mar. 1, 2025]
Giorgio Samorini 1998 2-col table – based around our sacred Plaincourault fresco, and Ronald Huggins 2024 likewise.
Everyone treats the most important mushroom-tree as the Plaincourault fresco, the master mushroom-tree. It is rare: Amanita-styled.
The Plaincourault fresco has trident form, of an unusual, atypical type: 3 beams arms holding up the crown.
Against these classification attempts, both which are bifold, I approach branching form with a different emphasis: contrasting branching vs. non-branching, and contrasting L vs. R., mapped to L foot and R foot, so we have classic motif Entry into Jeru youth in tree, weight on straight R leg on a cut branch, L leg bent and resting on a branching point; similar w/ hands mapping.
The important thing is not to divide mushroom-trees into two types, based on how the crown is held up.
The important thing is to see emphasis of branching vs. non-branching, and connect that with the related motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
In the Egodeath theory, in the mytheme theory, the project is not to divide mushroom-trees into two classes. Instead of constructing that type of classifcation scheme – what form of branching is under the crown of a mushroom-tree — what the Egodeath theory does is, and what the artists are doing is, free-form creative elements of mushrooms and trees, mixed with handedness, … yes these freeform creative unique combinations happen to include YO or trident-O or X cross-behind or tangle of branches. But classifying WHOLE TREES is a little misguided. Discuss the branching form, without starting with whole-tree classification into two types.
“Thus, we have discovered a precise typological differentiation among mushroom-trees in Christian art which corresponds with the variation in naturally occurring psychoactive mushrooms (cf. Fig. 20).”
Samorini makes this dubious & irrelevant claim:
Mushroom-trees that match the branching form of the Plaincourault fresco are amanita. Amanita-styled mushroom-trees have branching like the Plaincourault fresco.
Mushroom-trees that match the branching form of Saint Martin fresco are Psilocybin/ Liberty Cap. Liberty Cap-styled mushroom-trees have branching like the Saint Martin’s fresco.
Figure 20. Samorini doesn’t label the columns. Column 1: Amanita Mushroom Trees Column 2: Psilocybin Mushroom Trees
“Mushroom-tree features” include deer & snake; cut branch; handedness; balance, fruit, 4 fruits, 4 limbs, cross-behind; {cut right trunk}, heel of foot, etc.
[Mar. 1, 2025]
To broaden analysis of branching motifs, include {deer branching antlers} vs non-branching {snake}. Why is snake & deer often w/ a mushroom-tree or tree of knowledge? b/c branching & non-branching motifs.
Samorini is wrong: just b/c salamander mushroom-tree has spots, doesn’t make the entire whole tree Amanita — it has liberty its crown is shaped triangle Liberty Cap.
Rather, the tree freely combines Amanita features/ elements, tree features/ elements, and Liberty Cap features/ elements. Basic mistake – which I made even some time a year into my breakthrough decoding of branching form —
I made the mistake of stopping as soon as I id’d a single feature of the tree on the overall form of whole tree.
I initially failed to do fractal scope-change to examine and analyze PORTIONS of a given tree eg this mature form analysis of 2023/03/18.
It took 1 full year (Mar. 2022 – Mar. 2023), to evolve my analysis from “branching-message mushroom trees” limited to the scope of entire whole-tree — a fallacy committed by Samorini & Huggins — to the far more detailed and elaborated & flexible & sophisticated “fractal scope” analysis & handling individual features, & free-form creative combination of features/elements, not just on the level of an entire whole mushroom-tree image.
eg f134 row 1 L: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter: bottom level of tree is YI form, upper level of tree is trident-I form — for both the pink key tree & for the mushroom-tree that it touches. THESE are the details of branching-form analysis that are ESSENTIAL – NOT classifying entire whole mushroom-trees by how the trunk splits to hold up the crown, which is the analysis/ class’n scheme attempted by Samorini & Huggins.
egs my moment of realization — shifting from whole-tree to partial-scope tree analyssis, may have been Eustace river (likely), and then f177 row 1 R: a dud mushroom-tree — a branching-message leaf tree.
THIS WAS A HUGE ESSENTIAL BREAKTHROUGH GRASP of branching form , not only for branching-message mushroom trees , but broadly for branching-message mushroom trees in general.
“branching-message trees” – I wrote that phrase a few days after writing the main phrase in email, “branching-message mushroom trees”.
“branching-message tree” branching message tree — yes, a keyboard shortcut already exists, proving that this is not the first time i wrote “branching message tree” branching message tree — hyphen or not, used in past??
Here’s an important milestone article / title/ concept; I think 2023/03/19 (or March 18 p.m.) is when I figured out the MAJOR, crucial concept the artists used, “fractal scope” or partial scope analysis: YI Tree Branching Morphology: Formal Theory of Fractal YI Scope of Analysis of Branching-Message Mushroom Trees https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/19/yi-tree-branching-morphology-formal-theory-of-fractal-yi-scope-of-analysis-of-branching-message-mushroom-trees/ – “because of while decoding Canterbury f177 Row 1 tree L & tree R, then applied to f134 pink key tree, yesterday March 18 2023 … BEGAN TO REALIZE that tree 4 in Eustace is a self-contained YI in addition to considering it — like ~March 2022, as the “Y” when considered within the tree pair trees 3+4.”
This art genre is mushroom imagery in Christian art, of which the main image is mushroom-trees., which turn out to be not only mbbt branching-message mushroom trees, but requires multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree.
Multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree is essential – Classifying Whole Trees Based on Branches Under Crown is Not Key Relevance – Must Use More Granular Feature-Analysis than Samorini & Huggins Crude First Attempts at Classification Schemes to Produce Comprehension
[Mar. 1, 2025]
Samorini & Huggins class’n schemes based on branching forms are crude and not successful.
Prior to that date, I was making a mistake somewhat like the misguided class’n systesms of Samorini & Huggins: I was only examining a mushroom-tree on the scope of the WHOLE TREE. Mistake! You must consider individual elements/ features/ branching form WITHIN the whole tree; this is THE WHOLE-TREE FORM-ASSESSMENT FALLACY.
The “Whole-Tree Form-Assessment” Fallacy
[Mar. 1, 2025]
The “Whole-Tree Form-Assessment” Fallacy – eg the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has triangle Liberty Liberty Cap w/ Amanita spots – does the tree mean a Liberty Cap or a tree or an Amanita mushroom? Wrong Q; false dilemma; category error
Multi-scope analysis of a branching message tree is essential – Classifying mushroom-trees in Our Blessed Sacred the Plaincourault fresco vs. Lesser, Psilocybin mushroom-trees” (Samorini), or classifying per Huggins , is NOT important; Huggins & Samorini are barking up the wrong tree
That page shows that the “fractal/local/ multi-scope” breakthrough – which is ESSENTIAL for understanding artists’ intent in this genre (mushroom imagery in Christian art which ~= mushroom-trees) – included considering the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree: usual suspects of mushroom-trees:
My “local scope branching message tree branching form analysis” used initially all of:
f177 row 1 L
f177 row 1 R
the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree
Eustace crossing the river ecr
Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter – f134 row 1 L
the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree dm (Bodelian library)
did i wrote: branching-message leaf tree branching-message vine-leaf tree – i like better than just “leaf”
branching-message leaf trees bmlt 9:55 am Mar 1 2025
In headshop art, cubensis has spots.
A cubensis image with spots is not a cubensis mushroom; it’s mythic-realm Magic Mushroom creative free-form combining FEATURES.
The main problem w/ Samorini’s fig 20 table classif’n is RIGIDITY. Grouping features in too-big of units of scope, grouping two many indep variable features together not flexible enough to reflect actual mushroom-trees
What’s actually important in branching form: {cut right trunk} gives stability {scales / tower / balancing/ column}, = put weight on R foot not L toe/ heel/ foot/ leg/ hip, not L. Keep centrally using L thinking, but don’t rely on egoic control thinking as the autonomous ultimate source and foundation of control thoughts.
Always riding the horse, seen from above and behind now, a different perspective above egoic control thinking.
Look up and back, child dies, foundation switched to the uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, the revealed male function snake-shaped injection of control thoughts frozen in spacetime.
the Mytheme theory = the psychedelic-eternalism mytheme theory = the psychedelic eternalism theory of mythemes & art motifs
[Mar. 1, 2025]
The Egodeath theory’s Mytheme theory
Concept-label for Egodeath theory’s Mytheme theory: the theory of interpretation of mythemes and art motifs as analogies for psychedelic eternalism – key words: psychedelic eternalism, mythemes, art motifs, —
short form: the Mytheme theory mt
med form: the psychedelic-eternalism mytheme theory pemt
long form: the psychedelic eternalism theory of mythemes & art motifs petmam
Huggins’ attempted classification: Crown Held Up by Divided Trunk vs. by Tangle of Branches
What about type 3: crown held up by single trunk? (Part of Samorini’s attempted class, “Saint Martin” type.) Doesn’t Huggins discuss & include that type?
The attempted analyses of branching elements and forms by Samorini & Huggins are a start; but, the destiation has to be:
Free-form creative combination of features of trees & mushrooms.
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
By “creative”, I mean that it’s impossible to construct general class’n systems as Samorini & Huggins attempt, bc that’s not what the artists are trying to do.
The artists are trying to break any such rigid schemes & demonstrate unique new combinations of features of trees & mushrooms – including {deer antlers}, {snake}, {4 limbs}, {cut right branch}, {balance on R leg}, and other such general variants/ instantiations of the set of motifs.
The real message of the artists, must ultimately lead to analysis of images in terms of small portional features/ elements/ local sub-scopes, sub-elements, ultimately leading to: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
A huge part of Huggins MICA Denial arg’n is undermined by my disproof of arg’g only on the scope of entire whole tree “is it a tree or is it a mushroom”. I couch the analysis instead in terms of FREE-FORM CREATIVE COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS/ FEATURES OF TREES + ELEMENTS/ FEATURES OF MUSHROOMS.
It’s a scope-of-analysis error by Huggins as MICA Denier, & by Samorini as MICA Affirmer. I made a very comparable scope error between March 21, 2022 & March 18, 2023, when I had the concept of branching-message mushroom trees, but still lacked the concept of fractal-scope analysis & — pershaps a recent 2025 concept or late 2024? — my emp….
You can date my emphasis on “free-form creative combining of tree feautres/elements + mushroom features/elements” to when I read Foraging in Wrong Forest & noticed his fallacy of arg’g on basic of basis of entire whole tree image to construct his false dilemma:
“By starting with Panofsky’s sentence about branching, we can articulate criteria to decide if it is a tree or a mushroom.”
[that point shifts to the other topic, of the paragraph about “criteria” in Foraging in Wrong Forest > Concl section]
Solution: The Meaning of YO or Trident Branches Holding Up the Crown of a Mushroom-Tree
todo: make heading use wording from Huggins, “entheogen scholars need to explain the branches”
todo: quote Panofsky-Huggins re: “entheogen scholars need to explain the branches”
“Schematized Trees” per Huggins = mushroom-tree branching form
branching, non-branching, & branching form is part of the Mytheme theory.
Fork holding up cap of one type of mushroom-tree: YO (dancing man) or trident-O (the Plaincourault fresco).
YO or Trident-O Branching Form of Some mushroom-trees eg the Plaincourault fresco
YO or trident-O branching: Map two mental models of personal control to the left and right limbs or arms.
Mushroom-trees that have two sides, two arms.
In Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 3 Right, the tree of knowledge has a cap that has a grid cap in which each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree has two arms.
The trident branches of the Plaincourault fresco map to 3-phase: two mental models + the final combined mental model (the middle branch/trunk under the cap).
The MAIN idea BOTH(!) in day 3 plant 2 AND in the Plaincourault fresco, is left and right arm – whether a left mushroom arm and a R mushroom arm; or, a L beam & a R beam.
And maybe a middle trunk, = final balanced view/ the personal control system.
Map Left Branch to the Possibilism Mental model, Map Right Branch to the Eternalism Mental Model
The L & R mushroom-arm, OR, the L & R beam holding up cap in the Plaincourault fresco, map to L = possibilism, R = eternalism, and finally, end up w/ both possibilism and eternalism; possibilism that’s qualified by eternalism.
Hypercosmic Fire Arch on Cover of Brinc Book
fire arch in the picture that is on cover of Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
Branching form of mushroom-trees:
Not YO.
Not trident-O.
Simple trident or YI. Bottom: YI mushroom-tree.
An In-Scope Relevant Interpretation of 3 trident branches of the Plaincourault fresco
The middle, vertical branch/trunk means balanced (combining possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking), like discussed in my emails of Feb. 17 am, 2025:
Compare which-foot-down in panels around “eat from tree of knowledge” panel by Eadwine & Bernward.
A 3-phase interpretation answers Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.
Solved Huggins’ Trident Branches Question
I solved Huggins’ question about why Y or trident branches holding up cap of the Plaincourault fresco — because L arm & R arm and – per today, ‘balance’, “middle arm”.
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”
I solved the trident question from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.
Regarding YO or trident-O branching form; 2 or 3 branches holding up crown of mushroom-tree.
L branch maps to possibilism-thinking.
R branch maps to eternalism-thinking.
Middle branch (in the case of trident-O form) maps to qualified possibilism-thinking; eternalism-thinking integrated with possibilism-thinking.
Connecting 3-Phase & YO or Trident-O branching
There are 2 or — arguably — 3 mental models, or phases; = 2-3 arms / branches holding up the cap of that type of tree, YO tree.
Mental model 1: possibilism ; naive possibilism-thinking
2: simple basic eternalism-thinking.
3. nuanced balance of a kind of possibilism-thinking + a kind of eternalism-thinking.
Map those to the 3 branches holding up the the Plaincourault fresco cap.
That gives a really great, solid, “flexible” answer to Huggins, who says entheogen scholars have no explanation for that kind of branches or a tangle of branches under a cap/crown.
Huggins seems a much more solid, serious writer than Letcher/Hatsis, even though I was fuming and venting to my friend in frustration against MICA Deniers.
March 21, 2022 – emailed Brown & Cyberdisciple, replying to Brown emailing me the 2019-formatted Marcia Kupfer quote about youths cutting trees, writing the phrase “branching-message mushroom trees” for the first time.
July 4, 2022 – I drew a diagram in a book in blue metal ink, a YO tree, with branching features and non-branching zones indicated – in contrast to other branching forms.
YO Branches
Given that it makes sense to draw mushroom as tree w/ tracnh 1 cap and tangle of branches (Huggins type 1 (2?)) under the cap b/c gills & veil look like branches, why would you (Hug type 2 (1?)) draw the branches as Y or trident like the Plaincourault fresco?
Is YO-form mushroom-tree arb stylization? NO.
it is to give like Day 3 plants, a L & R arm; a L & R feature; a L & R branch, to leverage the binary “L one vs R one”, then to map in order to map that binary to the binary “two feet”; two legs: L & R.
Ans: to focus on concept of “L vs R” ie there are two different things, mappable to two different sides/directions. just like we have two feet, we have two mental models , map and assign L & R.
“up vs down”: down = hell, up = heaven.
down= bad, heaven = good.
L = bad = hell = struggle; R = good = resolution = Transcendent Knowledge = stable control = {pass through gate} ; {pass through guarded gate}
The Purpose of YO or Trident-O Branching Form of Mushroom-Trees
Planned post as announcement of breakthrough explanation/ solution to Huggins’ Question
Planned post:
Announcement of a breakthrough answer to Huggins’ Q:
Why Y or Trident branches in the Plaincourault fresco mushroom-tree?
The article has two sections numbered as “3.”, this is the 2nd section 3.
Magic Dirty Use of “completely formulaic” is a Strategy of hitting every angle, relying on them all being soaked with Prejudice: “Formulaic/ multiple/ mainstream, therefore not mushroom”
“Completely Formulaic” Is the “Argument from Prejudice” Fallacy, relying on gullible audience’s unconscious prejudice
In fact, the formula for mushroom-trees is to combine elements of tree & mushroom, per {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
I can do a lot by critiquing what’s going on with the WAY Huggins uses the word ‘formulaic’.
It’s like Erwin Panofsky’s garbage arg’n “there are other trees like the Plaincourault fresco, so, not mushroom.”
DOES NOT FOLLOW, but what Erwin Panofsky-Huggins is attempting in dirty arg’n – leveraging fallacies – is he is trying to take advantage of the fact that all arg’n is biased & prejudiced against mushroom.
Every possible, wildly varied & off-the-wall bizarre vector of arg’n & angle that the MICA Deniers can throw at the problem, is presented AS IF it follows, that multiplicity of mushroom-trees means not mushroom, and that formulaic means not mushroom.
Non-Sequitur-Fest Gallery: <Any Fact You Can Think of>”, therefore, not mushroom”
Tree of knowledge involves theology – therefore not mushroom.
There are multiple instances – therefore not mushroom.
It’s not hidden – therefore not mushroom.
It’s completely formulaic – therefore not mushroom.
It has tree & mushroom features – therefore not mushroom.
There are 38 instances of feature X in Great Canterbury Psalter – therefore not mushroom.
The correct genre of Bodl. is bestiary – therefore not mushroom.
All such “arguments from a fact employed as a bluff” are total non sequiturs, but used nevertheless b/c a dirty strategy of bias, that relies on bias to appear (to an imaged, hoped-for gullible, suitably biased audience) to constitute compelling arg’n.
“Does not follow” yet SEEMS convincing sheerly due to being saturated / freighted with biased.
‘formulaic’ is a LOADED TERM that carries anti-mushroom prejudice. In fact, the formula, is psychedelic eternalism; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Huggins tries to leverage the prejudiced assumption that “formulaic” automatically means “not mushroom” – DOES NOT FOLLOW.
Same w/ loaded words like “mainstream” – where is is taken for granted that mainstream = not mushroom.
The Letcher arg: “This Bernward Door Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is not secret, therefore, it’s not a mushroom.”
He leverages the prejudiced assumption that mushroom imagery in Christian art is secret, hidden, suppressed, to pretend to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art — which only persuades a suitable prejudiced audience.
The arg’n (such as the dirty, BIASED RHETORIC “completely formulaic”) actually carries no weight, and only relies entirely on uncritical prejudice shared by author & reader.
The wording “completely formulaic” is used in a bias-driven way, to construct dirty, fallacious arg’n.
The obvious response from a critical reader is:
What’s the nature of this “completely formulaic” “stylization”, IS IT PURPOSEFUL MUSHROOM IMAGERY?
Huggins and MICA Deniers pretend: The fact that this art is mainstream, and formulaic, and multiple instances, is proof that it’s not purposeful mushroom imagery.
Non sequitur. DOES NOT FOLLOW – but can appear & seem to constitute “arg’n”, for a suitably prejudiced audience.
3. Schematized Trees (entire section from “Foraging Wrong”)
Here is Huggins’ entire section, formatted per the above conventions.
The trees throughout the earlier illuminations of the GCP are completely formulaic and produced in a manner reflective of that.
The artist draws simple parallel lines for the trunks and branches and tops them off with circles or ovals of various sizes.
We can see unembellished examples of underlying drawings for such trees in the unfinished Douce Apocalypse (1250–1275) (Fig. 16).
After drawing the basic shapes, the artist adds the patterns they want to feature for each crown.
In our example from the Douce Apocalypse this would consist of leaves in an oval; in many of the crowns in the GCP, it involved an initial stage of cross hatching the circle or oval that was to become the foliage crown.
This is what was done in three of the trees in the third-day scene.
The artist then elaborated the squares created by the cross hatching by adding further details, such as dots, tree / parasol shapes, etc.
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Third Day: Four PlantsCrop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 20, 2025 Eat from Tree of KnowledgeCrop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 4, 2025 Fourth Day: 4 Plants
The same was done throughout the GCP with no attempt at consistently linking a particular pattern with a particular color or form of plant or tree.
—
The inclusion of ramifications (branches) is accomplished in two ways.
The first is to divide the trunk or add branches to its sides.
The other is to flare out the upper end of the trunk to make room for a small tangle of multiple branches at the top just under the crown.
Again, the Douce Apocalypse provides examples of this latter type at the stage of the initial drawing (Fig. 17).
The GCP [Great Canterbury Psalter] uses both approaches, the latter, for example, in its depiction of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Fig. 18).
The presence of both kinds of branches under crowns of the same sort as appear in the third-day scene would seem torule out any intentionality on the part of the artist(s) to depict mushrooms.
—
In another context, PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist] Giorgio Samorini attempts to sidestep the problem of multiple branches supporting a single cap by suggesting that
Samorini wrote:
“these ramifications might represent the membrane enveloping mushrooms of the family of the Amanitaceae at the early stages of development.
“This membrane then breaks when the cap broadens out and separates from the stalk,”68
Footnote 68: Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 89, and New Data, 268. The same argument was put forward already by Émile Boudier, in Marchand / Boudier, La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), 32.
Marchand, M. / Boudier, M., La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), Bulletin trimestriel de la Société mycologique de France 27/1 (Jan. 1, 1911), 31– 32
Huggins continues:
This leaves behind on the stipe a remnant called a veil.
—
However, Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period.
The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage [split veil] in its development is far-fetched.
Furthermore, while the membrane Samorini refers to is a feature of Amanitaceae (including Amanita muscaria), it is not a feature of several other varieties of psychedelic mushrooms the PMTs want to identify as trees.
Samorini’s suggestion also begs the question of images that he and other PMTs identify as psychedelic mushrooms whose crowns are supported by multiple branches but lack a central stalk or stipe, a crucial morphological feature of many psychedelic mushrooms.69
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO from bottom: Y
Finally, even if we were to credit Samorini’s argument in relation to a tree with only two or three branches, it takes us nowhere near explaining the great tangle of branches we find on the GCP’s tree of nests.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
—
Given the persistent issue of ramifications (branches), the PMTs cause is not advanced when the Browns assert that
“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70
Footnote 70: Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, p. 137.
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter
Of the more than one hundred trees in the GCP’s earlier illuminations, only eleven appear without branches, and for the most part these use the same crown patterns as those with branches.
Seventeen of the trees have a tangle of multiple branches just under the crown.
The Browns’ appeal to other trees in the GCP actually undercuts their claims about the third-day scene, where they seek to identify the species of the various alleged psychedelic mushrooms based upon the combination of the pattern and color of each plant.
The bigger picture provided by the use of color and pattern in the rest of the earlier GCP illuminations indicates that the combination of pattern and color on crowns is not fixed and implies no specific reference to any particular species of plant or tree.
This is especially clear in cases where different mixes of color and pattern appear together on the crowns of single trees (Fig. 19).
Crop by Michael Hoffman = Hug Fig 19
/ end of section “3: Schematized Trees” from Huggins Foraging Wrong
Two Forms of Branches Under Crown/Cap of Mushroom-Trees
Start of long passage, most of the 2nd “section 3”.
Below is included all sentences from Hug’s Section 3[b] except the 1st two paragraphs (which are shown in the plain copy above).
Huggins wrote:
“The inclusion of ramifications (branches) is accomplished in two ways.”
Huggins is going to argue: In the mushroom-trees of Great Canterbury Psalter, there are these multiple types of branches/branching, under a given type of crown, therefore, not purposeful mushrooms imagery.
Here are the poorly defined 3 types, that he says are 2 types:
Type 1a: Trunk splits into branches, with each crown held up by a simple single stem.
Type 1b: Trunk has branches branching off of it.
Type 2: Top of trunk under a single crown has tangle of branches immediately under crown.
Branches type 1 under cap: Divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk
“The first is to divide the trunk or add branches to its sides.”
Branches type 2 under cap: Flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown
“The other is to flare out the upper end of the trunk to make room for a small tangle of multiple branches at the top just under the crown.
“Again, the Douce Apocalypse provides examples of this latter type at the stage of the initial drawing (Fig. 17).
“The GCP [Great Canterbury Psalter] uses both approaches, the latter, for example, in its depiction of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Fig. 18).”
Non Sequitur: Variations in Branching Form, “Therefore”, Not Purposeful Mushroom Imagery
“The presence of both kinds of branches under crowns of the same sort as appear in the third-day scene* would seem to rule out any intentionality on the part of the artist(s) to depict mushrooms.”
FALLACY: THE “WHOLE ENTIRE TREE IMAGE MUST MATCH 1 WHOLE ENTIRE MUSHROOM”.
His phrase “both kinds of branches under crowns” means what two types? Type 1a & 1b: divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk Type 2: flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown
No sensible affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art ever claimed that the mushroom-tree at the level of the entire whole tree matches a single whole entire mushroom.
Browns’ phrase doesn’t work – it falls prey to that fallacious argumentation/ opportunistic misinterpretation:
Bad expansion of ‘MICA’: “mushrooms in Christian art” Good expansion of ‘MICA’: “mushroom imagery in Christian art”
Mushroom-tree w/ type 1b branches.
Hug argues that the same type of crown is supported by varying different types of branching, therefore, none of this can possibly be purposeful mushroom imagery.
Because the mushroom-trees are not rigidly consistent, as Brown asserts (I grant Brown plaus. deniability here:
Brown BARELY implies or argues that the four Day 3 mushroom-trees are rigidly, as entire whole plants, occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
Brown is wrong and poor here, sloppy, misrepresentative of the Psalter.
Huggins takes Browns’ brief bad wording/ little sentence, that the Day 3 plants occur throughout … that red and blue and tan and orange mushrooms occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
Browns’ Misrepresentation: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms [like the ones shown in Day 3] are found in the first 100 pages” of the Psalter
4x Penalty for Brown & Brown 2016 & 2019, re: their false, misrepresentative statement: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found in the first 100 pages” of GCP. Context: discussing Day 3 image’s four plants, which are – insanely R to L – red, blue, orange, and tan.
Brown is wrong: there are NOT “red red and blue and tan and orange mushrooms occur throughout Great Canterbury Psalter”.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Huggins is talking specifically about branches form IMMEDIATELY UNDER CROWN; ie, how the crown is held up.
There are cases of trunk dividing, but not immediately under the crown, except where it it like his type 2 form: “flare top of trunk forming tangle of multiple branches just under the crown“.
This is the only way Eadwine uses, to hold up a given crown.
Huggins might mean nests tree – but that trunk-dividing is NOT the branches form that’s immediately under a single crown. Incoherent thinking/ writing here.
Huggins’ ELASTIC tricky 1st type: Huggins says “A or B”.
A mushroom-tree w/ type 2 branches under cap:
Crop by Michael Hoffman Branching form: Y X Y (visually cut right branch)
Huggins you are so full of sh!t! You have not “RULED OUT” jack sh!t! Pompous.
What a crazy argument!
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art do not just use ORDINARY obvious logical fallacies; they use astoundingly absurd instances of obvious logical fallacies.
Huggins argues: The artist combines tree features & mushroom features in flexible varying ways, SO, NOT MUSHROOMS.
How is that conclusion supposed to follow? The argument doesn’t make any sense.
Crowns, throughout the Psalter, of the same sort as these 4 crowns, have both types of branches under their crowns: Branches type 1) Divide trunk or add branches to sides of trunk. Branches type 2) Flare upper trunk, tangle of 3+ branches.
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter
Huggins continues:
“In another context, PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist] Giorgio Samorini attempts to sidestep the problem of multiple branches supporting a single cap by suggesting that
Samorini wrote:
“these ramifications might represent the membrane enveloping mushrooms of the family of the Amanitaceae at the early stages of development.
This membrane then breaks when the cap broadens out and separates from the stalk,”68
Footnote 68: Samorini, “Mushroom Trees,” 89, and New Data, 268. The same argument was put forward already by Émile Boudier, in Marchand / Boudier, La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), 32.
Δ = Lib Cap cap. donuts not grid of Lib Caps which could = branching. YY = immed below cap/crown. X / -\ = right cross-behind; = visually cut right branch aimed at R paw. Y IIII = 4 side branches/mushrooms. I = main stem. YI = cut right branch, not shown here (right foot touches the cut right trunk). + mushroom = {holding removed branch} in his L hand.
Crop by Michael Hoffman Branching form: Y X Y (visually cut right branch)
Branching Form Tree of Knowledge Under Cap, GC Psalter: Y X Y (cut right branch)
Specifically Y / -\ Y; middle has right cross-behind.
[8:01 pm Jan. 31, 2025] Under cap, branching form:
I I X I I or, better: Y X Y
End of Samorini quote.
Huggins continues:
“This leaves behind on the stipe a remnant called a veil.”
[sic; the term is “veil remnant” – Hug loses credibility re: term’y here.
GARBLED AND CONFUSING ARGUMENT, what is Hug thinking of?
hard to follow his confusion, what exactly is he arguing?]
“However, Samorini anachronistically projects a greater interest in botanical accuracy than is justified for artists of our period.
“The idea that they would go beyond depicting a mature Amanita muscaria to capture its appearance during a brief stage [split veil] in its development is far-fetched.”
Huggins argues: Artists only have seen flat-top Amanita (absurdly), not a veil, like branches [I may have been misreading Huggins here]
Huggins tries to fabricate and imagine 2-3 lifecycle forms.
I have to read and talk aloud in voice recording his hard-to-follow argument.
Huggins reveals he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in several ways:
The ideal mature ideal form of Amanita is upturned Grail, not flat cap. Per Heinrich 1995 book Strange Fruit, and Entheos 1, which Huggins cites.
In real-world experience, you do not see a single Amanita in isolation; you find several nearby in various lifecycle stages + random mutation of form.
You look at all types of fungi, borrowing features.
Huggins continues:
“Furthermore, while the membrane Samorini refers to is a feature of Amanitaceae (including Amanita muscaria), it is not a feature of several other varieties of psychedelic mushrooms the PMTs want to identify as trees.
“Samorini’s suggestion also begs the question of images that he and other PMTs identify as psychedelic mushrooms whose crowns are supported by multiple branches but lack a central stalk or stipe, a crucial morphological feature of many psychedelic mushrooms.69
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Branching form: Y; X / -\ (right cross-behind); YYO from bottom: Y
Huggins continues:
“Finally, even if we were to credit Samorini’s argument in relation to a tree with only two or three branches, it takes us nowhere near explaining the great tangle of branches we find on the GCP’s tree of nests.”
ah god Brown, not starting from Right with Amanita again still aggghhh
Normal humans — and MICA Deniers — would say “tan, orange, blue, and red”; L to R – not R to L [keep w/ YO]
STOP WORSHIPPING SECRET AMANITA, BROWN; the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Browns’ Misrepresentative Claim “Rebutted” by Huggins’ Non-Sequitur Fallacy
Huggins continues:
“Given the persistent issue of ramifications (branches), the PMTs cause is not advanced when the Browns assert that “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the first hundred pages” of the GCP.70
Footnote 70: Brown / Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, p. 137.
Also, I add: Brown article 2019: exact copypaste, emph added:
“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found in the first 100 pages, including this picture (Figure 14) showing God as the Creator of Plants, or more specifically as Creator of Sacred Plants.”
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter
[Figure 14 is Day 3: Creation of Plants: 4 plants.]
As Huggins points out, Brown describes something very different than what’s in Great Canterbury Psalter. But Hug’s rebuttal seems odd — well it is essentially:
Brown claims rigid consistency adhering to the Day 3 forms, but in fact, there are many variants and combinations of features. “Therefore,” the Psalter’s mushroom-trees can’t be purposeful mushroom imagery.
Huggins: “Brown claims rigid consistency, but actually there’s variations. Therefore, not mushrooms.” [~YO]
There’s a false assertion by Brown, followed by a non sequitur “rebuttal” from Huggins.
As if Browns’ misrepresentative, rigid claim justifies Huggins’ non-sequitur argument.
Brown claims rigid consistency. But actually there’s variations. “Therefore,” not mushrooms.
Huggins continues:
“Of the more than one hundred [mushroom?] trees in the GCP’s earlier illuminations, only eleven appear without branches, and for the most part these use the same crown patterns as those with branches.”
todo: how many of the 75 mushroom-trees … is he counting leaf trees? How does he get “more than one hundred trees”? He’s vague and wrong. To count more than 100 trees, you would HAVE to count non mushroom-trees; vine-leaf trees, which do not have a “crown”.
But this count is unimportant for his arg.
His arg is that a given crown type is used with variant branching throughout the Psalter. “So,” cannot be purposeful mushrooms. (Does not follow.)
How many mushroom-trees in Great Canterbury Psalter have no branches? 15 not 11. Some grey area, which is why Huggins MUST give folio #s list. Citation needed.
“Seventeen of the trees have a tangle of multiple branches just under the crown.”
This is impossible to confirm this number. Vague as f. But not important to his lame, non-sequitur arg.
LOOK AT THE MANY MANY VARIANTS UNDER SAME CROWN TYPE! SO MANY!! THEREFORE, CAN’T BE PURPOSEFUL MUSHROOMS, WHICH ARE THEREFORE RULED OUT.
QUANTITY DOES NOT FIX A NON-SEQUITUR FALLACY. He is channelling Panofsky, who argues: [Pan’s presupppositions required for his abbreviated argument to be specified:
1) Plaincourault fresco is a proxy for interpreting all instances of mushroom-trees. The silent proxy fallacy. No big deal, but this fallacy becomes a big deal when add the next presupposition:
2) Christian art does not have hundreds of instances of mushroom imagery. The circular reasoning fallacy; assuming that which is to be proved.
The Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are hundreds of mushroom-trees like Plaincourault:
“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists.”
“However, even if so, I should be somewhat skeptical because the development from pine tree to “Pilzbaum” is so universal and takes place in so many representations other than the Fall of Man.”
Gullible reader: Against Browns’ claim, there are variants (which Huggins 100% PROVES by details) therefore, not intentional mushroom imagery
… as if the important debate is whether there are variants of features — when in fact, the actual, important debate is whether the mushroom-like imagery purposefully means mushrooms. Regardless of whether that imagery is rigidly consistent copies of Day 3’s four plants, or contains many variants of such imagery features.
Tangled here is key fallacy from Huggins: pretending that our analysis must be of the whole entire plant image vs. whole entire botanical specimen.
todo: count how many [mushroom?] trees in Great Canterbury Psalter have — but Hug’s reason is illegitimate for emphasizing the variations of feature combinations – FALSE BLUFF AND BLUSTER, INVENTORYING MANY BRANCHING VARIATIONS, UNDER COLORS OF CAPS COMPARED TO DAY 3, AS IF ALL THESE DETAILS ADD UP TO A REAL ARGUMENT — THEY DO NOT.
Gullible reader: “Wow look at all these details he’s giving, in comparison to Browns’ simplistic statement “red, blue, orange, & tan mushrooms are throughout the Psalter” – so Hug must be right: against Browns’ claim, there are variants, therefore, not intentional mushroom imagery.
There are variants, therefore, that “RULES OUT” intentional mushroom imagery.
He’s using “proof”-type words, with no substantive argument conveyed by them. Non sequitur. Does Not Follow.
Ultimately, Hug argues: Some mushroom-trees are complex, looking less like mushrooms than Day 4.
Huggins: “Some mushroom-trees have much more branching than actual mushrooms, therefore, none of them mean mushrooms” [~YO]
Hug argues: Some mushroom-trees look much more branching than actual mushrooms, therefore, none of them mean mushrooms.
Huggins continues:
“The Browns’ appeal to other trees in the GCP actually undercuts their claims about the third-day scene, where they seek to identify the species of the various alleged psychedelic mushrooms based upon the combination of the pattern and color of each plant.”
Huggins is setting up to make a fallacious argument as if the whole entire tree image must match the whole entire botanical mushroom, both in Day 3 and throughout the Psalter.
What does Huggins think the two debate positions are?
Those are lousy debate positions, badly defined.
State the two debate positions in terms of variably recombinable features of trees & mushrooms.
Huggins is debating against an UNIMPORTANT MISREPRESENTATION by Brown, and showing that’s a misrep, and then claiming “therefore, not mushrooms”.
Brown is wrong on this particular characterization (“Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms [like those in Day 3] are found in the first 100 pages”), but Brown’s overall position is correct: mushroom imagery in the Psalter purposefully means mushrooms.
DAY 3 SHOWS A FOUR-TYPE CLASSIFICATION INTO PAN, LIB, CUB, AMA. MUSHROOM-TREES THROUGHOUT PSALTER RECOMBINE SUCH ELEMENTS IN VARIOUS WAYS.
Huggins feigns being too stupid to think of this OBVIOUS solution.
Brown was poor argument, pretending that these Day 3 mushrooms AS A WHOLE are repeated throughout Psalter — that’s wrong wording that Brown repeats 4 times (Brown & Brown, 2016 & 2019).
Huggins leaps on that, rebutting with: Day 3’s four mushrooms — red, blue, orange, tan — are NOT repeated throughout the Psalter, “THEREFORE,” NOT MUSHROOMS.
(Does Not Follow.)
Brown is grossly misrepresentative, but Huggins’ rebuttal’s conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Huggins continues:
“The bigger picture provided by the use of color and pattern in the rest of the earlier GCP illuminations indicates that the combination of pattern and color on crowns is not fixed and implies no specific reference to any particular species of plant or tree.”
The crowns in the Psalter mean variable combinations of features from the 4 classes depicted in Day 3: Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita.
Huggins continues:
“This is especially clear in cases where different mixes of color and pattern appear together on the crowns of single trees (Fig. 19).”
/ end of Huggins passage from Foraging Wrong
Day 3’s 4 plants mean respectively Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita — and features of these 4 plants are recombined throughout the Psalter, against Brown’s mischaracterization.
The fact that the features are freely recombined does not change the fact that Day 3 defines excellent, useful, sensible, experience-based, practical, NON-ARBITRARY classification that matches my own experience observing and photographing mushrooms.
See red (=Ama) liberty caps in cap w/ blue (= cubensis) stem:
Combining Features of Ama, Cub, & Lib (& Tree)
Crop by Michael Hoffman. imagery: Ama, Lib, CubCrop by Michael Hoffman.Crop by Michael Hoffman.
End of Huggins Page/Passage, Above
row 3 right: Eat from Tree of Knowledge
Crop by Michael Hoffman
10:48 pm feb 17 2025: 3 branches touch Eve’s L side; 3 Adam’s L side.
Top branch touches not only Eve’s L elbow, also her R forearm.
Middle branch touches not only Eve’s L side, also her R elbow.
Foraging in Wrong Forest: 3. Schematized Trees – Full Egodeath Treatment
This page includes entire text of Section 3: 3. Schematized Trees below, deep engage mode. Full commentary, entire text of Section 3, with pictures.
Huggins’ 2 Forms of Branches Under Crown
re: Hug’s question about branching under crown (2 forms) & Concl para:
The present article is not focused on the “tangle of branches” form that Huggins asks about; clearly that can be gills + veil.
Huggins’ twofold question about branching forms holding up the crown of a mushroom-tree implies it’s harder to explain why Y or trident branches – a different type of branches-under-the-cap.
It was necessary to include a critique of Brown who falsely says Great Canterbury Psalter > Day 3’s four mushrooms — wholesale — are found throughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
I had to include that in this article, even though it’s a distinct topic, so that I could keep together the entire Section 3 from Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.
I know about Huggins’ distinction between tangle of branches vs. Y or trident holding up cap of the Plaincourault fresco, b/c below — from a few days ago –is a great in-depth copy (very nice, highly valuable) of his entire section 3: Branches, from Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.
Date of Concept “branching-message mushroom trees”: March 21, 2022 (branching is feature not whimsy)
March 21, 2022: emailed Brown & Cyberdisciple, replying to Brown sending me the 2019-formatted Marcia Kupfer quote. I used branching-message mushroom trees for first time.
My blue metal drawing in book of YO mushroom-tree: July 4, 2022.
Memorize Brown date: March 21, 2022, re: Marcia Kupfer re: Saint Martin’s Entry Jeru: tower, youth cut branches.
The day when I realized that the branching aspects of branching-message mushroom trees is a feature — even the payload & main message — not a bug/ whimsy that’s purposeless decoration.
March 21, 2022: In email thread Subject line “Parasol Panaeolus Graves”, I wrote “branching-message mushroom trees” for first time, in an excellently suitable context.
July 4 2022 – drew blue metallic in book, by Pollan or John Lash? — a YO tree indicating branching form.
September 4, 2022 – Not sure if this is a false UI misleading date from Gmail UI. Might mean nothing.
I Have Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article under my belt, no longer frustrated, and Agree with His Exposes of Poor Reasoning by MICA Affirmers
I feel no longer frustrated and mad about Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.
The Egodeath theory answers Huggins’ Question: The Y or trident question from Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.
Plaincourault Fresco with Trident-O & 4 Limbs
7:23 PM April 28, 2022 a little question 4 u – what leg is Eve standing onCrop by Michael Hoffman
feb 17 2025 occurred me today, not totally new: her weight is on both feet and is on R foot. Compare f11 Great Canterbury Psalter row 3 R, eve’s R ft is slightly lower than L but are together, in contrast -pointedly – to row 3 Middle “do not eat” which has weight on right foot / stand right foot – {right foot down}.
Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 3 Mid & Right [2 forms / gallery]
f11 row 3 middle and right
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Branching Form Analysis (selected aspects)
[10:30 pm feb 17 2025] God’s tree has 4 arms/legs – classic pattern.
Next, on the right, Adam’s tree has 3 arms on L of tree, 1 on R.
Finally, Eve’s tree is similar, almost mirrored. Eve’s tree has 3 arms on R, 1 on L. On the R, the middle branch is Y, not I; more precisely, it is IY; ie, its R branch has grid cap which = branching = Y.
Below the action-packed grid cap of tree of knowledge, I’m not seeing noteworthy branching pattrens in the arms of the trunk – the side-mushrooms.
I could inventory its branching form, but I’m not seeing known standard patterns like 2 arms + 2 legs.
Biggest thing I see now, signif, about lower arms of tree of knowledge:
3 mushrooms touch Eve, 0 touch Adam.
That is a signal; we are being asked to interpret it or notice it, at least.
Tree of knowledge by artists always snubs Adam & favors Eve, so this imbalance/ bias is nothing new to me.
It is also manifestly signif that Eve has hands in the key positions L and R of the tree, Adam does not.
In depictions of tree of knowledge, Eve is the active figure; Adam merely accompanies Eve in the eating. EVE takes and EVE gives to Adam.
Theologian Thomsas Hatsis can explain to us the theology, that Eve – more than Adam, is source of original sin – a Q to look into.
Hatsis explains in PMR book, why, due to theology of Original Sin & Fall of Man, so, not mushroom. b/c theology.
Covered elsewhere recently:
Branching form immediately under the 4 tree crowns.
Inventory of which foot down, which hand lower.
That analysis likely ended up moved into this article. else see idea development 24, or 23, or articles w/ date less than the present URL.
Why Day 3 Plant 2 is particularly/ especially important in MICA debate
image: Day 3 plant 2: has L & R arm (sub image: 2 rows below: tree of knowledge ‘s cap w/ grid of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees wach each of which has L & R arm implying every grid cap has L & R arms.
image: Brinck book diagrams showing Y or trident supporting 1 or more mushroom-trees crowns [7:30 am Feb. 16, 2025] I am using the desirability of highlighting concept of “L vs R” to bridge branching-forms from YO trees or trident-O tress to other forms of mushroom-trees eg Great Canterbury Psalter day 3’s 4 trees.
List of images to paste here:
todo: make gallery containing copy of all images that are in this page
the Plaincourault fresco
Day 3 in Great Canterbury Psalter
tree of knowledge in Great Canterbury Psalter
diagrams from Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
tangle of branches: which Great Canterbury Psalter picture does Hug use in Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”?
No decent entheogen scholarship ever claimed that every mushroom-tree — at the level of the entire whole tree — matches an entire whole mushroom specimen.
Huggins is no good at defining the two relvant debate positions: the proper profitable sensible position for affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art assert that mushroom-trees have mushroom imagery features, piecemeal; flexible combinations of features: tree features + mushroom features.
Not stupidly dumbly crudely “the tree looks like a mushroom.”
Then Huggins is SILENT about the perfect mushroom in Day 4, w/o branch arms or grid cap. That tree, as an entire whole, looks like a mushroom, as an entire whole.
That is not the usual claim by properly articulate affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Rainbow Amanitas with Gills & Veil = Branches
Huggins is focusing on two forms of branches under crown/cap: one form is YO form of mushroom-trees: no central stalk; cap held up by a Y split branch, like Dancing Man mushroom.
Crop by Michael Hoffman “Q-Crew gills veil branches.jpg” 241 KB 8:57 pm Jan. 31, 2025
Huggins argues “only a professional expert modern scientific scientist is privvy to the detailed knowledge [quoteable, todo] of veil looking momentarily like branch. UNREAL, NOT REALITY BASED:
Hug knows nothing about the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of looking at mushrooms – he is wrongly speculating / imagining/ arguing.
In practice, anyone who likes mushrooms sees groups of many kind of mushrooms in many states SIMULTANEOUSLY.
I am a photographer of hundreds of mushrooms/fungi. eg last halloween, 100 photos of 20 species in 1 hour.
Photo: Michael Hoffman, October 31, 2024
Adam & Eve Looking at L & R Arms of Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in cap of tree of knowledge, while holding fruit in L & R hands
v1:
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2025
v2:
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 30, 2025
[5:19 pm Jan. 30, 2025] Compare the positions of Eve’s hands to the upper Liberty Cap within the tree of knowledge’s cap, the two arms and hands of the Lib Cap mini tree.
Thus, in all mushroom-trees in the Psalter, the “fruit” of knowledge = knowledge of left arm vs right arm.
Day 3 plant 2: prominent “Left and Right” indicators: Psil mushrooms gives knowledge of L vs R; branching vs. nonbranching:
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Day 3 plant 2.Crop by Michael Hoffman. Day 3
L & R fruit = L & R arm/hand = knowledge of branching vs. non-branching.
The fruit is not (just) entheogen; the ultimate fruit is knowledge of non-branching; ability to endure psychedelic eternalism and use egoic thinking — the egoic control system — in a transcendent way; per qualified possibilism-thinking.
Not ending with non-control, but with 2-level control.
Features:
Eve holds fruit in both hands, L & R.
Adam holds fruit in both hands, L & R.
Serpent has L limb, not R limb.
Serpent neck cut visually same as R branch under cap crossing behind L branch.
they look at [L & R arms], or L vs R arms, on topmost Lib cap, while holding fruit of knowledge in L & R hands.
The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of L vs R L vs. R evil vs. good branching vs. non-branching unstable vs. stable control
The R branches tend to fade out on most Lib Cap mushroom-trees within the cap of tree of knowledge.
Branching is disappearing in the altered state.
Like Marty McFly.
In 1955, Marty in photograph was vanishing, fading out – like these R branches within the upper part of the cap of tree of knowledge.
I started the Egodeath theory devmt Oct 26, 1985, Back to the Future Day.
Dancing Man’s Mushroom-tree: YX Branching Form Under Cap
[11:19 pm Jan. 29, 2025]
Y then X: moving from bottom up:
YI, Y, X, cap
YI: cut right trunk
Y: stem branches into V
X: cut right branch via right cross-behind
cap – grid of spots, but considered non-branching.
right paw touches non-branching cap, cut right branch points to right paw
the bestiary salamander image with X-branching (X branching) mushroom tree has
cut right branch via cross-behind – same as 3 trees in Great Canterbury Psalter > tree of knowledge f11 3 all 3 trees
The Sacred Joke Mushroom: One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: dancing man mushroom has a red cap with white spots 🤫🍄🙌😍
One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside the dancing man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.
Ruck, condensed, 2009, Fungus Redivivus, in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Huggin’s Conclusion Section Paragraph “Criteria for Deciding Whether a Tree or a Mushroom: … Always Tree, Never Mushroom”
I’m focusing on just this one paragraph in the Conclusion section of Foraging in Wrong Forest.
Key Paragraph of Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong Article Articulates Arbitrary, Biased Criteria
A concerted effort to commit every logical fallacy at once, and invent some new ones as well
“On the critical side, Panofsky provided a starting point for articulating the following criteria for determining whether medieval artists had in mind depicting trees or mushrooms:
(1) If it has branches, or multiple crowns, or a crown supported by multiple branches, it is a tree not a mushroom,
Crop by Michael Hoffman – Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 right, plant 2. A tree, not a mushroom, because it has branches.Crop by Michael Hoffman Here’s a branch of the plant, proving that the plant is not a mushroom.
(2) If it has indications of layers of foliage in the crown it is a tree not a mushroom, and
(3) If it has fruit it is a tree not a mushroom, since mushrooms, being cryptogams, have neither fruit nor seeds.
Crop by Michael Hoffman Has fruit, therefore this mushroom-tree with grid of 2-branch Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in the crown doesn’t look like mushrooms.
“These three criteria rule out all the PMTs alleged examples of trees representing psychedelic mushrooms in medieval art that this author has encountered in his extensive survey of their materials.”
/ end of key para
PHONY, PRETENTIOUS POSTURING – TYPICAL OF THE WASSON CAMP.
They have nothing but stance, posturing, bluffing, play-acting, con artistry, a put-on – no substantive argumentation, but they cover by aggressive insults, being a jerk about it.
eg the argument from telling mycologist “You are blundering due to your ignorance.” MICA Deniers are Wassholes in their arg’n style: aggressive, insulting, baseless, foolish yet pompous, eager to call people ignorant, directly.
That’s not argument from “ignorance of the opponent”, but ARGUMENT BY INSULTING THE OTHERS AS IGNORAMUSES.
Which doesn’t even work, because as soon as you “inform” the others, your argument becomes worthless.
Ramsbottom got the better of Wasson, publishing Wasson’s committed skepticism.
Insulting, pretentious bullsht; in this Conclusion paragraph, Huggins puts forth nothing but a sheer assertion, pretending to be 3 distinct, sophisticated “criteria”, to cover that this is merely arg from authority + false dilemma + false certainty + foisting arbitrary “articulated criteria” as if there’s any valid argumentation.
The only thing valid in this manner of argumentation is that Erwin Panofsky Huggins is correct, that entheogen scholars need to explain the meaning of the tree features in terms of mushrooms.
What do mushrooms have to do with trees that emphasize branching (and non-branching) features? That’s the most-key question, which Huggins contributes, but his “Conclusion” section – that “articulate criteria” paragraph and its pompous as fck “
Please name a single mushroom-tree that fails any of these 3 “if” “criteria”. This is idiocy, pretending to not know that the entire class of images under discussion, by definition, has such tree features. This is an over-verbose, game-playing, pretentious, declaration, pretending to be an argument with complexity.
He’s simply ASSERTING that all mushroom-trees mean tree, not mushroom, and dressing it up with a dash of arg from authority, a splash of false dilemma, and a bit of every other fallacy all at once.
These so-called “criteria” and “if” constructions is nothing but fake complexity, trying to hide that it’s really just a sheer assertion.
This 3-part “Conclusion” paragraph is a bluff; Huggins’ has got nothing but sheer assertion that the entire class has purposeless mushroom features.
These 3 “criteria” are duplicates, redundant with each other, and worse: redundant with the entire class of images under discussion. They all reduce to: “If a mushroom-tree has any tree features”, which is a nonsensical, superfluous “if”, forming a tautology that’s true for the entire category by definition, with no point to repeat here the word “if”.
Conclusion of Foraging in Wrong Forest: Arb. Arg. –
Hug uses Erwin Panofsky as Hug’s own voice; Hug makes Erwin Panofsky say “branch therefore not The Mushroom”
arg from “Panofsky’s two letters would give these rules that rule out mushrooms”
Hug merely mentions Brincm book, as the one and only writing ever on trees, “noted” – ie censored – citation of Brinc
the lone exception to historians’ total ignorance ever ignoring merely peripheral trees
Panofsky’s censored letters & Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings are mentioned in:
9:20 pm feb 17 2025: this page content needs organization. It is really good, complete, excellent content.
Huggins’ Conclusion through Mouthpiece Panofsky: In a Mushroom-Tree, the Tree Features Rule Out the Mushroom Features Meaning Mushroom
The term ‘pilzbaum’, mushroom-trees, was coined and used by art historians, though they never used the term, insofar as they never talked or wrote about trees or mushroom-trees.
The term pilzbaum occurs 5 times in Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings, per full-text search.
1906 is before the concept of psychoactive mushrooms was widespread in the modern era; I doubt Brinckmann has that concept.
Per Huggins:
If a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the tree features rule out meaning mushroom.
Per Cybermonk:
If a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the mushroom features rule out meaning tree.
ie it is arbitrary to the extreme, to say that if a thing has two kinds of features, we are to ignore one kind of feature, and equate the thing with the other kind of feature.
There are at least three problems or logical fallacies in Huggins’ Conclusion section’s paragraph about “articulating criteria”:
False dilemma. He says the two options for intent are tree or mushroom. That’s false; the intent is the branching model of possibility and control, revealed by Psilocybin – tree and mushroom are both wrong, limited, literalist, not the artists’ message.
If we accept the choices, mushroom is closer to the real intent than tree.
The “if” and “criteria” are NONSENSICAL. He says “if” the mushroom-trees have branches or have any tree features at all — but as a class, by definition, mushroom-trees are anything that has both tree features and mushroom features, so the “if” criteria are a hollow ploy, a put-on; pointless, sheerly superfluous nonsense, fake pseudo-criteria.
Argument from authority: Mentioning Erwin Panofsky, in an empty way: Erwin Panofsky can be used as start of a sheer baseless assertion.
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-6 – “But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.” False dichotomy from Panofsky, carried forward by Huggins.
Huggins’ Brain-Dead “Conclusion” Section Is Not an Argument, but Sheer Assertion of Arbitrary, Biased “Criteria” with No Justification
All Mushroom-Trees Mean Tree, not Mushroom (Because Panofsky).
All Mushroom-Trees Mean Mushroom, not Tree (Because Cybermonk).
Hug’s Conclusion is nothing but a baseless arbitrary tautology or sheer assertion:
“Mushroom-trees have tree features and mushroom features, and they mean tree, not mushroom.”
Tree Stylizations – Brinckmann
Schematized Trees – Huggins
mushroom-tree branching form – Hoffman
“Panofsky provided a starting point for articulating the following criteria for determining whether medieval artists had in mind depicting trees or mushrooms” [his “critiria” = assertion that:
“All mushroom-trees always mean tree, not mushroom, because they have tree features.”
I could equally proclaim:
“All mushroom-trees always mean mushroom, not tree, because they have mushroom features.”
The mushroom features RULE OUT tree.
WARNING, RETARDED USE OF “IF”, FOR A CLASS FOR WHICH BY DEF’N IT’S TRUE:
Panofsky provides a starting point to articulate these criteria:
“If” a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the tree features rule out meaning mushroom.
Cybermonk provides a starting point to articulate these criteria:
“If” a mushroom-tree has mushroom features and tree features, the mushroom features rule out meaning tree.
Huggins’ “Criteria for Deciding” Is a Tautology & Fake Put-On: “If” a Mushroom-Tree Has any Tree Features? The “If” Is Nonsensical, Because by Definition, All Mushroom-Trees Have Tree Features
It’s bad how Huggins cripples his conversation, the conversation — just like Erwin Panofsky! – by trying to strategically avoid writing “mushroom-tree”.
mushroom-tree – 1 hit in Foraging in Wrong Forest – as always, not used by Hug, but citing Giorgio Samorini.
mushroom tree – 6 hits, all of them a typo and mis-citation by Huggins of Giorgio Samorini, who writes “mushroom-tree” with hyphen.
pilzbaum – 0 hits!
Why this foul strategy that stinks, from Hug? B/c were he to use the term mushroom-tree, he ADMIT that by def, they are images that combine tree features & mushroom features, which is true, and essential, and he cannot win that true and fair argument.
To fakely appear to win, Hug is forced to pretend art historians don’t call them (the one time they ever wrote about them) “mushroom-trees”.
The moment Hug admits this class has tree features and mushroom features, he loses his false binary and fraudulent deceptive textual wording, “the trees have “BRANCHES” so they are tree — ALL OF THEM ALWAYS — not mushroom – – never mind that what he DECEPTIVELY writes as “branch” looks like mushroom in many cases.
By definition, all mushroom-trees combine tree features/imagery & mushroom features/imagery.
We cannot bury head in sand pretending like they don’t have mushroom features and only have tree features, as Hug does in his bunk & biased & arb Conclusion paragraph where uses Erwin Panofsky as mouthpiece for BAD ARG’N that can’t hold up for a moment – is this even argumentation, or just sheer ASSERTION lyingly dressed up as if arg’n/ “criteria for deciding”?
“I start w/ Pan to articulate criteria for deciding” – bullsh!t!
Huggins merely articulates a single, shallow, literalist, incorrect, uncomprehending, reductionist, biased, prejudiced, ignorant ASSERTION – posturing as if it is “three criteria for deciding”.
Huggins’ Panofsky-abusing Conclusion paragraph is not argumentation; it is sheer assertion, with a dash of arg from auth, and a lot of false dilemma, pretending to be argumentation.
Hug is not presenting criteria for deciding “whether it is a tree or it is a mushroom) (brain-dead false dichotomy), he is simply DECLARING that every instance of mushroom-trees is always simply tree, never at all mushroom.
This is not “criteria for deciding”!
Just b/c 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) is brain-dead and easily rebutted by a single instance by Letcher, does not mean 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) can be so insulted by dismissing them along w/ 1st Gen.
I hate and reject 1st Gen, a fixation blocking progress.
The only way to get to 2nd Gen is by adding the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism, which explains how the branching is a bigger purpose & message than mushroom – for experience that is ONLY sufficiently induced by psychedelics, not by falsely alleged confabulation, “traditional methods of the mystics”.
“The traditional methods of the mystics” are – if not psychedelics based – far too weak to produce mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.
By definition, all mushroom-trees have tree features (along w/ mushroom features), so Huggins’ Conclusion paragraph is merely a sheer assertion that all (when we simply merge his 3 criteria into “tree features”) mushroom-trees mean simply literal tree, instead of simply a literal mushroom (Ruck-type physical form, the physical body of the mushroom & its lifecycle shapes).
Hug presents 3 phony “if” pseudo-criteria, for bluffing decoration and empty postureing, to hide that this is a sheer unadulterated bias and blanket pronouncement.
ON WHAT BASIS – OTHER THAN WRITING ‘PANOFSKY’ — DOES HUGGINS CLAIM THAT THE COMBINATION OF TREE AND MUSHROOM FEATURES MEANS TREE NOT MUSHROOM?
What’s the justification for that bias — the name “Erwin Panofsky”? “Because Erwin Panofsky says so?” That’s arg from authority.
Art hist. call them mushroomtrees; pilzbaum in German.
If a mushroomtree has any tree features, Huggins says that Erwin Panofsky says it’s a tree, not a mushroom. Huggins “articulates these criteria”; ie, states a biased, prejudiced, lopsided, arbitrary, non-sequitur.
The tree features of a mushroomtree cancel out the mushroom features. According to these criteria pulled out of thin air like Panofsky’s letters & Brinc cit. Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
I say: The mushroom features of a mushroomtree cancel out the tree features; rules out tree. On what basis do I argue that?
On what basis does Panofsky-Huggins argue the opposite?
Huggins “articulates criteria” – are we supposed to take that to be an argument?
I articulate criteria: Any mushroom-tree that has mushroom features and tree features [a stupid pseudo-qualification since they all have both by definition], the …
Huggins’ Uses Panofsky to Conclude: “Branches; So, Not Mushroom”
Branches rules out mushrooms. Panofsky says so, in my Conclusion section.
Here is the Egodeath treatment of Huggins’ Conclusion section, the key paragraph.
SETP STEP ASIDE WHILE HUG THROWS FORTH HIS CRITERIA = STYLIZED MUSHROOM;
IF MUSHROOM STYLIZED LIKE TREE FEATURES, NOT MUSHROOM – TREE, ONLY ,
ART CAN ONLY DRAW TREE FEATURES OR DRAW MUSHROOM FEATURES: WHICH ONE IS IT?
HAS MUSHROOM FEATURES AND THEREFORE ITS A MUSHROOM NOT A TREE.
If a Mushroom-tree has mushroom features, that proves it is a mushroom – Cybermonk (and there’s hundreds of instances, so I’m right)
If a Mushroom-tree has tree features, that proves it is a tree – Panofsky Huggins
Huggins Articulates Criteria – aka, makes a blanket assertion about all mushroom-trees. It’s not even a logical fallacy, except the “assertion as if arg’n” fallacy, aka assuming that which is to be proved (in a simple form).
A mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it’s a tree, not a mushroom
[Mar. 1, 2025]
– the brilliance of Huggins’ “arg’n”. Arb’y, biased, prejudiced, lacking any justif to lean to tree instead of lean to mushroom. Huggins, why not instead “conclude” the 3 crit – which are in fact only a single crit –
Those criteria reduce to: a mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it is a tree, not a mushroom.
A mushroom-tree has tree features and mushroom features, therefore, it’s a mushroom, not a tree
[Mar. 1, 2025]
That garbage argn or rahter, sheer assertion is Huggins’ conclusion, dressed up as if it is multiple “criteria to decide”.
“Conclusion: By abusing Panofsky’s censored letter 2 pulled out of thin air, we can articulate criteria to decide if it is a tree or a mushroom.” — CRUDE ANALYSIS!!
Along the way, we need something LIKE the class’n systems that are attempted by Samorini & Huggins, but, … something LIKE branching form analysis of mushroom-trees, but must include:
must include vine-leaf trees.
must consider individual features and sub-scope of entire whole tree.
must realize mushroom-trees are a creative free-form combination of FEATURES:
tree features,
Amanita features,
Liberty Cap features,
cubensis features,
Panaeolus features;
eg spots;
triangle cap,
cut branch;
branches,
visual cross-behind cut branch;
{cut right trunk};
{cut right branch},
lower level of tree vs branching form of upper level of tree
lower level of tree vs branching form of upper level of tree: Mr. Salamander teaches that: and my July 4 2022 blue metal ink diagram in book shows that: trunk = non-branching; mushroom arms = branching; YX supporting crown is branching; crown (despite multiple donut spots) is considered here as non-branching.
lesson: cannot generalize “crown is always a branching zone | is always a non-branching zone” – IT DEPENDS, BASED ON THE INDIVIUAL CROWN!
Cannot say “Left side of tree always = branching = bad”.
Cannot say “The crown of a mushroom-tree is always considered a branching zone”.
Cannot say “The crown of a mushroom-tree is always considered a non-branching zone”.
Proof: Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 1 R = Day 3 = 4 plants: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI; plant 1 has non grid cap = non-branching, but Plant 2 has grid cap of Liberty Caps, so ITS crown is considered branching.
That principle is reinforced & double-communicated/ doubly indicated, reinforced, by Day 4: its two L mushroom-trees have grid of Liberty Caps, and point to the A compass, which is like Y branching, so THOSE crowns are considered branching.
In Day 4, the two R mushroom-trees have non-grid cap, and point to balance scale = balance is achieved by repudiating branching, ie balance = non-branching, corresponding with the non-grid crowns of the two R mushroom-trees.
Day 4 isn’t mushroom-trees; and Huggins passes over this point in silence, magically deceiveing the reader by drawing attn instead to sudden change of topic: the small plants around the 4 mushrooms are like in the later folio Mushroom Mount where 5 proper mushroom-trees (w/ branches) have small plants between them.
[Mar. 1, 2025]
In Plant 2’s crown, each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree within its crown grid is implied by the tree of knowledge 2 rows below it to each have L & R arms/branches.
The rule always holds, except for the 50% of the time when the rule is broken.
vine-leaf trees vlt
branching-message vine-leaf trees bmvlt
Keyboard shortcuts for Samorini & Huggins Names
[Mar. 1, 2025]
Giorgio Samorini gs
Ronald Huggins rh
Huggins hugs
Samorini samo
2nd-Generation Entheogen Scholarship
Branches of mushroom-trees was a problem, answered by the Egodeath Theory & 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship
I am running with the claim, granted to me in Brown 2019, I’m part of a new generation of entheogen scholars: I make & define 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship as:
the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm, rejecting the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Inherently incorporates and integrates the Egodeath theory.
2nd-Gen Entheogen Scholarship Integrates Psychedelic Eternalism, not 1st Gen Shallow Game of “Spot the Secret Mushroom”
Check if Brown 2016 book discusses 1st & 2nd generations of entheogen scholarship.
Branches of mushroom-trees was a problem unanswered by 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm); answered by the Egodeath theory in 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
I will gladly take on the alleged problem that mushroom-trees have branches, in fact I’d say that the mushroom-trees have EMPHASIZED branches – but also emphatic cut branches, including the major motif {cut right trunk}.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Crop by Michael Hoffman. April 13, 2022 (day of discovery of Cut Right Trunk)
MICA Deniers Conflate Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship with merely 1st-Generation Entheogen Scholars (the Secret Amanita paradigm)
Better than Brown, Huggins – who has aptitude, unlike Letcher & Hatsis – Huggins asks better questions than Letcher or Hatsis. In fact, Huggins is great because he asks questions.
Letcher doesn’t ask questions; he just demolishes the crappy 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) and then falsely acts as if he disproved mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Hatsis doesn’t ask questions, he just insults Irvin and projects his Allegro-fanboi gullibility on the entire field (reducing the field), and especially does so b/c Irvin literally carries forward the Hatsis childhood belief in Allegro – so Hatsis assumes that:
Given that Hatsis began as Allegro fanboi, and
Given that Irvin 2008 still is Allegro fanboi,
therefore, Brown & Cybermonk and entire field of entheogen scholarship must be Allegro fanboi –
A partial truth, like Letcher equated entire field with the the Secret Amanita paradigm. Yes, true, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship indeed WAS bunk; the Secret Amanita paradigm.
The error of Letcher & Hatsis, and somewhat of Huggins, is that they conflate entheogen scholarship with specifically merely 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists”
See Also
Intro/Motivation for this Page
Perceptual Dualism is this set of premises, especially the first 3 (the 4th is just my shutting out others’ ideas):
Matter Exists,
Experience Exists,
Mental Constructs Are Primary for Modelling Personal Control,
Thoughts Do Not Create Reality
This morning while gathering my writings about Psilocybin as the true gold standard Reference for myth and religion and mind transformation, I similarly wondered where I drafted writings about what I’ve recently called “perceptual dualism”.
I dislike how Chris Letheby and Matthew Johnson present uninformed options, possible positions regarding “mystical experience”, within the debate about Moving Past Mysticism ie “the mysticism wars within psychedelic science”.
Chris Letheby’s Poorly Defined Options for Positions about Psychedelic Mystical Experience
Intellectual Autobio; Reasons I Modelled Perception
I don’t recall all the dates, but in effect, in April 1985, my father gave me all the latest concepts and techniques in self help seminars, human potential movement, transpersonal psychology, breathwork, Ken Wilber’s books, Alan Watts, etc.
In October 1985, I started selectively applying some of those ideas – transformed – to repair my dysfunctional personal control system.
This post is also to fish for other connections-topics where I detect there’s some gold. eg connecting “New Thought” — a label new to me — to my criticism of the MOTIVATIONS of WHY people in 1920(?) embraced egoic wishful thinking fantasy interpretation of Quantum Physics & the Copenhagen interpretation: EGO INFLATION TO THE EXTREME.
Here’s the bad reasoning that abuses … dorm-room level junk Philosophy:
Since mental constructs are all we experience, this means that thoughts are reality, therefore you are God, creator of infinite universes at all moments.
Chris Letheby tripping in his dorm room as a Philosophy undergrad, asserting the mysticism position
Why I Favor Perceptual Dualism
I assume the material world exists AND I emphasize entirely, in the Egodeath theory, all of our experience is mental constructs.
I’m vehemently against “Cognitive Neuroscience”. Cognitive Science (psychedelic phen’y) must tell Neuroscience to take a hike, because Neurofoo is an invasive species, a parasite that kills the host.
Here’s what every “cognitive neuroscience” book says and does:
“Cognitive”, as Marketing positioning.
Neuroscience.
Delete Cognitive (cognitive phenomenology).
And while you’re at it, be sure to — in the case of “Cog Sci of Religion” books — prohibit any mention of psychedelics.
“Cognitive Neuroscience”? “Only Matter Exists”, or “Only Mind Exists”? The Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach
“Cognitive Neuroscience” tangles “Only Matter Exists” and “Only Mind Exists” [that’s just exploring an idea] – the Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach
to develop this idea/ gather my writings
Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists” – yet more than anyone, starting in April 1987 said we must prioritize mental construct processing
In the articles critiquing “mysticism/ mystical experience”, some of them advocate, or argue about, “only mind exists”.
They say if you think – AS ONE OF THE NAYSAYERS ASSERTS AND THEN RIDICULES, he alternatively(!) asserts AND ridicules “only mind exists”.
He is an experienced psychonaut, he says every time he in in the mystic altered state, he believes only mind exists.
He equates mystical experience with the delusion that only mind exists.
This psychedelic philosopher writes articles or compiles articles that advocate hard materalism (only matter exists; consciousness is merely epiphenomenal).
His schtick is to get high, assert that only mind exists, and then come back down, and then write articles ridiculing people who say only mind exists – ie, ridiculing psychedelic mysticism.
He’s just like Hatsis, who fully embraced Allegro (still says in effect “Allegro is my fav author), then reject Allegro and aggressively project his own childish childhood views onto Brown, me, & every entheogen scholar.
Hatsis goes around attacking [& violently forcefully projecting onto others “this is your position you are asserting: Secret Christian Amanita Cult”], scorched earth, Allegro (even where there is no Allegro).
This dynamic is striking, needs development by me, so starting — I am planning a page/post about why I never have had any interest in this topic that one Philosopher (Chris Letheby??) in field of Psychedelic Science treats terribly, the topic of “only mind exists” or else “only matter exists” – an idiotic because unhelpful Philosophy topic.
ie, CRUMMY PHILOSOPHERS INVADING FIELD OF PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE, TELL US WHAT’S IMPORTANT IS TO FIGHT OVER WHETHER ONLY MATTER EXISTS, OR ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS [conscious experiencing] EXISTS.
Letheby [if I’m not mixing him up] is trying to steer the debate over mystical experience into unprofitable FALSE DICHOTOMY.
Letheby is trying to turn the field of Psych Science into a stupid unhelpful/ irrelevant Philosophy-department debate.
Why I Provisionally Assume that the External World Exists:
Because this is the most flexible and useful and practical model.
My Focus in 1986: Repairing Dysfunctional Self-Control Across Time
I took General Semantics in Spring 1986 semester.
The 1987 style of the project of fixing my personal control system was helped by figuring out the nature of ego transcendence per Way of Zen; but not helped by Philosophy department notions (that Chris Letheby employs) like “only mind exists” or “only matter exists”.
In April 1987, I left the approach of writing normal sentence cajoling myself in my blank books, and changed to a very qualitatively different approach in expansive binder sheets with acronyms and concepts including mental construct processing and loose cognitive association binding.
I have the notebooks and diagrams, but too dense to be worth deciphering.
I’d have to recopy it, exactly the same as my edge-of-indecipherable engineering classroom notes. Written for immediate idea devmt idea development.
For comparison/ an approximation of that problem, see my roughest idea development sections at this site, but make the letters hard to read.
I LOVE my hand notes of April 1987 through early 1989 — but they are a really slow-going jungle; they would have to be re-written, to get any value from analyzing them.
In April 1987, I started analyzing meta-perception, started modelling it.
The harebrained, irrelevant, stupid Philosophy proposal that “only mind exists” had NOTHING to contribute toward that practical project of fixing personal control — “only mind exists” is not gonna get the massive homework load done, & my absurd fantasy-based todo list.
I had an URGENT need immediately for a model of the mind and self-control across time that is practical & effective & leveraging Transcendent Knowledge (which I set about figuring out logically per STEM, in 1986).
Equally unhelful and irrelevant is “only material exists” and “only mind exists”.
So, I did not think in terms of those stupid notions; but I analyzed ego transcendence – a la Alan Watt’s centralizing cybernetic self-control as enlightenment….
The irony: My father gave me the Way of Zen by Alan Watts in April 1985 and i didn’t want it, yet that book is perfect in combining “ego transcendence/ Transcendent Knowledge = self-control cybernetics sudden fundamental transformation of thinking”, and I held the latter view/ strategy by 1986, and only in 1987 found that Watts took that approach which was — in some key ways — closely aligned with my approach, my mentality, in two ways:
cybernetic self-control as the central focus of Transcendent Knowledge.
sudden revising of the mental model about that.
Meditate Harder, and Give Zen Master Brad More Money
Alan Watts used a binary model, from deluded thinking, to enlightened thinking.
Not Ken Wilber’s 15-phase psychospiritual development from prehistory to postmodernity from birth to old adulthood after a lifetime of Advaita non-drug, freewill thinking.
Wilber’s notion of Advaita contradicted Ramesh Balsekar’s.
I needed Transcendent Knowledge NOW, at age 18, not at age 81 with Wilber making excuses for meditation having delivered none of his promises.
Yes, it takes some time to do mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism: a single school quarter. The product is a failure if it takes longer.
“It’s not that our product is bad; it’s user error.”
“It’s not that my product I sold you is bunk; it’s YOUR fault for not MEDITATING HARDER/longer.”
Loose cognition reveals the fundamental priority of mental construct processing. But that is entirely different than the stupid notion — unhelpful profoundly — “only mind exists”.
I was grounded in STEM homework/ studies, anchoring me.
And in 1988 spring, I hated Quantum Physics interp because it was NOT grounded in sober STEM engineering reality, but entirely jumped the shark (dancing wu li masters b.s.) into “consciousness is the fkiking GOD of reality.
Melissa Dougherty vs New Thought; Christian critique of New Thinking
Melissa Dougherty – “remember the year 1908” – = Minkowski spacetime block universe.
You are God, you create the future by your thoughts. to research: “New thought” corrupting Christianity.
Quantum Woo: ego is the Creator.
Your Ego Is God, Creator of Infinite Worlds Every Moment (= “only mind exists”; the observer-ego collapses the wave function)
I am not saying that my father’s field told us that or emphasized “your ego is God and has the power to create the world” – i guess there was some of that unhelpful nonsense.
The 1985 human potential movement was reasonably balanced affirming both the material world and mental construct processing.
I never felt … bc my needs were serious, — see autobio below for dates — In 1986, my needs were serious. Not Phil dept masterbat’n. I had a seirous need fro FOR PRACTICAL ERFFECTIVE CONTROL ACROSS TIME TO DO ENGINEERING homework and an INSANE overcommitment per 1980s INSANE IRRATIONAL notions about time management “how to add unlimited expectations on yourself and then kil yourself in frustration b/c not practical”.
Sometimes my self-expectations in some respects were sane and reasonable. But in some basic ways, that was FOLLY. I THOUGHT that i was merely … it was a combination of dysfunctional self management PLUS way, way way way too FAR too many expectations.
My control was dysfunctional. AND:
I had FAR too many expectations, I blame and have blamed for some years now, the “time management” session at University that was required for Freshmen. Horrible!
Everything wrong and insane with 1980s time management notions.
They had ZERO conception of limitts and tradeoffs, the last thing they would think of, was WHEN YOU ADD A TODO ITEM, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER TODO ITEMS. WHEN YOU ADD A GOAL, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER GOALS!!
THEY *only* told us how to ADD goals, not how to REMOVE goals!
Greedy youths (me in 1983) take that as: Here’s how to:
pledge frat
party
learn guitar
play guitar in band
write songs
figure out guitar amp tone (in 1987 that especially came into focus)
“Nevertheless, the premise that drug use might comprise a useful working method for film analysis is not as outlandish as it might at first glance seem.
“After all, one common altered state of consciousness – the dream – has already had a long tradition within 1970s apparatus theory’s emphasis on film spectatorship as an oneiric condition.
“But apparatus theory’s structuralist conception of a universal spectator was premised less on the vagaries of drug-altered states than the psychosexual mechanisms of the Freudian unconscious.
“In my estimation, then, phenomenology provides a far more fruitful opening for analysing psychedelic cinema, because accounts of dream/trip experiences are not synonymous with those experiences themselves.
“Much as dreams seem real when within them but do not make sense upon waking retrospection, the trip experience only seems real until recollected later – but all we can have access to as researchers is the post-facto reportage of such altered states: a second-hand translation of vivid experience into discourse that inevitably fails to capture the in-the-moment profundity of such experiences.
“This act of discursive translation helps account for why such reports are so easily dismissed as solipsistic reverie instead of empirically valid observations.30“
/ end of cinema article paragraph w/ endnote 30
30 also cites Letcher’s article.
Not Interested in “Only Material Exists” or “Only Mental Constructs Exist”
I have the same view as in the article “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”.
I’m not interested in a revolutionary rejection of the external world existing, or anything like that.
I merely want to make a well-articulated model of the usual “representationism” assumption.
I’m not interested in radical positions like “only mental mental constructs exist” or “only the external material world exists”.
I merely want to say: assuming that the external material world exists, and that the mind models that by mental representations, how can we best model and discuss this?
I do not want to say “the material world is the cause of experience, of mental constructs, so therefore experience is less real than materialist plane.”
I favor a kind of “dualism” approach, where we “take mental constructs seriously”, “take representationalism seriously”, and we should emphasize – b/c useful — our experience; emphasize not materalism, emphasize mental construct processing.
I am not interested in the idea “the material realm doesn’t exist; only mental constructs exist.”
I would not take either side in some debate between “only material exists” or “only mind exists”.
I am not interested in that direction of thinking; that’s not where the value comes from.
Given the commonplace model – described in Mind Manfi article — how can we articulate TAHAT THAT model in the most useful way?
What is Max’s take on the poor options that Letheby gives us: either you must agree “naturalism materialism”, or, you must — like Letheby when in dorm room tripping — foolishly assert “only mind exists”.
What Max say re: you must pick between “only matter exists” (smart Science) or “only mind exists” (foolish Mystm) – there is no trace of that false dilemma in my writings or in Cog Phen of Mind Manifn article. Matthew Johnson & one side in the Mysticm Wars – the Sciencests (only matter exists) vs. the Mystics (only mind exists).
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.
Also reject extremist eternalism-thinking — posting title: 3-PHASE BEATS 2 PHASE like late anti’y beat early antiqy which is 2-phase and worships eternalism-thinking. the Egodeath theory does not – in my mature phase now – solely push eternalism-thinking.
That’s how Leth describes himself, while he pushes false dilemma, while he pushes Matt Johnson like, hardcore “naturalism” (whats that supposed to mean??) & “materialsim” or else you re a FOOL like Letheby in dorm room – says Letheby.
False Dilemma fallacy by this “leader” in “Phil & Psychedelics” – buy my book Letheby he edited a book or two, and the q’air that judges you based on whether you have correct thinking — materialiist naturalism, which is Science — or you have foolish thinking, which is Mystm like Letheby tripping in dorm room in Phil dept. That’s how Leth frames options, in his various works.
heading
One kind of ‘dualism’ – but do not trust labels!
Theres 8 kinds of dualism first of all in different fields/ topical areas.
Which of these 8 kinds of dualism?
Melissa Doherty vs. New Thought/ “Mind Is Reality”
Debunker Melissa Doherty — a former adherent of New Thought — picks out key phrase “Thoughts Are Things”.
A magic pejorative used among uneducated Christians: ‘gnostic‘
I had to halt playback of her expose of Napolean Hill who wrote Think and Grow Rich, and fume at Melissa Doherty for using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative, used so carelessly AS IF a meaningful term, when I, and I think others, have NO IDEA what ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative is supposed to mean.
I will use ‘eternalism’ jargon very carefully.
We are overly comfortable using & defining the term ‘determinism’ – it turns out that really, the term ‘determinism’ means: egoic possibilism thinking, recast into the form of domino-chain determinism, which is what Kafei assumed I mean in my 2007 main article at Egodeath.com.
‘determinism’ is a familiar-feeling term, but ruined by being saturated by egoic thinking; in contrast, ‘eternalism’ is technically correct – though it omits control issues of control – but not familiar to people, so hardly usable.
I recently had to quit using the term ‘pilzbaum’ except in a demoted way: “mushroom-trees (‘pilzbaum‘ in German)…”
Pet Peeve: When Christians say: Idea X is bad, because it is Gnostic – and they invariably (a hallmark) give not the slightest thought to defining what the hell their word ‘gnostic’ is even supposed to mean.
Christians say fervently and with assurance: “Their idea is terrible, because It is gnostic” —used without the slightest notion of defining that term.
It doesn’t even cross their mind that no one has any idea what they mean by ‘gnostic’. It’s 1-directional communication with no check to ensure communication.
You have to be pretty uneducated, ie insular, to use the word “gnostic” as a pejorative, as if using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative is meaningful to a broad audience.
It’s possible I’m out of the loop. I don’t watch tv and have no interest in fiction, or sports, or current affairs politics & political figures, and most pop culture.
On tv, if someone rails against and decries something bad because it is “gnostic”, would the audience have any clue what’s that supposed to mean?
Why do Christians think the word ‘gnostic’ is an understood pejorative?
When I hear that, I assume the person is ignorant in a couple ways.
Part of insular Christian culture, I gather, is to use the word ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative, never defining it.
Just like among low-grade atheists, “belief in God” is never defined, yet they write many words arguing about yes or no “does God exist”.
Nowadays stand up in church and rail against “Mystery Babylon”, that would be considered a “rant”.
I define “rant” as: a fervent utterance, that no one can understand what you’re on about.
It’s midwit reasoning: a poor thinker has picked up on jargon, and now throws it around like they’re educated; but such a person has a poor relationship with reasoning.
They have no idea how to argue or communicate an argument; instead, just slap on a pre-given, yet undefined term, a magic pejorative, ‘gnostic’.
They take 99.99% for granted, and only express argumentation by a context-free 0.01% of articulation.
I took 5 minutes to read the 4 horsemen of atheism after 2001 and was disgusted by the utter failure to have any thing more than gutter-level worst form of Christianity.
None of them had ever heard of esoteric mystic Christianity – they critiqicized Christianity and religion, but actually criticized worst-case junk; junk-level pop Christianity.
It is offenseively ignorant and self-centered and unthinking, to disparage something as ‘gnostic’ when the person DOESN’T EVEN CONSIDER ANY NEED TO DEFINE WTF THEY MEAN BY THEIR TERM ‘GNOSTIC’.
It’s evident that to these failed thinkers, these non-thinkers, the term ‘gnostic’ means: Any idea I don’t like.
The term ‘gnostic’ – when used without ever thinking of defining it — is an empty shell game empty token category wastebasket into which [see Wouter Hanegraaff] the Christian critic carelessly tosses ANY idea that they don’t like.
I cuss & fume about this because I fail at simply articulating my objection.
It is offensive to Reason, it is maddening, when ppl put forth utterances (undefined terms) AS IF they are meaningful to their audience.
People do this — makes me angry — when they say “Does God exist?”, “God exists”, and “God doesn’t exist” — but none of these dimwits even THINK of defining their #$%$&!! terms!
What does your word ‘God’ mean, and your phrase “believe in God” mean?
What’s wrong with you that you haven’t heard “Define your terms”?
“Believe in” & “God” — What’s that supposed to mean?
How can you employ terms so ineptly, so carelessly, so unthinkly, AS IF you are making a utterace that’s meaningful to the audience, when in fact no one has the faintest idea what you’re talking about.
This is an abuse of language, of communication, and it is insulting the audience, and insulting to language.
Their license to write should be revoked.
That’s how I felt about the worst-quality possible writing of the atheists.
Their writing really reduces the level of discourse.
My feeling, my reaction: I recoil, as if a member of the educated upper class, at the wretched masses who are incapable of thinking.
Do you not realize that your utterances are nonsensical, undefined, incomprehensible gibberish?
I get mad about … i am offdended by, their USE of a term AS IF the term carries inherent meaning.
I am maddened by PRESUPPOSITIONS that are UNSTATED.
I get angry because what’s left SILENT.
It is that silence that makes me frustrated. That lack of thinking.
That assumption that everyone has E.S.P. and agrees about these terms — as if theese are known terms.
See Michael A Williams: against ‘gnostiicism’ book.
Like the structure of Erwin Panofsky’s fallacious non-sequitur argument:
The Plaincourault fresco isn’t a mushroom, because you are ignorant of the hundreds of other mushroom-trees.
That’s not just a non-sequitur; it’s every logical fallacy all at once.
WHAT ARE YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS, IDIOT! 😫
See Also
pages at this site covering this topic: tbd, i already copied from idea development 23 / 24
https://www.ligare.org – “Ligare is an open network of people who believe that Christianity and other existing religious traditions offer paths for preparing for, experiencing, finding meaning, and integrating mystical experiences [mere Staceanism? beginners’ initial unity experience?], including [NO! exclusively Psilocybin mushrooms, the authentic Reference, thank you very much] those occasioned by sacred plants and compounds.”
“Our mission is to weave a vibrant and interconnected tapestry, cultivating networks that bridge Christian faith institutions, interfaith organizations, mental health advocates, and the psychedelic community.
“Through thoughtful convening, network development, and collaborative partnerships across multiple institutions, we aim to empower and educate religious leaders and communities about the profound opportunities and significant challenges within the resurgence of psychedelics.
“We are committed to nurturing the spiritual leaders of today and tomorrow, transcending traditional roles and empowering individuals historically excluded from power.
“Our focus extends to supporting clergy and spiritual directors in understanding how psychedelic healing might be integrated into their pastoral care and spiritual companioning ministries and engaging with seminaries and chaplaincy programs to cultivate the next generation of spiritual leaders.
“To effect change, we initiate a narrative shift, transforming the often-negative narrative around psychedelics within the context of the Christian tradition.
“Through a variety of media and storytelling tactics, we assist people of faith in sharing their psychedelic experiences and are producing a long-form documentary on Christianity and psychedelics.
[probably falsely takes for granted that Psychedelics are “new” for Christianity – never mind the Medieval heyday eg Eadwine. Ref cit: McC & Priest, mid 2024 article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, where — against Winkelman & Brown, the authors including Hunt Priest are dismissive of psychedelic origin of Christianity, and failed to respond to repeated calls from Wink&Brown:
“As a go-to resource hub for Christianity and psychedelics, we are dedicated to generating knowledge.
“Our education and outreach initiatives include developing curricula, safety guidelines, and theological frameworks.
“We commission original research and surveys to better understand Christian attitudes toward psychedelics.
“At the heart of Ligare is the community we foster.
“We are a home for Christians exploring psychedelics and supportive spiritual practices.
“Our efforts include hosting forums and affinity groups, supporting working groups within our community, and encouraging solidarity within the broader psychedelic movement.
“We aspire to create self-sustaining wisdom schools focused on the intersection of psychedelics and contemplative Christianity, providing a space for deepening spiritual life.”
[This church is good for being psychedelic, but the word “contemplation” aka the meditation hucksters – who is the Christianity book author who claimed the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics? who Irvin & I sep’ly criticized as BS]
Hunt Priest, from About page
Meet Hunt Priest
In early 2016, I was a fortunate participant in a psilocybin study involving religious professionals.[!]
“My encounters with psilocybin opened me to the healing and consciousness-raising power of sacred plants and fungi and their connection to my own Christian practice.
“The epiphanies forever changed the trajectory of my work.
Through Ligare, I want the healing potential of these sacred plants to be in the toolkits of all who are healers of bodies, minds, and souls.
“A significant part of my work, and Ligare’s, entails actively collaborating to bridge the knowledge gap between psychedelic research and religious and spiritual communities.
“Theses substances are powerful, so safety is of utmost concern.”
todo: insert image: teaching scene from Great Canterbury Psalter:
I can’t tell if the Sunday Satsang (service) even occurred today.
The church has plenty of problems, technical & otherwise, for any group.
Seems like the online meeting link failed, like happened multiple times w/ the book club.
Which means that if people get together in a subsidiary city/region, they need backup plan in case the technology fails, from the mother church location.
I don’t have experience with tech-networked multi-location churches.
Problems – The Problem Is You
partial lyrics by Sex Pistols, for scholarly study
Too many problems, oh why am I here? I need to be me, ’cause you’re all too clear And I can see there’s something wrong with you But what do you expect me to do?
You don’t do what you want Then you’ll fade away
Problem, problem Problem, the problem is you What you gonna do?
I ain’t equipment, I ain’t automatic
Bet you thought you had it all worked out Bet you thought you knew what I was about Bet you thought you’d solved all your problems But you are the problem
They know a doctor, gonna take you away They’ll take you away and throw away the key
Letcher 2006 grants ok we were wrong, we admit Lib Caps existed in Eng-Europe — but we still maintain no one in Europe thought of Psil Mushrooms as spiritual until 1970 – but some ppl still deny Lib Caps were in Europe before 1970.
Letcher 2006 in extremely uninformed about evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art , only discusses 1 instance and worst possible treatment of that wo the many other mushrooms imagery by Bernw eg list
Intro
Instead of 1 good post, here’s two bad/rough-draft placeholder posts tangled together. todo: break out new post for 2nd topic; clean up.
Distinct topics:
My motivations in 1986, why I combined loose cognition, human potential movement, The Way of Zen by Alan Watts, and had no interest in “only mind exists” while I modeled mental construct processing & representationalism.
Dislike of the “Cognitive Neuroscience” field/ marketing nonsense, that promises to lean toward “mind is important; the explanation level is mental experiencing”, but IMMEDIATELY) falls back to “matter is important; the explanation level”. Immediately, like, by the time you leave the title on the front cover & move down to the subtitle.
Dislike of treating non-drug meditation as if it’s simply a GIVEN that that’s the gold std Ref.
My 1987/1988 dislike of interp of QM.
There are 3-5 topics interconnected here.
I have to build out this draft, to determine & plan that.
General strategy: my idea development pages 23 & 24 spawn posts that organize that draft content.
Ways That Are Not the Gold Reference Standard
non-drug meditation
non-drug entheogens
Amanita
Hatsis’ scopolamine
cave meditation Ustanova book
the Christian author/ entheogen denier that Irvin & I both indep. dislike – he “explains” early Christian mystical experience as the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics. Irvin & I: “bs!”
By April 1985 , my father gave me all the leading edge bs tech [! including the Way of Zen by Alan Watts]: it did not much, that technology did not fully/ directly address [other than Watts in 1987] my need for/ expectation of posi-control (non-dysfunctional self-control across time) so it was obvious no books or articles covered – why cant we have, how fix this?
1985 solution: use loose cognition to give a STEM solution & model of ndsc posi-control (non-dysfunctional self-control across time) . to analyze anything, the right approach is STEM.
i need right now immediately a clear grasp in 85 of what ego transcendence is.
what is egoic vs transcendent thinking?
Those are key points to then use to form the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence in Oct 26 1985-1986-1987-Jan 11 1988– i think of this period isea as “1986” era of 1St floor Soutgwest dorm spring 1986 & 3 senesters:
nov 83-mar 84: THE PROBLEM
Apr 84: the self help seminar – MILESTONE
Oct 1985-May 1986: first attempt
Jun 86 – mar 87
apr 87- jan 88
human potential movement
transpersonal psychology
hyperventilation “breathwork”
first, myth & me and enlightenment is from psychedelics not “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics”
the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics
the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics tnmm
The Cubensis Question (vs. Liberty Cap/ Panaeolus)
not cubensis tho Great Canterbury Psalter shows preference Cub. allegedly no cub N of 30th parallel. what does “no” mean? — “too rare to be a thing”
I believe there IS cub far N of 30th parallel but no one made ANY attempt to look for it. Stamets puts Cub in SE US which is N of 30th.
Why this topic is key
Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism
copied from portion of email feb 15 from idea development 24
“A” mystical experience from Griffiths’ Psychedelic Mysticism research?
The ultimate “mystical experience” is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism to psychedelic eternalism.
The wording is nuanced and crucially important, in the debate! to define the positions usefully & relevantly:
Non-drug meditation cannot sufficiently reliably , it’s not sufficiently reliable or intense to accomplish mental model transformation, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Insofar as the fake construct academics’ fake invented confabulation “the traditional methods of the mystics” “can” produce a Psil-like effects, the problem is, non-drug meditation is not reliable … same problem Amanita has!
Non-drug meditation, or Amanita, is not intense enough and is not reliable enough to deliver you through the guarded gate, transformation gate, to get the treasure & bring it back to the community.
Amanita “can” produce mystical experience – but it’s a deliriant, and cannot do anything but STEAL CREDIT from the only way that actually is strong enough to bring full mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Griffiths, or Amanita, or non-drug meditation, or Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens, “can/ could/ might/ may” produce “a” mystical experience, but that’s merely weakly true.
Walter Stace 1960 is correct: mystical experience includes UNITY.
But the Egodeath theory is AGAINST UNITY as definitive of transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Dittrich’s dimension name, “Dread of ego dissolution”, is INADEQUATE.
It’s not wrong, but it’s not helpful, it’s not sufficient, it’s not relevant enough.
Same w/ lexicon conceptual that’s alien to / external to the Egodeath theory’s conceptual vocab: “default mode network”, “cog neurosci”, “neuroplasticity” are “not wrong, but not helpful.”
That’s my catchphrase: “Not wrong, but not helpful.”
Non-drug meditation is not wrong, but it’s not sufficient to deliver the goods, deliver on the bragging Marketing claims, braggadocio that belittles Psil.
Psil is the actual standard gold reference – non-drug meditation is NOT the true genuine gold standard of reference, and I hate the assumption that non-drug meditation is the gold standard of reference.
The teacher of righteousness is Psil, NOT non-drug meditation, or Amanita, or Hane’s non-drug entheogens.
That is my massive fundamental refutation of Zig Zag Zen and the lousy poorly conducted, mis-founded Pop debate of “psychedelics vs. Buddhism”: their fund. premise is wrong and false and presupposition.
I hate that that debate takes it for granted that the gold standard of reference is non-drug meditation.
The true gold standard reference is Psil, because only Psil is sufficiently reliable and intense to cause transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Non-drug meditation “can” produce “a” mystical experience, but cannot produce the full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Beginners’ mild experience of cosmic unity, falls short of full transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
/ end of copied from portion of email feb 15 from idea development 24
Zig Zag Zen – Tired in 1996 Tricycle mag, tired in 2015 2nd Ed.
Book Zig Zag Zen by Allan Badiner: Why I cannot read this book and recoil at every page.
That book was bad/ tired/ worn out back in 1996 Tricycle mag, it was still bad/ tired / worn out in ZZZ 1st Edition, and it is still bad in ZZZ 2015 2nd Edition.
ZZZ is intensively based on the silent presupposition, very strongly taken for granted by everyone involved, that meditation didn’t come from Psilocybin mushrooms, and that psychedelics are a novel upstart innovation.
I thought we learned our lesson that that was a huge missstep in 1960s; someone like Ralph Metzner wrote as much – after I wrote as much.
But no, psychedelicists who are owned by the meditation hucksters have learned nothing.
Authentic meditation is possible by – at the very least – acknowledging the likely Psilo origin of meditation.
At least mention that possibility! Has to be taken into account!
Else, we have a compendium of confused bias, zzz. Meditation, then, = confused bias (ideal for scam & never delivering on the grand promises). Great.
I could check 2nd Ed. of ZZZ to confirm that it doesn’t even occur to anyone involved, to even ask the looming, huge, key question:
Is Psilocybin mushrooms new for Buddhist meditation – or actually the very source and inspiration historically?
If everyone is wrong about this fundamental presupposition, then the entire book is kind of worthless and not worth reading — unless you think a study of folly is a sensible use of time.
ZZZ is not worth reading [ie, not best use of time], if it’s nothing but a study of folly.
That’s similar to the Genre question, about the nature of the New Testament:
If a book is written (in 1980-2025) that assumes the New Testament is historical reportage, but (let us suppose) the New Testament was actually written as Hellenistic mythic literature, then what value could such a book about New Testament possibly have?
(I admit many can get a kind of value from such misreading.)
The book is bound to be 90% error & confusion, mis-founded; and only 10% potential value — but even to cash in on that 10% value requires thoroughgoing transformation of that 10%.
Not worth dealing with; ie, there’s way better use of time.
The Web Changes Everything to Enable Research and Correcting Past Lies or Errors
the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, is online, so: Can we consider the publishing of Erwin Panofsky letters or brown 2019 to be a product of the internet era? ie made available to us bc of the internet? To some extent.
The strange standards for being up to date, by leading edge scholars
Interesting later perspective in 2025 looking back on my engagement in 2019: I took FOREVER to find Browns’ 2019 article, glance at it, and then really read it.
If I am not reviewing the draft of a book or article, that means I’m so out of the loop, so disengaged, that I’m only 1 week ahead of their publishing, which is like being 20 years later.
I completely missed Browns’ 2019 article, and didn’t read it until ETERNITY LATER, like a few weeks after it was published I skimmed it, and then FAILED to actually READ it until 2020!
Eons later! Way too late.
Why do I have that skewed perspective? bc/ I preordered Brown 2016 book long before it shipped.
First, I read about Brown planned 2016 book; then I read Hatsis’ artices about mushroom imagery in Christian art and saw the train collision coming.
BUT ONLY NOW IT STRIKES ME that … this revises what I wrote in early 2016!
When I said Hatsis’ articles are ignorant of Browns’ forthcoming 2016 book and there would be a train collision, I had no idea that Brown and Hatsis worked together “debating”, in [year] already.
When did Hatsis become aware of Brown & Browns’ forthcoming 2016 book?
Browns’ field research at Harvard published Erwin Panofsky letters within article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies in 2019 which I was so sluggish I ()
The Web gives us in 2025 advantages to debunk shysters in the past, like Napoleon Hill.
Compare: As of Nov. 2020, there was a too-dark version of Great Canterbury Psalter provided by a French library.
I could not have had so much breakthorugh in interpreting folio f134, Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, back in 2000 when I spoke with author James Arthur whose book cover had the folio f11 Day 3 image from Paul Lindgren.
By 2022 the library fixed the dark colors. I greedily take credit for that (they saw my miscolored crops and fixed the pallette), just like “Napoleon” Hill inflates his tales: Received a Beatles fan club reply? That becomes: “The Beatles asked for my consultation on writing their next batch of songs.”
🤥👖🔥
I wish in 2001 I had asked James Arthur about Paul Lindgren and what other Egodeath theory proof was in was in Great Canterbury Psalter.
️
The Egodeath theory 
#/media/File:Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Adam_und_Eva_(Gem%C3%A4ldepaar),_Art_Institute_of_Chicago.jpg){kind=link}
